jadedmusings: (Default)
Note: This is not a review of Keri Arthur's books. While I am touching on some of the content of her books, this post should not be seen as criticism of the books themselves but rather a commentary on rape culture in general. In fact, if you're a fan of paranormal romance, or at least if you love werewolves, vampires, and steamy sex combined with a bit of mystery and detective work, then I heartily reccomend the Riley Jensen series. Riley is a kick-ass heroine, and she's one of the few heroines I've encountered who consistently demonstrates the ability to take care of herself. The writing, while not the best I've ever encountered, is strong and Arthur has an excellent voice. The series isn't perfect, but no series is, and it still manages to get quite a bit right.

In preparation for the arrival of Moon Sworn -- the last book of the Riley Jensen series by Keri Arthur -- I've been re-reading the series from the beginning. I'm currently on book four, Dangerous Games, but I wanted to touch on something I noticed in the first two books that got my feminist brain going "Hey, wait a minute here..."

Riley Jensen is a werewolf/vampire hybrid, a dhampir, something that makes her and her twin brother Rhoan extremely unique seeing as vampires are only fertile for a few hours after they rise from the dead. In addition to that, werewolves in this series require sex during the week prior to a full moon or else they lose control and succomb to bloodlust, which turns them into uncontrollable killing machines. (Yes, I realize how silly this will sound to some of you, but trust me when I say it works in the book and makes for a great plot device...and good sex, but there is far more to the books than that.) Because of this risk of bloodlust, werewolves spend the week before the full moon "dancing," as they call it, taking on different partners as they encounter them. There are werewolf clubs to enable wolves to find one another, and the general idea is that you keep meeting other wolves and "dancing" until you find your soul mate and become monogamous with him/her. (Yes, there are homosexual werewolves, and yes, they too can find eternal love with a same sex partner.)

So, basically, a werewolf is genetically programmed to have sex or else they become monsters. Also, sometimes the wolf part of them is at war with the human part, which means the wolf might be attracted to someone who is just out and out bad news, though I think most of us can identify with being sexually attracted to someone you know is bad for you. This is where one of the biggest issues I have with the first two books come in and that's Riley's --and everyone else's-- inability to call what happens to her in Full Moon Rising and Kissing Sin rape.

Cut for triggers regarding sexual assault/rape. Also spoiler warning goes here for Full Moon Rising and Kissing Sin. )

Again, the books are enjoyable despite the things that irritate me, and there's been maybe one moment where I wanted to launch one of the books across the room, but that was because of a character (not Riley) doing something really stupid and not the result of bad writing. And, as with the case of Supernatural (oh man, I could go on for days about all the problems inherent in that show and yet I can't stop loving it), I can be a fan and still be able to point out so many things that are wrong. I examine these things and pick them apart precisely because I'm a fan and because I love them and want to see the artists behind the works get even better.
jadedmusings: (Default)
If you read more than a few entries in this LiveJournal there is one thing that should be abundantly clear: I hate gender roles. I especially despise conversations, articles, movies, or books that center around solving the big mysteries that are apparently the differences between men and woman. (Let's not even get into the fact that every single one of them totally ignore the possibility of there being a third gender or any amount of gender fluidity or this entry will never end.) They all say the same thing: Women cry, men hit; women are neat, men are slobs; women hate sports, men hate romance; women give sex to get love, men give love to get sex; etc. No matter which gender is discussed, the "rules" about them make it seem like they should apply to all women or men, and while most of the time it's intended to be all in good fun, they're often chock-full of sexism, misogyny, and blatant lies. It's especially frustrating when these "rules" or "facts" are presented as advice to the opposite sex (because we don't want to break out of our heteronormative bubbles either) and sometimes -- sometimes -- it can perpetuate harmful myths, which is exactly what is illustrated in the MSN article "53 Secrets Girls Don't Want Guys to Know."

1. When we get whistled at in the street, we feel uncomfortable and we’ll always tut and roll our eyes. But we’re awesomely flattered and we’d be gutted if it stopped.

And right out of the starting gate we hit on the old "assault/rape is a compliment" meme. You know what I think anytime a man whistles at me, makes some sort of sex-related remark, or approaches me in public? "What are my exit points?/How fast can I get away?" You want to know why that is? Because I have been intimidated before by men who think it's funny and/or sexy when I'm frightened. It's all about them getting a kick out of my reaction and not about how I, as a fellow human being, feel out in public. That I have a boyfriend, or that I'm really just there to buy a new book or go about my daily life apparently doesn't matter. The author even says "we feel uncomfortable," but because someone is apparently deeming us as attractive it's supposed to negate the fact that those men have just completely destroyed our sense of safety and made us feel insecure.

Also, when it comes to approaching women in public, please read the awesome article "Schrödinger’s Rapist: or a guy’s guide to approaching strange women without being maced."

I didn't do all 53, but I did touch on most of them. Some sex talk underneath. )
jadedmusings: (Default)
The next time someone tells me that marriage is just a word and that civil unions/partnerships are just as good, I'm going to send them here.
Clay and his partner of 20 years, Harold, lived in California. Clay and Harold made diligent efforts to protect their legal rights, and had their legal paperwork in place—wills, powers of attorney, and medical directives, all naming each other. Harold was 88 years old and in frail medical condition, but still living at home with Clay, 77, who was in good health.

One evening, Harold fell down the front steps of their home and was taken to the hospital. Based on their medical directives alone, Clay should have been consulted in Harold’s care from the first moment. Tragically, county and health care workers instead refused to allow Clay to see Harold in the hospital. The county then ultimately went one step further by isolating the couple from each other, placing the men in separate nursing homes.

Ignoring Clay’s significant role in Harold’s life, the county continued to treat Harold like he had no family and went to court seeking the power to make financial decisions on his behalf. Outrageously, the county represented to the judge that Clay was merely Harold’s “roommate.” The court denied their efforts, but did grant the county limited access to one of Harold’s bank accounts to pay for his care. [Emphasis Mine]

And it only gets worse as you keep reading at the link.

Here are two men who loved one another and took steps they thought would ensure their rights would be protected in the event of accident or illness. They jumped through all the legal hoops they were told to jump through. However, due to their sexual orientation and their age, they were treated as nothing more than roommates and forced to live apart while one of them lay dying. More than that, they lost all their possessions, some of which I'm sure had far more sentimental value after spending twenty years together.

This is why the word marriage carries so much weight. This is why civil unions and/or domestic partnerships aren't good enough. That this happened in 2008 at a time when we're supposedly all more enlightened and tolerant also sheds an ugly light on how we treat other human beings, especially those who are not heterosexual and/or young.

Hat tip to various people on my f-list as this is making the rounds here and in the blogosphere. This link in particular is courtesy of [livejournal.com profile] brigidsblest.
jadedmusings: (Default)
A woman in Florida is killed by a man who stalked her for two years after a judge refused to issue a protection order. ABC News posts the story on their website, and what do they put in the middle of it?

Click HERE to learn how to protect yourself from being harassed or stalked

Great pseudo adverstiment, right? Oh, that's not all.

"So what is going to happen after a court hearing? If he is a predator he is still going to prey. If he is locked up for a few months, he is still going to target her. In my professional experience, separation is the best solution," Welner said on "Good Morning America" this morning. Welner suggested that if you cannot immediately escape to a location where the stalker can't find you, ask your neighbors and your workplace security to be your eyes and ears.

