New Rules to Help Rape Victims

I know all my previous posts regarding newspaper articles and TV commercials have been all about debunking myths and tearing apart the victim blaming. But I finally came upon an article that shines a little light onto the issues surrounding sexual violence. "New Rules to Help Rape Victims" is an article that was published in The Dominion Post (a New Zealand newspaper). This is the same paper that published "The Dark Side of a Girl's Night Out," the article that Joe blogged about in his last post. It's surprising to see such polar opposite mindsets in one newspaper.

Way too often cases are deemed inactive (not enough evidence to go to trial) because the survivor never explicitly said "no" during the assault. As KB posted earlier, there are different ways to react during an assault; fight, flight or freeze and not everyone will react the same way. Fortunately, the article has some positive news regarding this issue:

Defendants accused of rape could also face a new test of consent meaning a woman would effectively have to have said 'yes' to sexual activity rather than simply not saying 'no'.

This new rule will bring justice to all those who had a normal response to the attack by freezing. Passing this rule will no longer allow perpetrators to use the excuse that they didn't know the other party wasn't consenting. This puts the responsibility back on the offender to obtain consent before continuing rather than allowing them to push the boundaries until they hear a "no" which often isn't said. Consent is not difficult to identify. Either both parties are willing, active participants or verbal consent was freely given. Even if there is still uncertainty, JUST ASK and this rule puts emphasis on this.

This comes back to "yes means yes" rather than "no means no" because there are many ways to show resistance which aren't always verbal. Closing eyes, turning away, and laying limp are all signs of resistance but, as of now, these are not recognized by the law. This new rule will validate all those that showed signs of resistance but were ignored by the offender who continued anyway.

It is understood Mr Power wants to go further by restricting the ability of defence lawyers to discredit rape complainants by trawling through their sexual histories.

Defence lawyers would have to convince judges of the merit of such evidence before it could be admitted.

This is only common sense! What does sexual history have to do with someone's sexual assault? Anyone at anytime has the right to resist sexual advances and someone's sexual history plays no part in that. This is the pinnacle of victim blaming and it is done by our so called "justice system." The sexual assault itself is incredibly traumatizing on its own, but to be discredited by unrelated events is unimaginable. This new rule is a step towards equality when it comes to the justice system. There will not only be justice for "good girls," but for everyone no matter what their sexual history is.

Perhaps Canada could learn a thing or two from these actions taken by New Zealand. It's a few baby steps in the right direction. There is hope now that certain governments are taking progressive action and are becoming more sensitive to the issues of sexual violence.

Continue reading

I've lost count...

So one week ago I went to a football game here in Calgary. It was the Stamps vs. the Argos and it was a great way to spend a Friday night. The game was a lot of fun, but something really pissed me off. I know what you're thinking; some drunk guy high on testosterone did something totally stupid and inappropriate. Well, although that probably does happen, that's not what this story is about. The game passed without incident and I actually had a really good time, but what's important to this post is what happened after the football game.

I carpooled with a friend of mine who had a parking pass to one of the university lots, which was on the other side of campus where McMahon stadium is. After the game, we trekked through the U of C campus and made our way to her car. We were about 50 metres away when a silver Matrix came zooming by and what do I hear? "Owe, Owe!" Yes, the very definition of a catcall smacked me right in the face. What's even more "exciting" is how the car turned the corner for round two: "I'm lookin' at you baby!"

So what to do? I had half a second to pick my weapon of choice. Ignore the whole "wert whirl" incident and continue on my way as if nothing happened? Obviously shake my head to insinuate how immature the 5 boys were? Giggle and smile at them(as if!), or go over there and give them a piece of my feminist mind? Well I guess my subconscious didn't want to do any of the above, so without any effort I raised my hand and extend my middle finger.

