I agree with you Lesleigh about the whole rape issue. No matter where you look there is always a story about a women getting raped. I can say that I am very lucky that I, or any of my friends, have experienced anything with rape. I feel for the ones that have to deal with something like this. When I was thinking about the news and how they have stories about rape, the Duke lacross players came to my mind. In case you do not remember, there was a party at a lacross house and they had strippers. Well, after the party one of the strippers came forward and accused three of the lacross players of raping her in the bathroom during the party. At first people were looking at the lacross players as the "bad" guys but then after a while the media started getting information from the stripper's past and somehow turned the lacross players into the victims. I agree that she did not have the best past and she probably regrets some of the things that she did but who doesn't. I did not think it was appropriate, even if it was true, to put her out like that and make her seem like the 'bad" guy.
As I was reading Acuaintance Rape by Paula Kamen, I became fascinated by the study that Joe Weinberg conducted. When he asked them to come up with positive words of a female sexually active there was none. Females are usually called "hoes, skanks", and just negatively put down but there were a ton of positive words for the males: "Cassanova, stud, player". I agree that boys probably "feel pressure to "score" and become part of the "boys' club". I think it is a shame that they have to feel that way. I think it kind of comes back to feeling masculine and like that are a man. I know you must be sick of me bringing up my Holocaust class but a lot of these things connect with each other. We were in class talking about what and who go the killers in the Holocaust to kill these women and children. One of the theories was that they were ordinary men that if they did not kill, they would be letting their buddies down and would not be considered a "man" or even called a "sissy". If that is all it takes to get someone to kill innocent children and women, then there is something wrong. I know it is a different world today but it is still a little scarey that there could be people out there that feel and maybe could act the same way.
Lesleigh, you talked about Ann Jones' Battering: Who's Going to Stop It? and I think it is appauling that one of the reasons given is just because they can. It is sad to think that there are people out there that actually think that way. The best sentence, in my mind, from you response was from Ann Jones', "to prevent rape, we have to take it seriously". If we don't then it is never going to stop.
In Michael Scarce's Male on Male Rape, I was glad that they talked about same sex rape and domestic crimes. A lot of times people do not think it can happen to gay men and women but reality is, it can happen to anyone. Rape is rape! No matter who it happens to. Reading this made me think of the boy who was gay and got beaten to death by two other boys. I cannot remember his name but I think his first name was Matthew. I was shocked and did not know how to respond when I heard that.
Sorry for going on and on but I think it is a very sensitive and important issue that gets me upset, especially when I hear it happens to children. There is no excuse for it and it scares me that there are people who have no conscious and think they can rape someone, "simply because they can".
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Terror at Home
Hey Lesleigh,
First I want to apologize for it being so late but it has been a crazy week for me. It seems that we miss each other in class. I know you weren't there for the Terror at Home video but there were some things that go my attention. The one thing that stuck out to me, and I have no idea why, but it was the protective order only being good for two years. The way the officer said it in the video was like after that then it is ok. I would not be satisified with that. I know it is hard for me to speak on it since I have no experience in anything remotely close to this but two years is a short time for the time they spent hurting the victim. I do not believe that two years is enough time to get over something like that. Another thing that got me was that the perpetrators somehow end up making the victims feel guilty. I think that is a real shame. In my service learning I hear stories all the time about this. There are two teenage girls, one pregnant, that comes to the classes each week to get help. They both were in abusive relationships and I think one of their boyfriends tried killing her. They got protective orders against them but there is no guarentee that they will listen. I am so proud that they had the courage to get out before it was too late. I always see these murders that husbands committ on their wives and I can't believe it. I guess divorce was just to easy that they had to kill instead.
In class, at least the ones I was at, we mainly talked about men beating on women but in my brother's case it was opposite. My brother and his wife were married for about a year and one day my brother called my sister saying that his wife accused him of cheating and starting hitting him. He had bruises and cuts all over his face but he felt guilty. He would not put blame on the one hitting him but trying to come up with other excuses. He went back but they still fight all the time. I think, like Nancy in the video, he is scared that she will leave him and take their daughter.
