Interestingly enough, the webpage I am getting my numbers from also includes a little chart at the bottom that tells you where New York is ranked compared to other states in regards to various crime rates. Interestingly enough, out of the 51 states (Plus Washington D.C.) New York has consistently held the fiftieth spot on the list. That means that there is only one state in the entire country with a lower reported rape rate than the state of New York. In all my years of growing up and watching Law and Order: Special Victim Unit I never would have guessed that New York had one of the lowest incidences of reported rape in the country. It makes me wonder just how many rapes go on reported and if that statistic can actually be a true reflection on the safety of women in New York.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
New York Rape Statistics
I spent some time researching New York's crime statistics since 1965 and found out some pretty interesting things. The number of rapes rose dramatically between 1971 and 1972. In 1971 there were just 3,225 incidents of reported forcible rape where as in 1972 there were 4,199 reported incidents. The scariest thing about this statistic is that while the number of reported rapes rose so dramatically, the overall number of crimes reported decreased by over 30,000 from 1971 to 1972. This makes me think that perhaps the era of "free love" wasn't all it was cracked up to be. I also wonder,how many cases went unreported just as Andrea's all did. If the people who were in similar situations to Andrea's went forward with their stories, just how much higher would that number be?
On the Pitfalls of Sitting on a Pedestal
In a class discussion a few weeks ago, the idea was posited that a
goal of feminism is for women to be seen as "equal to men, without
their flaws," and I respectfully disagree. I think putting women on a
pedestal this way is incredibly harmful to women's progress, and
manifests in so-called "benevolent sexism." An example that readily
comes to mind is the stereotype that "men are rational, women are
emotional," and the implications of that--essentially, in many places
it is considered an unspoken rule that women must give up their career
aspirations to stay home, supporting a man and raising their children.
Anyone who objects is "not a real woman," selfish, and neglecting
"the most important job in the world."
The truth is, American culture does not value childrearing. We do not
think it is important, although we all pretend to. Caregivers, whether
they are nannies, school teachers, or housewives, receive pitiful
compensation across the board (Of course, housewives do not receive
financial compensation for their work. But in divorce situations, I
frequently hear of men thinking they are entitled to all/the vast
majority of the household income because their wives were unemployed,
seemingly without realizing that their wives' unemployment is
precisely the reason they were able to have said careers). The
embarrassing reality is in the year 2012, we have a significant pay
discrepancy between men and women, corrected for hours worked,
education, experience, and whether or not they have children. Meanwhile,
Republican politicians are desperately trying to pretend the wage gap
does not exist, while simultaneously repealing equal pay laws, sexual
harassment laws, attacking reproductive rights (the impetus for
women's entrance into the work force), and then claiming the War on
Women is a "fiction" akin to a "War on Caterpillars." The right
seems to want nothing as badly as women barefoot and pregnant in the
kitchen once again. Because the truth is, if our culture thought
childrearing was important, men would be doing it.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, aspiring for women to be seen
without flaws in to deny our inherent humanity. And saying that women
need to be flawless for feminism to be "achieved" or successful is
counterproductive. No one is flawless! If that is what we need to
achieve to be equal to men, we might as well just throw in the towel.
goal of feminism is for women to be seen as "equal to men, without
their flaws," and I respectfully disagree. I think putting women on a
pedestal this way is incredibly harmful to women's progress, and
manifests in so-called "benevolent sexism." An example that readily
comes to mind is the stereotype that "men are rational, women are
emotional," and the implications of that--essentially, in many places
it is considered an unspoken rule that women must give up their career
aspirations to stay home, supporting a man and raising their children.
Anyone who objects is "not a real woman," selfish, and neglecting
"the most important job in the world."
The truth is, American culture does not value childrearing. We do not
think it is important, although we all pretend to. Caregivers, whether
they are nannies, school teachers, or housewives, receive pitiful
compensation across the board (Of course, housewives do not receive
financial compensation for their work. But in divorce situations, I
frequently hear of men thinking they are entitled to all/the vast
majority of the household income because their wives were unemployed,
seemingly without realizing that their wives' unemployment is
precisely the reason they were able to have said careers). The
embarrassing reality is in the year 2012, we have a significant pay
discrepancy between men and women, corrected for hours worked,
education, experience, and whether or not they have children. Meanwhile,
Republican politicians are desperately trying to pretend the wage gap
does not exist, while simultaneously repealing equal pay laws, sexual
harassment laws, attacking reproductive rights (the impetus for
women's entrance into the work force), and then claiming the War on
Women is a "fiction" akin to a "War on Caterpillars." The right
seems to want nothing as badly as women barefoot and pregnant in the
kitchen once again. Because the truth is, if our culture thought
childrearing was important, men would be doing it.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, aspiring for women to be seen
without flaws in to deny our inherent humanity. And saying that women
need to be flawless for feminism to be "achieved" or successful is
counterproductive. No one is flawless! If that is what we need to
achieve to be equal to men, we might as well just throw in the towel.
Would you all have taken back anything that you said in class if
you knew there was a rape victim in the room?
If I'd Known Then What I Know Now...
I've waited until the end of the semester to share this blog post because for the longest time I wasn't sure that I had the confidence to share this story, especially with strangers. When I registered myself for this class back in fall I had no idea what I would be facing over the next several months. As most of you are probably aware, there was a string of rape and attempted rapes surrounding campus in the weeks between Thanksgiving break and winter break. Specifically, they seemed to affect the Greek community in almost all instances. Not only were two of the girls who were attacked Panhellenic friends of mine, I grew up with both of them. Having not just one but two friends be affected by sexual abuse is an experience I wish I could run away from and never have to face. The first attack's victim, right after Thanksgiving, was one of my high school best friends. When I heard the news of what had happened the next morning, I was in shock. Writing about it right now gives me goosebumps and even brings tears to my eyes. Hoping to never have to go through those emotions ever again I was thrown in to shock when three weeks later I found out that a second girl who I have had classes with since 6th grade was attacked at knifepoint when getting in to her car. I now know I have two of the bravest friends anyone could ever ask to have in their lives.