"Get yourself escorted to the parking lot, or escorted [into work] until the courts can make a difference or until laws change to allow civil commitment of people who are a danger to someone in the community. But the key thing is [to] limit your communication. Be very specific. Get separation, and until you can get separation, don't allow yourself to be alone,"
Welner said. [Emphasis Mine]

"If he is a predator he is still going to prey. If he is locked up for a few months, he is still going to target her."

So, tell me, if he's still going to prey (assuming you are luckier than Alissa Blanton and can manage to get a judge to actually listen to you), what the fuck are the police and judges there for? Also, note how it's up to the victim to stop communication. We'll just kindly ignore the fact that the problem with stalkers and predators is that they don't listen to the word no full stop. And how nice it is that a woman who is being stalked/harassed/threatened by an abuser must live her life in fear. She can't even go down to the fucking mail box or, as in Alissa Blanton's case, her fucking job alone. An adult woman who is a victim of a crime is expected to give up her privacy and her ability to even walk outside of her home by herself while the perpetrator(s) get to walk around free until they do something serious enough to be locked away.

Do you think this is an isolated case with a single judge? Think again. Stephen Garcia told his ex-wife he was going to kill their nine-month old son and then himself. He even wrote a story about it and sent it to her. She tried to get a restraining order, and she told the judge the reason she left was because Garcia hit her hard enough to knock her unconcious when she was several months pregnant.

At that hearing, on Jan. 12, Tagle went before Judge David Mazurek in the Joshua Tree courthouse to show cause for a restraining order. “…On Dec. 31, we were doing our exchange, and he proposed to me, and I said no. He got angry and stole my phone and pushed me down. I made a police report about that,” Tagle told the judge, according to a transcript.

Garcia told the judge the report was “falsely made up.” Mazurek denied Tagle the restraining order. “If I grant the restraining order, how do you think that’s going to help with respect to you two being able to raise Wyatt together or work together to make sure Wyatt grows up happy and healthy?” the judge asked, according to the transcripts.

Asked about an e-mail in which he confessed to hitting Tagle, Garcia told the judge he had slapped her during a fight, but it was Tagle’s fault for “pushing and pushing and pushing until she could get something from me.” Tagle pointed out she was nine months pregnant when Garcia hit her.

“I kind of get an idea of what’s going on,” Mazurek said. He denied the restraining order, saying, “I don’t think that Mr. Garcia poses a threat to Ms. Tagle.” Mazurek went on to suggest Tagle might have ulterior motives for alleging domestic violence. “I get concerned when there’s a pending child custody and visitation issue and in between that, one party or the other claims that there’s some violence in between. It raises the court’s eyebrows because based on my experience, it’s a way for one party to try to gain an advantage over the other,” he said, according to the transcripts.

“If I grant the restraining order, how do you think that’s going to help with respect to you two being able to raise Wyatt together or work together to make sure Wyatt grows up happy and healthy?”

We'll never know if Wyatt can grow up happy and healthy because Garcia carried through with his threat and killed little Wyatt before killing himself. Once more, the victim is punished because the people who are supposed to be there to help - the ones who are supposed to protect you when you are unable to protect yourself - don't do their jobs. They accuse victims of lying, of making things up because, well, what's a woman's word worth to them? Those women just want to take the children away from their daddies and cash in on child support and alimony, right? And if the big bad man is coming after you, well, just find a friend to stay with, and get someone to walk with you everywhere you go. Surely you can do that much, even if you're in an area where you don't know many people well, or even if your friends have jobs and lives that they need to take care of too. They can drop everything and babysit you, but of course they won't be much help when the bullets come flying your way. Nobody is bullet proof.

Alissa Blanton changed jobs, but her stalker kept coming after her for two years. She kept every unsolicited e-mail he sent her, and she told the judge she feared for her safety. And it wasn't enough. Instead, her husband got to hear her die over the cell phone when she called him to say that her stalker was in the parking lot of her work place and she was alone.

Katie Tagle told the judge she had been hit hard enough to lose conciousness and that she had been threatened. When her ex-husband threatened the life of their son, she still couldn't get a restraining order because the judge feared getting mixed up in a custody battle. Her nine-month old infant paid the ultimate price because no one was willing to believe that a woman was speaking the truth.

What do women have to do in order to be heard? What do we have to do in order to be believed? We jump through your hoops, we play by your rules, and we're still dying. Our children are still dying.

I fucking hate humanity.
jadedmusings: (Toph Rocks Fall)
[Big fat trigger warning]

Dear Johnny Depp,

No, no, no. Bad, actor! Bad, bad!

To quote you: "Why now? There's got to be money involved. Why now? He's been going there thirty years. He's not a predator. He's got a wife and kids. He's not out in the streets."

Why now? Off the top of my head I'd say it was because the man pled guilty to drugging and raping a thirteen year-old girl and then fled the country to live in his Swiss chalet while being free to make more films. Oh, right, boo-hoo he couldn't come to America and that's punishment enough.

Sexual predators do not wait in dark alleys for a victim to come along. Sexual predators can be anyone from any walk of life and they're able to get away with committing these crimes because people like you - the rich, (usually) male, and privileged - say things like "Oh, no, not him! He could never do something so horrible! He's not a predator!" And the predator doesn't even have to deny the allegations if they have enough money and/or talent. Just look at what Polanski himself said in a 1979 interview about his crime:

“If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!”

You see that, Mr. Depp? "Everyone wants to fuck young girls!" Do you not see how bold he is allowed to be, how he can fucking laugh about what he did? Do you see how non-chalant he is about it because, hey, everyone wants to bone little girls who can't so much as smoke a cigarette legally let alone consent to sex? Can you read those words - Polanski's own words - and say with a straight face this man is someone you'd allow around your own daughters? He can say these things and people like you and various other people with money and power say he's not a predator. For fuck's sake, man, if a confessed child rapist isn't a predator, then who the fuck is?

Roman Polanski drugged a thirteen year-old girl and then raped her orally, vaginally, and anally while ignoring her pleas of "No, stop!" He admitted to having done so in a court of law, and he was going to get what amounts to a slap on the wrist as punishment, and then he fled the country. I don't care if it was thirty years ago. If he were anyone else (without money and fame), no one would be raising such a fuss, but because he made a few films and was allowed to evade the law for three decades we should forgive his savagery? No, that's not how it works, nor is it how it should work.

Predators can come from anywhere precisely because we've made a society that writes off sexual violence as some sort of inconsequential crime. We permit them to thrive, and we'll even applaud them and support them through the most heinous of crimes. We'll deny to ourselves and to everyone that this man or that man could be a predator. We'll tell victims they're lying, or they asked for it. We'll even tell children as young as 12 years old that they didn't scream loud enough or fight off their attackers, and turn around and give our support to the predators.

According to the Rape Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN), one out of every six American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime. One out of six. That's not a small number, Mr. Depp, and assault victims don't just drop from the sky. Their attackers have to come from somwhere, and most of them are repeat offenders. According to RAINN, only about 6% of rapists will ever spend a day in jail. Six lousy percent. That means Roman Polanski is but one drop of water in the sea of rape culture that you are helping to perpetuate by supporting him and others like him.

