The Croods: Surprisingly and Refreshingly Feminist-Friendly (Guest Post)

This review is a guest post by Bailie.

The Croods is DreamWorks Animation’s latest film, released March 22, 2013. It follows the story of cavegirl Eep and her family, the Croods, who find themselves without a home and wandering through new and colourful lands while on the run from geological events that promise the end of their world. The film is charming on multiple levels, and adults and children alike will really enjoy this film’s quirky humor, family values, and stunning visuals. However, what is really interesting about this movie are its feminist messages.

Brave (Disney-Pixar), another cgi kid-flick with a female protagonist, got a great deal of media attention for its feminist messages, both positive and negative. Its decision to have a Princess that didn’t have a romantic interest was the one that garnered the most attention, but it also stood out against other Disney films by having the mother play a large part. The feminist messages for Brave are very predictable. She’s tough, she’s capable, she must battle the patriarchy and prove herself worthy! Now, she spends most the film being a real tomboy, rebelling against femininity, but in the end can see that her mother, even with her embrace of all things girly, is still a force to be reckoned with. This is actually quite good, as many people trying to appeal to feminists often force the character away from ‘girly’ things, essentially turning the characters into men, or belittling the ones who are happily performing their traditional gender roles. In this respect, Brave does very well, but it falls behind on the male characters. They’re really only there to provide conflict and humor.

Now The Croods is deceptively similar to Brave. It’s about a willful teen girl who wants more from life than her parents offer her, and the end moral of the story is to love, look after, and respect your family. Comparing the two, it looks like Merida has a lot on Eep when it comes to pro-feminist messages. Eep spends a good portion of the film fawning over a guy, while Merida don’t need no man -snap snap-. Merida hates having to wear the latest fashions; Eep screams in delight at the discovery of shoes. But while Brave shoves its messages down your throat, The Croods is more subtle.

Eep is tough as nails. She’s from a family of cavemen, it’s in the genes. But even considering that, she’s tougher than usual. She’s capable, solid, and generally reliable, unless her curiosity for the world around her overpowers her. Her Dad is big tough guy who uses his considerable strength to literally carry his family, protecting them with everything he’s got, but while he’s got the claim on being biggest and baddest, he bows to his wife. But she’s not the type to browbeat or nag, she respects and supports him as he does her, and their relationship is one of give and take, and equality. Gran and baby Sandy hold their own as well as the rest of the family, and it’s never assumed they are incapable of anything. The only other male in the family, Thunk, isn’t pushed to the sidelines - he’s right up front with the rest of the gang, and even though he comes off as slightly weaker, with more nervousness and less brains than his sister, it’s not really a downplay of his character, or a boosting of hers; rather, he is an example of what Eep would be like if she had taken their father’s messages of doom and destruction to heart. Thunk is not an idiot, he’s just very trusting, and throughout the film he loses a lot of his timidness entirely by his own efforts.

The biggest test for this film was the introduction of Guy, a teen male from outside the family who has evolved a bit more than the Croods. Eep and Guy’s interactions are beautifully thought out, and refreshing. So often in films we see the same formula; Mr Tough and Dumb falls for Ms Smart and Pretty, or Ms Gorgeous Idiot falls for Mr Weak but Brainy. We oh so often see the beautiful women fall in love with the unattractive man, but the opposite is very rare. And if we do, then it’s either played for a laugh, or she goes through some sort of amazing makeover where she’s suddenly super attractive. The Croods is different because Eek is an incredibly physically tough lady who does not possess generically ‘pretty’ features, with her beefy arms, non-existent forehead, and frizzy hair, and she falls in love and actively pursues a boy who is generically attractive, and super smart to boot. Her methods of getting his attention are played for laughs, but not her attraction, and more importantly, neither is his returned attraction. The best part is that neither of them change. Eep doesn’t get a makeover, and Guy doesn’t become manly and muscular. They love each other because of who they are, no makeover montage necessary.

The genius of this movie in regards to its feminist messages comes down to this: Eep is not a "strong female character." She’s just a good protagonist. If you can swap the genders of the main characters and not have anything taken away from the story and love everyone just as much, then you’ve got a winner. Eep just happens to be female, and unlike in Brave, it’s never even thought of or brought up as a flaw. She’s not allowed to hunt for while, not because she’s a girl, but because she’s grounded, which is a huge thing, because it implies that it’s something that she enjoys, and she’s not thought of as weird or wrong for that enjoyment. But neither is she weird for being flirty and giggly. She also eats with a ferocious gusto, very unlike Guy, who nibbles daintily at his food, and in that instance, it’s Guy you laugh at, not Eep.