Now this isn't to say that what I did was necessarily appropriate, but it felt damn good. Never had I taken the time or had the courage to do something like this. Had I been a couple of years younger, I would have rushed to the car and pretended that nothing happened. I would have been unhappy about the incident, but I would have passed it off as boy will be boys. Today, I have a different perspective. I understand the dynamics of homosocialism and the heavy burden that men must carry to prove their "masculinity." So even though I understand the reason behind the actions, I will never support the manner in which they carry out their goals. I am not a walking sign that says, 'Hey, I want to hear you shout all of your oppressive and objectifying crap!"

What I really want is to be seen as a person; a human being with feelings and thoughts. I am not a piece of meat that needs to be whistled at or laughed at.

Another aspect of these catcalls is how women interpret them. I've encountered some girls who don't mind being whistled at, and maybe even think of them as compliments (of course this is a objectifying social structure, which will be addressed at another time.) On the other hand, when I was in the parking lot, I did not find the whistling complimentary. But a common discussion did arise between myself and my friend:

"Oh, that was totally directed at you."

"Uh, no it wasn't it was for you."

We were confused as to what this random whistling meant to us. Was it good, bad, annoying... What I realized was that this conversation occurred because I knew on some level that I didn't want this attention, and neither did my friend. We have grown up in a world where young women are expected to "appreciate" this kind of attention so why would we not want it? Well for one, it's embarrassing and degrading. In other words, even when I didn't understand the issue, I knew in my gut that these acts made me feel small and less of a person.

So where do we go from here? Do you just flip the bird every time someone harrasses you? Well that could certainly get some results, but it's not going to make things better. It's going to have to come down to parents and mentors teaching our younger members of society to see everyone as equals. To understand that just because you have a thought about someone doesn't mean you can scream it out of a moving vehicle. But it's also about educating our boys around surviving the male dynamic, so they can surpass the pressure of hypersexualism and understand how to see women as equals.

I don't think the group of men in the car were horrible people; just a group of friends who have something to prove, when they really aren't proving anything. (Except, of course, that they can act like a bunch of assholes).

So the next time this happens, which I know it will at some other point in my life, I know it's not something that I have to take lightly. I also understand that I've learnt so much about myself and the world around me, due to all of this research and analysis. CCASA has taught me so much about these issues and where the seeds are planted in society. I know I can't prevent these kinds of men from harassing me, but I know I can influence my friends. Every little bit counts and hopefully one day everyone will see each other as equals, and act like it too.

-KB Continue reading

Beware of the Dark Side...

You know, it's nice to know that we can depend on the media as a whole to keep us entertained with wonderfully inaccurate victim blaming and myth perpetuation. The latest gem comes to us via a National opinion section and its entitled "Dark side of a girls' night out." Before you go asking if the title is a portent of the wonderfully logical information to come, the answer is: "Yes." It is as bad as you think it's going to be. The main article itself is all over the place; at certain points, it's perpetuating myths but it does manage to somewhat redeem itself later on. But each time you think it's finally moving in the right direction, it pulls a 180 with a prevention myth or some victim blaming. Here's one example:

Police say the number of attacks on drunk young women is growing. "They are binge-drinking, make poor choices and can't keep themselves safe," Detective Senior Sergeant Paul Borrell said. "That's a worry and that's the preventable part of it."

Naturally, no mention of the offenders; it probably didn't even cross their minds. The attacks aren't growing because there are more offenders, they are growing because more girls are getting drunk and not following the rules. This is closely followed by:

"It's not this image of a back-alley sex offender. Where any guy takes advantage of an intoxicated woman, that falls under predatory behaviour. "It's up to friends of victims and potential offenders to do something about it. In my view, if something does happen, all of us have failed that person."

There's some offender blaming, but I'm not sure what is meant by "predatory behaviour." Clearly the "back-alley" sex offenders are predators, but there's no predatory behaviour taking place in the clubs; it's not like some guys think of themselves as being "on the prowl," or anything. A more telling contradiction is that the article admits that "most [sexual assaults] happened at the man or woman's home afterwards." But then, later in the article, we're told that "moves were under way to improve lighting in the area." Improved lighting in the streets will help reduce the number of assaults that happen in the home?