You, sir, are in my extremely humble opinion, a talented actor whose films I have enjoyed. However, being talented is no excuse not to educate yourself on the facts of the Polanski case, or of the much larger problem of rape and rape culture. Roman Polanski is a predator, and you are supporting him which means you are making it easier for predators - ones just like Polanski - to continue to have the ability to victimize children and women the world over. Your words carry weight, Mr. Depp, and as such you could have a powerful impact on many minds. Can you please make sure that impact is a postive one?

Signed,

A Former(?) Fan

Moff's Law

Jan. 5th, 2010 09:11 am
jadedmusings: (Default)
From now on, I am invoking Moff's Law anytime someone tells me I should just enjoy something without reading "too much" into it.

Of all the varieties of irritating comment out there, the absolute most annoying has to be “Why can’t you just watch the movie for what it is??? Why can’t you just enjoy it? Why do you have to analyze it???”

If you have posted such a comment, or if you are about to post such a comment, here or anywhere else, let me just advise you: Shut up. Shut the fuck up. Shut your goddamn fucking mouth. SHUT. UP.

First of all, when we analyze art, when we look for deeper meaning in it, we are enjoying it for what it is. Because that is one of the things about art, be it highbrow, lowbrow, mainstream, or avant-garde: Some sort of thought went into its making — even if the thought was, “I’m going to do this as thoughtlessly as possible”! — and as a result, some sort of thought can be gotten from its reception. That is why, among other things, artists (including, for instance, James Cameron) really like to talk about their work.

(Read the whole thing.)

I love Supernatural -- love it --, but I can still see the underlying sexism in some of the episodes, and I can complain about its portrayal of women (Note: I have seen none of the fifth season, but I doubt it's changed much). I love the hell out of the Vlad Taltos novels by Stephen Brust, but that doesn't mean I think they are without issues and that I can't say "Well, I would like to see more of X, Y, and Z." I can enjoy something for what it is while analyzing the hell out of it. It's what I do, it's what I enjoy, and I will share that with others.

Anyway, time to take my achy and sleep deprived self to bed for a nap. I hate how much headaches drain me, especially when I didn't get much sleep (see aforementioned asshat calling at two in the freakin' morning).
jadedmusings: (Default)
[Trigger Warning]

Just when I think humans can't shock me any further than they already have, someone inevitably has to prove me wrong.

A twelve year-old girl is raped by a fourteen year-old boy while at school. One witness fled to find help and another witness attempted to intervene on the girl's behalf. The fourteen year-old has been charged with felony sexual assault. While all this is truly depressing, this isn't the bad part.

Here's the bad part: School employees defend teen accused of rape

Nevermind the victim pointing the finger and calling it rape. Nevermind the two witnesses - students at the same school - who actually saw it and went to get help/physically stopped the fourteen year-old. Let's just assume for a moment that the employees in question have a reason for defending the teenager, for saying "Oh, not him! He could never!"

"If she was being raped, why didn't she scream?" Dones asks. "Why did these students have to come up and tell us that somebody's down there?"

Mustapha Cannon says, "It was hormones going wild."

Cannon is another full-time site supervisor at Portola and says, "I know the girl and I know the guy. I know... and I know the girl's family. I know for a fact that that girl could've knocked that guy out with one hand tied behind her back."

Notice no one is even denying he was assaulting her. Immediately the adults are pointing the finger back at the girl and saying "Why didn't you scream? Why didn't you fight back? You're just scared to admit you really wanted to be held down and fucked."

What pisses me off is that even another fucking child could see that what was happening was not consensual. Not just one, but two, and one of them risked coming to harm himself/herself to save the young woman being raped. The children know it was wrong, but the adults, the authority figures at the school are standing up for the perpetrator and claiming it was "hormones."

And you fucking wonder why she didn't call out for help? You wonder why she didn't fight back? Seriously?! Maybe, just maybe she already knew your answer. She knew you'd call her a liar. She knew you'd tell her she wanted it, that she consented to it, and she knew it was hopeless.

I was never raped at school, thank deity, but I was sexually harassed in middle school. I can't recall one week that passed when some part of my body wasn't touched against my will for my entire sixth grade year, and though it lessened in seventh and eighth grades, I was still harassed and touched. No, I didn't tell anyone what was happening. Know why? I was told "boys will be boys," and that I should take it as a compliment that they wanted to touch my body. It was a compliment to have my ass pinched and my breasts groped. They must have really liked me to one day corner me and a friend at school, push up against the wall and only permit us to leave once their hands had fondled a breast or buttock. It was their way of flirting.

I learned at eleven years old that my body was not mine. My breasts and ass were theirs to touch, to be admired, to be commented on. If they wanted to touch me, I had to consent, otherwise it got worse, or...well, let's just say I played along because I didn't want to imagine what was worse.

It never once ocurred to me to tell anyone what was happening. I knew I didn't like what was going on, but I was embarassed to talk to my mother about it, and forget talking to my dad about my body. My mother told stories of boys hitting girls and running away in her day, or pulling on pigtails to show affection. My friends who were harassed alongside me told me the ring leader was older and that he liked us. It was funny, though looking back I now realize her laughter was forced and she was trying to convince herself as much as I was that being liked by boys this way was a good thing. Didn't we all want to be pretty and have boyfriends later? Plus, they were older than us, that made us more grown up, right? Fighting back? Yeah, maybe I could have taken on one or two of them, but if I'd hit them hard enough to leave a mark, or in front of a teacher, I'd have gotten in trouble and suspended. Plus, I was a good girl. The straight-A student. I wasn't supposed to fight. I was too smart and too sweet for that. Too good.

I was eleven/twelve years old. What did I know about sex, relationships, and physical boundaries? I barely understood the menstrual cycle at that point, what the fuck would I know about sexual gratification (of others)? All I did know then was that I didn't like what they did to me - that it made me feel sick to my stomach to be touched, and that these days I rarely hug people who are not my son or my boyfriend. I can't even tell you the last time I initiated a hug with my own mother. But, whatever, right? Boys will be boys!

And you wonder why a girl, trapped in a stairwell, forced down against her will and raped never thought to scream. Maybe she didn't know, or maybe he threatened to do worse to her if she told anyone. Maybe it wasn't the first time, either. Chew on that next time before you start blaming a child for her own rape.
jadedmusings: (Default)
(Trigger warning.)

[livejournal.com profile] ginmar has some very powerful commentary on rape and rape culture:

We're so completely incapable of respecting women that we don't realize the heroic odds against which women labor to lead full lives. And, God, I'm so damned sick of idiots who whine, "But don't you believe women should take basic precautions?! All it is is locking a door....or wearing pants....or not drinking....or not having a life......:" There's a sadism to the ever-increasing list of restrictions under which women must labor, and you can just bet if a woman dared to have some fun, and a man raped her, she'd get blamed---not the predator who's the boy next door, or the guy next cubicle, or the neighbor across the street.

And what simple precautions are those? The Army likes to cite a figure of----OMG! 52% of all rapes involve alcohol! But...what about the 48% that don't? Those are sober men raping sober women, but once that 52% shows up, nobody wants to hear about anything else. Women shouldn't have any fun at all, and if they do, they'll get punished. And everybody will gloat, because let's face it, that's what it is.

