A rant, of sorts, because I need to.
It isn't fair. It isn't fair that a culture of violence against women exists. It isn't fair that women everywhere are afraid to go out alone at night, even if nothing has happened to them before, because something could happen. And it's not right that people aren't bothered by this, that the solution that is first mentioned when women feel that their personal safety is threatened is for them to buy a gun, or Mace, or learn self-defense. It's not right that boys and young men grow up in a culture where it's acceptable to refer to women as "bitches" and "hos," where objectifying women in speech, in thought, and in media is de rigeour.
It's not right that women are the ones who are bringing this up, and when we do, it's looked at as "our problem," a "women's issue," and that we're just causing trouble. It's not right that one in six women are raped, that nearly one in three women are assaulted by a "loved one" during her lifetime, or that women should ever be afraid in their own homes. It's not right that women who've been fortunate enough to not experience this soul violation undoubtedly know someone who has, and must always wonder, might it happen to me? In his book A Widow for One Year, John Irving writes, "Hannah would say that [Ruth] had never been beaten because she just hadn't met the right man yet, as it were. Or the wrong one."
I am tired of it. I am remarkably depressed. I know that the men I know and love are good, kind people, and I am equally angry for them, having to grow up, exist, and survive a culture that has the potential to so deeply damage men. And, truth be told, there has been a moment with every man I love where I look at him and think, "When is it going to happen? When is he going to turn in anger and hurt someone? Will it be me?" And that's not fair. It has nothing to do with the men in question (let me re-iterate that--this is entirely independent of the men I know), which is not fair to them. It's also not fair to me, and women like me, to be aware of the potential that this culture of violence has to exhibit itself through our men and their relationships.
What's most depressing is that I see no solution. I can state that objectifying women is bad, but then we grapple with how, exactly, it is that women are objectified. Catherine MacKinnon and the late Andrea Dworkin would say that it is pornography that objectifies women, but I think that's too narrow of a focus. Thinking of women as only mothers, or only whores, or only anything is what objectifies women. People without agency are always going to be objects, and, in most parts of the world, women have no choice as to what happens to them and their bodies.
But how do we un-objectify women, or create a space where all women have agency?
I wish I knew.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Friday, June 24, 2005
Rant: Emergency Contraception
Go, New York!* Gov. Pataki signed a bill that will allow pharmacists to dispense emergency contraception without a prescription.
I've got mixed feelings about this, actually. While I believe that E.C., like Plan B, should be readily available, there are still dangers involved in unprescribed hormonal contraception. (And, in case anyone is unclear on this matter, oral contraceptives do nothing to prevent STDs and STIs. A barrier method must be used for that.) For one, it's the only thing that brings some women to the gynecologist, which is important. There are still some people (both male and female) who are completely uninformed about sex, sexuality, and contraception, which is a shame. Going to a positive, caring OB/GYN is important in helping young women become informed.
(As a side note, the sex ed. that is being funded by the federal government now is abstinence-only education. This is the only educational program that has been proven to be ineffective, yet is still being used. The moral of the story is: Don't rely on the schools to teach your children about sex, sexuality, and reproductive health. Comprehensive sex education should be taught at home, and re-emphasized at school.)
Also, the potential for use by women and girls who are being exploited or who have been assaulted in some way must also be addressed. In order to do this, though, we'd have to change the entire system of dealing with sexual assault and rape (both statutory and otherwise), and although I'd love to see that happen, it's a long road. However, we have come a long way.
If you're curious, here is Indiana's rape law statute. If you'd like more information, please let me know. This is a topic I've researched pretty extensively, though I don't contend to know everything about it. Indiana is relatively typical in its statute wording, though there are a handful of states (Kentucky, Connecticut, and California being some of them) that make provisions for withdrawl of consent. A relatively new development in the statutes is provisions for marital rape. My biggest complaint with these addendum is that they do not acknowledge gay or lesbian couples.
As a sidebar, it was only recently that rape statutes acknowledged that men could be raped and/or sexually assaulted. While this frequently happens in the prison system, it happens in the outside world as well. (Admittedly, less frequently than it does to women.)
Consent is a slippery thing. Legally, consent is defined by affirmation ("yes") or negation ("no"). And we all know that "no" always means "no." But it's not really that easy, is it? In her book, Catherine MacKinnon writes about the sex you want versus the sex you have. In other words, the sex you participate in, and the sex that happens to you. In Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), her client said "I let him do what he wanted." The question CMacK asked was, "Does acquiesence indicate affirmation?" Is there a difference between the sex we want and the sex that "happens" to us?
