‘men’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

DIY Frat Culture.

11.9.10 | No Comments »
Photo via Goldberg on flickr.

Photo via Goldberg on flickr.

The recent slew of sexual assaults on my own campus, and THE LINE’s own Hot Safe Spring Break program have gotten me thinking about fraternity culture and its representations. Often, the media portrays fraternities as a hotbed of high-risk behavior, including unsafe sex, excessive alcohol consumption and most horrifyingly, as an incubator for a generation of youth socialized into rape culture. Sometimes, I worry this is true –think about the recent events involving DKE at Yale.

However, as a woman who’s been involved in the ongoings of a fraternity throughout my college career, I beg to differ. The word ‘fraternity’ should not send tremors of fear through the bodies of young women, nor through the minds of their terrified teachers and parents. The word ‘fraternity’ simply means a community, regardless of whether brothers prefer playing beer pong, or sitting around making scary puppets out of cardboard. It is the unfortunate consequence of normative cultural beliefs and masculine ritual that they have become unsafe places for women, homosexual, trans and queer individuals.

(more…)

Hollaback! Launches Apps To Map Street Harassment

11.8.10 | No Comments »
A screen shot of Hollabacks app.

A screen shot of Hollaback's app.

Here at Where Is Your Line?, we have addressed a connection between street harassment and sexual violence over and over again. The silence around gender-based violence is extreme in regards to street harassment, a pervasive and ignored form of violence against women and LGBTQ people that anyone who has ever left their homes can surely talk about. The only way to end it is to talk about it- and that is something we strive for at THE LINE Campaign through our submissions, stickers, and screenings.

On November 8th, Hollaback!, an organization leading the movement to end street harassment, announced in the New York Times the launch of their groundbreaking smartphone apps.  The apps have the capability to track and map where and when harassment happens, in real time.

“Street harassment is a gateway crime. It is one of the most persistant and pervasive forms of gender-based violence, but it is rarely reported,” said Emily May, executive director of Hollaback!. It is also a fleeting crime, committed by strangers who too often disappear before action can be taken.  With no recourse, harassers are free to keep harassing, leaving victims to believe that harassment is part of city life.  Hollaback! doesn’t buy it. “We believe that taxes are the price you pay for living in the city, not street harassment,” said May.

When users sign into the iPhone app, they will be given choice to Hollaback! with or without a picture, describing the type of harassment: verbal, flashing, groping, assault, or other. A GPS mapping feature automatically tracks where the harassment is taking place, and maps it on iHollaback.org.  The user gets an email entitled “You Hollaback’ed!” and is encouraged to tell the rest of her story when she is safely back at her computer. The iPhone app will pilot in the U.S., with plans to expand internationally and onto other smartphone platforms.

(more…)

National Sexual Freedom Day is TODAY!

9.23.10 | 1 Comment »

This post originally appeared online at The Examiner.

Today the Woodhull Freedom Foundation, a non-profit dedicated to affirming sexual freedom as a fundamental human right, is celebrating Sexual Freedom Day with an all-day event at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.

Sexual Freedom Day highlights “the intersections between government policy and lawmaking, marriage, reproductive rights, personal relationships, child rearing, sexual orientation, gender identification, sexual expression, and sexual practice,” with Panelists including Bil Browning, Kenyon Farrow, Nina Hartley, Amber Hollibaugh, Mark Kernes, Ricci Levy, Dan Massey, Mia Mingus, Zack Rosen, RJ Thompson, Carmen Vasquez, Lawrence Walters, Lisa Weiner-Mahfuz, and Elizabeth Wood.

The Woodhull Freedom Foundation will also distribute its annual Vicki Awards today, given to individuals or organizations whose work and/or life embodies the mission and vision of the Woodhull Freedom Foundation to affirm sexual freedom as a fundamental human right. This year’s honorees are Bina Aspen & Martine Rothblatt, Dr. Deborah Taj Anapol, Kushaba Moses Mworeko, and Susan Wright.