Here's the precautions that people think women should take: don't wear mini skirts, high heels, walk at night, keep your keys poked out between your fingers, don't park in ramps, don't wear overalls, long hair, ponytails, drink with guys, go to parties, and in short, don't have fun. Live in fear, ladies, is the message, and then people will gloat because, hey, somebody's got to suffer, and isn't that women are supposed to do? If you avoid getting raped, your life will be so miserable that you might as well be in purdah. But we're so much better than the Taliban, mind you!

And it's true. Whenever I travel anywhere, I'm paranoid I'll be approached by a stranger, nevermind I know that statistically I'm three times more likely to be raped by someone I know. However, even my mother and other female relatives will often remark that they worry when I travel to Atlanta, or when I go to one of the "big cities" alone. Never once have I heard my male friends warned to look over their shoulder, to walk with their keys ready to fend off an attacker, to keep an eye on a drink at a party lest someone slip something into it, etc. Nor do I hear them being told "Hey, by the way, don't rape women/let your friends rape women," but of course the consensus is that's just a silly notion because every man I know would never rape...except when they have. One of the "incidents" (I still won't call it rape) in my life happened because even though two people could see I was really unsure about what was going on, and that I was too shy and scared to tell the man no, they left me alone with him because they were getting uncomfortable. That's part of what is meant by turning the attention off what women can do to prevent rape and placing it on men and their friends.

Continuing with this theme, [livejournal.com profile] lupabitch linked to one post in a series of posts about rape by Fugitivus:

Women who are taught not to speak up too loudly or too forcefully or too adamantly or too demandingly are not going to shout “NO” at the top of their goddamn lungs just because some guy is getting uncomfortably close.

Women who are taught not to keep arguing are not going to keep saying “NO.”

Women who are taught that their needs and desires are not to be trusted, are fickle and wrong and are not to be interpreted by the woman herself, are not going to know how to argue with “but you liked kissing, I just thought…”

Women who are taught that physical confrontations make them look crazy will not start hitting, kicking, and screaming until it’s too late, if they do at all.

Women who are taught that a display of their emotional state will have them labeled hysterical and crazy (which is how their perception of events will be discounted) will not be willing to run from a room disheveled and screaming and crying.

And she goes on, and explains rape culture with very clear examples of precisely why it is women can never end rape by ourselves, and why there's more to ending rape than just telling us to say no or take self-defense classes. It requires social change, ones I'm saddened to say probably will never happen in my lifetime.

Just some food for thought.
jadedmusings: (Default)
You know, there's many a night when I lie in bed and ask myself questions. The questions range from the mundane (Did I turn off all the lights? Did I put the kiddo's folder in his backpack for shool?) to the spiritual (Is there really an afterlife?) and the philosophical (Is this the real life, or just fantasy? Am I caught in a landslide with no escape from reality?*). But in all honesty** there is no question I ask myself more than this: "What's the precise percentage of skin a woman should expose in order to attract a male partner*** and not look like a cheating whore?" Thankfully for me and the millions of other women who ask themselves this very same question, experts at the University of Leeds have undergone a painstaking study**** to find an answer.

The findings were based on work by four female researchers, who discreetly observed women at one of the city’s biggest nightclubs from a balcony above the dance floor.

Using tape recorders hidden in their handbags, the researchers took note of what female clubbers were wearing and how many times they were approached by men asking them to dance.

For the purposes of the study, each arm accounted for 10 per cent of the body, each leg for 15 per cent and the torso for 50 per cent.
Women who revealed around 40 per cent of their skin attracted twice as many men as those who covered up.

So, forty percent is the magic number. Remember this women everywhere*****, and update your wardrobes.

And what happens to women who show a little more?

Experts believe that showing too much flesh puts men off because it suggests they might be unfaithful.

Psychologist Dr Colin Hendrie, who led the study, told the Daily Mail: “Any more than 40 per cent and the signal changes from ‘allure’ to one indicating general availability and future infidelity.

“Show some leg, show some arm, but not any more than that.”

In other words, show anymore than 40% of your skin and you're a slutty filthy whore who doubles as the town bicycle.

Now, then, don't you feel so grateful that there's a group of experts out there to tell us how to dress and act so we can find suitable male mates? How awful would it be if we just wore whatever clothing we liked and/or felt comfortable in?

Via Fannie and Melissa McEwan.

* = Freddie Mercury was totally the Renee Descartes of his day.
** = Not really.
*** = Sorry asexual and homosexual women, apparently you don't exist or count.
**** = And by "painstaking study," I mean they hung around on the balcony of a night club to study the Single Human Female in her natural habitats as she attempts to ensnare attract a Single Human Male for mating purposes. No, really.
***** = Except you, asexual and homosexual women. You're only figments of my imagination.
jadedmusings: (Default)
Alternate title for this post: "Oh look, I've found my soapbox again."

Here's something I wish I could send to the men who have approached me in public before (especially that man who approached me while I was alone in a laundromat at night): Schrödinger’s Rapist: or a guy’s guide to approaching strange women without being maced:

Now, you want to become acquainted with a woman you see in public. The first thing you need to understand is that women are dealing with a set of challenges and concerns that are strange to you, a man. To begin with, we would rather not be killed or otherwise violently assaulted.

“But wait! I don’t want that, either!”

Well, no. But do you think about it all the time? Is preventing violent assault or murder part of your daily routine, rather than merely something you do when you venture into war zones? Because, for women, it is. When I go on a date, I always leave the man’s full name and contact information written next to my computer monitor. This is so the cops can find my body if I go missing. My best friend will call or e-mail me the next morning, and I must answer that call or e-mail before noon-ish, or she begins to worry. If she doesn’t hear from me by three or so, she’ll call the police. My activities after dark are curtailed. Unless I am in a densely-occupied, well-lit space, I won’t go out alone. Even then, I prefer to have a friend or two, or my dogs, with me. Do you follow rules like these?

So when you, a stranger, approach me, I have to ask myself: Will this man rape me?

Do you think I’m overreacting? One in every six American women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. I bet you don’t think you know any rapists, but consider the sheer number of rapes that must occur. These rapes are not all committed by Phillip Garrido, Brian David Mitchell, or other members of the Brotherhood of Scary Hair and Homemade Religion. While you may assume that none of the men you know are rapists, I can assure you that at least one is. Consider: if every rapist commits an average of ten rapes (a horrifying number, isn’t it?) then the concentration of rapists in the population is still a little over one in sixty. That means four in my graduating class in high school. One among my coworkers. One in the subway car at rush hour. Eleven who work out at my gym. How do I know that you, the nice guy who wants nothing more than companionship and True Love, are not this rapist?

I don’t.

When you approach me in public, you are Schrödinger’s Rapist. You may or may not be a man who would commit rape. I won’t know for sure unless you start sexually assaulting me. I can’t see inside your head, and I don’t know your intentions. If you expect me to trust you—to accept you at face value as a nice sort of guy—you are not only failing to respect my reasonable caution, you are being cavalier about my personal safety.

Read the whole thing, please.

