You guys, considering how actions impact others is just too much

Judith Shulevitz wrote a piece in the New York Times about how across universities everywhere we’re taking people’s concerns about triggering too seriously. I guess we’re just being too protective. Shulevitz sees it as being in college, but still being under some kind of protective blanket. Her real problem seems to be “safe spaces” which she likens to real world trigger warnings. For her trigger warnings on the syllabus is some kind of personal affront to higher education.

Like many before her Shulevitz doesn’t really know what she’s talking about. She seems to think a warning on the top of a syllabus or a safe space for students to go when a debate on sexual assault is occurring on campus somehow means there will be no discussion. That’s not the case; instead it informs people what they are getting themselves into. She says, “But the notion that ticklish conversations must be scrubbed clean of controversy has a way of leaking out and spreading. Once you designate some spaces as safe, you imply that the rest are unsafe. It follows that they should be made safer.” What the what?

This is one of those false arguments. One does not lead to the other anymore than any slippery slope arguments. Being aware of what a discussion is about doesn’t mean no one is going to have the discussion. But I’m straight up saying things can be made safer and that the places that aren’t designated safe spaces aren’t safe. That’s why we have a rape epidemic on campuses. I also think we can make things safer by addressing why rape occurs and how to prevent it. This is logic, things are unsafe, one in five women are sexually assaulted. Hell, I’d argue safe spaces aren’t always safe, see that male feminist on the west coast who was sexually coercing and assaulting women?

This isn’t about hurting people’s feelings which is what Shulevitz and one of her sources Adam Shapiro assert. But these are people who don’t understand trauma. Trauma from sexual assault or homophobic violence (the examples in the piece) can lead to PTSD, which means you can have a physical reaction to a trigger. For example, a simple action might make someone feel as though they are under attack essentially triggering a panic attack. That is the point of trigger warnings. However, Shulevitz sees this as hyper sensitive and “self-infantalizing”, which leaves the students unprepared for life. I think creating a ruling class of over educated un-empathetic bastards is more harmful, but hey I’m overly sensitive, ask anyone.

Taking into account how someone could react doesn’t mean you can’t say something. You just have to own it upfront. So people write victim-blaming pieces will be accountable and can’t just shrug their shoulders and say people are too sensitive. Responsibility and accountability. No one is being censored by some magical censor fairy.

All my heroes are dead

I’ve never been able to write about depression. It always comes out wrong. A few weeks back, a friend I greatly admire, and I were talking about it. A told me about her first episode and how she felt a second one coming on and pursued action because she could recognize it. She also said it is a privilege to have health care coverage which covers mental illness like depression. She argued anyone with health insurance should seek help, after all why wouldn’t you?

We weren’t happy kids nor were we particularly unhappy kids. I mean we weren’t crying all the time (my sisters and myself) but the sarcasm was strong in these children, and we weren’t mentally ill. We knew what that looked like, and it looked like schizophrenic breaks with reality. Thinking messages are being sent through the refrigerator from aliens or the government, that’s something to see a doctor about. I have happy memories, but all too often it are the sad ones that float up. The sad ones shaped my lived experiences, and maybe that is part of depression, I don’t know. That said, when I was 17, two friends had to drag me out of bed (the first time, and certainly not the last) and to a party I had promised I’d attend. It was of the utmost importance to put on a smile and pretend I didn’t want to die. I wanted to die, and I wasn't being hyperbolic. That reads as trivial. I, like most depressives, have perfected faking it, telling everyone everything is fine all the time regardless of whether or not it is because we don't want to bother anyone.

It was ten years later when I was diagnosed with severe depression, and yes that decision to see a therapist had a lot to do with great health insurance and lefty employee benefits offered by my current job. But as I sat next to A, I told her I never knew you could feel any different because I couldn’t remember ever feeling differently for a substantial period of time. It never occurred to me other people didn’t feel this way; that there are people who haven’t thought about killing themselves or justify living because it would be to too unfair to leave others on the hook for your decisions. There are people who live lives who don’t and never have felt the hopelessness that leaves a feeling of hollow nothingness deep inside you. They have never felt that they were at best a distraction from more important things and at worst the cause of other’s pain.

Part of this of course, is my upbringing. Staring down schizophrenia makes all other mental illness pale in comparison. Add that to our family joke of, “Are you bleeding? No? Walk it off”—we should put that on the crest—mental health is something you deal with, individually. We also know women, low-income persons, LGBTQA, people of color are all more likely to suffer from depression. There are added stressors to just existing as any individual or combination of these identities.