The last thing about this is that I want to say I agree whole heartedly with Whitney about how the one doing the hitting and hurting has no room for negtiations. I just think that is absurd that they will try to plea bargin with them when it is their fault they are in the mess.
First I want to apologize for it being so late but it has been a crazy week for me. It seems that we miss each other in class. I know you weren't there for the Terror at Home video but there were some things that go my attention. The one thing that stuck out to me, and I have no idea why, but it was the protective order only being good for two years. The way the officer said it in the video was like after that then it is ok. I would not be satisified with that. I know it is hard for me to speak on it since I have no experience in anything remotely close to this but two years is a short time for the time they spent hurting the victim. I do not believe that two years is enough time to get over something like that. Another thing that got me was that the perpetrators somehow end up making the victims feel guilty. I think that is a real shame. In my service learning I hear stories all the time about this. There are two teenage girls, one pregnant, that comes to the classes each week to get help. They both were in abusive relationships and I think one of their boyfriends tried killing her. They got protective orders against them but there is no guarentee that they will listen. I am so proud that they had the courage to get out before it was too late. I always see these murders that husbands committ on their wives and I can't believe it. I guess divorce was just to easy that they had to kill instead.
In class, at least the ones I was at, we mainly talked about men beating on women but in my brother's case it was opposite. My brother and his wife were married for about a year and one day my brother called my sister saying that his wife accused him of cheating and starting hitting him. He had bruises and cuts all over his face but he felt guilty. He would not put blame on the one hitting him but trying to come up with other excuses. He went back but they still fight all the time. I think, like Nancy in the video, he is scared that she will leave him and take their daughter.
The last thing about this is that I want to say I agree whole heartedly with Whitney about how the one doing the hitting and hurting has no room for negtiations. I just think that is absurd that they will try to plea bargin with them when it is their fault they are in the mess.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Section 4: Normalizing Bodily Violations
Part II: Rape and Battering
Rape is an issue nested in our daily lives. Whether you personally have been raped or sexually assaulted in some way, or you know someone who has, or even if you only hear about it through the news, rape is a recurring issue in our society. Like many, someone very close to me was raped. It really isn’t my story to tell, and so I won’t go into specifics . . . but suffice to say, it was a jarring experience for everyone involved. When I was told, I had no idea what to do, or how to respond. I was 16 at the time, and I remember feeling frozen with shock and the fear of mistreating the situation. Even in her own family, there were some who didn’t believe her, or chose to remain silent and act like it had not happened. Like many victims of rape, she attempted to kill herself. Thankfully she did not succeed, but long after recovering from her attempt, she still bears the psychological scars of her terrifying experience. As we learned in the documentary Rape Is, rape “psychologically kills” its victims.
One of the chief problems with rape recovery is that many people do not know how to respond when someone they know has been raped, or even how to respond when they themselves have been raped. It is a common for the victims themselves to be blamed, or for the victim to place the blame on themselves. More often than should be, a victim will confess what has happened to him/her, and is met with skepticism and disbelief. In fact, just last week the Washington Post ran an article regarding a Maryland legislator who “invoked a 17th-century English jurist who instructed juries to be suspicious of women’s claims of rape.” ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502278.html )
Further adding to the confusion, in Acquaintance Rape: Revolution and Reaction, Paula Kamen discusses the anti-feminist backlash regarding the statistic that one in four college women are victims of rape or attempted rape. I was appalled to read that one explanation of the statistic was young women “mislabeling a wide array of normal, often unpleasant, sexual experiences as rape.” What exactly is normal about being forced into a sexual act?
In Battering: Who’s Going to Stop It?, Ann Jones outlines the true problem of why men’s abuse and raping of women is so prevalent: simply because they can. “There is no reason for a man who uses violence to change his behavior unless he begins to suffer some real consequences . . . right now, most batterers suffer no social or legal consequences at all for their criminal behavior.” There is no better example of this than the recent sentencing of Eugene Marriott, a minister from Maryland who was tried in a Fairfax county court for the brutal beating and rape of his ex-girlfriend behind a hotel. Though he initially faced a minimum 20-year sentence, his actual conviction whittled jail time away to a mere sixteen months—and it was not his first time being charged with a violent crime against a woman. Even more unbelievable is that, according to the Washington Post, “[the judge] had sentenced two burglars in a previous case to 18 months and 20 months in prison.”