One thing I would add to this: According to RAINN, roughly 73% of rape victims know their attacker. An acquaintance, a classmate, even a boyfriend or a husband can be a rapist. That friend who offers you a ride home when it's raining, or that guy who happens to ride the same bus as you: possible rapists. The thing is, women never know who might turn on them. Sure, I will state right now that I don't expect one of the men in my life to rape me because I try to surround myself with pretty awesome people, but I couldn't predict with 100% accuracy who is or isn't capable of it.

The funny thing is that there are those who say women live in fear, and that we do so needlessly. To you I say this: Why then are most tips about preventing sexual assault directed at women? Here's a list of where not to go, what not to wear, and what not to say. Why am I cautioned not to go out to certain places alone? Is this parking lot well lit? Can I hold it in for a few more exits, or can I risk stopping at this rest stop to use the restroom? Why am I told to constantly be aware of my surroundings, to watch my drink, to never, ever let my guard down? What are my exit routes? I need to walk with my car keys between my fingers./Where is my pepper spray? Did he have a chance to put something in my drink? Why am I shamed if I dress a certain way, enjoy a little too much alcohol, or I walk down the wrong street? Don't you know you could have been attacked? What the hell were you doing there? You were drunk, you may as well have laid back and spread your legs. That shirt was low-cut/skirt was too short. It's like hanging a piece of steak in front of a starving wolf. I have heard this narrative played over and over again. Public service announcements, TV movies, talk shows, my own father, etc. Then there's the fact I have known several women who were survivors of some form of sexual assault, the majority of them in fact, and the one thing that's pounded into our heads over and over again are ways we the victims can prevent rape. And in spite of all our knowledge, one in six of us will still be assaulted - some of us more than once, and chances are we'll be asked what we did wrong, as though we deserved it. Surely, if we follow all the rules, we'll be rape-proof, right? If only it worked that way.

So if women are afraid of being approached by men, there's a damn good reason for it, and that's why posts like this get written.

...and I'll stop with these posts this morning. Time to get to writing and journaling. :)
jadedmusings: (Default)
Today in "Things I Wish I Didn't See First Thing In The Morning:"

New Oklahoma Law Will Put Details of All Abortions Online

Oh yes, you read that right.

A new Oklahoma law will require the details of every abortion to be posted on a public website. Proponents say this will prevent abortion — apparently by shaming and burdening women and doctors.

The law (which you can look at here — it's HR 1595) mandates that a 34-item questionnaire be filled out by abortion providers for each procedure. The questionnaire doesn't include the woman's name or "any information specifically identifying the patient," but it does ask for age, race, level of education, marital status, number of previous pregnancies, and the county in which the abortion was performed, information which opponents of the bill argue would be enough to identify a woman in a small town. The questionnaire also asks about the mother's reason for the abortion, her method of payment, and even what type of insurance she has, as well as whether the fetus received anaesthetic and whether there was "an infant born alive as a result of the abortion." [Emphasis Mine]

You know, my town isn't technically all that small (roughly 5,000 people), however, there are plenty of people who know more about me than they should. If they know I'm dating (and they do; thanks, Mom), if they had access to a website like this, it might not be hard for them to figure out who may or may not have had an abortion. Even if they were wrong, the rumors would fly and that can make life all that much harder for a person.

It puzzles me that women are infantalized so much. We're adults and yet the right to decide what can or can't happen with our bodies is taken away from us because some of us possess a uterus. A theoretical baby is more important than our careers, our livelihood, our ability to care for a child, and in some cases, even more important than our lives. Hell, for a few people it doesn't even matter if the act that caused the pregnancy was or was not consensual (see South Dakota's 2006 attempt at a no-exceptions abortion law). The moment sperm meets egg our bodies become someone else's property - usually old white men who then get to decide our fate. Control, control, control.

I suppose the good news in this case is that the law may not stand a chance.

Luckily, the bill's very broadness may be its downfall. The Center for Reproductive Rights is challenging it on the ground that it violates the Oklahoma Constitution because it "covers more than one subject" — a challenge that previously worked to strike down an abortion ultrasound law. Harris appeared sanguine about the Center's chances for getting the law struck down, which is lucky, because otherwise the women of Oklahoma will become data points in a system designed to advance an ideological goal.

Somehow that doesn't make me feel like I'll sleep any easier. The very fact that such a law even exists sends shivers down my spine.

Hat-tip shangy_feminism.
jadedmusings: (Default)
For some reason, all this controversy surrounding Roman Polanski's arrest has elicited a rather visceral reaction from me. I wanted to rant about it, but the more I read the more I realize I shouldn't be reading about this. No, I don't know why it's making me feel sick to my stomach, and I really am not going to try to delve into it since it would serve no purpose than to upset me further. I will say I've lost a lot of faith in humanity after reading that someone like Whoopi Goldberg said "It's not rape-rape," and that Terry Gilliam is but one of a few names on a "Free Polanski" petition. The bright spots have been seeing Kevin Smith say on his Twitter "Rape is rape," and that a crime had been committed. Also, Greg Grunberg of Heroes fame said yesterday "Because HE DRUGGED & RAPED A 13 YEAR OLD GIRL!!" when a follower stated zie didn't understand why Polanski was arrested. Yet, those two voices are drowned out by the overwhelming cries of "He's an artist!" or "It was so long ago!" It seems as though the fact that Polanski pled guilty to drugging and orally, vaginally, and anally raping a thirteen year-old child before he skipped town has absolutely no bearing on anything.

Plenty has been said on this matter, and it has been said by people with louder voices than mine. Instead of torturing myself further by reading the words of rape apologists and people who turn a blind eye to horrific criminal activity, I'm going to provide but a few links that pretty much say for me why it is I believe it was right for Polanski to be arrested and returned to the United States to finally be punished as he should have been over thirty years ago.

1) Perhaps the most horrifying thing I read today was from the Telegraph. Michael Deacon found a quote from 1979 of Polanski himself speaking on the case.
“If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!”

Keep in mind Polanski did not fuck this girl. He drugged her and then raped her.

2) Reminder: Roman Polanski raped a child. Kate Harding lays it out on the line.
Roman Polanski raped a child. Let's just start right there, because that's the detail that tends to get neglected when we start discussing whether it was fair for the bail-jumping director to be arrested at age 76, after 32 years in "exile" (which in this case means owning multiple homes in Europe, continuing to work as a director, marrying and fathering two children, even winning an Oscar, but never -- poor baby -- being able to return to the U.S.). Let's keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she'd rather not see him prosecuted because she can't stand the media attention.


3) Melissa McEwan points out that Polanski's victim has her own reasons for stating that she doesn't want any more media attention on the crime.
The simple answer for that is because justice doesn't operate on the principle of what's best for the victim; it operates on the principle of what's best for the community. (That's why prosecutors represent "the people.") Particularly in a case of sexual assault of a minor, there is additional pressure to prosecute, even if the victim(s) don't support the prosecution, because interviews of convicted/admitted child rapists in prisons suggest that the rapist who only rapes once and never again has about as much supporting evidence for his existence as does the unicorn.