Something I had never imagined facing in my entire life I was forced to confront twice in just a month. My mom didn't want to me to even come back for the Spring semester, yet alone be taking a class that would be constantly reminding me of what two people I love were continuing to battle. I wasn't so afraid though. I put a pepper spray on my keychain and once again felt invincible. I knew though, after reading just the first five pages of Mercy, how wrong that feeling was. Pepper spray wouldn't hold off an attacker, and in the moment, who knows if I would even be thinking enough to use it. The fear I had tried so hard to allow take over me was slowly returning. The vivid descriptions Andrea used to describe the attacks left me crying in my bed as I felt my friends' pain they have been suffering. Maybe my mom was right, I shouldn't have taken this class, The pain I feel for my friends is very real and the images it has placed in my head I will never be able to remove.
So if you were to ask me, would I take this class again if I'd known then what I know now, the honest answer is that I really don't think I would. To know the pain that my friends are suffering and to never be able to get this images out of my head is not something I would ever want to wish upon anyone.
The Dilemma: Violence and Sex
At the beginning of this class, I believed that violence in a sexual
setting was sometimes appealing and sexy. It could give you a rush, a
taste of something different, sometimes something that could even is
craved. I think sexual intercourse is natural, fun, individual and an
act so very unique each time whether it is with the same person or
someone new. This, of course is my belief, and these thoughts are about
consensual sex. This is the setting where the "violence" is
discussed and perhaps even directed to your liking. In this way, behind
the bedroom door (or in the kitchen, in the car, or wherever it occurs)
I believe acting in something other than a purely gentle and romantic
way sexually is acceptable. One of the definitions of violence I found
is "an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power", so in this
respect, as I had expected before I looked up the definition, this
consensual situation where one person is in a more assertive physical
control and may act in a more forceful way, may not necessarily be
"violence" at all. I think what makes all the difference is the
intent. In consensual sexual relationships, although this forcefulness
is an added element to a sexual encounter, there is (or at least should
be if it is consensual) a common goal of feeling good.
All this being said, this novel has definitely challenged this belief
of mine and affected me more than I thought it would. I have never known
anyone who has been a victim of rape so the idea was distant and almost
unreal to me. You never expect that to happen but it happens to people
quite often. It can happen whether you are on the streets like Andrea,
at a bar in Gainesville, or walking home from the library. After reading
Andrea's story, I feel like I know someone who has been raped. Having
this very detailed information about it, I have started to question
whether violence in sex is okay still. I've been going back and forth
between this thought for quite a while now and I think that just like
everything in life, every event is separate from another with separate
scenarios and settings and each person is different. There are people
who use violence in sex to hurt, torture, and assert their dominance.
And there are people who use "violence" to pleasure another person,
by their choice or a mutual interest in releasing the endorphins of pain
and pleasure simultaneously. This is all I can assert for myself now and
I know this is going to be a topic that I will be thinking about for a
long time to come, especially since I am reminded of it now with each
advertisement, television show, or movie I see.
setting was sometimes appealing and sexy. It could give you a rush, a
taste of something different, sometimes something that could even is
craved. I think sexual intercourse is natural, fun, individual and an
act so very unique each time whether it is with the same person or
someone new. This, of course is my belief, and these thoughts are about
consensual sex. This is the setting where the "violence" is
discussed and perhaps even directed to your liking. In this way, behind
the bedroom door (or in the kitchen, in the car, or wherever it occurs)
I believe acting in something other than a purely gentle and romantic
way sexually is acceptable. One of the definitions of violence I found
is "an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power", so in this
respect, as I had expected before I looked up the definition, this
consensual situation where one person is in a more assertive physical
control and may act in a more forceful way, may not necessarily be
"violence" at all. I think what makes all the difference is the
intent. In consensual sexual relationships, although this forcefulness
is an added element to a sexual encounter, there is (or at least should
be if it is consensual) a common goal of feeling good.
All this being said, this novel has definitely challenged this belief
of mine and affected me more than I thought it would. I have never known
anyone who has been a victim of rape so the idea was distant and almost
unreal to me. You never expect that to happen but it happens to people
quite often. It can happen whether you are on the streets like Andrea,
at a bar in Gainesville, or walking home from the library. After reading
Andrea's story, I feel like I know someone who has been raped. Having
this very detailed information about it, I have started to question
whether violence in sex is okay still. I've been going back and forth
between this thought for quite a while now and I think that just like
everything in life, every event is separate from another with separate
scenarios and settings and each person is different. There are people
who use violence in sex to hurt, torture, and assert their dominance.
And there are people who use "violence" to pleasure another person,
by their choice or a mutual interest in releasing the endorphins of pain
and pleasure simultaneously. This is all I can assert for myself now and
I know this is going to be a topic that I will be thinking about for a
long time to come, especially since I am reminded of it now with each
advertisement, television show, or movie I see.
Wrong
One of my closest friends was raped.
Rape is always one of those things that I have always thought happens
on the news, in movies, in books. Not to us, not to people I know,
certainly not to people I love.
Getting that phone call from a crying friend two years ago was a shock
to my system. It wasn't real, that doesn't happen. I was scared, scared
for me, scared for her. I was angry. I wanted to find him and I wanted
to hurt him.
I convinced her to go to the police. It was a painful experience,
because apparently she had done everything wrong. She waited too long
to come in, the drug was out of her system, wrong. She showered after
because she felt dirty and wanted his smell gone, wrong. She threw away
her underwear because they were ripped, wrong. She hid in that room,
with her eyes closed, until he was gone, wrong. She drank at that
party, wrong. She danced with him, wrong.
What happened to her was wrong. What he did to her was wrong. How it
made her feel was wrong. The police officers treated her like a toddler
asking too many questions in the back seat of a car while mommy is
trying to drive. They were exasperated with her. She stopped trying.
Finally, they caught someone. He made the mistake of taunting her. He
remembered her name from before he put that drug in her drink. He found
her on facebook and made a fake profile. He sent her private messages
to remind her of what he did. He wanted to continue to hurt her.
The police found his computer. They found him.
But that isn't enough. His lawyers are making it her fault. Everything
about her is wrong again. The way she dressed the way she danced the
way she talked the way she smelled the way she smiled. She wanted it.
It was her fault.
They are bringing up her history. She is going to have to get on the
stand and talk about every man she has ever touched, every joint she
has ever smoked, every drink she has ever had. All of the things that
she has done that were wrong.