The Post also quoted Mary Lou Leary (executive director of the National Center for Victims of Crime) as saying, "When offenders avoid responsibility in these kinds of cases, it has a chilling effect on victims across the board, particularly sex crime victims. Sexual assault is a crime of domination and control, and this kind of reinforces that message, that it's completely out of the victim's control." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/16/AR2007031601574.html )
I completely agree with Ann Jones—to prevent rape, we have to take it seriously. We can’t remain silent, we can’t blame the victim or ride it off as an “unpleasant sexual experience”, and we can’t allow punishment for rape to be so minimal. I have been very grateful for this section, because it has helped me to better understand the issues of rape, and perhaps more importantly what I can do to help people in situations of rape and sexual assault. Perhaps if this knowledge becomes more readily taught in schools and displayed in the media, the process of transformation and recovery out of our “rape culture” can finally begin.
Rape is an issue nested in our daily lives. Whether you personally have been raped or sexually assaulted in some way, or you know someone who has, or even if you only hear about it through the news, rape is a recurring issue in our society. Like many, someone very close to me was raped. It really isn’t my story to tell, and so I won’t go into specifics . . . but suffice to say, it was a jarring experience for everyone involved. When I was told, I had no idea what to do, or how to respond. I was 16 at the time, and I remember feeling frozen with shock and the fear of mistreating the situation. Even in her own family, there were some who didn’t believe her, or chose to remain silent and act like it had not happened. Like many victims of rape, she attempted to kill herself. Thankfully she did not succeed, but long after recovering from her attempt, she still bears the psychological scars of her terrifying experience. As we learned in the documentary Rape Is, rape “psychologically kills” its victims.
One of the chief problems with rape recovery is that many people do not know how to respond when someone they know has been raped, or even how to respond when they themselves have been raped. It is a common for the victims themselves to be blamed, or for the victim to place the blame on themselves. More often than should be, a victim will confess what has happened to him/her, and is met with skepticism and disbelief. In fact, just last week the Washington Post ran an article regarding a Maryland legislator who “invoked a 17th-century English jurist who instructed juries to be suspicious of women’s claims of rape.” ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502278.html )
Further adding to the confusion, in Acquaintance Rape: Revolution and Reaction, Paula Kamen discusses the anti-feminist backlash regarding the statistic that one in four college women are victims of rape or attempted rape. I was appalled to read that one explanation of the statistic was young women “mislabeling a wide array of normal, often unpleasant, sexual experiences as rape.” What exactly is normal about being forced into a sexual act?
In Battering: Who’s Going to Stop It?, Ann Jones outlines the true problem of why men’s abuse and raping of women is so prevalent: simply because they can. “There is no reason for a man who uses violence to change his behavior unless he begins to suffer some real consequences . . . right now, most batterers suffer no social or legal consequences at all for their criminal behavior.” There is no better example of this than the recent sentencing of Eugene Marriott, a minister from Maryland who was tried in a Fairfax county court for the brutal beating and rape of his ex-girlfriend behind a hotel. Though he initially faced a minimum 20-year sentence, his actual conviction whittled jail time away to a mere sixteen months—and it was not his first time being charged with a violent crime against a woman. Even more unbelievable is that, according to the Washington Post, “[the judge] had sentenced two burglars in a previous case to 18 months and 20 months in prison.”
The Post also quoted Mary Lou Leary (executive director of the National Center for Victims of Crime) as saying, "When offenders avoid responsibility in these kinds of cases, it has a chilling effect on victims across the board, particularly sex crime victims. Sexual assault is a crime of domination and control, and this kind of reinforces that message, that it's completely out of the victim's control." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/16/AR2007031601574.html )
I completely agree with Ann Jones—to prevent rape, we have to take it seriously. We can’t remain silent, we can’t blame the victim or ride it off as an “unpleasant sexual experience”, and we can’t allow punishment for rape to be so minimal. I have been very grateful for this section, because it has helped me to better understand the issues of rape, and perhaps more importantly what I can do to help people in situations of rape and sexual assault. Perhaps if this knowledge becomes more readily taught in schools and displayed in the media, the process of transformation and recovery out of our “rape culture” can finally begin.