4) Finally, [livejournal.com profile] ginmar provides a long list of "fun" facts about Polanski's case, and if you still don't understand why Polanski should be behind bars, then there's no help for you. I'm certainly not going to hold anyone's hand and explain it all to you.
jadedmusings: (Default)
Melissa McEwan does it again:

There are the insidious assumptions guiding our interactions—the supposition that I will regard being exceptionalized as a compliment ("you're not like those other women"), and the presumption that I am an ally against certain kinds of women. Surely, we're all in agreement that Britney Spears is a dirty slut who deserves nothing but a steady stream of misogynist vitriol whenever her name is mentioned, right? Always the subtle pressure to abandon my principles to trash this woman or that woman, as if I'll never twig to the reality that there's always a justification for unleashing the misogyny, for hating a woman in ways reserved only for women. I am exhorted to join in the cruel revelry, and when I refuse, suddenly the target is on my back. And so it goes.

There are the jokes about women, about wives, about mothers, about raising daughters, about female bosses. They are told in my presence by men who are meant to care about me, just to get a rise out of me, as though I am meant to find funny a reminder of my second-class status. I am meant to ignore that this is a bullying tactic, that the men telling these jokes derive their amusement specifically from knowing they upset me, piss me off, hurt me. They tell them and I can laugh, and they can thus feel superior, or I can not laugh, and they can thus feel superior. Heads they win, tails I lose. I am used as a prop in an ongoing game of patriarchal posturing, and then I am meant to believe it is true when some of the men who enjoy this sport, in which I am their pawn, tell me, "I love you." I love you, my daughter. I love you, my niece. I love you, my friend. I am meant to trust these words.

[snip]

There are the stereotypes—oh, the abundant stereotypes!—about women, not me, of course, but other women, those women with their bad driving and their relentless shopping habits and their PMS and their disgusting vanity and their inability to stop talking and their disinterest in Important Things and their trying to trap men and their getting pregnant on purpose and their false rape accusations and their being bitches sluts whores cunts… And I am expected to nod in agreement, and I am nudged and admonished to agree. I am expected to say these things are not true of me, but are true of women (am I seceding from the union?); I am expected to put my stamp of token approval on the stereotypes. Yes, it's true. Between you and me, it's all true. That's what is wanted from me. Abdication of my principles and pride, in service to a patriarchal system that will only use my collusion to further subjugate me. This is a thing that is asked of me by men who purport to care for me.

There is the unwillingness to listen, a ferociously stubborn not getting it on so many things, so many important things. And the obdurate refusal to believe, to internalize, that my outrage is not manufactured and my injure not make-believe—an inflexible rejection of the possibility that my pain is authentic, in favor of the consolatory belief that I am angry because I'm a feminist (rather than the truth: that I'm a feminist because I'm angry).

I want everyone, not just men, everyone on my f-list to read this. I want my boyfriend to read this, my best friend to read this - everyone I have ever met, to read the entire thing. Maybe then you'll get why I sometimes flip out over "trivial shit," or why my laughter becomes nervous or weak when certain jokes are made in my presence.

Yes, I'm different from other feminists, but other feminists are different from me, too. There is not a singular way in which to exist as a woman. We are not a singular-minded group here to serve you, sex you, or even castrate you. We're people, and that alone should make us equals, but it doesn't and the essay that I have quoted and linked to expresses why the idea that women are people too is still so damn radical.

Again, read it and think. Please?
jadedmusings: (Default)
Remember the man who opened fire at an L.A. Fitness last week? Yeah, apparently this tragedy could have been avoided if only bitches would put out for the man. (I'm linking to the Jezebel page - I refuse to link to the blogs she quotes.)

When men kill women, the underlying reason is almost always an unfulfilled psychosexual need. This goes for spree shooters, rapists, and serial killers. I'm not surprised Sodini hasn't had sex in nearly 20 years. As I've written before, to men celibacy is walking death, and anything is justified in avoiding that miserable fate. [Emphasis added]

You hear that, women? You better spread your legs if you don't want to get gunned down! Remember, it's feminism's fault for telling us we have the ability to say no. How dare we have standards and not realize our sole purpose is to be receptacles for men. Well, that and popping out babies while we make sandwiches. Also, violence against women is all because men need sex. It's not about exerting power or control. Nope.

Seriously, what do you say to that shit? I've met many a man and woman who've been climbing the walls from lack of sex (hell, I've been one of them), yet not a single one of them ever thought of opening fire in a public place to try and kill others. It's just...RAGE.

Amanda Marcotte over at Pandagon talks about these douchebags too.

ETA: I forgot to mention that if you click on the first link and scroll down through the comments, you get an extra bonus of "What about teh menz/Nice Guy Apologist." Some jerkwad thinks it's appropriate to ask for advice on approaching women because he's a good guy who just keeps getting rejected - in a post about a guy who killed women for not dating him. Words fail me.

X-posted to [livejournal.com profile] rage_free.
jadedmusings: (Default)
For the women on my f-list (and any lurkers) who have either been sterilized or are looking into permanent sterilization as a form of birth control, please read Ali_K's post over on Shakesville about her experience with sterilization. In it she includes some statistics I think are beneficial for anyone who gets told, "But you might regret your decision!"

1. The most recent (2002) study I found said that only 7% off all women who were voluntarily sterilized experienced regret up to 5 years after their sterilization, comparable to the rate of women regretting their husband's vasectomy.* And the greatest risk factor for regret (according to the abstract) was when the women reported conflict with their partners at the time of sterilization. Even so, the reversal rate (not just regret) for women topped out at 2.2%.

2. In a Journal of Reproductive Medicine study that broke down the results among age groups, women under 27 years had only a 2% higher rate of regret than older women. And, the part that made me particularly happy, "single women were more certain than mothers of their decision to be sterilized."

3. A CDC study also found the same 2% difference between older and younger women, with the former having a regret rate of 2.4% and the latter having a regret rate of 4.3%.

4. The longest-running study I found (14 years versus 5 years) had the highest regret rates—20.3% for women under 30.

The whole thing is a very nice read, and some of the comments are full of some great information as well.

I'm planning to get sterilized next year or the year after. I'll probably face very little opposition as I already have one child and I'll be 29 next year. However, being unmarried and dating might prompt someone to ask "Well, what if your boyfriend wants children of his own?" My only response is that in the three years Sam has known me as a friend and in our time as a couple I've always said I was pretty darn sure I didn't want any more children. It's not like this is some huge secret I keep from people, especially a person I'm dating and planning to share my life with (in theory). Sure, I could go the IUD route, but I don't want to and I know that in five years I'd still feel the same as I do now.

I also find it funny that just last month I was asked if I was having any more children by a friend of my mother's. She knows I'm no longer with my son's father and that I'm in a long distance relationship - not exactly the sort of conditions one ought to conceive a child in. In the five years since I gave birth to the kiddo I've never truly felt the drive to have more children. I used to think it was because I was in a bad relationship, but even now that I'm in a stable one, the idea of being pregnant and going through post-partum again terrifies me. Yet, everyone seems to think it's such a shame that my son is doomed to be an only child. Kind of insulting since I'm an only child as well. Really, I don't feel I missed out on much of anything by not having siblings.
jadedmusings: (Default)
Dear Internet,

Can we please stop the rape as a compliment meme? Wearing loose clothing will not deter a rapist. Dressing in Victorian-era garb will not deter a rapist. Gaining weight will not deter a rapist. Cutting your hair will not deter a rapist.* Being disfigured or disabled will not prevent someone from raping you. Being a beauty queen won't stop a rapist, but neither will having a unibrow, bad acne, and an overbite. Also, any of the above is likely not to stop street harrassment, either. The only thing that will stop rape and street harrassment are the people responsible for those acts stopping themselves from raping and/or cat-calling.