At any rate, the article itself would not have been so bad if it was simply going back and forth between myth and fact. But the article concludes with a step so far back that there is really no way it could recover. Earlier in the text, a social worker makes the following statement:

"Why should the whole responsibility for a situation be put on women? The bottom line is we should be able to walk down the street or do anything without the threat of sexual violence."

This question/statement is exactly the kind of thing that we need to see more of out there, but unfortunately any merits gained by this statement are forgotten due to the impact of the section entitled 'Never Thought It'd Happen To Me.' I'll let you read the section yourself, as the impact is better that way, but it concludes with a victim-blaming quote:

But she refuses to let it ruin her life and says she has learnt some valuable lessons. "I've had to learn the hard way. Hopefully other people can learn from experiences like mine."

This article represents two (of many) serious problems that organizations like ours are facing out there. The first problem is that, when it comes to issues of sexual violence, there is still a huge disconnect going on; the language is there, but the logic isn't. This serious disconnect leads to mixed messages and when these mixed messages make it to the media, sexual violence becomes much more complicated than it needs to be (in the eyes of the general public). The second problem that arises out of this article is that the ultimate message is both horrendous and distracting.

Horrendous, because it basically says "look here ladies, here is a good young woman who learned her lesson; be wary of her story and remember to stay in line." Distracting, because sexual violence is not about "women not taking the proper precautions," it's about asshole offenders breaking the law. One of the questions that is not asked enough is, why do we feel the need to manufacture a gray area when it comes to sexual assault? Well, clearly it's just one more part of the blaming game; holding the victim accountable for their actions/"participation." And yet, we don't think or talk like that when it comes to victims of theft, drunk driving, or child exploitation.

So what is it? Why do we treat victims/survivors of sexual assault differently? Continue reading

If I can't see it, it's not there...

The closing of the Second Chance Recovery Methadone Clinic has caused considerable controversy these past few days. After being forced to move three times in the past six years, the clinic has finally been forced to close its doors forever due to hostile opposition from community leaders. I, for one, can certainly see where these supremely rational community leaders are coming from. I mean, it's obvious that Methadone clinics represent a problem in our society. They're a reminder that some people are worse off than we are. It's not fun to be reminded that there are serious problems in our society; our lives are so much better when we don't know what's out there. Removing these kinds of clinics from our communities will completely erase the issue from our world, subsequently unburdening us from having to actually think about it.

This "not in my backyard" and/or "if I can't see it, it's not a problem" mentality is a major reason why serious social issues, like drug addiction and sexual violence, continue to exist in silence. In the case of drug addictions, we have individuals speaking out about how something needs to be done about the drug problem in our city. Yet whenever some solution is proposed, like a methadone clinic (which is a safe, controlled way of beating certain addictions), certain groups do everything they can to see them shut down. Some of the beautifully rational arguments hold that a methadone clinic would bring addicts into their community. It's obviously not possible that there are people in the community who are addicted to certain substances. This mentality is no different when it comes to the issue of sexual violence.

People are more than happy to agree that sexual violence can happen anywhere, but also believe that it is something that doesn't happen in their own communities. The manifestation of this mentality can be seen in the ridiculous victim blaming that goes on. As long as young girls watch their drink, don't wear provocative clothing, and aren't "outgoing" then sexual violence goes away. But if these girls have the audacity to actually do what they want (after all, allowing such behavior would destroy our 1950s utopia, wait minute...what year is it?), then sexual violence ends up being a poignant lesson: step out of line and you'll be sexually assaulted. Three cheers for "civilized" society.

It's far too complicated to hold the offender accountable for their actions because that would require actual thought; discovering why one person would do such a horrible thing to another. Actual analysis of the offender might lead us to a discovery that there is something wrong with society in general and how we are socialized. Can't have that. After all, if we ignore the problem it will go away and, eventually, cease to exist.