This is rape culture. We blame the victim. We make them defend
themselves and their past on the witness stand, something no defendant
is required to do. We say she was asking for it, we say maybe it didn't
happen, she just wants attention.
If she had been robbed, if she had been beaten, if she had been
threatened, if she had been a he, then it would be the criminal that
was in the wrong. But she was raped. It was horrible. And now they want
to make her prove it. Relive it. And maybe a jury won't believe her
because she wasn't a saint before it happened. But I don't know many of
those. And she was a good girl; an honors student, a republican, a
Christian, an upstanding member of society. She is a parent's dream.
But she is still not good enough for the court.
Is it worth it?
Andrea has every right to be angry, every right to not tell anyone what
happened to her. It seems that nothing good comes from it. My friend
could have spent the past two years forgetting, but instead, things are
just getting started. Two years of hell extended to three or four or
more if he goes free. She can't move on, they won't let her. They want
her to relive the worst night of her life, and then have people tell
her she is a slut and a liar.
This is rape culture. It's unfair how we treat a woman who has the
courage to come forward and admit what happened to her. We make it
shameful, we make it a fight. A fight too often lost.
That's wrong.
Rape is always one of those things that I have always thought happens
on the news, in movies, in books. Not to us, not to people I know,
certainly not to people I love.
Getting that phone call from a crying friend two years ago was a shock
to my system. It wasn't real, that doesn't happen. I was scared, scared
for me, scared for her. I was angry. I wanted to find him and I wanted
to hurt him.
I convinced her to go to the police. It was a painful experience,
because apparently she had done everything wrong. She waited too long
to come in, the drug was out of her system, wrong. She showered after
because she felt dirty and wanted his smell gone, wrong. She threw away
her underwear because they were ripped, wrong. She hid in that room,
with her eyes closed, until he was gone, wrong. She drank at that
party, wrong. She danced with him, wrong.
What happened to her was wrong. What he did to her was wrong. How it
made her feel was wrong. The police officers treated her like a toddler
asking too many questions in the back seat of a car while mommy is
trying to drive. They were exasperated with her. She stopped trying.
Finally, they caught someone. He made the mistake of taunting her. He
remembered her name from before he put that drug in her drink. He found
her on facebook and made a fake profile. He sent her private messages
to remind her of what he did. He wanted to continue to hurt her.
The police found his computer. They found him.
But that isn't enough. His lawyers are making it her fault. Everything
about her is wrong again. The way she dressed the way she danced the
way she talked the way she smelled the way she smiled. She wanted it.
It was her fault.
They are bringing up her history. She is going to have to get on the
stand and talk about every man she has ever touched, every joint she
has ever smoked, every drink she has ever had. All of the things that
she has done that were wrong.
This is rape culture. We blame the victim. We make them defend
themselves and their past on the witness stand, something no defendant
is required to do. We say she was asking for it, we say maybe it didn't
happen, she just wants attention.
If she had been robbed, if she had been beaten, if she had been
threatened, if she had been a he, then it would be the criminal that
was in the wrong. But she was raped. It was horrible. And now they want
to make her prove it. Relive it. And maybe a jury won't believe her
because she wasn't a saint before it happened. But I don't know many of
those. And she was a good girl; an honors student, a republican, a
Christian, an upstanding member of society. She is a parent's dream.
But she is still not good enough for the court.
Is it worth it?
Andrea has every right to be angry, every right to not tell anyone what
happened to her. It seems that nothing good comes from it. My friend
could have spent the past two years forgetting, but instead, things are
just getting started. Two years of hell extended to three or four or
more if he goes free. She can't move on, they won't let her. They want
her to relive the worst night of her life, and then have people tell
her she is a slut and a liar.
This is rape culture. It's unfair how we treat a woman who has the
courage to come forward and admit what happened to her. We make it
shameful, we make it a fight. A fight too often lost.
That's wrong.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Uncovering Truth about the Porn Industry
I decided to do a little research on women in the porn industry. It was always my feelings that if a woman wanted to become a porn star then good for her, who am I to limit her freedom? And the porn industry is a non-binding one. If there was any imminent harm then she could simply leave. So I read this article about this porn star in California, where 85% of "adult content" is created. She stated that "The California pornography industry is a destructive, drug infested, abusive and sexually diseased industry which causes severe negative secondary effects on female and male adult industry workers as well as the general public. I am confident of the above because not only was I a stripper, pornographic performer and escort in the California pornography industry from 1986 to 1994, but I have also counseled with or spoken to over 300 female and male workers in the pornography industry as well as those struggling with pornography addiction."
After reading this article I was thoroughly sickened. Why aren't there stricter regulations on the porn industry? Why doesn't the United States employ some sort of guidelines so that this doesn't happen? This new information has lead me to take Dworkin's view on pornography more seriously. Perhaps pornography should be outlawed. It's not like pornography in a legal environment is being handled very well. I hope that one day Congress passes some sort of regulations or laws that limit the wrongdoings in the porn industry.
Here is the article where I got this information: http://www.covenanteyes.com/2008/10/28/ex-porn-star-tells-the-truth-about-the-porn-industry/
The Taboo of Sex in Society
Recently, I've been doing a lot of looking into crime statistics on rape. I read that 9 out of 10 rapists will never be punished for their crime. This abominable statistic lead me to ask the question "why?" As it turns out, most rapes go unreported. Women are ashamed to admit that men have taken advantage of them sexually. They are afraid that nobody will believe them, or worse, they will be blamed for what happened. So I thought to myself, what would I do if I was in their position? I would feel dirty. I would feel used. Honestly, I would probably keep it to myself.
Now why would an intelligent woman who believes in the justice system choose not to report such a heinous crime? I came to the conclusion that it has to do with the taboo that society places on sex. If I wore raped, I would be seen as the girl who lost her virginity to someone dirty. People would look at me and they'd see a victim- not a survivor. I don't want to be pitied. I don't want to be called slutty. I don't want the stain of sex on me just to go through a legal process that would most likely not result in a conviction.