It doesn't matter how a woman looks, all women are capable of being raped. That a woman of size gets raped is not a fucking compliment. It's a horrific crime and it has nothing to do with how beautiful she is or isn't (we'll just ignore the fact that beauty is subjective, right?). It has everyting to do with the rapist's desire for power and control.

Furthermore, if you really believe gaining weight will stop men from harrassing you, my cleavage would like to have a word with you. I'm a fatty, and I have noticed on occasion when I go out in a low-cut shirt, the eyes do wander. I've been hit on before in a laundromat of all places, and I'm sure I'd experience more if I ever left my house and went out. I was ogled when I was thinner, too, and I have to say it feels disgusting 99% of the time because it's dehumanizing and ignoring that I'm an intellectual human being with feelings and ideas. No, to them I'm an object to be stared at, and rarely, to be touched against my wishes.** Trust me, I don't feel flattered in those moments, I feel scared and wondering where the nearest exit is.

So, no, it's not a compliment. Please, stop treating it as such. It's harrassment, and it's not fun for the victim.

Sincerely,

Jade

* = I bring this up because of an e-mail forward passed around a long time ago that said women shouldn't wear their hair long or wear ponytails because attackers could use it to their advantage. No, I'm serious. People actually believe this shit. Here's the e-mail: http://www.snopes.com/crime/prevent/rape.asp

** = Hasn't happened since I was in school, but I like to say that it's because I've since perfected my "fuck off" vibe and that I don't live in an area where I'm forced into situations where I'm amongst a crowd of people. I'm sure if I had to ride a subway to work everyday or get on a bus my story would be different.
jadedmusings: (Default)
Texas apparently liked the idea so much that they're doing it too.

There aren't enough four-letter words to describe how screwed up this is. I hate people.
jadedmusings: (Toph Rocks Fall)
Can we please drop the meme that Emergency Contraception, AKA Plan B, AKA "Morning after pill," allows women to act carelessly and gives them an "easy way out"?

First and foremost, Plan B is not an abortifacient. If there is an embryo present that has already implanted itself in the uterine wall, Plan B will do absolutely diddly squat. Plan B is often confused with RU-486, which is a pill designed to end a pregnancy in the early stages, but Plan B prevents, not ends, pregnancy.

Regardless of what Plan B does, I'm sick of this "easy way out" and "consequence-free sex!" bullshit that gets trotted out everytime this comes up. Plan B doesn't encourage irresponsible sexual behavior, Plan B is responsible sexual behavior.

Let's say a 17 year-old woman has sex with her boyfriend. They've probably been sexually active for a while, or it could be their first time. They've thought ahead and had condoms on hand. They have sex and the condom breaks. If she and her boyfriend drive down to the 24-hour pharmacy and purchase a dose of Plan B, she will be preventing a pregnancy she most likely cannot emotionally, financially, and sometimes physically afford. She may love her boyfriend and may even plan to marry him someday, but not right now because she wants to go to college, trade school, or hell, maybe she wants to go into the military. Or maybe she just wanted to have sex with someone she liked and doesn't care if she ever sees again. Whatever, the point is that a baby is not in the plans and it could really damage her life plans. She is making sure that she can follow her dreams, and she's also keeping her boyfriend/sexual partner from having to alter his life to accomodate a child as well.* That is, say it with me now, responsible sexual behavior. It also has a chance to lower the number of unintended pregnancies, and maybe bring down the teen pregnancy rate. Isn't that what you're clamoring for in the first damn place?

Yeah, yeah, the wages of sex is childbirth. Women need to face the consequences, nevermind that there are two people involved in making a baby, and the male half's consequences are never on the same level as a woman faces, even if he's a fine upstanding man willing to be a parent. Yes, I've heard that before and think it is complete and utter bullshit. There is nothing wrong with being a sexually active woman. There is no shame in women enjoying sex and even (gasp!) seeking out as many sexual partners as they want. Nevermind that you're also discounting the fact that maybe the woman was raped and won't report it for whatever reason (maybe because she fears people, especially the authorities, will question the veracity of her story, and gee, I can't imagine why that might happen). Shouldn't she be allowed safe access to Plan B? Oh right, I forget that in Bizarro World, the only women who want Plan B are sluts who will take Plan B after every single sexual encounter, or teenagers will have sex parties where they snort Plan B and get off on how many fetuses they've magically aborted...or something.

Look, even if having sex was something she'll regret, why give her the added burden of a child she doesn't want/can't afford/will change her life? Telling them not to have sex obviously hasn't worked for us. Why don't we grow up and realize that water is wet and teens will have sex?

* = Though, let's be honest here. If he wants nothing to do with the child, his life won't be nearly as severely impacted as hers should she choose to continue the pregnancy.
jadedmusings: (Ming Ming Sewious)
Allow me to preface this by saying that I am a fan of Supernatural. I have seen the first three seasons and I will purchase season four when it is available on DVD (believe me, I'd be watching the new episdoes as they aired if I could pick up the CW where I live). The writing isn't great, but some of the story elements plus good acting manage to make it look pretty (pun intended) and make it compelling. However, being a fan doesn't mean I can't find faults with it, nor does it mean I should turn a blind eye to the misogyny prevalent in the show.

I should probably do a whole series of posts on this, and I really wouldn't mind watching the episodes over again. I'm not sure I have the time for that at the moment, but I guess if I took it slow and life doesn't jump up and dump more "wonderful" surprises in my lap, I could do it. It'll depend on a lot, but I have been re-watching the first two seasons and I've noticed a few things I wanted to mention.

If there is a female character that appears, rest assured she will either wind up dead, turn out to be a demon or otherwise evil, need rescuing, will be hit on by Dean, or will serve no other purpose than to stand around and scream. Oh, and apart from the Very Special Episode in season one wherein we learn Racism Is Bad, Mmmkay, they are all thin and blond (ok, there are a few brunettes, but they're all thin and the majority are blond). You could say that Jo is an exception to this, and while Jo is something of a hunter, she always winds up needing to be saved by one of the Winchesters (Dean even saves her from Sam when Sam is possessed). Ellen I guess is the exception, but she's rarely seen outside of the bar even if she can handle a gun. Plus she's Jo's over protective mother, tough, and is meant to come across as scary to Dean and Sam. Oh, and she's the only mother in the show that doesn't wind up dead or nearly loses a child.

If there is a character of color he/she will either wind up dead or turn out to be evil and/or crazy. A prime example of this is Gordon. He starts out as an ambitious hunter, much like Dean, but quickly turns out to be too overzealous and downright psycopathic once he becomes a recurring antagonist. In the season two episode "Croatoan," the loan black man in town survives the demonic virus only to have his throat slit by a demon at the end. There is the psychic in season one (whose name escapes me) who is both good and she manages to live, but she's a plus-sized black woman and she's so sassy because all plus-sized WoC are sassy, didn't you know?

...yes, I think doing a review of seasons one through three would better serve my point.