How silly it is to have social organizations fighting these serious social problems. The NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) people have the right idea; protest any organization working to solve social issues and the issue goes away. How simple. Think this would work for Focus on the Family? Both Canadian and American versions? I mean we could "solve" homosexuality, abortion, and atheism in one fell swoop.

We could take this a step further and walk around with our eyes closed all of the time, thereby solving all of the worlds problems. Wouldn't even have to worry about being hit by traffic; after all if we can't see it, it's not there.

Continue reading

Entitlement

Like most Canadians worried we'd never see an end to the Wafergate scandal, I was relieved to pick up the paper this morning and find it wrapping up to an official impasse. A few pithy remarks from both sides in the commentary, left over from the past few days, summed up the story with a snide dismissal in one corner and an ashamed "headdesk" in the other. The general consensus seems to ponder why little glimpses of PM buffoonery must dominate media coverage perhaps best left for issues of greater relevance.

But I was left pondering other things. Would you believe that it got me considering the power dynamics of entitlement and its contribution to a culture of sexual violence? CCASA's awesomely got me one-tracking it these days - care to follow?

For those not in the know regarding the incident in question:

At the funeral mass for Roméo Leblanc, our Prime Minister allegedly committed a faux paus while taking communion. He took it... and then apparently stuffed the wafer into his pocket instead of eating it.

... I'll let that sink in.

If I can spare a moment to dislodge my tongue from my cheek, I'll try to take the issue at face value, overblown media coverage and kidding aside. Yes, if the accusations are correct, the incident is embarrassing. That our Prime Minister, representing Canada, wouldn't have the wherewithal to particpate competently and respectfully in a religious service shows a little more ignorance than I'm comfortable with. Perhaps because if we can't expect our leaders to treat cultures and belief systems outside of their own with dignity, then what can be expected from the rest of us?

Granted, Harper's suspected poor ettiquette was a relatively minor offense and, if proven to be true, could probably be pinned down to a lack of awareness as opposed to outright maliciousness. But the problem with the type of ignorance that results in unintentional rudeness or disrespect, is that it comes from a place of privilege. If (for the sake of this post) our PM really did decide to shove the wafer into his pocket, one would wonder why he didn't just eat it. What sort of thought proccess would inform a decision to not partake of a ceremony to which you've been invited? What needs of the guest would override the desire to be courteous, but a sense of entitlement of some sort (born perhaps of a certainty of one's superior position under the cicumstances, or even in the world in general).

Well, so what if the guy's privileged and acts accordingly? Is it really such a big deal?

In isolation? No, not really. And in this one particular case, it's hard to really care one way or the other. But in the scheme of things, even if it looks minor sometimes, entitlement can be a pretty significant peice of the greater oppression puzzle.

Entitlement has a close relationship with power (which I will touch upon more in the future), that can show itself in the lack of equality in society. We are treated differently according to our place in the system, and can internalize these ideas to the point where some (the dominant group) feel owed certain things just on account of their own unexamined privilege. They may start to accept belief systems that reinforce the dynamics that give them the upper hand, and they lack the tools to challenge the things that aren't working for everyone collectively, because those things working so well for them.

In modern society where laws strive towards greater equality, sense of entitlement is very much informed by values and beliefs. It's attitudes and social norms that create power dynamics which allow inequity to exist and, where there is inequality, violence is sure to follow.

We've discussed at length how sexual violence is about power and control. I'll go further and state that sexual violence can't happen without the power differentials that exist in our society. In terms of attitudes, I'm referring to racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, transphobia, etc, which are all a part of the many ways marginalized populations are kept away from the public sphere the privileged group occupies with ease. When a person of colour is racially profiled and harrassed; when a woman is treated as a sexual object; when a person with a disability cannot access a public space; when a gay teen is ostracized; when anyone is stereotyped or dehumanized based on the intolerant belief systems of others... These are all peices of the bigger picture; attitudes that allow others to be seen as lesser than. Then, it's a slippery slope towards behaviours that become abuse.