So not only is this one of the funniest and most entertaining movies you’ll see this year - it’s also one of the best for breaking down gender stereotyping, and hopefully it will get the respect and praise it deserves. 

Bailie is a part-time student, part-time graphic designer, and full-time feminist. She spends any free time either at the cinema or home catching up on tv shows.

Rape Culture Among Feminists

Recently the term "rape culture" has made its rounds in popular culture, with many reporters and bloggers complaining about the victim-blaming, perpetrator-excusing behavior of major news networks. But rape culture is more pervasive than most of us want to admit. (Note: I'm about to go on a rant. Feel free to skip to the paragraph that starts "last night").

Because reporters aren't the only ones who tend to side with the perpetrators. After all, as many trauma theorists have pointed out, victims ask a whole lot more than perpetrators do. Victims ask us to listen to their accounts, to believe what they're saying is true, to stop it from happening, to protect them, and even to take responsibility for any part we played in their abuse, as complicit bystanders. At least, that's what victims would be asking if rape culture didn't shame them into silence.

What do perpetrators ask us to do? Nothing. That's right, nothing. They don't have to ask us for anything, because they already have power over their victims. And as long as we do nothing, they can keep victimizing people, and we can continue living our lives as viewed through rose-tinted glasses. We can continue believing that the only real perpetrators out there are people who look spooky and scary and whom we would never befriend. And when a victim or survivor tells us that they were abused by someone we know and like, we can assume they were lying, but then go turn on the news and pat ourselves on the back for getting angry at the true rapists out there, who fit our narrow definition.

I'm used to rape culture. I see it all the time in friends, family, and associates. I see it when people assume men can't be raped, or when a group of male scholars performs exhaustive research to determine what factors make women most likely to become victims of sexual assault and presents it as a checklist on how women can avoid being raped. And then the presenter is surprised by my frustration.

But I'm not used to seeing it among other feminists. Maybe I haven't been paying close enough attention before now.

My preamble has gone on a bit long, I know, so I'll get to the story that has me so upset.

Last night, a member of a feminist group I belong to on facebook posted an article about a 17-year-old woman who came forward and testified that a former teacher and coach had been sexually assaulting her for the past couple years. The perpetrator is now 33, but the woman was just 14 when the then-30-year-old man first began courting her, so to say.

When she was 15 he kissed her, and by the victim's own account, she felt helpless after that day and felt incapable of saying no when he pressured her to have sex with him, as he suggested he would withdraw his love otherwise, and as he told her that she would be worthless and have no future if she ended things. Apparently learning that an LDS woman would now be eligible to serve a mission at the age of 19 (formerly 21) gave the victim a reason to hope and the courage to seek aid.

Fortunately, those she turned to actually believed her, and a judge agreed to bring the case to trial.

And yet, horrifying to me, at least half of the responses from members of this feminist group where the link was shared responded by questioning the victim's accountability in the situation and questioning whether she was a victim at all. Because it is a closed group, it would be unethical for me to share names or exact words, but here's a summary of the arguments that were made:

- Some 17-year-old women want to have sex, so she probably did; the only difference is she had sex with an adult, not a teenager.
- The fact that she ended things now shows she always had the power to end it, so she can't be a victim.
- She may have committed sexual sins that she'll need to repent of, so she's probably accountable for at least some of what happened.
- It sounds like she consented at the time, but now she's regretting it.

Bull. Shit.

When I responded that these statements were forms of victim-blaming and that I expected better on a feminist group, one person responded that she was merely being technical, while I was responding emotionally.

So, let me explain, in technical detail, why this is sexual assault.

1. A minor cannot legally consent to sex with a 33-year-old man. Sexual assault is not merely the presence of a "no," but the absence of consent.

2. Statutory rape is rape-rape, no matter what Whoopi thinks to the contrary.

3. This relationship went on for three years. That means a then-30-year-old man initiated a personal, emotionally intimate relationship with a 14-year-old girl. And took advantage of it a year later, when he first kissed her and began making sexual advances on a 15-year-old.

4. Courting a person in preparation for sexually assaulting them is known as grooming a victim. It is also a crime, and it makes it that much harder for a victim to leave or resist.

