And His Mama Cried

Much is being made of the Steubenville rape case, and the media’s reaction to it. I am heartened to hear how vocally disgusted most people seem to be with the rape apologists in the main stream media (and, holy lord, they are everywhere) and with all the sympathy given to the young rapists. Even the Yahoo! News comments section, where decency goes to die (it should really be their trademarked tagline), seems to be trending towards those wondering where in the world the sympathy and worry for the victim’s forever changed life is. *I am editing this to add that I have also seen plenty of victim-blaming, slut-shaming, and drunk-shaming happening, but this is not the majority of what I am seeing, and certainly none of that nonsense is on my Facebook feed or other places where I encounter people I like and respect.

   

The fact of the matter is, these young men’s lives are forever tarnished and ruined, but it is not because they received a well-deserved conviction for raping an intoxicated young woman who was slipping in and out of consciousness.  Not only did they violate her, they recorded it, photographed it, and sent it around as text messages. Some of their friends who did not participate in the actual sexual assault helped with continuing to degrade and devalue this young woman by laughing about it, recording it, and passing it along. She was not a person deserving of respect to them. She was an object to use however they pleased. All of the young men involved are guilty of that, and so help me, I wish they all had to spend a little time in juvenile detention and run around as registered sex offenders.

Yes, the two rapists will forever have to register as sex offenders. Some people seem to think that this is an injustice. I think the one year sentences are an injustice. In one year, are they going to learn to see other people as human beings worthy of kindness and gentleness, regardless of how female and/or drunk they may be? In one year, are we going to be able to undo the years of damage that a culture that cries at the INJUSTICE of their conviction for spending hours treating another human being as a prop has caused? Many people, particularly in the MSM, shake their heads and talk about what a shame it is that their lives are ruined, and that this will be with them for the rest of their days. Yet, where is the head shaking over the fact that they did it? These are not innocent youths wrongly convicted. These are boys who were taught that they were special and above the laws of the state and common human decency because they are athletically gifted. It is reported that they are good students as well. First of all, so what? Secondly, forgive me if I sound a little jaded here, but these kids had adults who were trying to cover up a GANG RAPE for them. Is it really so far-fetched that their grades could be padded? I’m sure they didn’t have to be model students to receive model student grades and perks. They may actually have been, and they may not have been, but it doesn’t change the fact that they REPEATEDLY VIOLATED A YOUNG WOMAN.

This fact is the real shame. They have ruined their own lives, and, more importantly, what they did to this girl will be with her for the rest of her life. Through no fault of her own, she was sexually assaulted, humiliated, and has to live with the fact that not only did all that happen to her, but that many people saw pictures and videos of her degradation. She will need counseling, she may very well end up with trust issues and issues around her own sexuality and sexual maturity, she is now at a much higher risk for suicide, depression, anxiety, and eating disorders, amongst other issues. Let me repeat that first part for the slow people in the audience, THROUGH NO FAULT OF HER OWN. Being drunk, being high, wearing something alluring, wearing red lipstick, walking home in the dark, going anywhere alone, hanging out with guys, etc. etc. are actually not versions of consent.

Men do not rape women for these reasons. They are the red herrings of a culture of rape apologists, and every lawyer who has ever defended a guilty rapist thanks society for creating them. Rapists may use these things as excuses, but rape is about control and seeing someone as less than you. When someone violates another human being, it is not because they were so irresistibly drawn to that person that they couldn’t help themselves, or they were confused about whether someone who had vomited all over herself and was no longer conscious wanted to have sex. No. They do it because what they want is more important than what is right. They do it because they do not see any value in that person beyond what they want from him or her (yes, men get raped, too), and this, this is where we fail every time we talk about any rape, but specifically the Steubenville case.

We do not recognize that no one who sees past his own pleasure, no one who recognizes the value and dignity of other people beyond what those people can do for them, can harm another person the way they abused that girl, and, to make it more disgusting, they did it for fun. It was just a night of partying, and they expected to get away with it. Where I cry for these boys is at a more fundamental level. I cry that they were convinced that it is true that they cannot and should not have to control themselves around others. If they want it, they should take it, especially if it involves sex. After all, who doesn’t secretly want the golden boys, and how can they be asked to control themselves in the face of drunken availability? What a load of crap to sell those boys.  They can control themselves. They can treat a drunk girl the same way that they would likely treat their drunk buddies, which is get them to a safe place, put a bucket next to the bed, and tease them the next day by eating in front of them and making really loud noises.

 I read that one of the boys’ mothers became hysterical during sentencing. I hope she was crying not because of her son’s not remotely harsh enough punishment for his brutal actions, but because at some point he failed to grasp that you don’t hurt other people. People aren’t there for you to use however you please. If someone is at a disadvantage, self-inflicted or otherwise, you take care of them. I hope she wept because her son’s life was ruined long before he raped that girl. I hope she raged because he had become a person who thought it was fun to assault another human being. I hope his mama sobbed because she is ashamed and disappointed, not because he has to face the music for forever changing the life of a young woman. Mostly, I hope she cried for that girl, and all the others like her, who are raped by young men who have not been taught the value of another person.  