  • Rothblatt, CEO of United Therapeutics, one of the creators of Sirius Satellite Radio, and author of Your Life Or Mine: How Geoethics Can Resolve The Conflict Between Public And Private Interests In Xenotransplantation, is a male-to-female transsexual. She and her wife Bina Aspen are vocal advocates for transgender issues.
  • Anapol is the founder of Love Without Limitsand author of Polyamory in the 21st Century (2010), Polyamory: The New Love Without Limits (1997) and The Seven Natural Laws of Love (2005) and cofounder of Loving More Magazine.
  • Mworeko is a gay man and international gay rights activist from Uganda currently seeking asylum in the United States after his country introduced laws making it a crime not to report gays and calling for the execution of homosexual men and women.
  • Wright is the founder of the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom and is a popular author of science fiction, art books, and pop-culture books.

Today’s events in DC conclude with w press conference at 3pm ET to release and discuss the foundation’s State of Sexual Freedom in the US, 2010 Report.

These are interesting times for sexual freedom, to be sure. This week alone…

Next week we head into the American Library Association’s annual Banned Book Week, where almost all of this year’s most frequently challenged books are on the list specifically for content about sex and sexuality, and next month is National Coming Day (October 11).

Today, meanwhile, is a very good day to ask yourself: What are you doing to stand up for sexual freedom in your community, in the United States, and around the world?

Teenage Dreams: Better in Dutch

9.14.10 | No Comments »
Photo via Pedro Ribeiro Simões on flickr.

Photo via Pedro Ribeiro Simões on flickr.

A new sociological study by Amy Schalet entitled ‘Sex, Love and Autonomy in the Teenage Sleepover’ demonstrates how much parental attitudes can influence teenage explorations of sexuality – particularly through an incisive comparison of the cultural attitudes towards sex in America and the Netherlands. The conclusion – Dutch parents seemed to have developed a respect and understanding of teenage sexuality while the state of America is pretty much a mess of sexual panic. Figures.

According to Schalet’s study, the Dutch take on teen sexuality is refreshingly calm and trusts in teenagers to make their own decisions and take responsibility for the consequences, rather than expounding the dangers of sexual conduct, punitively enforcing abstinence or imposing a moral/religious views about sex:

Dutch parents downplay the dangerous and difficult sides of teenage sexuality, tending to normalise it’. They speak of readiness (er aan toe zijn), a process of becoming physically and emotionally ready for sex that they believe young people can self-regulate, provided they’ve been encouraged to pace themselves and prepare adequately …They permit sleepovers, even if that requires an “adjustment” period to overcome their feelings of discomfort, because they feel obliged to stay connected and accepting as sex becomes part of their children’s lives.’ All of this is accompanied by easy access for both teens and adults for contraceptives and sexual healthcare.

Interestingly, this attitude, though much less rigorous and punitive than American attitudes, does not encourage a culture of unsafe, un-premeditated sex amongst teens. Rather, a 2005 survey of Dutch youth, ages 12 to 25 described their first time experiences as ‘well timed, within their control, and fun’, typically within monogamous, loving relationships. Furthermore, teen birth rates (between ages 15-17, as of 2007) are a whopping eight times lower than America, not to mention the low STD rates.

(more…)

Changing Minds

9.7.10 | No Comments »
Photo by Charlotte at flickr.

Photo by Charlotte at flickr.

As a feminist and an activist, I deal with a lot of ignorant and hateful people. When I tell people that I am a Women’s Studies major, I either get an eye roll or a lecture on how it is a useless area of academics. Recently, Miranda posted a great piece that touched a few buttons of men in the comment section. They don’t think men can stop rape. It was typical: nasty “you little ladies do not know what’s what and I (a self considered highly intelligent superior male) have to educate you in the error of your ways” thing, and it got me thinking about people who oppose actions taken in the movement against sexual assault/abuse/rape of women. Opponents of preventive education, anti-rape education, and ending violence against women and the social tendency to blame survivors often focus on three main myths:

  1. That few women are victims of sexual assault/rape/abuse.
  2. That people who are survivors of sexual violence are ever, in any way, at fault or instigators of the violence.
  3. That rape cannot occur in a relationship or with someone with whom the victim has had sex with before.

(more…)

The Y Factor: Getting Men Involved in the Movement to End Rape

8.23.10 | 14 Comments »

Men Can Stop Rape poster via TCADSV.

Men Can Stop Rape poster via TCADSV.