If rape is about offenders taking what they wrongly feel they are entitled to, then the first step towards prevention is eliminating attitudes that foster these types of beliefs.

Having said that, I don't feel as though Stephen Harper's alleged actions at the funeral mass indicate that he's an abuser (just consider him my topical launching pad), or prone to abuse. Having a sense of entitlement, being privileged, or even harbouring beliefs that are decidedly discriminatory doesn't automatically make one a violent offender. But we should take care to ensure that our own attitudes and language don't contribute to a culture of sexual violence.

PS. Stephen? Next time you attend mass, stick your neck out. Like, literally, put it in front of the nearest camera and show Canada how a respectful, courteous leader takes communion. (We need the headlines). Continue reading

Myth Busting

There is a commercial that is floating around TV right now that was put out by the Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB). It shows a very attractive woman wearing revealing clothing walking in a parkade at night. There just happens to be a "psychopath" wearing the stereotypical hockey mask and holding an axe hiding behind one of the pillars. It is implied that the "psychopath" will jump out and assault the woman. I was not surprised to see an advertisement that plays up the myths around sexual violence, considering these are widely accepted by our society. However, I was surprised and appalled to see that this advertisement was put out by an organization that is designed to help those who are at a disadvantage in our society. One would think that an organization such as this would understand the importance of not perpetuating myths and victimizing individuals/sexes/races etc... This advertisement has been taken down from the web but I managed to get a screen shot of it.
The impact of a 30 second t.v commercial is immense. It can reconfirm and strengthen misconceptions and beliefs that people hold. Challenging, changing and making people question their own beliefs becomes so much harder when so many different mediums are perpetuating and reinforcing myths around sexual violence. This advertisement doesn't just represent one or two myths around the issue of sexual violence but instead almost every myth our society holds. Ultimately, it doesn't just spread partial ignorance around this issue but rather complete ignorance.

To demonstrate how myth based this advertisement really is let me do some mythbusting...

1) The woman in the commercial is your stereotypical " hot blonde." She has the large breasts, tiny waist and the long flowing hair. This plays up the myth that only young, beautiful, sexy women can be sexually assaulted. In reality, anybody is susceptible to sexual violence. This myth is also reinforced by the belief that sexual violence is about sex when, in fact, it is a crime of power and control. It doesn't matter how attractive someone is because it is not about the sexual gratification but rather the sense of being in control and having power over another human being.

2) In the advertisement, the "hot blonde" just happens to be dressed very scantily. She is wearing a belly top that is also very low cut revealing large amounts of cleavage. This is where the "she was asking for it" belief comes in. This boils down to the belief that because she was not dressed modestly, someone else has the right to assault her. What is implied is that had she not been wearing such revealing clothes she probably would not have been in that situation. Once again this stresses the prevention tactics and reinforces the victim blaming mentality. It doesn't matter how much someone has had to drink, how revealing their clothes are, or what profession someone is in; there are no excuses for sexual violence. The perpetrators of sexual violence make choices to assault and no action of the survivor EVER justifies that.

3) It is perfect to set the scene at night in a dark parkade because the majority of society believes that is when and where women are most likely to be sexually assaulted. This is sending the message that if women stay indoors at night and avoid all secluded areas then sexual assaults and stranger attacks can be prevented. This message instills fear in women leaving the house at night and, once again, puts the blame back onto the survivor rather than the ones making the choices to assault. Most sexual assaults occur within the home in broad daylight by someone the survivor knows and may have even trusted. Most often, the sexual assaults don't require large amounts physical force because the perpetrator has already gained the trust and access to the survivor. It is not the stranger attacks in dark secluded areas that are the most common.

4) It is a common belief that sexual assault offenders are easily recognizable. In the case of the CNIB commercial, it is the easily identifiable "psychopath" who is the sex offender. Most sexual assault offenders appear to be normal. They do not suffer from mental illness or personality disorders. Perpetrators are often considered responsible members of the community. Race, economic class or marital status plays no part in determining who is, or who will become an abuser.