So, You're Not A Feminist

I’ve noticed a somewhat disturbing trend most of my life. Women about my age and younger proudly declaring they are not feminists. Women in college and in the workforce who wanted to let you know that when Rush Limbaugh hollered about feminazis who still gave a damn about equal pay for equal work they weren’t one of those women. After all, they liked men. They had boys who were friends and boyfriends. Many later went on to have husbands, all the while letting the world know that we didn’t *need* feminism in the US of A, anymore. We have the right to vote and we can be anything we want to be, right?

Even then my head would spin right round, baby, right round like a record baby right round. First of all, why is there an assumption that women who care about equality regardless of one’s genitalia hate men? There is really absolutely nothing to support that assumption. We may dislike men who assume they have authority over us simply because they have penises (penii?) and we have, wait for it, VAGINAS, but that is actually more of a dislike of a cultural construct and an attitude than an entrenched hatred of, or even battle with, an entire sex. Also, just to be accurate and show my scholarly roots, it really is properly feminisms. We are privileged to not have to discuss things like access to health care (Wait no, that’s not right...), equality in the workforce (Hmmm… 70something cents on the dollar compared to men doing the exact. same. jobs?), equal representation in places of power (Ummmm, *some* counts, right?). Okay, seriously, we really do have it better than women in many other countries where women have far fewer choices than we do (Hey, at least we can drive ourselves places!), but we don’t do those women or ourselves any favors by pretending that inequality is dead in this country.

As a matter of fact, I would posit that the attitude by too many of my peers that we didn’t need feminism anymore has helped contribute to the current “war on women.” You don’t think it’s real? What about when a poorly written piece of legislation ends up requiring that you receive an additional ultrasound to relive the horror of your missed miscarriage before you get your D&C to clear everything out so that you don’t get an infection? How about when you have to supply a doctor’s note to you or your husband’s employer so that your prescribed medication that is actually part of your insurance plan can be covered by your insurance? Mind you, the insurance plan already has any pertinent information. This little violation of your privacy would just be so your employer feels better about what you and your doctor have decided is best for you. You wouldn’t have to do it for heart or cholesterol medicine. That would be against the law, but it’s okay to violate HIPAA if it involves your lady parts. We can’t name them too many times. The wives of Republican lawmakers in MI might read the word vagina and that would be awful. Many in my generation, and those that have come after, quit fighting for things to get better because they were afraid of being accused of unsavory things, content with their lot, or both, and in the process of declaring feminism dead and unnecessary, they put it on life-support and have made it more necessary than ever.

We have the worst maternity leave in the industrialized world. We have the worst protections for working moms. We have a pregnant woman named CEO of a major company (Yahoo!- both my exclamation upon hearing the news and the name of the company) who feels the need to announce that she isn’t even taking the substandard maternity leave that is mandated (Boo!). She’ll only take a few weeks, and she’ll work right through it. Some would argue that CEOs don’t get the same life-work balance as the rest of us, and I would say that that is actually a HUGE problem because a CEO who doesn’t have it usually sets the tone for the company. Life-work balance is absolutely necessary, and it is another area where the US sorely lags behind many other countries, but that is another blog post. Now, she absolutely has the right to work as much or as little as she sees fit. She has resources at her disposal that many other WOHM don’t. That little fact won’t matter to people who want to chase women out of the workforce by keeping our horrible maternity and family leave policies in place. They will point to this example and say, “See, you don’t need six weeks leave or accommodation for your severe sciatica! She didn’t need anything. If you can’t handle it, here’s the door or your glass ceiling. Have fun, dear.”

Some will also say, “This wouldn’t be a big deal if it were a man with a baby on the way.” That, unfortunately, is true. It is a big deal that she was pregnant, disclosed it, and was offered the job anyway because, despite the fact that it is 100% illegal, people discriminate against pregnant women when it comes to job offers and promotions on a daily basis. Expectant fathers don’t face the same bias, or frankly, the same pressure to be the parent who is there (again, this is a post for another day). I also happen to think it’s awful that new dads are rarely given, or expected to take, leave. It is required by law that they be allowed up to 12 weeks, unpaid, which is exactly what every company is legally required to offer women. Most women who take “paid” maternity leave have saved up their paid time off (vacation, sick days, personal days, etc.) to do it, and if they stay out the whole twelve weeks are likely taking at least some unpaid time off. 

The big problem is that it pits women against each other. Again. It has also brought up the whole SAHM vs. WOHM thing. Again. There are mothers out there with high-powered careers, and they would be being dishonest if they didn’t say that that meant sacrificing time with their children, just as the fathers with high-powered careers do. I would be being dishonest of I didn’t say that my decision to SAH has affected my lifetime earning potential, my ability, and even my desire to have a high-powered career. What American feminism has bought us is the ability to make these choices, and the ability to choose to not have a family at all if that isn’t right for us. What we seem to be missing is that not only are women in important positions still enough of an anomaly that it makes headlines for days, but that when they make it we have to debate all of their choices. Are they mothers (Whether or not one is a parent will always be mentioned for a woman, but not for a man)? If not, are they still of child-bearing age? If they are no longer able to have children and don’t have any, they will have far fewer distractions after all (again with the fact that the distraction of having children is not figured into the decision to hire an equally qualified man).  If they are mothers, let’s question their abilities both as mothers and as employees. We don’t debate the choices of the men who climb the corporate ladder. We don’t make men feel unwelcome and scrutinized just because they are men. We do it to women, though, and we call that a huge step in the right direction because they are even in the positions to begin with. This, my friends, is not the sign of a country that no longer needs feminism.