5. The now-17-year-old survivor of this abuse identifies it as sexual assault and describes how her perpetrator groomed, assaulted, manipulated, and threatened her. She identifies it as abuse. She says she did not consent. Based on her testimony and whatever evidence her lawyer presented, a judge saw at least enough evidence to take the case to trial.


And so, all my feminist friends out there, we need to be on our guard against rape culture from within. That's how prevalent rape culture really is.

Is a Terrorist Evil?

With Friday's arrest of one suspected marathon bomber and the death of the other, his older brother, I think anyone with connections to Boston is feeling some strong emotions. As a native New Englander, I'm feeling about as strongly as anyone outside of the Boston region. I have friends in the city, one of whom was two blocks away at the time of the explosion, and just a month ago I was in Boston for a conference. I road a bus past the site where the explosions went off several times while I was there. To New Englanders, Boston is our home city, the only real city in all of New England.

So the attacks literally hit close to home.

So I understand why my fellow Americans are angry at the arrested suspect - and I will refer to him as a suspect out of my respect for the US court system which considers a person innocent until proven guilty in court, though it's hard to imagine any reasonable doubt as to his guilt, after the shooting spree in which he and his brother killed one police officer and wounded another. And like my fellow Americans, I'm relieved to simply have a face and a name to hold responsible for the tragedy in Boston. During the first few days following the attack, when there didn't seem to be any clear leads, I felt just as overwhelmed and lost. I knew there would be evidence and that the FBI would track down the guilty parties, but until they did, the violent act felt all the more frightening because of the mystery.

But amidst all the relieved reactions to Tsarnaev's arrest, I'm seeing a troubling trend. Sure, most people I know are hoping for justice in court and are recognizing that the younger brother is an American citizen, unlike his deceased older brother. But even among those I respect and love and care about, a few make a quick and angry move to label Tsarnaev as "evil."

But is Tsarnaev evil?

Is this 19-year-old man evil?

I don't want to fall into the mistake that reporters did when they covered the Steubenville case, so I won't bemoan the opportunities these two men gave up in their own lives or complain if Tsarnaev is convicted, rather than considering the long-term impact on victims and survivors of the attacks in which he participated.

But is he evil?

I doubt it. I sincerely doubt that this young man is pure evil. I even doubt that his older brother, who was by all reports the likely instigator here, was evil. What they did was wrong, heinous, and tragic, but here's why we can't label these two men as evil:

When we label individuals or groups as evil, we cease to see them as people. If you ascribe to a faith like mine, we forget that they are children of God with divine potential. Driven by revenge, we suddenly want to see them suffer for their crimes, and who can blame us for making them suffer if they're evil?

So, does Tsarnaev deserve to suffer?

 Perhaps. But I'll tell you the kind of suffering I want him to experience - I want him to some day look in his God's face and watch as his God weeps in sorrow and disappointment over his actions from this week. I want him to recognize that what he did was truly wrong and horrendous and that the forces he believes supported those actions in fact condemn those actions. Because Tsarnaev is still a human. And both Tsarnaevs probably believed they had excellent reasons for doing what they did. .

Perhaps these brothers even believed they were avenging a specific act of violence perpetrated by the US government against people they loved and cared about. Even as a US citizen, perhaps Tsarnaev wanted other Americans to suffer as those he cared about had suffered. Perhaps he believed we were evil. That his victims deserved to feel pain.

Just try something with me for a second. I want you to think of the most pain you have ever experienced. If that's too strong of a trigger for you, then by all means don't! But if you can, think back to a time after a surgery, or in childbirth, or when you broke your leg as a kid. Think about that pain and how you felt at the time - that's what pain feels like to everyone.

That's what pain feels like to a murderer.

That's what pain feels like to a rapist.

That's what pain feels like to anyone, no matter the terrible things they've done.

It doesn't feel like justice. It doesn't correct them or fix them. And I can guarantee you it does not convince others who associate with the same terrorist organizations to not commit similar crimes. If anything, it's going to persuade the remaining members of that organization that the people they're waging war against are as evil - as un-human - as they believed when they planned the first attack.

So yes, press for legal justice against Tsarnaev. But not on the basis that he deserves to suffer. He might deserve that, but it won't do any good to anyone. The reason he needs to be in prison and needs to be tried is because if he truly is guilty (as he very well seems to be) he cannot be on the streets. He cannot be trusted, ever again for the rest of his life, to be free. He is a fellow human, a fellow American, who has surrendered that right.

Paloma Faith and Question of the Week

When bad things happen, whether it's looming finals or actual tragedy like the explosion in Boston, we at NAW sometimes take a break from our usual posts about social problems to share something cheerful or fun.