Why is sex in society such a taboo? Why is it that I can't say that three letter word in front of adults without being judged? I've been thinking about this for a while now. It was addressed in some Oprah episode a while back. If sex was not a taboo then that would resolve so many problems. Teenagers would be able to actively talk to their parents about safe sex. Teenagers would feel less pressure to partake in it simply because there would be less curiosity. Show me someone who went into his or her first sexual encounter without wondering what the big deal was and I'll show you a pig that can fly.
If sex in society wasn't such a taboo then maybe Andrea and other women would be more open with reporting rapes and getting help.
Anti-feminism
No doubt, Mercy is a highly inflammatory book to many people. That's exactly what Andrea Dworkin wanted, I'm sure, when she wrote the book. To inspire a reaction, a brutal awakening. Indeed, the book has had just such an effect on me. Really, though, it makes me wonder if these types of works are what gives feminist movements a stigma. I've always wondered why all feminists are labeled as radical, and Andrea Dworkin has certainly shown me the root of the issue.
I always hesitate to call myself a feminist because I don't want anyone to confuse my conservative views with the radical liberal views society inevitably deems fundamentally "feminist." I believe women are just as capable as men in any sort of capacity, but I never wanted to be handed a job because someone thinks it's due to the female population. This book is everything I despise in the label "feminist." It is full of hatred and revenge. It stems from an emotional story in which the protagonist is weak and unable to care for herself. Yes, this is a heartbreaking book, but I don't believe it furthers women's rights movements.
Women are already seen as balls of emotion, ready to snap as soon as a period hits and this book only solidifies that stereotype in my mind. I want to been seen as an equal by men and society as a whole, but not because they pity the journey my gender has been through, but because of my merit.
I always hesitate to call myself a feminist because I don't want anyone to confuse my conservative views with the radical liberal views society inevitably deems fundamentally "feminist." I believe women are just as capable as men in any sort of capacity, but I never wanted to be handed a job because someone thinks it's due to the female population. This book is everything I despise in the label "feminist." It is full of hatred and revenge. It stems from an emotional story in which the protagonist is weak and unable to care for herself. Yes, this is a heartbreaking book, but I don't believe it furthers women's rights movements.
Women are already seen as balls of emotion, ready to snap as soon as a period hits and this book only solidifies that stereotype in my mind. I want to been seen as an equal by men and society as a whole, but not because they pity the journey my gender has been through, but because of my merit.
Is God Watching?
As I read Mercy, I marked pages and specific lines that stood out to me
for one reason or another, as is my custom with most books. In going
back over the pages, I noticed that I had unwittingly marked mostly
quotes that correlated to each other, quotes about God and faith. I was
raised Roman Catholic, and attended Catholic school for 14 years. I
took theology class every day and went to mass at least once a week. I
was raised to believe.
But sometimes things happen that shake your faith, and I think that
because I have had that experience, I can relate to some of the things
that not-Andrea expresses. True, a lot of her quotes are blasphemous,
and most likely meant simply to shock. Those words are expressed by
Andrea the adult, the angry woman, lashing out. The words that struck
me the most came from Andrea the child, the part of the story that I
see most as being autobiographical.
Andrea had something happen to her when she was young. I want to
emphasize happen TO her because what occurred was out of her control.
It was not her fault, no matter how much she may blame herself. She had
been raised to believe in God, a God that wants the best for His
children. She went to temple and Hebrew school and did all the things
that she was told that she should to make God happy. But still
something horrible happened to her.
What happened to me was not what happened to Andrea, but I cannot say
that it was more or less bad. No one hurt me, no one touched me.
Nothing like that. Just like what happened to Andrea, what happened to
me should not happen to any child, it is just simply not fair…or at
least that is what all of the adults around me have always said. I
remember wondering why people said that, why how I was feeling would
change if I were older. Why it would be less horrible and wrong and
unfair. But I never told anyone that. I never knew it was something
someone else thought. And then Andrea wrote this:
"…I cried because I wanted God to know something had happened and I was
a child and I wanted God to say why it was less bad if I wasn't a child
because I was still the same me if I was or if I wasn't…. And for the
first time I wanted to be grown up because all the adults said it was
less bad."
We discussed at length in class early in the semester why we feel,
collectively as a society and as a microcosm of that society, our
class, that horrible things are more horrible when they happen to a
child. We tried to explain it but we never really quite got there. I
know that I never have.
I do know that like young Andrea, I was angry at God. I had to blame
someone because something happened TO me, something that I could not
blame myself for, or so everyone told me. At least Andrea had a
tangible person to blame, a man who had hurt her. But still, she did
not know that man, that man did not know her. God knows her, God
created her, God is supposed to watch over her. If there is a God, if
God really loves us, then why does He let horrible things happen? Why
does He let them happen to children? Was it really that He was looking
away for a second like Andrea thinks? Was He too busy to notice what
was happening to us? Or was He there, letting it happen?
for one reason or another, as is my custom with most books. In going
back over the pages, I noticed that I had unwittingly marked mostly
quotes that correlated to each other, quotes about God and faith. I was
raised Roman Catholic, and attended Catholic school for 14 years. I
took theology class every day and went to mass at least once a week. I
was raised to believe.
But sometimes things happen that shake your faith, and I think that
because I have had that experience, I can relate to some of the things
that not-Andrea expresses. True, a lot of her quotes are blasphemous,
and most likely meant simply to shock. Those words are expressed by
Andrea the adult, the angry woman, lashing out. The words that struck
me the most came from Andrea the child, the part of the story that I
see most as being autobiographical.
Andrea had something happen to her when she was young. I want to
emphasize happen TO her because what occurred was out of her control.
It was not her fault, no matter how much she may blame herself. She had
been raised to believe in God, a God that wants the best for His
children. She went to temple and Hebrew school and did all the things
that she was told that she should to make God happy. But still
something horrible happened to her.
What happened to me was not what happened to Andrea, but I cannot say
that it was more or less bad. No one hurt me, no one touched me.
Nothing like that. Just like what happened to Andrea, what happened to
me should not happen to any child, it is just simply not fair…or at
least that is what all of the adults around me have always said. I
remember wondering why people said that, why how I was feeling would
change if I were older. Why it would be less horrible and wrong and
unfair. But I never told anyone that. I never knew it was something
someone else thought. And then Andrea wrote this:
"…I cried because I wanted God to know something had happened and I was
a child and I wanted God to say why it was less bad if I wasn't a child
because I was still the same me if I was or if I wasn't…. And for the
first time I wanted to be grown up because all the adults said it was
less bad."