Also, it almost always comes down to appearances. People will mention how attractive (or not) the powerful woman is. It is rare to hear, “Steve Smith, the new CEO of ACME Sprockets is a bronzed, Greek god,” yet I do know the new CEO of Yahoo! is not only pregnant, but a “blonde beauty.” I can rest easier knowing that they didn’t hire some hag.

While we have many choices in this country thanks to those bra-burning, marching women (and those who came before them) whom so many of my sisters are afraid of resembling, we are backsliding. We need to make sure we have real choices. I choose to be a SAHM. Someone else chooses to have a career, with or without children. We are all respected for our choices, rather than criticized (within reason; if you kick puppies for a living, I will criticize you). Equal pay for equal work is a reality. We have access to healthcare unfettered by politics. Our bodies are not hyper-sexualized and air-brushed to the point that no one can meet those expectations. Rape is seen as a serious crime and not a messy “he-said/she-said” or “Well, you *were* wearing *that*!” These things, amongst many other feminist ideas, are my dream. We need to be vigilant. We need to take back our rights that our foremothers won and that are slipping away before our eyes, and fight for the rest, ladies. I *am* a feminist, and I am damn proud of it, and I think you should be too.  

Of Nail Polish, Kilts, and Glitter Shoes

You may have heard a very girly squee of delight this afternoon. My toddler allowed me to paint her toenails and then indicated that she would like her fingernails painted (I use child-safe, non-toxic nail polish). She then wanted to paint my nails. We did my toes, but as I have an injured finger, we stopped there. She is 16 months old. I know she has seen me paint my toenails on occasion, but never my fingernails. I just don’t do it, except for special occasions, because it lasts approximately .07 seconds. I have no idea where she came up with the idea to want her fingernails painted. She may have realized that I had just trimmed both her finger and toenails, so decided they should both be polished as well. Who knows? Now, I may have painted her toenails, never her fingernails, once or twice last summer for my own amusement *whistles innocently,* but she hasn’t seen the stuff since last June or July. Regardless, she wanted it, and I was VERY excited b/c this was a first for me.  My boys have witnessed me applying polish to my toenails before, and while they were interested in the process, they were never interested in having any on them. I know. I offered. There will be no J Crew catalog kerfuffle for me and my boys, at least not when it comes to nail polish. Anyhow, I was excited to have a child who WANTED nail polish. Squee!! Don’t take my feminist card just yet, though.

Gender identity vs biological sex and how they do and don’t intersect is one of my favorite topics. I’ll probably return to it many times as I write.  I have two sons and a daughter. My daughter is the youngest, and we didn’t know she was a girl until she entered the world. Well, my oldest son did, but that is a story for another day. Nearly as soon as people heard she was a girl, they began asking me if I noticed any differences between her and the boys. I have to say that other than the obvious biological/physical differences that there were no real differences at that age. Her voice was a little squeakier than either of her brothers’ voices had been, but they all sounded like newborns and infants when they were newborns and infants.  Even now, there are very few differences that I would say have to do with her being a girl, although there are some. How many of them are societal cues on which she has already picked up and how many are innate? If I could answer that question, I would be published the world over.

I have to admit to having been slightly annoyed when people would ask if my infant daughter was so very different from her brothers simply because she was a girl. When I had my second son, people didn’t ask me how different he was from his older brother, and, believe me, they are two very distinct little people. Why would any differences have to be attributed to her sex? She is her own little person, and while she is a little girl, she is also the baby of the family with two older siblings who dote on her. I would say her birth order may affect her personality as much as anything else. 

My oldest son wants a kilt because “That’s a skirt that men can wear,” he LOVES picking out dresses for me to wear, and he is obsessed w/ heroes of myth, legend, and pop culture. My younger son wears sparkly shoes because, hello, they are sparkly, and he prefers that his hair be as short as possible. My daughter plays with cars and dolls. She loves shoes. She really, really loves shoes. She will hug them and carry them around. She also likes to wear her brothers’ neckties.  All of these things are outward signifiers of gender in our society, but not one of them actually tells you whether they are comfortable in their own skin.

Without writing a long, gushy post about my children, I can tell you that they certainly seem to be very happy with themselves. That comfort to wear what they want, like what they want, and NOT have those things define who and what they are is something that my husband and I try very hard to provide for our children, so I think I can squee when my daughter likes nail polish, just like I gush when my younger son wears his sparkly shoes, or smile when my oldest son tries to talk me into wearing a ridiculously formal and dressy outfit for running errands. I also enjoy when my children all rough-house together, my youngest plays with trucks, my oldest runs around digging up things and slaying dragons, and my middle guy pulls out his trains. I try not to worry about their gender; I worry about their ability to be themselves.