Today, my cheerful video is Paloma Faith's upside down. Paloma Faith is a musical artist who's been popular in the UK for awhile now but who's had a slow time catching on here in the US.



And the question of the week is, what's one link that makes you feel better?

Confessions of a Straight Mormon Girl

When I was growing up, I was woefully ignorant about homosexuality. In my ignorance, I said terrible and offensive things, without any malice in my heart. Just ignorance.

Want examples?

1. The day Gay Straight Alliance came in to meet with my freshman social studies class, they asked us to list off the first words that came to mind when we heard the word "gay." My word? Sodomy. By the startled reactions the GSA members gave me, I sensed there was more to the word than I had thought. You see, I just thought it was a rude term that meant "homosexual." Imagine my surprise, years later, when I realized it was a sexual term. That's ignorance.

2. I told any number of friends that I believed homosexual "lifestyles" (read: sexual activity between two people of the same sex) to be a sin, but added on the caveat "But it's not a sin for people who don't believe what I believe," and I genuinely couldn't understand why that still bothered them. Ignorance.

3. When one of my friends posted about homosexuality on her blog and one of her college friends made a comment that dismissed people who believed Soddom and Gomorrah to have fallen because of homosexuality, I added a comment defending such people and identifying myself as a person who held that belief. I hadn't actually considered all the *other* issues the Old Testament lists before that group of people is destroyed and was going off what adults had at some point told me.

That friend deleted my comment, and I imagine it's no coincidence that she distanced herself from me in other ways around that time. Imagine my surprise when a later blog post suggested she might be bi. Ignorance leads to insensitive remarks.

4. In high school, after a male friend described Johnny Depp as the most attractive man in the world, I decided that friend was gay. I had issues with heterosexual men when I was that age (not out of ignorance, but out of trauma), so this realization made me much more comfortable around this friend. One day while we were setting up for a play he asked my thoughts on gay men. I told him I was more comfortable around gay men. Then he asked my thoughts on men who were bi. Given my discomfort with anything pertaining to sexuality, I saw bisexuality as the worst thing imaginable - I saw it as hypersexuality, which was an understandably terrifying concept to someone who associated sexuality with violence. Well, what I said to him was "Oh... that would be sketchy." His face fell. And I instantly realized that he was bi, and I felt like crap. On the one hand, there was more than ignorance at play in that scenario, but ignorance about bi-sexuality is nevertheless the reason I described that sexual orientation as "sketchy." Ignorance hurts people.

5. I've never admitted this to Erica, but when she first told me she was bi, I didn't believe her. I had overcome enough of my ignorance at that point, that I knew to keep my mouth shut.

6. When a college roommate said that she believed all people were somewhat bisexual since she viewed sexual orientation as a spectrum (scientific evidence would support that viewpoint), I assumed she was bi and felt a bit uncomfortable about sharing a room with her.

7. When I noticed that the vast majority of our high school's "Diversity Day" events involved lgbtq issues, I decided that an agenda was being shoved down our throats and skipped school that day. To be fair, I was also sick that day, but I'd been known to go to school with strepp throat. I'd been known to go to school after throwing up. Much to the annoyance of school nurses... The worst part is, I was good friends with the daughter of the woman who organized Diversity Day, and it wouldn't have been a hard thing to express my concerns to her mother and have an actual discussion about it.


Obviously I've come a long way since I was a teenager. And yes, I'm happy to say that each of those examples happened before I turned 20.

So, what is my point with all of this? Well, as someone who once opposed same-sex marriage, I have a lot of sympathy for those who still oppose it. I get where they're coming from, and while I disagree - I get it. And ever since my views on this topic began to shift, I've been tormented by how polarized this discussion is. I remember how irritating it was when I would express a careful and articulate explanation of what I believed and then have supposedly-open-minded friends accuse me of being hateful and dismiss my perspective without seeming to consider it. And now, from the other side of things, I know how frustrating it is when those who oppose same-sex marriage refuse to let go of ignorance. And I don't mean to imply that only ignorance leads to that political stance - what I mean is that many people who oppose same-sex marriage are ignorant about the type of things I was ignorant about when I was in high school. And while ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of, willful ignorance is not helpful.

So, as someone who once opposed same-sex marriage but now supports it and who still hopes for more nuanced and helpful discussions on this matter, here are my thoughts to folks in both camps. Take this all with a grain of salt, but I do hope you'll at least consider it.

