More on why victim blaming is not a good way to prevent binge drinking

Yesterday was a wake up call for me about the pervasiveness of rape culture. Victim blaming is so ingrained it shows up in the views of well meaning people, like Keli Goff, who are trying to prevent rape. The “avoid risky behaviors” meme was called out twice, first with the original PA Liquor Board ad and then with Goff’s response. Yet folks continue restating the same line in comments, tweets – all over the internet.

Is this conversation really necessary? Does anyone think women aren’t constantly afraid we might be the victim of a sexual assault? That we aren’t always on edge anyway? The threat of stranger rape is a constant topic of conversation among my female friends (especially the ones who aren’t feminist organizers). This is what it’s like to live in a rape culture.

Arguing that the focus should be on not drinking so we don’t get raped is called perpetuating rape culture. It’s saying hey, if you avoided these behaviors you could have avoided being raped. When anyone, including feminists, puts their focus on preventing rape by avoiding risky behaviors they are putting the responsibility for avoiding rape on the shoulders of the victim.

And it doesn’t work. You can’t prevent rape by not drinking. You might be able to prevent alcoholism by not drinking, alcohol poisoning, drunk driving. But you can’t prevent rape by not drinking, just like you can’t prevent rape by not wearing a short skirt. You can probably prevent rape by not being in the world at all and never interacting with other people. Which is what rape culture wants to do – take away your humanity.

Read More »

  • Facebook
  • Twitter(1)
  • email
  • Recommend
  • StumbleUpon
Tagged , | Leave a comment

Roundup: The many ways “If I Was a Poor Black Kid” got it seriously wrong

PhotobucketHave you seen this BS? A self-described “middle aged white guy who comes from a middle class white background” wrote an article for Forbes called “If I Was a Poor Black Kid.” [sic]

If you haven’t seen it yet, first of all, bless you for not spending all your time on the internet!

And second of all, I’ll save you the trouble and give you the short version: “If this middle class white guy was somehow transformed into a poor black kid, he’d pull himself up by the virtual bootstraps, mostly with Google Scholar, to rise above his circumstances.”

*SERIOUS MEAN MUG*

This from the same guy who devoted an entire column to giving reasons why most women will never become CEO. (A few gems: Because his  teenage daughter and her friends weren’t feeling chatty when he picked them up from the movies. Also, because he is “an ass”- his words not mine- and makes his wife do all the work in child-rearing.)

The central fallacy of this guy’s argument isn’t that he thinks white male privilege doesn’t exist. It’s that he seems to believe privilege is something to be named, talked about, given lip-service, but doesn’t get how it actually operates in the Real World. He doesn’t get that poverty, racism, structural inequality, actually exist in real life, in real PEOPLE’s lives, and he certainly doesn’t get how ignorance like his own help perpetuate them.

Ok so I ’ll admit, I was all heated about it on Monday, but I was NOT looking forward to having to write another explanatory post on white male privilege, or another infuriated post on white male privilege, or for that matter ANY MORE POSTS on white male privilege!!

That’s why  I’m so thankful to my Internet Friends for taking care of this one for me. Maybe the only upside of another middle class white dude showing his ignorance is that it inspires a lot of smart people to say a lot of smart things about privilege, poverty, and progress. Check out a roundup of the best responses to this inane column after the jump.

Read More »

  • Facebook
  • Twitter(2)
  • email
  • Recommend
  • StumbleUpon
Tagged , | 1 Comment

The Wednesday Weigh-In: “Protester of the Year” Edition

Times cover in red and gold hues of female Arab protester with face obscuredTime magazine has named the “collective protester around the world” as its person of the year. The magazine goes on the newsstands Friday, and interestingly, amazingly, beautifully, the  cover photo is of a female Arab protester.

I’m thrilled to see the Arab Spring, and to a lesser extent, related protests around the world including Occupy Wall Street, honored and acknowledged in this way. It’s so rare for the grassroots origins of social change to be celebrated in large, powerful media spaces like this. And the street protesters of today deserve it!! They are working so hard, and sacrificing so much, in the name of social change.

