Regaining the Fucks

I'm sure that, by now, our readers around the world have gotten an earful about U.S. Congressman Todd Aiken and his unbelievably medieval remarks about rape and biology. I've spent the past few days in a haze of disbelief and rage, including a memorable moment when I burst into tears over a stupid commentator on National Public Radio. I've been avoiding the news ever since, knowing that any mention of His Idiocy (or the idiots that believe him) will set me off again. I'm exhausted from caring to the point where, as Erin Gloria Ryan so eloquently put it, "So many more fucks need to be given, and I have exhausted my fuck supply. The fucks are on backorder." I just can't do it anymore. I can't take the overwhelming tide of misogynistic crap that American politicians somehow keep spewing.

In some ways, it's a bit of a wake-up call. Cis women of any race have never really had it easy during my lifetime- marital rape wasn't federally codified as a crime in the U.S. until I was eight, for example- but all the same, I was born with a lot more rights than my mother and grandmother were. It was never a question that I would be eligible to vote when I turned 18. Going on to university, and later a job, was not only an option for me, but also the preferable one. It never had to cross my mind that being raped could result in a forced marriage. Plenty of cis women in the U.S. and around the world can remember times when they had to fight for these rights- or still look forward to a day when they may have those rights respected. The fact that one fool's lack of basic biological and social knowledge can cause such an uproar in my home country ought to be a sign of hope. Elsewhere, beliefs like Aiken's have been legally accepted for decades and residents of those countries have been working their butts off to change that, with limited success.

At the same time, however, my natural optimism is silent. I guess that's largely because I had believed that, once rights are recognized, they won't be taken away. It's an incredibly naive and privileged perspective to carry, I realize, but I've always been the Scarlett O'Hara type anyway, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to counter it. Hell, I'm in a profession where optimism is an essential trait for survival. I've finally been shocked into (relative) silence by the shattering of that most beautiful illusion. As much as I thought I'd overcome the tendency to take hard-fought rights for granted, I'm learning I have been. What I'm experiencing right now is the abrupt and terrifying realization that yes. It can happen to me.

It can happen to me that I'll be a citizen of a country that will progressively strip away the rights that my foremothers fought so hard to gain.

It can happen to me that I'll live in a country where policymakers make important decisions about my body based on a complete lack of knowledge.

It can happen to me that visiting other, more feminist-friendly countries will mean visiting places where cis women are very much more privileged than I am.

It can happen to me that a potential representative of my country would (and did!) suggest that rape is just another method of contraception.

I can hear a lot of you readers laughing at my naive perspective, and a few others shaking your fists (wait, what? A White American feministmissed something? Never!), and a couple of others telling me to join the grown-up club already (in which case, keep your arrogance to yourselves). I can also hear a lot of our readers from around the world shaking their heads and sighing because you're all much more accustomed to the back-and-forth misogyny that takes rights away as readily as it grants them. I know. I've been living a pretty privileged perspective. It happens a lot to Americans.

With this realization in mind, I'd like to subvert the age-old American feminist tendency to believe that "we" have it right by calling on the rest of the world: how do you get your fucks back? In less cavalier language, how do you find the energy to carry on when you feel utterly overwhelmed by the challenges facing your movements? It's obvious to me that I- we- can't afford not to care, not with so much at stake, so the only answer is to keep on caring enough to do something. But how?

Go Girls (and Go Folk) the world over are a daily reminder that we're all moving, shaking, and changing the world with every step on a plane, every backpack zipped, every tijn spent. Somehow, wherever we're from and wherever we're going, we always manage to keep ourselves in motion. It's unbelievably inspiring. So as a movement, as a tour de force, let's brainstorm. How can we keep ourselves going against not logistical odds, but sociopolitical odds? How can we make and preserve lasting change?

How can we get our fucks back?

Redefining Rape...20 years ago

A friend of mine recently linked me to this article from Mother Jones. At first I thought it was a joke. Federal funding to be limited only to cases of "forcible rape," without ever defining that term? Federal funding for abortions is already quite limited, but has never specified what kind of rape is necessary for someone to qualify. After some searching around, though, I discovered that H.R.3 is a real proposal. It's not overly long, and not overly specific- which is part of my problem with it. Guess who's currently left out by the term "forcible rape" and the bill's exceptions?

• Someone who is raped while drunk
• Someone who is raped while drugged
• Someone who is raped by a family member, but is over the age of 18
• Someone with a mental health condition that affects their decisionmaking skills
• Someone who freezes instead of fighting
• Someone who is raped by an acquaintance
• Someone who is the victim of statutory rape

The list continues. There are so many things wrong with this bill, I get a headache thinking about it. The important thing at the moment, however, is the way this bill could drastically limit the options for people who are pregnant as a result of a rape that it doesn't recognize- and the way this could negatively shape future legislation that deals with rape.

In the news...