1. Let others define their own feelings. Telling others what they feel is a problem in both camps. Just as I was wrong to not believe Erica when she told me she was attracted to women, I would be wrong to tell my older sister that because she opposes same-sex marriage she hates gay people. I'd be wrong to even assume she feels something that she denies feeling. But this is exactly what opponents of same-sex marriage do when they tell lgbtq people that they're choosing to feel what they feel. And this is exactly what supporters of same-sex marriage do when we tell someone that they hate gay people.

2. Recognize the Cultural Subjectivity to Morals. I'm not denying absolute truth. I happen to believe that there are absolute truths in existence/the universe/the world. But what is recognized as moral varies greatly from one culture to the next. Even those who want to return to the values of the founding fathers would probably be appalled by the morals of one or more of the founding fathers if they met in person, whether because of a major issue like slavery, or a minor and subtle social expectation.

But this issue doesn't just apply to those who oppose same-sex marriage. Those of us who support same-sex marriage mostly do do on moral grounds. The moral assumptions might be different, but to us it feels immoral to deny marriage to same-sex couples. And it feels immoral to most of us to allow cousins or siblings to marry, or to allow a 15-year-old to get married with or without a parent's consent, or to allow a person to marry more than one person. We won't put all those individuals in jail for having sex with the people they want to (provided everyone is either a consenting adult or a consenting minor in a relationship with another consenting minor). But we also aren't likely to support any laws intended to offer marriage to those individuals. Sure, we might talk about how it would impact "society" and "American culture," or about how any kids coming from incest would be likely to have genetic problems. But at heart, we think it's immoral for a brother and sister to have sex, so we're not willing to condone that practice by allowing them to marry each other.

3. Discuss the Complexity in this Issue. To you, the choice may feel simple. You may feel that God ordained marriage as an institution for one man and one woman and therefore no further discussion should be necessary. Or you may feel that only same-sex marriage will bring equality, and therefore no further discussion should be necessary. But there are always, always, always multiple perspectives and issues to consider when determining a solution to a conflict.

For instance, if you oppose same-sex marriage, you've got to ask yourself when your moral convictions are issues that you're obligated to press for laws to enforce and when your moral convictions are issues for you to attempt to persuade others of without enforcing them, and when your moral convictions are personal choices that are entirely about your own behavior. For instance, I believe that casual sex is a bad thing. I believe that sex outside of marriage, for those who have access to marriage, is a bad thing. But I've learned not to judge others who have sex before marriage, and I'll probably only ever try to persuade other Mormons not to have sex before they're married. Meanwhile, I think that having an affair is a bad thing. And while I know I shouldn't judge, I nevertheless do, and I would go out of my way to persuade any number of people not to cheat on a spouse. But I wouldn't try to enforce it by law. Do you see what I mean? Very, very few people expect every strong moral conviction they hold to be enforced by law. So if same-sex marriage is something you want to oppose by law, what puts this particular moral issue in a camp where you have that right and obligation, as opposed to in a camp where you have different rights and responsibilities?

For those of us who support same-sex marriage, we need to ask ourselves similar questions about the forms of marriage that we still oppose. And we need to ask ourselves what role we should play in trying to influence non-government groups - and this has got to be one of the toughest questions out there. But if we aren't thoughtful and respectful in considering this question, those who oppose same-sex marriage will feel attacked when we post memes on facebook that refer to anyone who opposes same-sex marriage as "assholes." And if we vandalize the church buildings of religions that oppose same-sex marriage, it will only convince religious conservatives that the gay rights movement is at odds with religious rights.


I know that I'm just a voice among many on this issue. And I know that lgbtq individuals are tired of hearing more and more straight people talk about issues so central to their hearts. But this is an issue that matters to me too, particularly because I know what it feels like to oppose same-sex marriage while surrounded by those who support it, as well as what it feels like to support it while surrounded by those who oppose it. We need more nuance, we need more careful thought, and we need a helluva lot more trust and respect. Because no matter what the a series of courts determines on this issue, this is one issue where Americans have a long road of healing ahead of us.

Letters and Prayers

After a controversial letter-writing campaign in which faithful Mormon feminists (male and female alike) expressed heartfelt desire for women to offer prayers in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' semi-annual general conferences (a mouthful, I know) - Salt Lake Tribune has confirmed that women are on the schedule to pray at the upcoming conference in April.