We discussed at length in class early in the semester why we feel,
collectively as a society and as a microcosm of that society, our
class, that horrible things are more horrible when they happen to a
child. We tried to explain it but we never really quite got there. I
know that I never have.
I do know that like young Andrea, I was angry at God. I had to blame
someone because something happened TO me, something that I could not
blame myself for, or so everyone told me. At least Andrea had a
tangible person to blame, a man who had hurt her. But still, she did
not know that man, that man did not know her. God knows her, God
created her, God is supposed to watch over her. If there is a God, if
God really loves us, then why does He let horrible things happen? Why
does He let them happen to children? Was it really that He was looking
away for a second like Andrea thinks? Was He too busy to notice what
was happening to us? Or was He there, letting it happen?
Violence
What stood out most on our topic of violence is whether the
reciprocation of violence would make a difference. Throughout history we
have seen that a war is at times necessary and I could understand why
Andrea Dworkin would want war on the issues of womanhood, yet this is a
topic of morality and the struggle of power between two sexes. If a
woman retaliates with violence against abuse for revenge, the cycle
continues. Looking in retrospect at her decision to take freedom from
the expectations of a woman by assuming a life as a prostitute only led
her to more hurt and in turn it never freed her from her past. This
certainly applies to the ideal that just because you reciprocate the
action that was done to you, it does not bring healing. I am thankful
for women's rights that stand against domestic violence, rape,
harassment, and suppression of a woman. I recognize that this book
certainly makes you think about what is the limit in violence or
toleration of violence in sex or society overall.
reciprocation of violence would make a difference. Throughout history we
have seen that a war is at times necessary and I could understand why
Andrea Dworkin would want war on the issues of womanhood, yet this is a
topic of morality and the struggle of power between two sexes. If a
woman retaliates with violence against abuse for revenge, the cycle
continues. Looking in retrospect at her decision to take freedom from
the expectations of a woman by assuming a life as a prostitute only led
her to more hurt and in turn it never freed her from her past. This
certainly applies to the ideal that just because you reciprocate the
action that was done to you, it does not bring healing. I am thankful
for women's rights that stand against domestic violence, rape,
harassment, and suppression of a woman. I recognize that this book
certainly makes you think about what is the limit in violence or
toleration of violence in sex or society overall.
Positive Punishment
In psychology, there are four basic types of conditioning that can
result in changes in behavior. They are positive reinforcement, negative
reinforcement, positive punishment, and negative punishment.
Reinforcement involves a conditioning that increases the execution of an
act. Punishment involves a conditioning that decreases the execution of
an act. Positive conditioning involves presenting a stimulus that either
reinforces or punishes. Negative conditioning involves eliminating a
stimulus, and thus either reinforcing or punishing. All four are
effective in experiments with animals. Yet ever modern psychological
standard calls for only positive reinforcement to be used in shaping
human behavior.
The reason for this is simple. This focus on punitive damages, this
idea that you change the world by hurting those who are making it
imperfect - it's dangerous. It's ineffective. It's violence begetting
violence. I don't believe in evil, and so I don't believe in evil
people. Hell, I don't even believe in free will. There is only
causality. And when we inhabit a society where people are caused to do
awful, terrible things to women, that's a world that should be changed.
But I don't think you can really change it by punishing those people who
have wronged us. You lock up one rapist, and you take him off the
streets. You kill that rapist, and you ensure he'll never hurt anyone
ever again. There's something positive that comes from that, and that's
why it's important that we maintain a legal system that prevents
predators from committing their harmful acts. But just as capital
punishment has been statistically proven to present only an extremely
minor aversive effect and to largely not influence the rates of capital
punishment-worthy crimes, so too do punitive acts fail to really
accomplish what our goals should be. I don't plan to discipline my
children my spanking them. Why would I discipline a rapist by killing
them, or torturing them, or hitting them?
There's something wrong here, and it's salient and it's important and
it should be dealt with. And as I said in my project, I get why there's
a reason to be angry, and I get why you might want to stand up and say,
"You should be angry too, and I'm going to make you that way." But is
that really the path we want to go down? Is that really what will be
best for us in the long run? I don't know. I hope not.
result in changes in behavior. They are positive reinforcement, negative
reinforcement, positive punishment, and negative punishment.
Reinforcement involves a conditioning that increases the execution of an
act. Punishment involves a conditioning that decreases the execution of
an act. Positive conditioning involves presenting a stimulus that either
reinforces or punishes. Negative conditioning involves eliminating a
stimulus, and thus either reinforcing or punishing. All four are
effective in experiments with animals. Yet ever modern psychological
standard calls for only positive reinforcement to be used in shaping
human behavior.
The reason for this is simple. This focus on punitive damages, this
idea that you change the world by hurting those who are making it
imperfect - it's dangerous. It's ineffective. It's violence begetting
violence. I don't believe in evil, and so I don't believe in evil
people. Hell, I don't even believe in free will. There is only
causality. And when we inhabit a society where people are caused to do
awful, terrible things to women, that's a world that should be changed.
But I don't think you can really change it by punishing those people who
have wronged us. You lock up one rapist, and you take him off the
streets. You kill that rapist, and you ensure he'll never hurt anyone
ever again. There's something positive that comes from that, and that's
why it's important that we maintain a legal system that prevents
predators from committing their harmful acts. But just as capital
punishment has been statistically proven to present only an extremely
minor aversive effect and to largely not influence the rates of capital
punishment-worthy crimes, so too do punitive acts fail to really
accomplish what our goals should be. I don't plan to discipline my
children my spanking them. Why would I discipline a rapist by killing
them, or torturing them, or hitting them?
There's something wrong here, and it's salient and it's important and
it should be dealt with. And as I said in my project, I get why there's
a reason to be angry, and I get why you might want to stand up and say,
"You should be angry too, and I'm going to make you that way." But is
that really the path we want to go down? Is that really what will be
best for us in the long run? I don't know. I hope not.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Rape Revenge and the Death Penalty
Whether or not revenge for rape is right or wrong is in itself a
matter of whether or not you agree with revenge in the first place.