It took six months after I mentioned to B and M that I thought I might need to see a therapist before I went. I resolved to, but then I emailed some people and they affirmed what I believed, everyone feels like this. There is nothing special or wrong here. And by talking about it, thinking about it, wallowing in it, I was somehow breaking an unspoken rule and that was selfish. So I didn’t go, and things got so much worse. I always figured things would be fine if I just kept myself so busy that I didn’t have time to think. Thinking is the problem for me.

Now, I know you’re thinking, “Kari, what does this have to do with that title? Which is the only reason I clicked on this.” I know! It is a great title. I read recently an article demanding we all stop romanticizing death and suicide because the impressionable children, because we should always think of those abstract children and not real suffering ones, but I digress. But also, people who kill themselves have families, and it might be hurtful. The Internet immediately disagreed, claiming no one romanticizes death. But I don’t think that is true. When J and I were young it was the legend of Cobain. As we grew up we discovered we kind of wanted to write, and there are tons of writers who hate themselves. They showed there was something on the other side of this sadness and emptiness or at least something good that might come out of it. Many authors had suicidal tendencies such as Wallace, Woolf, Sexton, Plath, London (there is debate here), and Vonnegut. But more so there is Keats, while not suicidal, died young. All of these people are obscenely talented. Arguably their contributions to literature have changed its course. Specifically, there is a human perspective in these authors’ work and usually a sadness that changes all those who read them. As children, and I do mean children, we would joke that you should be dead by thirty or you were living too long and bound to fail. These writers were my heroes.

I am afraid of not being able to feel the despair, and sometimes that scares me more than not feeling joy. I should probably mention that my depression is more nothing than sadness. I feel nothing at all just watching all the things go by. There is balance for me, somewhere between moderate (my therapist thinks this is my normal) and severe depression where I am my most creative. My work is best, my mind is keenest. I am my most empathetic, human, personable, and vulnerable. At these moments the words I write sound like music in my head—even if in desperate need of revision—but my rogue thoughts about not being good enough are hovering right under the surface which manifests in self-deprecating humor in the text. Somehow it works. It works so well I write a novel in a month or fifteen blog posts in a week for two blogs. This isn’t mania; it is a conscious full court press in anticipation of what is coming. And all too often, immediately after, the bottom falls out. Then I can’t think. I can’t work. But I also can’t turn my mind off.

See I can’t remember not feeling like this so I don’t know what I’d be like without it. Anyone who fears change gets how scary that is. Don’t get me wrong, I’m in treatment—I’m on drugs, do with that what you will. For me the medication I’m on, really just makes it easier to put the depressive thoughts aside and function. But that feeling of a weight on my chest is still there. It physically feels like I can’t take a deep breath because of that pressure.

After my cousin killed himself everyone immediately jumped to the “suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem” or they suggest he didn’t know how much he was loved or that it is trivial to kill one’s self over a girlfriend. People who say these things have no idea what it feels like. For me it is empty, nothing. I feel nothing at all, which is because generally I feel too much so I shut down. I’m overly empathetic to the point where I make myself miserable, well at least according to my therapist. And yes, I know people love me, but sometimes I can’t imagine why. Depression isn’t logical, but damn if you can’t rationalize it. I can be in bed, unable to turn off my thoughts, and know what I am thinking is untrue, but believe it all the same.

Dude on the Internet writes stupid shit

I don’t know if you heard, but there is a white guy somewhere on the Internet lamenting he can’t yell at women because street harassment is a thing and being called out. But the real problem is that men are now sexually repressed which is why their behavior is deplorable. Sounds legit.

A little background, the piece was written by Dr. David Foster for the Guardian, and specifically it is in reference to Laura Bate’s Everyday Sexism project.  Bates and her project are kind of great, and the project keeps growing like many projects that focus on the harassment and violation of women there are a lot of people who want to be involved and feel as if they have a voice for the first time.

Foster’s thesis is that the Everyday Sexism campaign makes all sexual advances “misogynist.” Because Foster doesn’t know what any of those words mean. Foster like most men telling women how to think and behave begins by stressing that harassment is wrong and that misogyny is a real thing in society. However, cue the handwringing, he’s worried that this campaign is going to equate any sexual advance and harassment, “If directly propositioning somebody for sex is automatically condemned as misogynist, as the campaign appears to assert, then the movement risks being highly counterproductive to the feminist cause and playing into the hands of the sexually repressive, patriarchal ideology that feminism strives to counter.”