Here’s a scenario:  I’m out to dinner with a group of sophisticated, professional-type couples.  Someone asks me what I do and everyone politely pauses to listen to my response.  I respond that I’m a rape crisis intervention counselor and advocate for rape victim’s rights, and I can literally watch 50% of the group turn off, click, and nonchalantly start to chat amongst themselves about something else.  Meanwhile, the rest of the table will either make sympathetic sounds, perplexedly question why I would choose to “spend my time doing that,” or get wide-eyed and stare at me like I’ve cornered them and they’re planning an exit strategy.

The second group is usually comprised of the women.  The first group – the group of people that seems to think the topic of rape is irrelevant to their lives – consists of men.

By and large, rape prevention education is targeted towards girls and women, implying that rape is a “woman’s issue” and therefore, of no concern for boys.  This strategy has the damaging auxiliary effects of: 1) promoting the antiquated and dangerous belief that a woman is solely responsible for putting on the breaks during sexual activity, 2) communicating to boys and men that they need not concern themselves with such frivolous matters as consent, mutual fulfillment or sexual autonomy, and 3) thereby condoning sexual violence because, you know, boys will be boys.

(more…)

To Answer Jade’s Question…

8.20.10 | 2 Comments »
Photo via the Dr. Laura Program.

Photo via the Dr. Laura Program.

Dr. Laura, the “Number 1 Female Radio Talk Show Host” in America, is in trouble for her recent behavior on-air. When a woman named Jade called in to her show, it began a series of troubling, awkward, and-in the words of Dr. Laura herself- disturbing series of racially-charged events.

Starcasm reported:

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is in a whole lot of hot water after she repeatedly used the N-word while talking with a caller during her August 10 radio show.

The profanity insanity began when a woman called asking for help with her husband’s friends. She explained that she was black and her husband was white and that his friends often said racist things or pretended she wasn’t even there. Dr. Laura asked for examples and the caller said they often asked her “Oh, well, how do you black people like doing this?” and “Do black people really like doing that?”

Dr. Laura cut her off and said she didn’t believe that was racist. The caller eventually asked about the use of the n-word and Dr. Laura responded with the argument that the N-word was used all the time on HBO and that it was OK for black people to say it but not white people, which she thought was irrational. But, Dr. Laura didn’t say “N-word” she actually used the N-word! Repeatedly!

As you might expect, the caller was rather taken aback and it only got worse from there as Dr. Laura jumped up on a precarious soapbox, sharing her opinions on Barack Obama, “black-think” and the NAACP!

The transcript is available at the earlier link.

The blogosphere has been alive since the incident. Bloggers and activists everywhere are upset and troubled by the remarks. But everyone has forgotten about Jade: the woman who called for advice in the first place on what appears to be a troubling relationship. I wanted to answer Jade’s question:

Jade,

Your husband and his friends are out of line. You cannot summarize ANY group into a stereotype- I am concerned as to why they think that you should be the representative for an entire race. It seems a bit outrageous, but the fact that you and your husband fell in love and got married says to me that he is not a “hopeless case.” But he does not understand how offensive he and his friends are being, and it’s clear- so I would bring it up to him and simply state that although he might not see it that way, the questions and comments being directed to you are offensive. You do not speak for your whole race, and every member of your race does not agree exactly on all topics. Explain to him that it hurts your feelings, and that it is starting to make you question your relationship with him:  he should love you and respect your feelings. I mean, if he is like this with you, how would he be towards your children (assuming you have children or plan on having children)? His attitudes toward race are a joke, and this is something that needs to be dealt with now before it escalates and gets out of hand.

Do not keep quiet. Do not let it slide. Do not feel guilty. You deserve to be respected by your husband and his friends.

Is Hooking Up Hurting Our Heads?

8.18.10 | No Comments »
Photo via foundphotoslj on Flickr.

Photo via foundphotoslj on Flickr.

A new report, entitled “Sex and School: Adolescent Sexual Intercourse and Education,” is making huge waves in headlines. The study, completed by Bill McCarthy of the University of California Davis and Eric Grodsky of the University of Minnesota (two sociologists, I might add), collected data on youth intercourse, romantic and nonromantic, and youth performance in school.