Although Andrea killed men for her own personal revenge, I do believe
rapists should be met with the death penalty. The death penalty isn't
revenge necessarily, but rather punishment and preventing a reoccurring
tragedy from happening if the perpetrator was released from jail or
otherwise just have them sitting in jail for life, the same person
capable of why they are there in the first place. I consider rape just
as serious a crime as murder or the other crimes met with capital
punishment (federally: espionage, treason, trafficking in large
quantities of drugs; attempting, authorizing or advising the killing of
any officer, juror, or witness in cases involving a Continuing Criminal
Enterprise, regardless of whether such killing actually occurs; and
aircraft hijacking, aggravated assault by incarcerated, persistent
felons, or murderers, aggravated kidnapping, to name a few other
statutes). I think charging rapists with the death penalty fits the
crime because although they may not have physically taken someone's
life, they certainly have robbed them of the quality of life and victims
may feel as though some part of them has died inside emotionally or
psychologically. Rape victims often experience lingering hardships
after the rape, including, but not limited to post traumatic stress
disorder, depression, unwanted pregnancy or abortion (if women), sleep
or eating disorders, suicide, sexually transmitted infections, and
turning to substance abuse to consider a few. Rape victims also often
have feelings of guilt, embarrassment, and shame. All of these effects,
not to mention a decreased trust in humankind, so severely diminish
quality of life that the perpetrator of this crime should certainly be
sentenced to death in order to prevent future crimes. Although prison
sentences of convicted rapists are very varied across the nation, I was
shocked to find the national average for years in prison was very low.
I would imagine at the time of this novel the punishment was probably
even less severe and even shorter jail times were served. As soon as
they are released from prison they can go back into society and
disappear. In class, someone brought up the use of hormone therapy to
"rehabilitate" rapists but rape is an act of control – something
psychological – rapists don't want to just have sex with a bunch of
people (generally), they want to assert dominance and control someone.
I think it was wrong for Andrea to kill random people she didn't
necessarily know for certain to have raped people, but I do think that
she was doing other women like her a service by getting rid of a threat
to their life.
matter of whether or not you agree with revenge in the first place.
Although Andrea killed men for her own personal revenge, I do believe
rapists should be met with the death penalty. The death penalty isn't
revenge necessarily, but rather punishment and preventing a reoccurring
tragedy from happening if the perpetrator was released from jail or
otherwise just have them sitting in jail for life, the same person
capable of why they are there in the first place. I consider rape just
as serious a crime as murder or the other crimes met with capital
punishment (federally: espionage, treason, trafficking in large
quantities of drugs; attempting, authorizing or advising the killing of
any officer, juror, or witness in cases involving a Continuing Criminal
Enterprise, regardless of whether such killing actually occurs; and
aircraft hijacking, aggravated assault by incarcerated, persistent
felons, or murderers, aggravated kidnapping, to name a few other
statutes). I think charging rapists with the death penalty fits the
crime because although they may not have physically taken someone's
life, they certainly have robbed them of the quality of life and victims
may feel as though some part of them has died inside emotionally or
psychologically. Rape victims often experience lingering hardships
after the rape, including, but not limited to post traumatic stress
disorder, depression, unwanted pregnancy or abortion (if women), sleep
or eating disorders, suicide, sexually transmitted infections, and
turning to substance abuse to consider a few. Rape victims also often
have feelings of guilt, embarrassment, and shame. All of these effects,
not to mention a decreased trust in humankind, so severely diminish
quality of life that the perpetrator of this crime should certainly be
sentenced to death in order to prevent future crimes. Although prison
sentences of convicted rapists are very varied across the nation, I was
shocked to find the national average for years in prison was very low.
I would imagine at the time of this novel the punishment was probably
even less severe and even shorter jail times were served. As soon as
they are released from prison they can go back into society and
disappear. In class, someone brought up the use of hormone therapy to
"rehabilitate" rapists but rape is an act of control – something
psychological – rapists don't want to just have sex with a bunch of
people (generally), they want to assert dominance and control someone.
I think it was wrong for Andrea to kill random people she didn't
necessarily know for certain to have raped people, but I do think that
she was doing other women like her a service by getting rid of a threat
to their life.
Question
Where in the book did Andrea admit having feelings or characteristics similar to Nazis? I believe we talked about this in class. It is not feelings toward Jews, but she confesses to relating to Nazi hatred, I believe.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Is Mercy Pornography?
The first part of answering this question is to ask with another
question: what is pornography? If the direct definition of pornography
is "a printed or visual material containing the explicit description
or display of sexual organs or activity" then firstly, there is a more
porn on television, in magazines and in movies than just what the porn
industry creates. This question based on the straight definition of
pornography does indeed qualify Mercy as such because it does very
explicitly describe sexual organs AND activities. Andrea Dworkin, being
a writer, was probably aware of this definition of porn. I think she
wrote the book knowing some would see it as pornographic. Whether or not
she did actually do this intentionally, it certainly drew more attention
to the novel. At first glance it seems very ironic that this woman who
abhors pornography and reprimands it in the novel, naming it as one of
the big contributors to sexual violence. I believe that by making Mercy
rather pornographic she paints a picture of the way she sees pornography
– a violence inducing industry contributing to the treatment of women
like Andrea.
question: what is pornography? If the direct definition of pornography
is "a printed or visual material containing the explicit description
or display of sexual organs or activity" then firstly, there is a more
porn on television, in magazines and in movies than just what the porn
industry creates. This question based on the straight definition of
pornography does indeed qualify Mercy as such because it does very
explicitly describe sexual organs AND activities. Andrea Dworkin, being
a writer, was probably aware of this definition of porn. I think she
wrote the book knowing some would see it as pornographic. Whether or not
she did actually do this intentionally, it certainly drew more attention
to the novel. At first glance it seems very ironic that this woman who
abhors pornography and reprimands it in the novel, naming it as one of
the big contributors to sexual violence. I believe that by making Mercy
rather pornographic she paints a picture of the way she sees pornography
– a violence inducing industry contributing to the treatment of women
like Andrea.