Section 4: Normalizing Bodily Violations
Part 1: Objectification of Women
While watching the documentary Killing Us Softly 3, one of the themes that disturbed me the most was the living oxymoron that women are expected to portray. We have to appear both sexy and innocent, both virginal and experienced. This instantly reminded me of all the toys I see now that are hyper-sexualized and aimed at young girls. When I was younger, we played with comparatively tame Barbie dolls and My Little Ponies, so some of the toys I see on in toy stores now completely boggle my mind. There are some sexually-charged toys that are met with huge outrage from parents and are taken off the shelves; for example, a pole-dancing kit with a DVD tutorial of ‘sexy’ moves that was removed from retail toy websites in the UK (http://www.smh.com.au/news/unusual-tales/tots-poledancing-row/2006/10/27/1161749287304.html ).
But toys that are less overt in their hypersexuality, such as Bratz dolls made by MGA, are practically flying off the shelves. These dolls, which are made to represent girls in the tween/teen age range, dress in a highly provocative manner and are, quite simply put, the epitome of the sexualization of children. To a degree, Barbie has been accused of provactive dress in the past and although it is certainly true in some instances, at least Barbie has “jobs” and does productive things. While she’s being a veterinarian or a teacher, all Bratz seem to be concerned with is going to the mall and riding around in Corvettes. Especially disturbing is the “Bratz Babyz” line of dolls, which are sexed-up toddler versions of original Bratz dolls.
[I hope you don’t mind the pictures, I felt they were extremely necessary.]
This line of dolls sparked controversy when it was discovered that at least one type of doll was wearing what appeared to be a THONG (http://www.parentdish.com/2005/08/11/mom-declares-war-on-baby-bratz-dolls/). The first time I saw these dolls advertised, I was in honest disbelief: What kind of babies have hair to their feet, wear make-up and don thongs? And how could you sell or buy a doll that looked like, for lack of a better term, an infant prostitute--a 'prostitot' if you will?
According to a report by the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls, “Bratz dolls come dressed in sexualized clothing such as miniskirts, fishnet stockings, and feather boas. Although these dolls may present no more sexualization of girls or women than is seen in MTV videos, it is worrisome when dolls designed specifically for 4- to 8-year-olds are associated with an objectified adult sexuality.” A spokesperson for Bratz countered that Bratz dolls are for children 8-years old and over, but in my experience children much younger than the age of eight play with Bratz dolls. For instance, I babysit a girl named Emma who just turned six this month. Her mother refuses to buy Bratz toys for her, but Emma has recieved invitations to Bratz-themed birthday parties from her classmates and Bratz-related toys as gifts. One occasion where I had to babysit both her and her cousin, Emma asked her cousin, “Do you still like princesses?” to which the girl (one year older) replied, “Princesses are old, I like Bratz now.” The company can choose to promote the knowledge that no one under eight plays with Bratz, but I’m sure they have consumer statistics that say otherwise.
And it’s not only dolls—Bratz have an entire line of products, from lunchboxes to makeup to underwear (including padded bras for 3 to 6-year olds called ‘bralettes’) to music CDs to movies to their own Saturday morning cartoon. So even if you’re like Emma’s mother and you refuse to buy Bratz dolls, it’s literally impossible to get away from their influence-- unless you plan to raise your child in a cave hidden deep in the Himalaya mountains.
For me, it’s also not just a matter of what the Bratz dolls wear, but their physical appearance as well. Although the Bratz line has been praised for featuring dolls that represent many different cultures, they all share the same thin-yet-curvaceous body type, along with luminously huge doe eyes, bulbous glossed lips, and the slightest hint of a nose. Just LOOK at this doll.
If it’s Barbie that has been setting girls up to live up to a standard of unattainable ideal beauty for the past fifty years, then these alien-like creatures have certainly swiped her crown. As Killing Us Softly 3 tells us, American culture believes that you CAN look ideal if you only try hard enough. Eyeball implants, anyone?