Here are some stories that have been making the news recently:

First, in Louisiana, a judge refused to sign a marriage license for an interracial couple, saying he was "concerned for the children" of such a marriage because "most interracial marriages don't last." He then went on to assert that his decision isn't racist because he is willing to do "ceremonies for Black couples right here in [his] house." News flash, Judge Bardwell: being willing to marry People of Colour but not interracial couples doesn't make you non-racist. It just makes you a eugenicist.

Then we've got the "Rape-Nuts" issue. Seen in this clip, Jon Stewart discusses the shocking news that 30 Republicans want the government to have the right to do business with companies that require employees to sign away their rights to sue over gang rape.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Rape-Nuts
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Ron Paul Interview

I'm almost speechless over this issue, especially since New Hampshire's very own Judd Gregg was one of the congress members to vote against the bill. This kind of hypocrisy just underlines the disjoint between how we respond to crimes that involve money and crimes that involve the types of abuse we associate with "domestic disputes." Frankly, I think it should be illegal for a company to place that kind of clause in their contracts in the first place. If the company was in any way responsible for the gang rape, they should be held accountable for it. But this bill wasn't even trying to prevent companies from creating these kinds of contracts - it was just trying to prevent the government from doing business with them if they choose to practice such unconscionable methods.

Then, finally, we get the deliciousness that is the GOPs recent attempts to revamp its image in America- especially its image with African-Americans and other racially marginalized groups. Not only did they mistakenly list Jackie Robinson as a "great Republican" and then fail to address their continuing stances on projects that act to the detriment of marginalized Americans (i.e. maintenance of the current health care system; laissez-faire approaches to education and the economy; idealization of a heterosexual, two-parent family format), but they do so in a way that clearly aims to recruit as many young, marginalized people as possible- sick of your "old white guy" image, Republicans? Snappy website design isn't enough to fix your problems.

We'll be back, I'm sure, with more news as it happens.

From Erica: Roman Polanski

As usual, I'm spitting and fuming over the things I find on the Internet, and today's specimen is none other than the comments posted in response to Gary Trudeau's "Doonesbury" comic for today. Here's the comic for those readers who don't follow it regularly. I've linked it back to its original location on the Doonesbury website, for those who want to see the storyline from the beginning.

Here's the thing. I've been hearing a lot of opinions about what Polanski did or didn't do, and how much of a crime it was or wasn't. And while the primary evidence appears to be the transcript of his then-13-year-old victim's testimony, which has been posted on The Smoking Gun, the basic facts of the case are as follows: in the 1970s, he had a 13-year-old girl take off her clothes while he photographed her, gave her champagne and Quaaludes, and vaginally and anally penetrated her. Two weeks later, she testified against him, he submitted a plea bargain which was rejected, and he ran away to France.

Since his return to the United States a few weeks ago, a media storm has erupted over what should or shouldn't happen to him. Some celebrities are leaping to his defense, most notably Whoopi Goldberg, who described his behaviour as "not rape-rape." And while others have been advocating for the resuming of his trial, a new trial, or simply forcing him to serve the sentence that the Superior Court judge was probably going to give him, I'm more than horrified at the way the focus has been shifted from Polanski's responsibility for his actions onto the victim and what she should or shouldn't have done (and, more frighteningly, what she did or didn't want).

Here's a relatively representative comment from the boards in response to Doonesbury's storyline:

"And anyone [sic] of you who doesn’t think that a 13-year old can be seriously into sex (not saying that this one was) must never have taken a look at 13-year-olds lately, if ever. I knew a 13-year old when I was in middle school who would sleep with just about anybody. She later became one of the high school’s snooty elite. I talked with her long after the fact, and there was no coercion, no abuse - she just liked sex, period."

Thank you, Farren, for that gross generalization. Clearly, since there are 13-year-olds who like sex, any and all 13-year-olds are out to get some from anyone they meet. Never mind the substances that are introduced to their bloodstreams, never mind the ages of the people they have sex with, and never mind their individual preferences about whether they should be sexually active or not. As another poster put it, "If Roman Polanski committed rape, then does the age of the victim matter? Is raping a thirteen-year-old worse than raping a 33-year-old or a 63-year-old?" (Thank you, DavidDow, who leapt to Polanski's defense repeatedly through the internet flame war).

I'll admit to flaws in my post. First, the internet is renowned for its disproportionate representation of poorly-expressed opinions and its ability to bring out the mean, cruel, or stupid in all of us (and I most assuredly include myself in that category). Second, 20 comments after a comic does not a movement make. However limited my sampling may be, though, this isn't the first time I've heard or read these sorts of opinions being expressed en masse in a public forum, and as such I think I can use them as a small representation of a much broader category.

This whole side of the Polanski affair perpetuates many of the worst stereotypes about sexual assault that anti-oppression activists have been working to correct for years and years, and highlights how little many of us know about our laws and the purposes that they represent.