I wrote about consent back in May. Let's re-visit that post:
I finished reading Tim Dean's Beyond Sexuality yesterday morning. Let's see if I can outline the arguement. For a long time, I've been trying to wrap my mind around the idea that we, as a culture (and I'm speaking of any culture here, not specifically American or even generic "white culture") define sexuality as what the biological sex of your object choice is, with complete bearing on what your own biological sex is. Think about that for a second. We're more concerned with who does to whom that we're not even concerned with the what that they're doing, where they're doing it, and, I think the most important part, the why. This is how we define sexuality.
But when it comes to regulating sexuality (thesis material reference coming up), we don't just focus on the actors. By regulating procreation in limiting the number of children people can have and still obtain welfare, etc, we're regulating the what, when it gets right down to it.
And it's interesting that we choose to focus on biological sex, instead of gender, when I would argue that most people have a stronger gender preference than they do a sex preference. Hear me out...I very rarely look at dating opportunities and think, "That is a male" (referencing biological sex). I think, "That is a man" (referencing gender identity). A lot of this probably has to do with the fact that I'm by and large attracted to the "gym rat" type--former football, soccer, or baseball players who are generally big guys in height, weight and muscle mass. None of these characteristics have anything to do with the biological factor of being male, perhaps save muscle mass, since more testosterone means one can build muscle more quickly. I would argue that choosing a partner based on gender characteristics is especially prevalent in the gay community. (And if you don't believe me, watch The Broken Heart's Club.)
The "why" that's left out in considering how to define sexuality is the most important part, I think. What if people were defined solely by why they choose the partners they do, or why they choose to (or if) to sleep with someone? Maybe, when it comes down to it, we use biological sex to define because it's the most visible characteristic we have to go by. Of course, with gender reassignment surgery, we all know that's not exactly a fail-proof screening device... Another why definition might be left out because it disproportionately applies to women, ie, sleeping with someone because of economic reasons (needing someone to provide for you), as a prevention of violence (so he won't beat or kill you), or as an exchange of power (making someone else even momentarily helpless can make you feel more powerful). Maybe if we defined sexuality in those terms (which all those considerations do happen to women all the time, all over the world and right here in the US), women's situation would improve.
Defining your sexuality by whether or not you consent and/or want a sexual encounter is another way to go about it. If sex is, like it is for many women, something that "just happens" to you, I think that's very different than if you are an active, choosing participant. And while fully 1/3 of all women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes, we still insist on defining sexuality on the biological sex of the actors involved. This would be what CMacK calls a "hello question." Hello? Does this make sense to anyone else? Is this just another way of ignoring victimization? Do we not focus on women as consenting, wanting actors (and there is a distinction between consenting to an encounter and actually wanting said encounter) because if we did, we would have to reexamine what happens to women every day?
Just asking.
To find out how you can help in these issues, and others, visit:
The Joyful Heart Foundation: Providing comprehensive therapy to rape and sexual assault survivors.
RAINN: Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network
Find out if there are rape survivor advocate programs in your area
Support comprehensive sex education
---------
* Note: When I originally linked to this news article, I had not anticipated all the commentary I would feel compelled to write. I may not be done with this treatise yet.
I've got mixed feelings about this, actually. While I believe that E.C., like Plan B, should be readily available, there are still dangers involved in unprescribed hormonal contraception. (And, in case anyone is unclear on this matter, oral contraceptives do nothing to prevent STDs and STIs. A barrier method must be used for that.) For one, it's the only thing that brings some women to the gynecologist, which is important. There are still some people (both male and female) who are completely uninformed about sex, sexuality, and contraception, which is a shame. Going to a positive, caring OB/GYN is important in helping young women become informed.
(As a side note, the sex ed. that is being funded by the federal government now is abstinence-only education. This is the only educational program that has been proven to be ineffective, yet is still being used. The moral of the story is: Don't rely on the schools to teach your children about sex, sexuality, and reproductive health. Comprehensive sex education should be taught at home, and re-emphasized at school.)
Also, the potential for use by women and girls who are being exploited or who have been assaulted in some way must also be addressed. In order to do this, though, we'd have to change the entire system of dealing with sexual assault and rape (both statutory and otherwise), and although I'd love to see that happen, it's a long road. However, we have come a long way.