Other than unattainable beauty, what does a doll like this teach young girls? I certainly believe that toys are an integral part of the media intake of children. Just look at girls who (like me) played with ‘innocent’ toys like My Little Ponies and Barbies in childhood . . . who have grown as young women to exemplify the lifestyles as depicted in Ariel Levy’s Dispatches from Girls Gone Wild. Girls like ‘Crazy Debbie’, who “masturbated for the GGW cameras in the back of a bar,” well aware of the fact that it is fodder for “guys to get off on.” Her mindset is evident as she goes onto say, “I just think this is fun. Miami is one of the few places where people aren't ashamed of their bodies.” Naturally girls like Crazy Debbie have been molded from other forms of media, but my point is this: if girls who play with non-sexualized toys as children and grow up still wishing to objectify themselves, then how can girls who play with sexually-charged dolls like Bratz hope to act any differently?
It’s hard to judge the exact effects toys like Bratz dolls will be for the girls who play with them. Regardless, these toys undoubtedly play a part in molding the minds of young girls, and it’s very frightening to imagine what the 5 and 6-year old girls I see playing with Bratz today will become in ten years if something isn’t done. The problem with Bratz dolls isn’t only their appearance, it’s the fact that they are marketed to portray so-called “girl power.” This idea of “power” through dressing provocatively all goes back to the conclusion Ariel Levy makes in her book, Female Chauvinist Pigs: “Sexual power is only one, very specific type of power . . . Looking like a stripper or a Hooters waitress or a Playboy bunny is only one, very specific type of sexual expression.”
Just look at Crazy Debbie, who believes that her acts on camera for Girls Gone Wild demonstrate that she isn’t ashamed of her body. She believes that acts like on-camera masturbation are sexually liberating and empowering. But do these acts really liberate women? Levy states, “We are not even that free in the sexual arena. We have simply adopted a new norm, a new role to play: lusty, busty exhibitionist.” This behavior only seeks to further the stereotype that this is how women should act if they want to feel liberated. Not only that, but this idea of girls showing their breasts and performing sexual acts on-command only increases the sense of entitlement males have to sexual gratification from women. And when a person is refused something to which s/he feels entitled, complexes of objectification and power can result in acts of violence, including the crime of rape.
While watching the documentary Killing Us Softly 3, one of the themes that disturbed me the most was the living oxymoron that women are expected to portray. We have to appear both sexy and innocent, both virginal and experienced. This instantly reminded me of all the toys I see now that are hyper-sexualized and aimed at young girls. When I was younger, we played with comparatively tame Barbie dolls and My Little Ponies, so some of the toys I see on in toy stores now completely boggle my mind. There are some sexually-charged toys that are met with huge outrage from parents and are taken off the shelves; for example, a pole-dancing kit with a DVD tutorial of ‘sexy’ moves that was removed from retail toy websites in the UK (http://www.smh.com.au/news/unusual-tales/tots-poledancing-row/2006/10/27/1161749287304.html ).
But toys that are less overt in their hypersexuality, such as Bratz dolls made by MGA, are practically flying off the shelves. These dolls, which are made to represent girls in the tween/teen age range, dress in a highly provocative manner and are, quite simply put, the epitome of the sexualization of children. To a degree, Barbie has been accused of provactive dress in the past and although it is certainly true in some instances, at least Barbie has “jobs” and does productive things. While she’s being a veterinarian or a teacher, all Bratz seem to be concerned with is going to the mall and riding around in Corvettes. Especially disturbing is the “Bratz Babyz” line of dolls, which are sexed-up toddler versions of original Bratz dolls.
[I hope you don’t mind the pictures, I felt they were extremely necessary.]
This line of dolls sparked controversy when it was discovered that at least one type of doll was wearing what appeared to be a THONG (http://www.parentdish.com/2005/08/11/mom-declares-war-on-baby-bratz-dolls/). The first time I saw these dolls advertised, I was in honest disbelief: What kind of babies have hair to their feet, wear make-up and don thongs? And how could you sell or buy a doll that looked like, for lack of a better term, an infant prostitute--a 'prostitot' if you will?