First: when someone's been given drugs and alcohol, they aren't in a position to consent, no matter how they feel when they're sober. Even the US military- a group not exactly renowned for its victim-friendly policies or practices- holds that one drink is enough to impair a person's reasonable ability to consent to sexual activity. And when you combine alcohol with Quaaludes (also called methaqualone, which is a sedative similar to barbituates), you're talking about someone who's going to be extra-sleepy, extra-out-of-it, and extra-unable to consent.

Second: adolescents are frequently sexualized. That's normal. With all the hormones surging through their bodies, of course they're talking about sex, thinking about sex, and some of them are having sex. Some states recognize this, and have established age of consent laws that protect the rights of adolescents who are sexually active by removing statutory rape charges from situations where the partners are close in age. That doesn't even begin to cover a situation like this one, though, where one of the people involved was three times the age of the adolescent. At that point, it doesn't matter how much she thought she consented: it wasn't her legal right. According to the state, she couldn't consent. Period.

Third: adolescent sexuality may be common, and may lead to situations where the adolescent(s) in question pursue sexual relationships with people to whom they can't legally consent, like Polanski. I don't think that's the case here at all, but I think it needs to be addressed. However, part of the distinction that the law makes between sexual minors (under 18) and those of sexual majority (18 and older) is the capacity to be responsible for one's actions. And with the age of majority comes a maxim of US civil code: ignorance of the law is no excuse. Someone of Polanski's age and experience, according to our social and legal standards, should not be having sex with a 13-year-old.

The idea that Polanski would be overcome by his victim's seductive wiles, as some comments have suggested, is simply a revitalization of the idea that rape victims "asked" for the assault by dressing provocatively, walking alone at night, or going to a party. Whether she could have protected herself better by not accompanying him, or being more forceful in saying no, is beside the point. The fact remains that Polanski is an adult, with adult responsibilities, and he alone is responsible for the choice to violate someone's lack of consent.

From Erica: June in the news

I've got a few entries swimming around in my head, but since I haven't made the effort to translate them from head to paper yet, I've decided to bring some news stories to the blog that I think highlight some concerning, interesting, and cool issues and events impacting the anti-oppression paradigms we're bringing to light here and in other blogs.

The first one is a story about a woman named Betty Makoni, who was raped at age six as part of the "virgin myth" that's been circulating in countries like Zimbabwe since HIV/AIDS became an issue. The myth, for those who've never heard of it, is that having sex with or raping a virgin will cure HIV. Makoni is an incredible survivor who uses her experience to assist and empower other survivors of "virgin rape," and to draw attention to the issue to put an end to it. The full story can be found at http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/06/04/cnnheroes.betty.makoni/index.html.

In less appetizing news, the Supreme Court's decision to rule in favour of the white firefighters of New Haven, CT constitutes, as one editorial puts it, "a blow to diversity in the American workplace." The majority's opinion in the 5-4 ruling argues that the decision on the part of the town of New Haven to throw out a firefighting exam that caused racially disparate results was a "race-based decision" that deprived the white firefighters of their civil rights. Racism, whether conscious or unconscious, is still a major problem in our country and in everything from our hiring practices to our housing options. The ruling of the Supreme Court fails to acknowledge this, and thus gives legal support to discrimination against people of colour. An editorial on the subject can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/opinion/01wed1.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig, and a news article using the term "reverse discrimination," which is a pretty stupid term in my opinion, can be found at http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/29/supreme.court.discrimination/index.html?eref=rss_politics.

In related news, analysts are picking apart the rulings of the Supreme Court to get an idea of how each justice tends to rule. In a New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/us/01scotus.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig), analysts concluded that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. is conservative, which should come as no surprise to anyone. What the article concludes, however, is that Roberts' opinions have a right-winging effect on Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who tends to be an unpredictable judge. The article notes that, with such an alliance, "the Court appears poised to move to the right in the Obama era." Let's see what the addition of Judge Sonya Sotomayor does to that balance.

On the LGBT2QI front, the Obama administration is hoping to make the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law (DADT) "less draconian" in its effects by only selectively enforcing it. While the situations the administration cites include individuals who have been outed against their will (i.e. through blackmail or by "a jilted lover"), I think it's important to remember that selective enforcement of a law, at least in this country, tends to end very badly. Rather than attempting to achieve "flexibility" in the law's application by applying it only to certain groups of people, it needs to be achieved through an actual revision (or, better yet, a retraction) of the law itself. For the full story, check out http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/01/gates.gays/index.html?eref=rss_politics.

Finally, I'm linking you all to a speech by Jonathan E. McCoy, a ten-year-old African-American boy with unbelieveable oratory skills. This is a speech he wrote himself, calling for the deletion of "the n-word" from our language. While the goal is high, McCoy's speech is brilliant in its outlining of the history of the word, its effects on the consciousness of people of all colours in this country, and is incredibly persuasive. Watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMyp8y8SkUM

That's all for now. I hope the next time I post news, there are fewer stories that have me cranky!

--Erica