Some research-style background: the study looked at school attachment, high school GPA, college aspiration, college expectations, problems in school, ever truant, the number of days truant, school sanctions (suspended/expelled), and dropping out. The research was completed with the intention of describing intercourse- which the researchers believe means the survey was primarily completed by those involved in the act of vaginal intercourse. Participants were allowed to self-identify as being in romantic or nonromantic relationships, and were responsible for making the distinction.

If you’ve read some mainstream coverage of the report, you’re probably very confounded by the data: people in relationships and people who abstain from sex do just fine in school (or, at least, do not find that intercourse disturbs their existing patterns academically) and people who hook up simply don’t? That can’t be!

Well, you are right. It isn’t.

Oliver Wang of The Atlantic explains where the coverage went wrong concisely in his article on the report:

Here’s an age-old beef between scientists (social or otherwise) and journalists: the former tend to be exceptionally careful about drawing conclusions from their research. It’s one thing to argue, “Data X and Data Y show a relationship,” it’s another thing altogether to actually argue, “Data X is the cause of Data Y.” This is what’s known as the correlation vs. causality distinction and it is absolutely fundamental to any kind of responsible research methodology and discussion.

The difference between a correlation and a cause may seem minor- after all, why not jump the bridge of conclusions and just make a statement, already?! – but it isn’t. Social scientists would not claim something was a cause if really, data was just correlated. Similarly, they would never call a cause a correlation if it was clear that causality existed. Such is science: you say what is scientifically and methodologically true.

And this is why everyone should actually be reading this report – instead of the coverage. (And why the journalists should pick up a copy, too.) Heather Corrina’s coverage of the report for Scarleteen elaborates on that fine distinction, and why the scientists themselves are not ready to make claims, about hooking up or its effects on student’s academic performance:

This study also can’t tell us much about the academic impact of “hookups” or “flings,” since it doesn’t talk about them nor were those terms used in the study, and adults reporting or classifying teen nonromantic relationships as such may be projecting or making unwarranted assumptions about teens’ nonromantic relationships in doing so. We cannot say what types of romantic or nonromantic relationships intercourse occurred in in the study. All one can state with authority is that the individuals in them either classified them as romantic or non-romantic and/or did or did not mark relationships as meeting the criteria in the list above. Some of the intercourse reported as non-romantic may well have occurred, and probably did occur, in “casual sex” contexts like one-night stands. However, some may have occurred in friends-with-benefits scenarios, via open romantic relationships, or in brand-new relationships which the participants did not yet engage in the above behaviours or don’t yet classify as romantic, or other possibilities. But to classify the non-romantic sex as being about any one kind of relationship, beyond merely non-romantic, is poor reporting and is not supported by the study.

The authors do not ever, in presenting their results, use the word “cause” to connect sex & academic outcomes – they use “relationship” or “association” or “correlation.” This study does NOT show that any kind of sex causesanything to do with academic outcomes, only that some academic outcomes or attitudes do or do not occur when teens are also having intercourse or not having intercourse in certain contexts. Something else McCarthy explained to me was that “the GPA and other outcome data are form the subsequent year so they do have temporal order and correct for selection into sex; however,that selection is not random so we can’t really talk about cause.”

The truth about hooking up and school is that nobody knows how hooking up will effect our performance in the classroom, because that isn’t what this study was about. But in the coverage of the piece, it has become obvious that preconceived notions about sexuality and relationships are present in the pens of journalists.

I may not be a scientist, but I’d like to make some suggestions based on the findings of this report: get some, and get smart.

Breaking the Cycle of Toxic Relationships

8.16.10 | No Comments »

Photo via Robert Vitulano on Flickr.

From time to time I like to browse on Cosmopolitan’s online website for various reasons. The other night I came upon an article about breaking the cycles of toxic relationships:

“We were shocked when we heard that the first guy Rihanna seriously dated after Chris Brown had been accused of domestic abuse by an ex-girlfriend. After everything she went through, it would seem as if she’d be repulsed by men with that kind of reputation.