According to a report by the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls, “Bratz dolls come dressed in sexualized clothing such as miniskirts, fishnet stockings, and feather boas. Although these dolls may present no more sexualization of girls or women than is seen in MTV videos, it is worrisome when dolls designed specifically for 4- to 8-year-olds are associated with an objectified adult sexuality.” A spokesperson for Bratz countered that Bratz dolls are for children 8-years old and over, but in my experience children much younger than the age of eight play with Bratz dolls. For instance, I babysit a girl named Emma who just turned six this month. Her mother refuses to buy Bratz toys for her, but Emma has recieved invitations to Bratz-themed birthday parties from her classmates and Bratz-related toys as gifts. One occasion where I had to babysit both her and her cousin, Emma asked her cousin, “Do you still like princesses?” to which the girl (one year older) replied, “Princesses are old, I like Bratz now.” The company can choose to promote the knowledge that no one under eight plays with Bratz, but I’m sure they have consumer statistics that say otherwise.
And it’s not only dolls—Bratz have an entire line of products, from lunchboxes to makeup to underwear (including padded bras for 3 to 6-year olds called ‘bralettes’) to music CDs to movies to their own Saturday morning cartoon. So even if you’re like Emma’s mother and you refuse to buy Bratz dolls, it’s literally impossible to get away from their influence-- unless you plan to raise your child in a cave hidden deep in the Himalaya mountains.
For me, it’s also not just a matter of what the Bratz dolls wear, but their physical appearance as well. Although the Bratz line has been praised for featuring dolls that represent many different cultures, they all share the same thin-yet-curvaceous body type, along with luminously huge doe eyes, bulbous glossed lips, and the slightest hint of a nose. Just LOOK at this doll.
If it’s Barbie that has been setting girls up to live up to a standard of unattainable ideal beauty for the past fifty years, then these alien-like creatures have certainly swiped her crown. As Killing Us Softly 3 tells us, American culture believes that you CAN look ideal if you only try hard enough. Eyeball implants, anyone?
Other than unattainable beauty, what does a doll like this teach young girls? I certainly believe that toys are an integral part of the media intake of children. Just look at girls who (like me) played with ‘innocent’ toys like My Little Ponies and Barbies in childhood . . . who have grown as young women to exemplify the lifestyles as depicted in Ariel Levy’s Dispatches from Girls Gone Wild. Girls like ‘Crazy Debbie’, who “masturbated for the GGW cameras in the back of a bar,” well aware of the fact that it is fodder for “guys to get off on.” Her mindset is evident as she goes onto say, “I just think this is fun. Miami is one of the few places where people aren't ashamed of their bodies.” Naturally girls like Crazy Debbie have been molded from other forms of media, but my point is this: if girls who play with non-sexualized toys as children and grow up still wishing to objectify themselves, then how can girls who play with sexually-charged dolls like Bratz hope to act any differently?
It’s hard to judge the exact effects toys like Bratz dolls will be for the girls who play with them. Regardless, these toys undoubtedly play a part in molding the minds of young girls, and it’s very frightening to imagine what the 5 and 6-year old girls I see playing with Bratz today will become in ten years if something isn’t done. The problem with Bratz dolls isn’t only their appearance, it’s the fact that they are marketed to portray so-called “girl power.” This idea of “power” through dressing provocatively all goes back to the conclusion Ariel Levy makes in her book, Female Chauvinist Pigs: “Sexual power is only one, very specific type of power . . . Looking like a stripper or a Hooters waitress or a Playboy bunny is only one, very specific type of sexual expression.”
Just look at Crazy Debbie, who believes that her acts on camera for Girls Gone Wild demonstrate that she isn’t ashamed of her body. She believes that acts like on-camera masturbation are sexually liberating and empowering. But do these acts really liberate women? Levy states, “We are not even that free in the sexual arena. We have simply adopted a new norm, a new role to play: lusty, busty exhibitionist.” This behavior only seeks to further the stereotype that this is how women should act if they want to feel liberated. Not only that, but this idea of girls showing their breasts and performing sexual acts on-command only increases the sense of entitlement males have to sexual gratification from women. And when a person is refused something to which s/he feels entitled, complexes of objectification and power can result in acts of violence, including the crime of rape.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)