For those wondering why something that sounds basic would be controversial or groundbreaking in 2013 - well, that's still a little unclear to me. The Trib's article suggests that the tradition of only men praying in conference comes from the its history as an event that was once only attended by men, while women attended a separate conference all their own. When women joined the male-led conference, apparently some old habits just never died.

Frankly, most Mormons are surprised to learn that women haven't prayed in general conference sessions before now.

There's much that could be said, but here's what I'll say: in Utah Mormon culture, protests are often looked down upon. I don't fully understand that aversion to protests even though I lived in the state for 8 years. My New England upbringing and education looked at protests as a way for groups to communicate their thoughts, feelings, and desires to leaders. In a democracy, I see protesting as essential.

Still, because some perceived the letter-writing campaign as a form of protest, some members - some of my friends who consider themselves feminists, even - worried that the campaign would backfire or argued that it was inappropriate. I disagreed then, and I disagree now. Organizing an effort to communicate a heartfelt desire is not the same as attacking an organization.

If I didn't trust that the leaders of my church were interested in hearing from members and that they were more invested in the well-being of members than in being seen as infallible (which, doctrinally, Mormon leadership is not) - if I didn't believe all that, I wouldn't still be a member. But I do, and so I am, and so I rejoice in this news because I know it's the result of good people, with good intentions, listening and correcting one of their oversights as a result. As a Mormon, I also believe God is playing a hand in all this, but even through a secular lens this is good all around.

Communication, how I love it.

EDIT: 3/21/13 - Looking back over this post, I think it sounded like I support the idea of using protests to effect changes in the church. I actually don't support that, but I don't think that any and every organized effort to communicate a group's desires to leaders is itself a protest. So, I supported the letter-writing campaign, insofar as it was about communicating heartfelt desires to leaders whom we trust to have our interests at heart.

I think we need a lot more trust in the Mormon church (note my use of the lowercase there - I'm talking about the people in the church in general). We need more trust between members so that those with kooky ideas or weaknesses they're ashamed of can be open and honest in sunday school classes. We need trust from those who've been hurt by church policies that most leaders are inspired by God. And we need trust from those leaders that communicating openly and respectfully with those who feel hurt is not a sign of weakness, but rather a sign of strength and confidence in the lord.

Rape Culture and Ohio Football

Rape culture is nothing new, though the concept is finally taking shape for many Americans who have been following the case of the two teenage men recently convicted of raping a teenage woman. Two men who showed so little compassion for their victim and so little respect for female bodies and the law that they broadcast footage of their crime against an unconscious (clearly unconsenting) victim and even laughed about it.

We've all been horrified by the laughing, cherubic teenage boy images. Horrified because of the crime but also because as of a few years ago these men hadn't even gone through puberty, and we really, really don't want to admit that a person could go from pre-pubescent to rapist in such a short time. We're Whoopi Goldberg, and cherub-faced, star athlete rapists are the friends we just can't bring ourselves to see for what they are: flawed individuals who decided to sexually assault someone.

Is it hard for me to see images of boys no older than my baby brother, crying as they receive their verdict? Sure, but that's why my baby brother doesn't go around raping the girls he goes to school with. And if he did, you can bet I'd feel a whole lot more horrified by the crime than by the sentence. Especially if the girl was too drunk to consent or even remember what happened and had to be reminded by videos in which he and his friends publicly flaunted their crimes.

But again, that's why my 17-year-old brother doesn't rape (never mind gang rape) women.

Problem is, we live in a world that is rife with rape culture, a culture in which victims are blamed, perpetrators are excused, and on the rare occasions when the public and the news actually vilify the perpetrator, we still pretend that the people who commit "rape-rape" are complete aberrations and that there is absolutely nothing in our culture that contributes to or encourages that behavior.

So it's no surprise that every major news media outlet in the country has put forth deplorable coverage, bemoaning the promising futures that perpetrators have lost, with some stations even maligning the victim as a drunken partier. Fox, CNN, and MSNBC even aired the victim's name in their eagerness to play footage of one perpetrator apologizing for taking and sharing a photograph of the crime. Note that the apology is for the photo, and the photo only.

Here are just a few examples of rape culture reporting:

Airing the victim's name

Yahoo posting an article in the sports section that decries the tragedy befalling the convicted rapists and the long-term impact it will have on them, with no word about the long-term impact it will have on the victim herself. I give the author credit for at least mentioning the role that football-player worship and arrogance played in the crime.

Yahoo then turns around and criticizes CNN's coverage.

To be fair, CNN's coverage makes me want to throw up.