See sexual repression is the enemy, and feminists need to get on board with the sexually liberated man. It all makes sense now. Foster seems to believe that feminists are sexually repressing men by rejecting their harassment. Foster goes on to say that sexual assaults and genuine threatening behavior is not the same as the casual proposition. Of course he doesn’t explain the difference, and some guy yelling at me on the street is different than some guys saying something sexually explicit in a bar…however in appropriate the later might be. Of course, he does want to separate the “offensive and clumsy sexual remarks with respectful, courteous sexual advances” but yet again doesn’t note how they differ or what falls into which category. Foster presents a rather superficial analysis of sexual liberation brought to you by the Pill (I jest, kind of) and invokes Freud, you know in case anyone was still taking him seriously to let them know to stop. Essentially, everyone should be free to explore sexual gratification…except, Foster is only really interested in the sexual exploration and not consent.

Foster continues, “The liberal left should be envisaging a society where adults of both genders are comfortable both with making and receiving straightforward sexual propositions.” Foster appears to be basing a lot of his argument in the flawed idea that we’re all on equal footing in society. Who can make these advances within society differs depending on their power. For example, a woman who is sexually liberated and propositions a man might be seen as “asking for it” if she is assaulted some point in the future. A man of color who makes a polite sexual advance toward a white woman might face some awful consequences as well depending on the situation. Straight men “defending” themselves from the sexual advances of gay men was an excuse for killing gay men. But what Foster is really saying is, “White cis hetero upper middle class men should be able to make sexual advances however and whenever they feel like it and the target of these advances should thank them.” It is worth nothing that Foster cites adults, but many of the stories on Everyday Sexism are about being underage, I know mine was. But this just goes to underline the Foster is committing the cardinal sin when talking about feminism, sexual assault, or really anything, he isn’t taking any time to think his privilege over and how that influences his perspective. I don’t think Forster is an awful person, but I don’t think he is a particularly nuanced person either.

Foster concludes, “We can all agree that aggressive, lewd behaviuor is deplorable. But what lies behind some of the crude and boorish conduct catalogued by everyday sexism is repressed sexuality. It is only by becoming more sexually liberated that whose energies might come to be expressed in a respectful way.” This statement is deeply problematic as well, he is implying that aggressive sexual behavior stems from repression, but that isn’t true. In fact rape, sexual assault, and street harassment doesn’t always have much to do with attraction, instead it is about power and performance. Men who yell at you on the street rarely expect you to go home with them, instead they are posturing for the witnesses, for you, and really anyone around or to be able to share this story later. This is Western masculinity, and it is flawed. The comments I deem harassment aren’t invitations or propositions, they are overwhelming threats. Women are conditioned to fear men in our society, and told if we don’t die resisting unwanted advances then whatever happens it is our fault. Those are disturbing thoughts to have. All of this of course contributes to rape culture, which is an issue I haven't fleshed our much here.

At no point does Foster acknowledge that the target of a sexual advance might not be interested. Instead he presents this as if women were less sexually repressed there would be fewer instances of harassment either because women would be fucking the men yelling at them or the men would be less likely to yell because someone else is fucking them? I don’t know I can’t intellectually get there.

Finally, I think when discussing sexual assault and harassment the best thing to do is acknowledge Margaret Atwood’s universal truth: “Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them.” Keeping this in mind, people might make fewer stupid comments.

“Fuck truth” *Trigger Warning and Spoilers*

 I’ve been watching a few television shows in the last few weeks that all have a plot (sub or major) revolving around rape. So to be upfront: Trigger Warning and Spoilers.

I’m over the rape as a plot device to motivate men characters to become heroes or explain why women are hard and cold. It trivializes the lived experience. I don’t watch Scandal or Downton Abbey, but my understanding is the rape plots on these shows are falling into the trope. I intend to watch both shows at some point, but I don’t have the time to dedicate, plus over it.

Which is why I was shocked when in season two of House of Cards, we heard Claire tell her husband and protagonist Frank, “You’ll still feel the hate in the morning. You’ll use that, but not on him [her rapist].”  Preach. Frank had a meltdown about having to engage Claire’s rapist because that’s what the job meant. It was a brilliant moment because that is reality for so many women to have to see and deal with your rapist and pretend that nothing has happened or that you’re over it. Frank couldn’t he broke things and wanted to take action. Claire excused herself and pulled her shit together in the bathroom like a boss. Remember the situation for the characters here, they have to put on the show, and Claire she has to live with this forever. Frank like many powerful men never had to learn that sometimes nothing you do will matter; there will be no justice; you can only save yourself a little mental stability. I also loved that before the rape is discussed we get to know Claire as a sexual, powerful, and corrupt person because we don’t have to like all rape survivors. We also see that as a couple, Claire and Frank have discussed her rape in the past, no secrets in this marriage. Then of course, there is episode four where Claire lies about an unwanted pregnancy stemming from her rape. She gets a revenge fantasy (we’re coming back to this). The moment she said it on the screen my friend and I stopped the show, went back, and watched again. Claire gets to ruin her rapist long after legal recourse is no longer possible. Not Frank. Claire. Love it, hate it, have moral issues with it, Claire got to close the book on her rapist.

So now let’s talk about Robin Griffin on Top of the Lake. Robin is a detective and ends up on the case of a twelve year old girl who was raped and is pregnant. The girl, Tui, is a badass in her own right. But it is through Robin we get to see how a rape can impact the life of a person forever. Robin was gang raped by four men when she was fifteen in this place. One of her rapists is still hanging out at the local bar. Her date that night, Johnno is still around. Now, let’s talk about the rapes (yes there are many) that drive the plot. Rape, sexual violence, etc. are the tools of the patriarchy in the series. None of these thing exist without the patriarchy. Robin, like Claire, is a complex and developed character. This narrative spends a lot of time showing the fallout of rape on other people including Johnno who feels so responsible for doing nothing when he witnessed the assaults, “I should have helped you and I didn’t. I was a coward.” Robin replied with, “No. There was nothing you could have done. It was four against one.” He doesn’t believe her. First Robin acknowledges that there is little one person can do in that situation against the patriarchy, and that is the major villain in the show. See, Robin got to process things in a way Johnno never did because he was never able to get past his guilt. Robin sees her rape as a crime against herself, but also facilitated not only by her rapist and witnesses, but by the society in which they resided. Robin also isn’t perfect, and she loses her shit in an epic fashion. The show is hard to watch, with the flashback scenes leading up to and during the rape. The rape jokes made by the men in the bars and the officers on the police force. It is constant, but when Sarge, one of Robin’s rapists, hits on her in a bar because he can’t remember that he raped her, she breaks a beer bottle and repeatedly stabs him screaming, “Remember me now?” It was jarring, but it felt good to watch, too. It was a revenge fantasy.

For me it is Johnno and Sarge that make these scenes, though Elizabeth Moss is wonderful in the show. They have to process their actions and inactions. Johnno pulls Robin from the bar, takes her home, and then goes to see Sarge. Johnno beats Sarge telling him to leave and never come back saying, “You raped my friend. Fucking sweetheart. Fifteen. She was fifteen.” Sarge says, “I don’t remember. I don’t know what you’re talking about.” Notably before Johnno enters the scene, Sarge is cleaning his wound; his expression is difficult to read, but I like to think he had no idea what had just happened. That his confusion isn’t to deny guilt, but that he actually had no idea because it wasn’t a big deal to him. His part in the rape didn’t change his life. Robin’s life, but not his. That way, after Sarge runs away, he can consider his role those events. Friends and I have discussed this a lot, if the victim doesn’t say rape, did a rape occur? Yes, of course, the victim was raped, but if the perpetrator never knows then what?

Robin acknowledges that her rape resulted in a pregnancy she was forced to keep, and that her daughter writes her asking questions about her parents’ interests. Robin rejects the notion she should tell the girl the truth because if Robin had been the product of a rape (spoilery) she would kill herself. So “Fuck truth” the daughter has no right to it. To expand on that, no one has any right to Robin’s body, her narrative, or her truth.

All of this said these are the rape narratives I want on television. Narratives showing the complexities of the fallout of sexual assault. See, we do this terrible thing with rape on television where it happens and then after that episode we don’t really ever hear about it again. There are exceptions like Laura and Liz Spencer on General Hospital where the rapes have long lasting consequences that actually unexpectedly return over generations. Because that is what it is like, there in the back of your mind waiting to be triggered, and often it isn't. But we also have Spike’s attempted rape of Buffy, which I still don’t understand the purpose of that one and Kelly Taylor’s rape on 90210. They happen, fallout, over and never to be mentioned again or as cautionary tales. That isn’t actually how this works because victims get triggered years later over something seemingly innocuous.

I’m also not saying or implying that survivors of sexual assaults are unable to recover. That is the beauty of Claire and Robin. They’ve dealt the best they can; they are triggered; they recover again; they live “normal” lives. Fingers crossed we get complex narratives and development women characters. And while, I don't want to make the lived experience of women about the menfolk, but I want more narratives with the gents working through this stuff too, what happens to the rapists, the boyfriends, the families? Rape is an crime against an individual and society, which is obvious when we considered the use of rape as an act of war.