Each myth does not stand alone but is supported and fueled by many other misconceptions and beliefs that are common in our society. All the myths surrounding the issue of sexual violence are intertwined and are perpetuated by one another. The only way sexual assault can be prevented is by education and awareness around the issue. This advertisement would not have been created if our society was educated around this issue. Continue reading

Someone says this, then someone says that...

Earth. A place where people can offer all of their opinions and beliefs with a click of a button and can be read all over the world in seconds. So within this entire information overload, we seem to be faced with a rather difficult situation. Do you take everything you read as truth and adapt your beliefs to the writer's thoughts, or do you fight with all your might to delete these digital messages? With all the blogs, forums, and e-mails out there, we have to learn how to dissect and analyze articles before we accept them as truth, because if we blindly agree with a person's position without scrutinizing our own beliefs and the words expressed in the writings, how are we supposed to truly understand the situation and emotions behind them?

So when the issue arrives at sexual violence, why does it seem that there is still so much ignorance and victim blaming swimming around the worldly web? I came across an article that one of CCASA's staff pointed out and was appalled by the sheer ignorance and audacity someone had to not only use real research as a farce, but to create a lie about serious and sensitive topics. The author, Richard Alleyne, took it upon himself to alter existing research to suggest that any women who are drunk, dress promiscuously, or are outgoing are at a higher risk to be sexually assaulted:

"Women who drink alcohol, wear short skirts and are outgoing are more likely to be raped, claim scientists at the University of Leicester.

Psychologists found that all three factors had a baring on whether men would force a woman into having sex.

They found that the skimpier the dress and the more outgoing the woman, the less likely a man was to take no for an answer."

As the article continues, he adds that this "research" has proven that men are more willing to coerce women into sex based on these factors. This article not only misuses research, but it perpetuates the idea that women are simply targets for men.

Even though the responses to the article have already been in full swing (Bioephemera , and Bad Science), it still bothers me to know that this writer from Telegraph was willing to support sexual violence myths to "spice" things up. Personally, I feel that the media today is willing to change elements of a story just to maintain this superficial world of excitement. For that reason alone, I find it hard to truly believe anything I read or hear without some kind of research of my own. This correlates to many experiences I've already had here at CCASA; simply look at our court cases. Had I not been present to actually hear the sentencing and explanations behind each case, I probably would have simply taken the articles from the newspaper as truth and not question the scenarios.

Even though I feel some comfort in the fact that people are standing up to these fictional articles, I still can't help but feel let down that anyone would try to mislead others by perpetuating myths and misinformation. Not only did this journalist claim that any women who drank or wore revealing clothes were more likely to be raped, but he was desperate enough to suggest that scientists were confirming these myths. Tagging these accusations with the seal of science is a pathetic attempt to legitimize his own agenda. We look to science to be rational and factual, so when Alleyne applied the "scientist’s confirm" motto to something that implies that sexual
assault is due to drinking and clothing, I couldn't help but feel frustrated and angry.
Sexual assaults happen because an offender decides that they want power over another human being, have control over them, and use sex as an outlet. They apparently believe they are entitled to whatever they want, no matter what. It's not because of the clothes people wear or how much alcohol people consume. An offender is acting on their own accord, so when people demand public acceptance for an offender's "reasoning" (actually an excuse) for what happened, the easiest way to protect themselves is to push the blame onto others. Those "others" being the survivors.

All I can say in theses situations is how annoyed I am getting, hearing the same excuses and explanations. I'm tired of hearing 'well what did she expect?' or 'you should have watched your drink.' The blame for an assault will always fall on an offender no matter what, and to have someone who calls themselves a journalist, twist facts and lie about sexual violence in a casual way is quite agitating. I can only hope that people look into what they read, and realize that not everything that is written is fact (even if it says, 'claims scientists'.) As a society, we have to begin realizing that sexual violence has been kept in the dark because of these myths and silenced by the offender’s excuses.

-KB Continue reading