Turns out, the opposite is more likely to be true. “Most of us have a relationship pattern — that same type of guy we keep falling for — and it can work for or against us,” says couples therapist Deborah Dunn, author of Stupid About Men. “It’s not uncommon for women to keep going back to the type that wronged them in the past.” How do you change whom you’re drawn to dating? It’s not easy, but it starts with figuring out where your attraction to these guys came from in the first place. …

All guys have less-than-admirable moments, but there are major tip-offs that your type is bad for you. Consistently feeling worse about yourself as you become more involved with a boyfriend is a giveaway that something isn’t right, says Diana Kirschner, PhD, author of Love in 90 Days. Other red flags: feeling like you have to walk on eggshells around a guy and dropping everything to spend time with him even though he’s proven he wouldn’t do the same for you. And while only you know what your relationships are really like, pay attention if your friends and family disapprove of every man you date, says Gratch.

To alter whom you’re attracted to, you need to believe that what you’ve experienced isn’t how love has to or should be, says Dunn. Ask friends who are happy in their relationships to describe how their guy behaves toward them so you can hear what you’re missing out on. Or if you’re coming off yet another bad breakup, consider seeing a therapist to make peace with the guy who originally wronged you, recommends Kirschner. For extra motivation, picture what your life could be like in 10 years if you’re still choosing men who treat you badly versus men who will care for you in a positive way. Which future do you want?”

After reading this article, I immediately thought about the recent discussions about the “Love the Way you Lie” video by Eminem and Rihanna. I, like Melissa D., was not completely shocked and appalled by the video. Growing up, I have seen many men abuse the women in their lives: my uncle went to jail for physically hurting his wife, and as his children grew up, many of them followed the same path. The oldest of the bunch went to prison for robbery and attempted murder, while the others either became pregnant or developed substance addictions.

I was always taught by my family that if you choose to defend yourself in any situation, you must be able to deal with the consequences- regardless if it led to any physical violence. My brother had a drug addiction and his mood would change constantly- while under the influence, he would often pick fights with me, and I was always the headstrong type, so I naturally argued back with him. He would hurt me, but my parents chose to ignore it because they believed in keeping family issues private and felt I should be obedient, as a woman. I chose to keep my mouth shut instead of speaking up, from that time on.

Looking back at my high school years, I realized that in every relationship that I was in, I always tried to please my partner regardless of their choices and preferences. I always felt immediate attraction to those who were sweet and nice, but when I began a relationship with them, I began to see the negative. (However, I still believed that the “sweet and nice” guy would somehow appear again.)

This article is right in asking, “what future do you want?” We must picture the women we want to be and strive for it. Having a relationship is a beautiful experience, but you must be able to see yourself without anyone else: to have a strong relationship, you must strive to be strong, and always prioritize your health and happiness above all else.

Hey, Bill O’Reilly, Tune In!

8.12.10 | 3 Comments »

Photo via Fox News.

Jennifer Aniston’s new film, “Switch,” is a tale with a provocative beginning: a turkey baster. Her character in the movie uses artificial insemination to have a child alone. That’s right – alone. No boyfriend, no, girlfriend, no partner, no husband, no wife.

“Switch” is about a single mother (and, even though it is a love story, attempts to encompass the theme of choosing to be a mother, alone). For real. And that’s why Aniston did it. In a recent interview, she said:

“Love is love and family is what is around you and who is in your immediate sphere. That is what I love about this movie. It is saying it is not the traditional sort of stereotype of what we have been taught as a society of what family is.”

It’s important that we realize, firstly, that pregnancy, motherhood, and sexuality are closely related. The same gender injustices that plague the openly sexual, the sexually “deviant,” and those affected by sexual violence also impact our understanding and cultural perception of pregnant and parenting women.

And single mothers are always under attack: reports each day, month, and year blame children’s drug addictions, killing habits, and gang violence on single-parent families; the government is constantly snipping away at the economic security of women who aren’t dependent on men, but do need assistance (and recently cut diapers from the Food Stamps list); and now, Bill O’Reilly has some choice words for Aniston and “Switch.” According to ABC News, he thinks Aniston’s film is to blame for destroying the “American Family.”

In O’Reilly’s eyes, Aniston’s comments make her a threat to the American family.

“She’s throwing a message out to 12-year-olds and 13-year-olds that ‘Hey, you don’t need a guy. You don’t need a dad.’ That is destructive to our society,” he said on Tuesday’s “O’Reilly Factor.”