If you're curious, here is Indiana's rape law statute. If you'd like more information, please let me know. This is a topic I've researched pretty extensively, though I don't contend to know everything about it. Indiana is relatively typical in its statute wording, though there are a handful of states (Kentucky, Connecticut, and California being some of them) that make provisions for withdrawl of consent. A relatively new development in the statutes is provisions for marital rape. My biggest complaint with these addendum is that they do not acknowledge gay or lesbian couples.
As a sidebar, it was only recently that rape statutes acknowledged that men could be raped and/or sexually assaulted. While this frequently happens in the prison system, it happens in the outside world as well. (Admittedly, less frequently than it does to women.)
Consent is a slippery thing. Legally, consent is defined by affirmation ("yes") or negation ("no"). And we all know that "no" always means "no." But it's not really that easy, is it? In her book, Catherine MacKinnon writes about the sex you want versus the sex you have. In other words, the sex you participate in, and the sex that happens to you. In Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), her client said "I let him do what he wanted." The question CMacK asked was, "Does acquiesence indicate affirmation?" Is there a difference between the sex we want and the sex that "happens" to us?
I wrote about consent back in May. Let's re-visit that post:
I finished reading Tim Dean's Beyond Sexuality yesterday morning. Let's see if I can outline the arguement. For a long time, I've been trying to wrap my mind around the idea that we, as a culture (and I'm speaking of any culture here, not specifically American or even generic "white culture") define sexuality as what the biological sex of your object choice is, with complete bearing on what your own biological sex is. Think about that for a second. We're more concerned with who does to whom that we're not even concerned with the what that they're doing, where they're doing it, and, I think the most important part, the why. This is how we define sexuality.
But when it comes to regulating sexuality (thesis material reference coming up), we don't just focus on the actors. By regulating procreation in limiting the number of children people can have and still obtain welfare, etc, we're regulating the what, when it gets right down to it.
And it's interesting that we choose to focus on biological sex, instead of gender, when I would argue that most people have a stronger gender preference than they do a sex preference. Hear me out...I very rarely look at dating opportunities and think, "That is a male" (referencing biological sex). I think, "That is a man" (referencing gender identity). A lot of this probably has to do with the fact that I'm by and large attracted to the "gym rat" type--former football, soccer, or baseball players who are generally big guys in height, weight and muscle mass. None of these characteristics have anything to do with the biological factor of being male, perhaps save muscle mass, since more testosterone means one can build muscle more quickly. I would argue that choosing a partner based on gender characteristics is especially prevalent in the gay community. (And if you don't believe me, watch The Broken Heart's Club.)
The "why" that's left out in considering how to define sexuality is the most important part, I think. What if people were defined solely by why they choose the partners they do, or why they choose to (or if) to sleep with someone? Maybe, when it comes down to it, we use biological sex to define because it's the most visible characteristic we have to go by. Of course, with gender reassignment surgery, we all know that's not exactly a fail-proof screening device... Another why definition might be left out because it disproportionately applies to women, ie, sleeping with someone because of economic reasons (needing someone to provide for you), as a prevention of violence (so he won't beat or kill you), or as an exchange of power (making someone else even momentarily helpless can make you feel more powerful). Maybe if we defined sexuality in those terms (which all those considerations do happen to women all the time, all over the world and right here in the US), women's situation would improve.
Defining your sexuality by whether or not you consent and/or want a sexual encounter is another way to go about it. If sex is, like it is for many women, something that "just happens" to you, I think that's very different than if you are an active, choosing participant. And while fully 1/3 of all women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes, we still insist on defining sexuality on the biological sex of the actors involved. This would be what CMacK calls a "hello question." Hello? Does this make sense to anyone else? Is this just another way of ignoring victimization? Do we not focus on women as consenting, wanting actors (and there is a distinction between consenting to an encounter and actually wanting said encounter) because if we did, we would have to reexamine what happens to women every day?
Just asking.
To find out how you can help in these issues, and others, visit:
The Joyful Heart Foundation: Providing comprehensive therapy to rape and sexual assault survivors.
RAINN: Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network
Find out if there are rape survivor advocate programs in your area
Support comprehensive sex education
---------
* Note: When I originally linked to this news article, I had not anticipated all the commentary I would feel compelled to write. I may not be done with this treatise yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)