Friday, April 27, 2012
Enough Is Enough
From the excerpt read during the last class, I agree that violence is always wrong. Although Andrea had to face several hardships throughout life, I do not think that revenge is a reasonable solution. I think it is important to expose your anger and frustration instead of bottling it up inside; however, Andrea should have chose a more peaceful means of doing so. Having someone to talk to is a great means of escape for the angry and upset. Andrea has lived a very dark life, but it is never too late to turn it around. She should have avoided revenge and focused on making her life better for herself. By taking revenge, she defines herself as a victim. Enough is enough. If Andrea wanted a better life, she could have made better choices. She still has the freedom of will and can be free of rape. Even though Andrea will never forget the times when she was raped, she should have tried her best to not let it govern most of her actions in the future.
Rape Culture
One of the points that I find to be the most evident in the novel is
the rape culture within our society. It is so sad to me that women are
afraid to report being raped because they fear that they will be judged,
people will think they are lying, or they will be told that they were
"asking for it". Why should women have to feel like they can't go out
and wear what they want because they will be put in danger? It is
frustrating that our society tells us "don't get raped instead of don't
rape."
I know rape is a very complex crime to prove and is a sensitive matter
to work with. I just wish that people would stop blaming the victim and
keep the rapists accountable.
the rape culture within our society. It is so sad to me that women are
afraid to report being raped because they fear that they will be judged,
people will think they are lying, or they will be told that they were
"asking for it". Why should women have to feel like they can't go out
and wear what they want because they will be put in danger? It is
frustrating that our society tells us "don't get raped instead of don't
rape."
I know rape is a very complex crime to prove and is a sensitive matter
to work with. I just wish that people would stop blaming the victim and
keep the rapists accountable.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Sex filling the void for women with low self esteem
When reading Mercy, I found myself feeling such sympathy for Andrea.
She barely had a childhood. She spent most of her life being taken
advantage of, abused, and not valued at all. Andrea expresses her
emotions in such a way that it seems as though she has no self worth.
She does not value herself because no one else ever has. I think the
saddest part of that is that it most likely fed into the vicious cycle
of being sexually assaulted and treated in a demeaning manor. She has
low self esteem so she puts herself in situations where she can receive
any kind of validation, no matter how momentary, so she can feel better
about herself. Also, she does not seem to feel like she is good enough
to deserve any better.
It is so sad to read this because I find that in real life there are
many similar situations. Women with low self esteems use sex to fill the
void. They want to feel desirable and will do whatever (or whoever) it
takes so they can feel that way. So many women think that their bodies
are their only assets and that they are not worth anything more. I think
this is such a travesty and it was definitely hard to read Andrea's
tales of emotional distress.
She barely had a childhood. She spent most of her life being taken
advantage of, abused, and not valued at all. Andrea expresses her
emotions in such a way that it seems as though she has no self worth.
She does not value herself because no one else ever has. I think the
saddest part of that is that it most likely fed into the vicious cycle
of being sexually assaulted and treated in a demeaning manor. She has
low self esteem so she puts herself in situations where she can receive
any kind of validation, no matter how momentary, so she can feel better
about herself. Also, she does not seem to feel like she is good enough
to deserve any better.
It is so sad to read this because I find that in real life there are
many similar situations. Women with low self esteems use sex to fill the
void. They want to feel desirable and will do whatever (or whoever) it
takes so they can feel that way. So many women think that their bodies
are their only assets and that they are not worth anything more. I think
this is such a travesty and it was definitely hard to read Andrea's
tales of emotional distress.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Stop all this Sex
Looking through the class's blog posts and sitting in classroom discussions, it is hard not to notice the distinct role sexuality plays not only in "Mercy," but in our everyday lives as well. Perhaps I personally don't commit as much thought and time to the matter because I was not abused at a young age as Andrea was, but I see a clear difference in the amount of sex-related topics I feel comfortable discussing. It seems as if I am in the minority when I say that sexuality does not really play a huge role in my life. I don't fixate upon it, I'm not dying to have a boyfriend, I certainly don't partake in porn or other "self pleasing" activities. I find this normal. My life revolves around my education, my familial, social, and professional relationships, and my hobbies. Funny enough, sex doesn't really fit in there.
My classmates write of their horror at gender typing (and I have certainly contributed my thoughts on the porn industry and the gender inequality), but past my disdain for things that perpetuate the subservience of women, I don't often think about it. Could it be that I have been desensitized by the sexualization of society through media? Is this how children grow up? Perhaps I'm just an oddity. More likely, however, kids grow up around a pop culture that flaunts sexuality at every turn. Kids see Rihanna, half-dressed, singing "rude boy, can you get it up?" and expect that they too should act this way.
I don't know if this is a trend, but it definitely seems like the little kids I used to babysit that now have facebooks (at 11, really?) full of pictures of them and their friends in suggestive poses. Personally, I hope this is an isolate incident. Some rally around sexual liberation for women, but I'm a fan of personal space. Sex is something I believe should be kept behind close doors, and for the sake of younger generations, out of the media.
My classmates write of their horror at gender typing (and I have certainly contributed my thoughts on the porn industry and the gender inequality), but past my disdain for things that perpetuate the subservience of women, I don't often think about it. Could it be that I have been desensitized by the sexualization of society through media? Is this how children grow up? Perhaps I'm just an oddity. More likely, however, kids grow up around a pop culture that flaunts sexuality at every turn. Kids see Rihanna, half-dressed, singing "rude boy, can you get it up?" and expect that they too should act this way.
I don't know if this is a trend, but it definitely seems like the little kids I used to babysit that now have facebooks (at 11, really?) full of pictures of them and their friends in suggestive poses. Personally, I hope this is an isolate incident. Some rally around sexual liberation for women, but I'm a fan of personal space. Sex is something I believe should be kept behind close doors, and for the sake of younger generations, out of the media.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
The War on Sex
The other day I, while I was going for my morning run (dressed, of
course, in my standard baggy jeans and loose-fitting sweater, ensuring
that my sexuality would be appropriately contained and my physical form
completely hidden from the outside world, lest its reveal attract the
curious eyes and inevitable objectification of my body by men and women
alike), I saw a most repugnant site. There, at the corner of my street -
MY street - were two young people engaging in an act I can only describe
as repulsive. Their lips were locked, their eyelids were fluttering,
their hands were being used to hold one another in a tight embrace. An
embrace, I say! Yes, they were madly in love, that was clear. Their
affection would have warmed my heart if only I hadn't been exposed to
it. But to kiss as they were! The horror! It was clear from one glance
that one was subservient to the other, as she was smaller and did not
have her arms completely wrapped around her partner. The acting out of
such disgusting gender roles, right in front of me, right in front of
any young children who might see them - I could hardly stand to bear it.
What if, at that very moment, an impressionable young man had been
walking down that very same street? Why, he would have seen the act and
promptly rushed home to mimic it, I have no doubt.
course, in my standard baggy jeans and loose-fitting sweater, ensuring
that my sexuality would be appropriately contained and my physical form
completely hidden from the outside world, lest its reveal attract the
curious eyes and inevitable objectification of my body by men and women
alike), I saw a most repugnant site. There, at the corner of my street -
MY street - were two young people engaging in an act I can only describe
as repulsive. Their lips were locked, their eyelids were fluttering,
their hands were being used to hold one another in a tight embrace. An
embrace, I say! Yes, they were madly in love, that was clear. Their
affection would have warmed my heart if only I hadn't been exposed to
it. But to kiss as they were! The horror! It was clear from one glance
that one was subservient to the other, as she was smaller and did not
have her arms completely wrapped around her partner. The acting out of
such disgusting gender roles, right in front of me, right in front of
any young children who might see them - I could hardly stand to bear it.
What if, at that very moment, an impressionable young man had been
walking down that very same street? Why, he would have seen the act and
promptly rushed home to mimic it, I have no doubt.
I could run no longer, not in the mood I had been forced into. I
returned to my house and sat on my couch, weary from the blasphemy. Did
the couple not understand what their show of affection entailed? Did
they not understand the harms of sexual expression? It was clear they
did not. I would make a note to pray for them later.
I turned on my television, hoping to flick through the channels until I
found a nice infomercial or an episode of Sesame Street (certainly not
Dora the Explorer or iCarly!). As I flipped through the channels, HBO
passed under my watchful gaze. I subscribe to it because it does
occasionally show some most enlightening documentaries. Well worth the
price, if I do say so myself. But at this moment, no documentary was
being aired. Instead, what I saw, to my abject horror, were two lovers
engaging in consensual sex! On my television! On my paid programming! In
my home! The man was on top of the woman, the scene was clearly from his
perspective. She was nothing more than a piece of meat, I could see that
so very quickly. Her moans were meant only to arouse, her words of
encouragement meant to show she was ready to be taken. She was an
object, not a person. She was being violated and used and it was right
there in my living room.
I could stand for it no longer. It was time to do something about this,
to fight these gender roles and lack of female empowerment. And I knew
just where to start - human sexuality. What else does more damage to the
battle for gender equality than sexual expression, I ask you? Not a
thing!
So I stormed to Tallahassee, making my way toward the capitol where I
knew I would meet the magnanimous Rick Scott, sitting atop his throne of
repression and social control. I knew just what I would say to him, had
been reciting it in my head for years. A prohibition of sexuality, there
was no way around it. Stifle sexual expression and you stifle the gender
inequality that results from it, the consequences flowed perfectly
naturally. Just as had been done with the war on drugs, I knew that by
fighting tooth and nail to maintain the illegality of all sexual
expression in the media and public places, that expression would be
prevented and society would prosper. Perhaps, if I was lucky, I'd be
able to spread the war on sex into the confines of personal space and
privacy, just as had been done with that war on drugs. One can only
hope, right?
Of course, on my way there, I first had to pass through the slums of
the city. I did so carefully, with my windows shut and my doors locked.
On the corner of one street, I saw a prostitute standing, watching my
car with a mixture of fear and hope. Her eye was blackened and her arms
showed the telltale signs of heroin abuse. She was frail and emotionally
absent. "Just the way she should be," I thought. Keep prostitution off
my streets! It was a horrible life and I knew that we as a society had
better keep it that way. After all, women selling their bodies? There is
no bigger roadblock on the road to female liberty than an act like that!
I made a note to call the police and report the prostitute as soon as I
was in a safer neighborhood.
Eventually, I reached Rick. Or, rather, his office. He was unavailable,
in some sort of meeting. Likely with only old white men present. His
secretary told me I would have to come back another day. I was
disappointed, but my resolve only strengthened. This was why my fight
was so important. Those men would never take women seriously. They would
just go home and watch that same HBO program I had seen earlier and
continue to objectify women in every part of their lives. To stop them,
I had to stop that process. I had to get rid of HBO. I had to get rid of
sexual expression. I had to get rid of sexuality.
And if I could do that, I knew without a doubt that I'd have made the
world a better, healthier place.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
I Know It When I See It
Porn is a touchy subject, no pun intended... Where is the line between healthy artistic expression and perverted obscenity? As shown in our class discussion, porn is completely subjective to both the creator and viewer. In the spirit of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, "I know it when I see it" captures this sentiment. No one can create a static definition of what constitutes the visual depiction of sex as pornography.
Religious extremists believe ANY visual portrayal of physical affection constitute pornography--even a simple kiss shown in PG movies is morally repulsive. On the other extreme, some view any porn as artistic expression of a basic element of humanity--sexuality. My personal views fall somewhere in between these two. I don't personally watch pornography and I don't think that people who do are terrible people.
But, I do have a problem with the objectification of a human being in 99.9999% percent of pornographic videos. Whether heterosexual or homosexual pornography, there is a distinct hierarchy of power that creates a distinction between sexual participants: a dominant and a subservient. This unequal power distribution places the dominant individual "in charge" of the sexual encounter and allows them to dictate the sexual experience of the other. In this way, the subservient participant adopts an inferior sexual role; an objectification that deems he/she as "less human." While viewers of porn may be unaware of this distortion of power, the act of watching the pornography subconsciously introduces this binary of superior/inferior into their mental ideology. Over time, this continued exposure desensitizes the viewer and they may display similar behavior in the real life. This possible realization of sexual objectification that is induced by pornography raises complicated questions about its relationship with violence and sexual crimes.
While porn isn't the root of rape and sexual violence in this country, it certainly isn't helping to eradicate the underlying issue of gender equality and human supremacy. Yes, it may be liberating and satisfying to some individuals. But, do these fleeting benefits of this institution outweigh the perpetuation of these corrupt ideologies and its potentially violent repercussions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)