Time managing editor Richard Stengel seemed to agree in an interview he gave to NBC on the selection.

There’s this contagion of protest,” he said. “These are folks who are changing history already and they will change history in the future.

I’m also sort of fascinated with and maybe a little curious about the decision to honor the anonymous protester, rather than naming a specific, tangible one, who has done something concrete. I get that it’s hard to single out just one protester out of the hundreds of thousands that have emerged as local leaders and grassroots change-makers. And I’m not saying I disagree with what they’ve done.

But it still feels like a slight copout to make the protester nameless, generic, when there are so many real-life, highly identifiable protesters out there doing real work. Maybe copout is too strong of a word. I still feel like the overall effect of the choice positive.

People who work on social change are pretty consistently portrayed as selfless, or pressured to remain anonymous to keep the spotlight off them and on their work. But the truth is that what they’re doing is work, and they deserve as much credit as someone who is choosing to do their work in another sphere, like social media. Why should Mark Zuckerburg get true, high-profile glory, while protesters get a generic, symbolic nod?

I haven’t seen the story to accompany the piece, and maybe it names some specific protesters. At the end of the day, I know that this is more of a creative editorial idea than some deeply symbolic gesture towards systematic invalidation of the work behind social change.

Which brings me to this week’s Wednesday Weigh-In.

What do you think of Time Magazine’s selection for Person of the Year? If it were up to you, who would your singular, real-life pick for “protester of the year” be?

For more reactions to the decision, check out Time’s “6 Basic Twitter Reactions”.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • email
  • Recommend
  • StumbleUpon
Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Mike Huckabee to host anti-abortion forum in Iowa tonight

And guess who is attending?

Huckabee will premiere a 60-minute documentary produced by Citizens United, called “The Gift of Life,” Wednesday night at Hoyt Sherman Place in Des Moines.

GOP presidential candidates Michele Bachman, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich will each give a five- to seven-minute address on pro-life issues, said Jeff Marschner, press secretary for Citizens United.

All GOP presidential candidates were invited to the event, Marschner said, but Ron Paul and Mitt Romney had other engagements on the East Coast.

In case there was any question of what issues this stellar crew of Presidential candidates deems worthy to focus on, rest assured ladies! Your uterus is their top priority. Never mind that these babies-to-be have scant job prospects, shitty and too expensive health care and a global warming crisis awaiting them.

Romney and Huckabee Paul may have conveniently had other engagements (perhaps trying to preserve an actual shot at the presidency?) but don’t think that absolves them from the uterus obsession sweeping the Republican party. NARAL has a clear analysis of Romney’s voting history, and it sure isn’t pro-choice.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter(1)
  • email
  • Recommend
  • StumbleUpon
Tagged , | 2 Comments

Fourteen Senators demand Sebelius explain EC decision

The feminist and reproductive health community is still reeling from HHS Secretary Sebelius’ decision to go against FDA recommendation regarding allowing Plan B to be accessible without a prescription for all women.

I was refreshed to see that there are Senators who are reeling as well. A letter has been signed by 14 Senators demanding that Sebelius explain the science behind this decision.

The text of the letter:

We are writing to express our disappointment with your December 7, 2011 decision to block the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) recommendation to make Plan B One-Step available over-the-counter. We feel strongly that FDA regulations should be based on science.  We write to you today to ask that you provide us with the rationale for this decision.

As numerous medical societies and patient advocates have argued, improved access to birth control, including emergency contraception, has been proven to reduce unintended pregnancies.  Nearly half of all pregnancies that occur in the United States each year are unintended. Keeping Plan B behind the counter makes it harder for all women to obtain a safe and effective product they may need to prevent an unintended pregnancy.

Read More »

  • Facebook
  • Twitter(4)
  • email
  • Recommend
  • StumbleUpon
Tagged | Leave a comment
  • Support


  • blog advertising is good for you
  • Meet Us

  • Subscribe