Fox News contributor Margaret Hoover and Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson chimed in on the topic, agreeing with O’Reilly that teens and tweens can’t understand the difference between a mature woman raising a child on her own (Aniston is 41) and a teen having a baby.

“She is glamorizing single parenthood,” Carlson said.

As usual, I’m going to break this down for you: Bill O’Reilly, a conservative white dude from who-cares-where America with a talk show and a sexual harassment suit under his belt, thinks that the film “Switch,” a light-hearted piece about single parenthood starring a fully adult woman, is going to destroy the American family, encourage teen pregnancy, and diminish the importance of fatherhood. He also asserted this while giving single moms about .05 percent of that screen time, filling it with lip service about how “abandoned” mothers do great things every day (presumably, like finding new husbands).

To that, I have much to say.

I was raised by a single mother from the age of four on. This has made me appreciate the importance of love in families, of close-knit and open families, of talking and of appreciating the ones you’re with. I am hardworking because my mother was hardworking, and how: she works a  humble job and sent my brother and I to immensely prestigious private colleges, all with relatively no money or power to ease our growth. We grew up simple and humble. We studied hard and we had a lot of support and a strong sense of values. We are ambitious and intelligent. We stand head-and-shoulders above many of our peers from married families.

My father, on the other hand, is about as in-tune with my family as Bill O’Reilly himself. Normally, this isn’t something I talk about or throw out there, but it’s necessary now. Right now. Right when movies are finally being made that don’t show single mothers shooting drugs and fucking up their lives. Right when actresses who are single adults are unafraid to admit that they will still pursue families. Right when the stigma and shame of being a single parent remains threatened by people like Bill O’Reilly- by straight, white dudes who treat women like shit and want to ensure that all families make room for men, no matter how violent or unloving those men are.

Bill O’Reilly said that single mothers do great things. He was right. Single parents, and especially single mothers, do great things every day. But Bill O’Reilly doesn’t mean it, and he should. I’m interested in how many of the following things O’Reilly knows: that single mothers on welfare complete their Bachelor’s and Master’s Degrees, JD’s and Ph.D.’s every day; that single mothers feed entire families while working full-time jobs, often without a hitch; and that when there are hitches, single moms everywhere have proven, year after year and budget cuts after budget cuts, that they have no time to wait on anyone else, and that they will accomplish what they need to – no matter what the time spent, effort involved, or obstacles thrown.

As someone who has been working to empower women in her local communities for some time (not a long time, but certainly longer than Bill O’Reilly), it is hard for me to watch anyone incorrectly summarize what empowerment looks like. There are many routes to empowering women – especially single mothers, who are caught at many intersections of oppression.

For example, single mothers are going to be more likely to be poor than married women, no matter how many children those married women have. Why? The wage gap. If women are already paid less than men, how can women without men in their lives even dream of competing on equal footing? So we need economic empowerment: financial literacy, equal pay, flex-time, and family-friendly workplaces that do not punish working parents.

Similarly, teen mothers (who, unbeknownst to panelists on the O’Reilly Factor, become adult women in no time) face hurdles in completing their educations, and therefore often slip into poverty. So we need educational empowerment: equal access to educational resources, increased scholarships, outreach to women in non-traditional fields of interest, and networking opportunities for everyone in the working world.

Lastly, single mothers also need supports that all women, regardless of familial status, need: cultural equality, healthy and non-violent relationships, workplaces that embrace female leadership, and full equality under the law.

It is hard to believe that “Switch” will actually destroy the American Family, but it may change some minds. It is giving single mothers a voice, and it may alter the way we, as a culture, perceive women who raise children by themselves. It may help us understand their unique situations and it will finally give people everywhere the chance to applaud their accomplishments. And that, I daresay, is not dangerous. Rather, I think it is very important.

It is also hard to believe that “Switch” is going to convince anyone that fatherhood is unimportant. It is hard to believe women at any time in our current economic and cultural state will choose to embark on a road of discrimination and oppression that is known as “single parenthood.” But it is just as hard to imagine that the problems women face have a solution called “fathers” or “husbands.” The solution is empowerment, and the ability to be heard.

Bill O’Reilly may work for a television network, but he’s tuned out to the realities of single motherhood – and it’s offensive.

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

All Posts Tagged ‘men’