Anyway, I bring this up because a show like Supernatural likely got sold and became popular because of another show in the same genre: Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It is rather ironic that a show lauded by many as the first one to get a great deal right when it comes to portraying strong female characters (though NOT perfect, especially in the later seasons) allowed a show like Supernatural to enjoy its success. There is a decided lack of estrogen in Supernatural, and what estrogen is there plays on the age-old stereotypes of evil, manipulative women. (Good gods, do not get me started on Bella and how shittily her character was handled...hell, I could do an entire entry on her and probably should. Oh, and the Nice Guy episode with the zombie.)

Really, when I sit down to watch Supernatural, I am entertained, but I do so because I can shut down the feminist part of my brain. Yet, I think it's unfair for me not to admit that I do see what's there and call it out for what it is. I suppose in some ways this does make me a bad feminist, and I'll admit that because I do support the show by purchasing the DVDs and by saying I'm a fan. I think maybe if I had more options for shows with a paranormal/horror theme that didn't portray women so poorly, I wouldn't like Supernatural as much.

And this is just me musing on all of this. I think I will sit down at some point, put on my Humorless Feminist Hat(TM), and do a couple of entries on Supernatural.
jadedmusings: (Default)
Full disclosure: I'm going to be a humorless feminist here. If you are thinking of commenting with "Well, yeah, but it's not rape if..." stop yourself. If you are going to say, "Wait, that actually sounds funny," don't even bother clicking post. I will delete your comment. I don't care. This post is a safe space, and I will not deal with rape apologists or anyone who wants to come down on me and tell me I'm being unreasonable. I don't like rape. I hate rape. What constitutes rape is not up for debate here. Take it elsewhere, but don't expect me to get involved. This post is triggering.

I'm going to lay it on the line here: If a person is not capable of consenting to sex, and you engage in any form of sexual activity with hir, you are raping that person.

If your date has had too much to drink, or has been drugged and her judgement is severely impaired, it's rape if you try to have sex. If she said she would have sex with you two hours ago, but is passed out and barely able to string two words together before passing out again, and you put your penis in her, it's called rape.

When it comes to sex, the word yes is the one that matters. It's not "I'll get this over with," and it's not, "Since you wore me down and badgered me." Consent should mean an enthusiastic, "Yes, let's do this." Just because she didn't say no, doesn't mean it's not rape. She has to say yes for it to count as consent.

I bring all this up because I've been reading many posts about the movie Observe & Report. In the movie there is a scene where Brandi (Anna Faris) is seen passed out on a pillow with vomit while Ronnie (Seth Rogen) is grinding away on top of her. At one point he stops to look at her and she wakes up enough to drunkenly say, "Who told you to stop, motherfucker?"

See? That right there is supposed to be consent, nevermind by legal definition she is incapable of giving it. Nevermind that she's too drunk (and drugged) to realize she's covered in her own vomit. Nevermind that the man has been pounding away at her for who knows how long while she's passed out this way. Yeah, it's still rape.

What's worse is that writer/director Jody Hill knew he had to put two versions of that scene (one with the line and one without). He says so himself:

I would have been happy without any dialogue in that scene. I wanted to show them just having sex and her passed out, and I thought that would have been funnier. But I think I have a darker sense of humor than most people. So at the end, [Faris’ character] is okay with it. [Laughs.] And that was like, “I’ll shoot it both ways.” So I actually shot it both ways. I just kept the camera rolling.. I think if you’re really pushing the envelope, you have to not include everybody, if that makes sense. Or else it’s not really pushing the envelope.

In other words, the whole joke is the rape.

Tiger Beatdown says it better than I ever could:

I mean, I get the "joke" of the scene in Observe and Report. The joke is that it's not rape because she wants to be fucked while drugged and unconscious and unable to move or to take bodily pleasure in the act. (Or, in Jody Hill's Very Special Edgy-Pushing-the-Envelope Director's Cut, the joke is that it is rape, which is hilarious in and of itself.) The problem is that this is a joke you can't make unless you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of sexual consent, or the nature of rape. Anyone who does understand it knows that a single phrase blurted out by a semi-conscious, incoherent, out-of-her-mind high character who can't really even know what's going on, let alone respond to it in a way that is "full and informed," does not mitigate the fact that the male character in the scene is raping her. Anyone who doesn't understand that is capable of getting rape and consent confused - and, for that reason, may be entirely capable of committing rape. This joke doesn't just rely on our misunderstandings of rape; it actively promulgates them. That's the problem. That's why I'm not laughing. [Emphasis added]

Lindsay Beyerstein has posted a review of the movie itself (yes, she saw it). Her description of how Ronnie goes about convincing Brandi to go on a date with him in the first place is rather disturbing in and of itself.

After dark, Ronnie catches up to Brandi in the mall parking lot. He scares the hell out of her in the process of offering her a ride on his golf cart, but he won't take no for an answer, so she gets in. Instead of letting her off at her car, he keeps driving, joking that his brakes have failed. He asks her out on a date, making it clear that the only acceptable answer is "yes." She grudgingly agrees to go out with him.

Even the date itself can't be classed as given enthusiastic consent. I was further disturbed by what happens at the end of the movie:
...He gets his job back. He gets the good girl--that self-described born again virgin from the food court, whose boss he assaulted.

In the final scene Ronnie regales a TV news team with his professional and personal triumphs. Pointing to his now-girlfriend he explains that she has made a promise not to have sex with him, but that he intends to make her break it. [Emphasis added]

Keep in mind this is after he essentially tells Brandi she's a good for nothing slut for going on to have consensual sex with Ronnie's rival Detective Harrisson (Ray Liotta). He's admitting that he intends to go against his new girlfriend's wishes and have sex with her, when she has said she does not want to. This is supposed to be a funny moment, but hey, at least he's not a rapist, folks!

Yes, I get that it's supposed to be a dark comedy (though the trailer I saw when I viewed Watchmen sure could have fooled me), but it fails in this regard. Amanda Marcotte tackles this aspect as well:
...I have no problem with putting rape in a movie, or even using it for dark comedy, which could, in theory, be done well. I’ve often strained against feminists who claim there’s entire categories of things that can’t be joked about. But if you’re going to put rape in your movie, put rape in your movie. Don’t put a rape in your movie, and then create a faux “out” so that the sexist idiots who see your movie can tell themselves it wasn’t really rape. And don’t pretend it’s edgy to slap every stereotype imaginable about women who deserve to be raped, either.

And you wonder why feminist go on about rape culture. You wonder why women don't find rape funny. It's because we're told this is how it is. It's not rape if we got drunk, even if we never said yes. It's not rape if we wore a short skirt, or walked into the wrong part of town. If we like to party, we're asking for something like this, and there's no one to blame but ourselves. We're here to be fucked, and it doesn't matter if we're into it, or if we're lying there in our own vomit. As long as we can fire off a witty one-liner, it's ok and it completely absolves the guy of being a complete and total douchebag.

If you want us to stop complaining, start listening and take a different approach to make a statement about rape that doesn't turn it into a joke.

Profile

jadedmusings: (Default)
Wrathful and Unrepentant Jade

December 2013

S M T W T F S
1234567
8910 11121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930 31    

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 22nd, 2025 01:06 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios