GOP officially delusional

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has backed Mittens' assertion that President Obama is ending the welfare work requirements. Boehner and Mittens are claiming Obama is shoring up his base with some racist allusions.

As previously discussed, Mittens is trying to get the white guy vote by scaring the misinformed about welfare. He's claiming President Obama is rolling back work requirements. In an interview with USA Today, Mittens is quoted:

"There's no question in my mind that the president's action was calculated to...shore up his base."

Romney is employing a pretty old stereotype about black people and welfare. You get it, because black people are on welfare, and Obama is trying to get them to vote for him.

A Mittens' spokeswoman, Andrea Saul, claims Romney was referring to Obama's liberal base:

"President Obama's liberal base are the people who believe the same way he does: that government is the solution to everything."

This woman has the worst job in politics.

Boehner told HuffPo, why does this man speak to HuffPo, upon being asked if Mittens had gone too far:

"The president came out and announced that he was going to waive the work requirements that are outlined in the 1996 welfare reform bill. He's the one who said it. And those work requirements have in fact facilitated moving people from welfare to work....For the president to try to waive those work requirements, I think, it wrong for this country, and it's really wrong for those people on welfare who need training, who need skills, who need to get into the mainstream of American society. The premise of your question I think is women All I know is that he did it. Why would he do it, you know, 90 days, 85 days before the election? I'll let you answer that one."

Of course, as HuffPo points out 29 Republican governors, including Mittens, signed and sent a letter to HHS in 2005 asking Congress for similar waivers to the work requirement. Boehner went on to say that the Republicans have a chance because of the recession. Because you know, people of color who have a higher unemployment rate in a good year are going to want to vote for the millionaire ticket in a bad half decade.

Book Review: When She Woke

I've been trying to get this feminist book club off the ground for a few weeks. The first book on the list is When She Woke by Hillary Jordan. Personally, I was sold on this book after this Washington Post review. The Washington Post was not impressed by the novel mostly because the large amount of blame perceived to be placed on Christians, which is indicative of their lack of understanding of the novel. The most striking aspect of the novel is the way the main character questions her faith and the behavior of those around her, but also her own. How quickly decisions spiral out of control for the heroine. When considering the motto of the resistance movement in the novel, "It's personal," the reader must understand that the origins of the oppressive policies become less important than the choices of the main character. That it not to say they don't matter at all, but the emphasis is placed on the choices individuals make.

So a brief run down: distopian future where fundamentalist Christians have taken over in a states' rights kind of revolution following a superclap outbreak (a little poignant given the antibiotic resistant strain of gonorrhea recently in the news). They passed personhood on a massive scale when women were rendered infertile by the superclap; abortion is now prosecuted as murder. Additionally, budget constraints resulted in melachroming, a treatment which colors your skin depending on your crime along with other punishments, and then the criminals are leased they live as social pariahs. Our heroine, Hannah Payne (i.e. Hester Prynne) wakes up red, for murder, specifically abortion. Then the novel details her trials after her release from the Chrome facility. Violence, rape, and exploitation are daily fears for all the Chromes, but red females are rare, which makes them more of a target. Then there is a resistance movement to overthrow these restrictive laws with the motto, "It's personal." Which is similar to what Hannah told the police about the man who impregnated her and the doctor who performed her abortion.

The major themes are pretty straight forward feminist principles: 1. medical procedures and sexual history are personal, 2. the personal is political, and 3. regardless of crime violence is unacceptable. There are minor discussions of sexuality but not sexual orientation, instead discusses of sexuality focus more around the rights individuals have regarding their sexuality. The resistance movement resembles the underground railroad and is full of dangers. Actually, it is a very good depiction of how similar the vigilant movement and the resistance movements are and how they mirror the government's actions or in actions.

However, the little things what make this a good novel, particularly the seemingly insignificant things which have a huge impact on Hannah. For example, her mixed feelings on her first menstruation after her abortion, which signifies that the procedure was not only successful, but that she was still fertile. Then for her to remember that after being found guilty of an abortion/murder, she will never be permitted to be pregnant again. The humiliation Hannah feels at almost every step of the novel.

Jordan tells a quick paced story, perhaps she tries to cram too much into the novel. She draws largely from Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter  and Atwood's Handmaid's Tale. I'm giving it a solid 4.5/5. Of course, I'm partial to the novels Jordan pulls from as well.

Is an abortion for any reason, just as valid? Yes

A new nationally representative study was released by the Guttmacher Institute finding that most women seeking abortions had experiences at least one "disruptive event" in the year prior to obtaining an abortion. This is the first study of its kind. Emily Douglas at the Nation provides a run down of the importance of this study and its relevance to the current abortion debates. The study author, Ann Moore, called these disruptions "social shocks" including moving multiple times, employment, separating from a partner, falling behind on rent/mortgage payments, partner incarceration, etc. Of course physical and sexual abuse are classified as disruptive events. The study even states:

“Women with abusive partners are substantially over-represented among abortion patients.” 

This shocks no one with a brain. The study also found that more than half of the women surveyed reported using contraception the month before becoming pregnant. This study corroborates previous studies claiming that sexual coercion plays a role in a significant number of pregnancies. Guttmacher found a link between intimate partner violence and unintended pregnancy. This requires further study; I'm hoping my friend's organization contributes to this. According to Moore:

“There are direct ways that violent partners, and nonviolent partners, can interfere with a women’s ability to prevent unintended pregnancy. There’s also a relation between the instability that comes with being in a violent relationship.”

Lynn Harris covered a series of studies a few years ago identifying "reproductive coercion." If you don't know what this is, take a feminist theory course, but essentially it is when women in abusive relationships are subjected to health risks such as pregnancy and STIs. This can include birth control sabotage.

All of this comes up now because of Rep. Akin's brilliant comments on how women should justify their rapes, abortions, and just about any other personal event others find morally objectionable. The whole idea here is that is a woman is legitimately raped, and she doesn't have a faith based abortion then she could obtain an abortion for any "legitimate" reason.

So the findings from Guttmacher talking about sexual coercion which could be read as a legitimate reason for abortions. But the reality is that it doesn't matter. As Maya Dusenbery on Feministing said:

“You don’t know anything about other people’s lives. The point is to show that we can’t categorize abortions into these different types, because every single woman’s reason for getting an abortion is absolutely unique.”

Understanding other people's abortions takes a kind of empathy most people lack, and it is far beyond the scope to categorize them. If we start who deserves an abortion and who doesn't; the worthy vs. the unworthy.

The attempts to understand more about why women obtain abortions reinforce the same power dynamics, which is that the public is entitled to know why women have abortions and have an opinion about her decision. Also, just because the public knows why a woman makes her decision doesn't mean that the public will understand and be more accepting of the decision.

At this point I'm wondering where the line is going to get drawn, which of course is women's reproductive health. Really, I just don't understand the interest in other people's medical procedures or prescriptions. I couldn't careless if half of Congress needs Viagra, but somehow it is every one's business how much women get charged for birth control or if they choose a legal medical procedure. The big lesson of the week is that the people trying to regulate women's bodies have no idea what they are talking about...possibly some of them have never seen a woman's body.

This link takes you to a pretty disturbing list of categories of rapes. It is supposed to draw your attention to the concept of legitimacy what counts and what doesn't. Let me ruin it for you, all of them are legitimate. However, when we start deciding what counts and what doesn't when discussing women's bodies, we strip them of control over themselves. What is a legitimate rape? A rape where the public deems it not the victims fault. What is a valid reason for an abortion? A legitimate rape. If the situation doesn't fit in these narrow terms then let the slut-shaming and legal restrictions begin.

No accommodation for black voters in Ohio

No Blacks Allowed No accommodating black voters in Ohio according to Doug Priesse.

Mr. Priesse, an Ohio GOP election official, voted against the weekend voting rules that enables thousands to cast ballots in the 2008 election, said on Sunday that he didn't think that Ohio's early voting procedures should accommodate African-Americans. Explain yourself sir.

"I guess I really actually feel we shouldn’t contort the voting process to accommodate the urban -- read African-American -- voter-turnout machine. Let's be fair and reasonable."

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, a Republican, ordered all 88 Ohio counties to allow early voting on Wednesday. Early voting will be Monday through Friday until 7 pm for the final two weeks before the election. Weekend voting will not be allowed.

Weekend voting helped 93,000 Ohioans vote in the final three days before the 2008 election. Black churches promoted voting on the Sunday before the election, which will not be possible if Husted's ruling stands. The Obama administration has sued to restore the final three days of early voting.

Early voters in 2008 in Cuyahoga (home!) and Franklin counties were disproportionately African-American. Northeast Ohio Voter Advocates released a study that found blacks accounted for 56 percent of all in-person early votes in Cuyahoga County and 26 percent of overall votes. Cleveland's racial make-up is 2-1 black according to the 2010 Census; I don't know the figures in Columbus off the top of my head. In Franklin County (Columbus), African-Americans cast 31 percent of early votes and 21 percent of overall votes.

Hands Off, Crazy

If this doesn't make you smile you have no soul. Look at these girls dance.

Raise the minimum wage and help women, who knew, oh right everyone

Some House Democrats are seeking to increase the minimum wage to $9.80 per hour in order to assist in shrinking the ever-increasing gap between the wealthiest Americans and the working class. This would be an increase from the $7.25 per hour that people are getting now. Also, to catch-up with inflation, the amount should be $10.55 per hour.

The Economic Policy Institute released a new report finding that raising the minimum wage to $9.80 would have a significant impact on 28 million low-income workers, and it would really benefit women. The report shows that women make up 54.5 percent of workers who would be affected by the potential increase. The report asserts that this makes it a "women's issue", but come on, what isn't?



Naturally, the impact on women varies based on state, and shockingly women in Mississippi look to benefit the most. In Mississippi 64.4 percent of low-wage workers are women and would benefit. In California and Nevada 49.3 percent of low-wage workers are women standing to benefit. These two states are the only ones where women are not the majority benefiting from the potential increase.

Conservatives, continuing their stance that women aren't people, are opposed to raising the minimum wage using the same old arguments. Should we given them anything for consistency? The good old, raising the minimum wage will kill jobs and hurt small businesses. Of course these things called studies show that raising the minimum wage does not impede job growth because most of the countries minimum wage employees work for huge corporations. But studies sound like science, and we know conservatives only pull that out when they want to pretend they know how to talk about women.

The graphic from Think Progress.

GOP Platform without the rape exception

The GOP has renewed its official platform support for a "human life amendment" to the Constitution, which it does every presidential election season. Of course this time around, they have to endure Rep. Todd Akin's inability to speak in public and Mittens making promises. We all know "Legitimate Rape Guy" forcing those white guys forced Romney/Ryan to do some damage control by pledging that abortion would be legal in the case of rape under a Romney administration.

However, according to CNN, they nabbed a copy of the GOP's draft platform, which doesn't include an exception for rape, incest, life of the mother, Immaculate Conception, or faith based abortion, which needs to be a thing. Romney will stand behind this platform when he accepts the Republican nomination next week. Bad news for Mittens.

So this "human life amendment" is basically personhood, which you know how I feel about all that. The draft written yesterday still needs to be approved by the full platform committee today (Tuesday) and by delegates to the Republican National Convention next week. So will Romney try to change the language? Maybe, but when McCain tried Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, told McCain it would be political suicide. Of course that turned out to be the least of McCain's problems.

Mittens making promises you probably can't keep. Sad Face.

Wal-Mart settles with the DOL

Wal-Mart has agreed to settle with the U.S. Department of Labor for the amount of $4.8 million on charges that Wal-Mart misclassified employees working at vision centers in the retail stores. Wal-Mart labeled them managers to exempt them from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and Wal-Mart could then refuse to pay these employees overtime when they worked more than 40 house a week. Well played Wal-Mart.

Additionally, Wal-mart will pay back overtime wages to 4,500 employees and must pay $463,815 in civil penalties for the repeated FLSA violations.

Fun fact, calling employees managers doesn't make them exempt under FLSA. Your attorney must review the exempt/nonexempt classifications to ensure FLSA compliance if your organization's managers perform the same tasks as other employees do.

And here I thought Wal-Mart knew all the ways to beat the system and exploit their workers.

Legitimate Rape: I'm not really sure what this is or how it is different from "conventional rape"

Ok, to say I'm getting tired of rape culture is an understatement, but given the weekend I've had, read this page at your own risk.

Let's begin with Rep. Todd Akin, or as I'm going to call him till he leaves loses the Missouri Senate seat, the Legitimate Rape Guy. Apparently, this guy believes a woman's body will involuntarily miscarry if she is raped legitimately raped. To say I don't understand this phrase is just the beginning. I've asked friends, with a dear friend of mine winning the definition vote with a simple: "sad face."

The best part of this thing is that Akin thinks this is backed up by science. Yep, a Republican pulling out the word science without knowing what it means. Akins says:

"First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

Sciences and magic. Because even if this magical miscarriage didn't happen, Akin doesn't believe abortion should be legal. Oh My God you guys, can we call this a faith based abortion?

After shit hit the fan over the weekend, Akin dialed it back releasing the following statement:

"In reviewing my off-the-cuff remarks, it's clear that I misspoke in this interview and it does not reflect the feel empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year. Those who perpetrate these crimes are the lowest of the low in our society and their victims will have no stronger advocate in the Senate to help ensure they have the justice they deserve."

Of course, we can assume these thousands of women meet the requirements for "legitimate rape." Fuck this guy. Really, this guy sucks.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, is running against Akin for Sentate, and was losing by a margin of 41.3 to 49.7 percent. Naturally, she was "stunned" by Akin's stance and statement (nice calling it a stance).

I'm with Jezebel, I'm angry with this guy, but not shocked. How can we be shocked? These people hate women. They don't understand sexual assault, and they don't want to. Akin voted for an anti-marital rape law...seriously. He wants the word "forcible" to be included in definitions of rape.

We need to prevent people like this from taking office. We need to be clear: Rape is rape. Legitimate rape, gray rape, etc are all terms to hurt victims.

Ok, so now for the personal story from over the weekend.

We've all played wingman for a friend where you must engage a kind lame person so your friend can get somewhere with the person they are interested in. So I'm trying to get this guy to talk to me while my friend is with his friend. All cool. I deal with the conservativeness and "I work on the Hill." I go directly to sports do not pass go. I can talk sports with anyone but a Ravens or Heat fan. After a painful conversation on baseball, yes, painful.

We talk Olympics.

And Kobe Bryant.

And I make a Kobe is a rapist joke. I know the Judge dismissed the charges against Kobe; I know the civil suit between Kobe and his accuser is sealed. Apparently, in Texas, Kobe won. And he won because his accuser is a slut.

What the what? This isn't where I drew the metaphorical line in the sand. I listened to him mansplain welfare to me...wrap your mind around that. There is no winning here. We'll never know exactly what happened in that hotel room, but come on. At this point in the evening I couldn't fake it anymore, and I called it a relatively early night. But in what world do you explain to a woman 1. how to do her job and 2. that the accuser was to blame for a possible sexual assault. I imagine even women sympathetic to Kobe might be a little wary of chatting up a guy who is immediately opposed to victims. I don't know, I hear warning bells, maybe that's just me. There obviously was no hotel room in our future. Of course after Kobe, I continued this conversation until it was dead. I had to know more. Please, sir, tell me more about how to do my job because no one could possibly be this dense. I can admit when I'm wrong. And I'm wrong, some people are very dense.

Chile's Department of Labor calls out Starbucks and Wal-Mart over labor practices

Last week Chile's Department of Labor blacklisted Starbucks and Wal-Mart for their local labor practices. 

Chile blacklisted 36 companies over labor practices. Starbucks was fined $25,000 for discriminating against unions and bad faith in collective bargaining negotiations. The supermarket chain, Hipermercados Lider, owned by Wal-Mart, was fined $4,167 for not paying replacement worker bonuses. Starbucks and Wal-Mart are repeat offenders; Starbucks have been charged the highest fine by the courts for a second time. 

Starbucks spokesman, Jim Olson, claims the company has not had Chilean government contracts in the past and does not plan to have them, so they don't see any impact on business. Olson responded to questions about the company's reputation with:

We're proud of the work environment we've created. He added the company "recognizes and respects" its employees rights to belong to unions.

Wal-Mart was not available for comment, shocking I know. Starbucks had their first strike at a company-owned store, with the Chilean workers seeking pay that keeps up with inflation, a $100 monthly lunch stipend, and other benefits. Workers claim to have abandoned the strike without reaching an agreement with the company. 

Movie Review: Ruby Sparks

Ok, so part of me really liked this movie, but that is the part of me who makes the worst decisions ever with men. On an intellectual level this movie has some seriously troubling themes.

Ruby Sparks is a Zoe Kazan film about a troubled novelist and the woman he creates. The hero, Calvin, seems fairly likable in the beginning if you like disaffected creative types who have been convinced of their own brilliance only to question it later in life. He's a best selling author who hasn't been able to write a second novel, which in the publishing world is very bad. So he write about his dream girl, literally, the girl from his dreams. Enter Ruby. She is a manic pixie dream girl, a painter, free spirit, etc. Everything he writes she does...So being the lover of fiction I am, this is interesting to me. Now time for the conflict: Ruby doesn't know she is a character and is actually a person with feelings and desires.

This is where we hate Calvin. No really, this guy doesn't deserve Ruby, or anyone. He feels like he can own her, that she belongs to him, and only him. He literally can make her to anything and does. All the while recognizing this is problematic, and that he shouldn't write her anymore. During this conflict we find out about Calvin's old girlfriend, a novelist. Apparently, these relationship issues are nothing new including that he was controlling of her as well.

Zoe Kazan is brilliant; she owes some scenes, and I wanted nothing more than to comfort this girl in a manipulative relationship with a guy, when she doesn't know it. Also, given that it was written by Kazan, I may be more forgiving of some of the themes. Because while watching the film, I thought who hasn't wanted to control their partner sometimes? And in the film we see the negative effects of actually getting to control and change another person. Perhaps this was supposed to be a narrative on the nature of relationships between men and women when you think you can change other people and make them into someone else? But the ending undoes that. I'm left wondering if there are consequences for abusing others just because you can. Also, there is a weird discussion that because Calvin created Ruby he has a right to her. It is really very disturbing. Regardless, my friend and I were not pleased with the ending.

3/5 for poorly constructing relationships and letting the bad guys win.

Pennsylvania upholds voter ID law, disenfranchisement rules you guys

A Pennsylvania court has upheld the voter ID law, which will probably disenfranchise thousands of eligible voters. Who will be affected? The same targets as always: poor people, people of color, and the elderly (welcome to the party). PA isn't the only state with laws like this; another notable one is Ohio. I think Virginia, too. So you know battleground states.

Republican legislatures in swing states are pushing voter ID laws; their argument is voter fraud, but the reality is voter fraud is mush less of a problem. What we should call these laws is "return to only white landowning men being able to vote" laws." Essentially these laws require voters to demonstrate their IDs on site when voting. Some people think this is no big deal, and they would be wrong. This is a manifestation of privilege; the people not affected thinking that it is no big deal because 'who doesn't have a state issued ID'? The people being targeted by the legislation...

This surprises absolutely no one.

Who started the class war? Not us says Obama and Romney

Mittens is accusing President Obama of destroying welfare. Yeah, I know, it makes no sense, but hear him out.

In an effort to win the Presidency, Mitt Romney has launched a campaign to warm up the middle class and keep the wealthy in his pocket. This can be tricky given how wary the middle class has been of the wealthy. So how do you do it? Hate on the poor. Everyone beats up on the poor, after all if you don't you might become one. This irrational fear keeps the middle class (the stratified middle class) from joining the poor in the streets and launching a full on confrontation with the power holders i.e. corporations and politicians. Poverty sympathizers, fools.

According to Mittens, Obama has gutted the welfare reform pioneered by Clinton in the 1990s, which created peace and good will among welfare recipients and definitely wasn't an appeasement to the wealthy and middle class who were feed this idea of the welfare queen. It didn't force people into low-wage, low-skill employment that provided a standard of living under the poverty line...oh wait. It did.

Mittens is accusing Obama of granting new flexibility to state welfare programs, such as empower low-income recipients to collect government checks without working or looking for work.

"Under Obama's plan, you wouldn't have to work and wouldn't have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check." Romney asserts, he "will restore the work requirement."

Naturally, this is supposed to scare white blue-collar voters into voting Mittens 2012 (because you know welfare is for brown people?). Obama is painted as the big government solutions guy who aims to fix the economy at the expense of personal responsibility and job creation. Mittens is the self responsibility guy, teach people that welfare isn't for free, you have to work, end the culture of dependency in America, etc (I'm sure there is a Jesus myth about fish that should go here). Mittens sees this as some kind of great accomplishment. Just a reminder the original legislation and law lacked any discussions of a fair wage or even a minimum wage. Yep, sounds like something Mittens would be proud of.

Obama's plan is actually a Republican argument, which was to increased state flexibility to avoid healthcare reform. Additionally, Mitten's amnesia struck again, having pushed for something similar in Massachusetts. Someone get this man to a doctor.

A member of the Obama camp, Lis Smith says that Mittens is flat out lying. Smith says:

"The truth is that the President is giving states additional flexibility only if they move more people from welfare to work--not fewer. By falsely attacking a policy that both he and his Republican allies have supported for years, Romney is once again flip flopping on a position he took in Massachusetts, and demonstrating that he lacks the core strength and principles the nation needs in a President." 

The issue surrounds a memo issued last month by HHS offering TANF waivers to states that want to try alternative and innovative strategies, policies, and procedures to improve employment outcomes for needy families. Those lazy commie bastards, are you reading this "improve employment outcomes"? HHS included a list of sample projects that might be of interest to states.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (Mich.) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah) of the Senate Finance Committee, who are blocking any administrative move to waive the workforce requirements, are pissed.  Hatch says:

"Gutting welfare work requirements with a stroke of a pen and without congressional input is simply unacceptable and cannot be allowed to stand."

Democrats have been speaking out too, Rep. Sandy Levin (Mich.) of the Ways and Means panel, says the HHS waivers do nothing to change funding levels or extend the length of benefits:

"The only change is states are allowed to focus on outcomes, rather than on process and paperwork. Republicans used to support state flexibility, but now they seem to think Washington knows best."

Burn. So to be clear, no one actually cares about welfare recipients, just how they can spin this to help in an election, and both Obama and Mittens are pro-big government in one way or another.

Once again we're reminded that the goals of TANF are not to help people, but instead to get them off welfare rolls and into low-wage employment to benefit the corporations and out of the public's line of sight.

Women under Obamacare

How many condoms do you carry?

So in the US we're now targeting sex workers for having condoms, which in case you are curious, isn't a crime.

However, now the US is using condoms as evidence of sex work. This is happening in New York City, Los Angeles, Washington DC, and San Francisco, and resulting in relief/aid workers being reluctant provide condoms to sex workers which exposes sex workers and their customers to HIV. This is going to have disastrous effects on LGBT and other homeless youth who engage in survival sex. Naturally, the police believe they are doing their job.

The article goes on to discuss the AIDS crisis in New York and DC, which as a summary for those of you living under a rock: bad, very bad.

Most advocates agree that condoms should not be included in discussion of evidence of prostitution instead it should be an individual agreeing to participate in a sexual act for money.

This is just awful, and I know I blogged about this before, specifically when this happened in DC. New York is voting on the measure, so it isn't quite law yet, but I anticipate it will pass.

What are rapists thinking?

No seriously, I want to know. A coworker and I spent some time earlier this week talking about sexual assault and the NISVS study that claims 1 in 5 women in the US is raped (inclusive definition). If that is true, and I'm not willing to debate that, read my previous post if you want to argue about methods, but if that is true, and 90% of rapes are committed by an acquaintance and not by strangers, then what is going on in the minds of rapists?

We ended up discussing three kinds of acquaintance rape, which feel the most common based on our experiences. They are:

1. Sexual Assault from an acquaintance, who has some kind of power over you: supervisor, professor, etc. The relationship pre-rape may be a good one, friendly, but this person is not in fact your friend. There is a power dynamic at play. 
2. Friend of a friend. This is someone you hang out with regularly, or maybe not. Friends with people you trust and respect. Someone in your class or workplace, but not someone you have a close relationship with, more than to say hi or small talk for a bit. As far as power dynamics go, you're on a more equal footing. 
3. Close friend/lover. This is someone you trust. I think this one is pretty self explanatory. This one is kind of broken into two parts: friend and lover. 

In no way am I prioritizing these or saying one is worse than another or that these all the possibilities or implying one of these is somehow more or less violent. These were merely the one's we discussed. And these were the most common given the informal polling of loved ones.

Our discussion centered around understanding what a rapist is thinking. So in an example from option 1, the rapist felt no remorse, and felt that he had done nothing wrong. How does someone lack any empathy for another person? But what about friends/lovers? If the victim doesn't breakdown crying or fight back, but instead has reaction of shock, but does not consent, when does the rapist become aware of the assault? And when if ever does he (or she) feel remorse?

After this conversation earlier this week, Jezebel posted about a Reddit thread about sexual assault. Below are excerpts from Jezebel's article. I couldn't read enough of the original post to pull from it. Some of it was just to offensive and triggering.

Yesterday, a Redditor solicited stories of sexual assault from assailants. "Reddit's had a few threads about sexual assault victims, but are there any redditors from the other side of the story?" he asked. "What were your motivations? Do you regret it?"

So why'd they do it? What were they thinking? Here are some of the reasons why rapists said they raped or almost raped from the original thread.

(What they perceive as) mixed messages:

She ran to my bed and didn't want me to touch her. I didn't understand what had happened. This hypersexual person who had offered to give me head suddenly didn't want to touch me.

Or:

I was a freshman and hooking up with this girl who got naked in bed with me, then said no. I think she just wanted to do oral. I was extremely horny and already close to doing it, so I ignored her and did it. She realized what was happening and tried to clamp her legs shut, but it was too late and I was much stronger than her.

Or:

Sue had always been quite flirty, she was a cop's daughter and I feel that lead to her being a bit rebellious. I remember instances from years ago (possibly 8th grade or freshman year) where she would make jokes about different bras or thongs she was wearing, and was always freely talking about sexual desires and experiences. She just had this unusually sexual way of carrying herself, I don't know if anyone knows what I'm talking about, but she'd kind of leave her mouth hanging open/bend over quite a bit/almost unreal-porn star like.

Remember though, this was all happening in my high school library during study hall. Not a whole let ever happened more than some dry groping. I wanted to take it further though, she had really begun to turn me on...

Or:

I can't remember how it happened, but me and the girl (she was maybe 17) ended up play wrestling with me pinning her down. We were all laughing, but we when made eye contact...it was "that" look we exchanged. The.."I'd fuck you" look.

Now, I remember exactly what I was thinking at the time. This girl gave me "the look" earlier, she invited me into her bed. What teenage girl would pass up the oppertunity to be with a 22 year old guy? She MUST want it. I tried again, and slid my hands over her body.

Peer Pressure:

I got peer pressured in to hooking up with this girl. I kept saying I didn't want to and my friends kept saying I had to lose my virginity. They say this for about a week and finally new years come so I figured might as well. We are both completely wasted and go to a room. I was to drunk to get it up so I fingered her and ate her out but she wasn't really into it. So I stopped and then threw up all over her and I passed out. I guess she ran out and told them I raped her. She never said stop or anything but I could see how she could have froze up in fear. I don't doubt she feels molested and I feel like an awful person but it wasn't rape as SnugglesWithRuggles pointed out it was rape.

Women are objects for the taking:

Ended up happening again after a party. She was a good friend. I was drunk and super horny. I looked at her and knew I could never be with her. She had already hooked up with my friend. It was that feeling of never being able to do something, or have something. I looked at her and just saw something I would regret not trying for. So I thought if I could feel her I would know what it was to be with her. I grabbed her boob, over the shirt. I touched her lip and she moved her head. I stop dead thinking I woke her up, but she relaxed again. I started going upstairs but felt a sudden urge to lift her skirt. I ran my hand across her ass and between her legs. I was so drunk I turned on the light to get a better look, then quickly realized that it would wake her up and turned the light off.

Biology (The "I can't help my dick!" argument):

Most girls don't really understand how horny guys are, how much stronger guys are, how guys will rationalize what they do. I see feminists and women on the Internet saying that no means no and women should be able to get as drunk as they want and not be sexually assaulted, and I couldn't agree me. But the reality of the situation is that women have to be careful because guys are one way when they're hanging out and another way when they're horny or worse drunk and horny. That doesn't make what happened okay, but it is what it is.

Bad influences:

I was an extremely isolated youth who came from a broken home. My escape was the internet. At about sixteen I was exposed to alot of PUA material, which (not having a father or mother really around) shaped my life up until I was about 20. Most of the material was very objectifying and sexually aggressive towards women.

Multiple men said that they didn't end up going as far as they had intended once they actually looked the woman they were with in the face:

I'm a good man. I have a wife and a couple of kids now and I'm a good father and husband. I'm a pretty moral guy. But I think the thing that has always stuck with me...is how close I came to actually doing it. If I hadn't looked up at her face and seen what she was feeling, I might have continued. In my mind, at the time, she wanted it. I can remember staring at the ceiling while on the couch thinking "in a couple of minutes she's going to come out here and get on top of me."

Or:

...It was then I looked at her face. She was petrified. I at that point pulled myself together, rolled off her and apologized. My hormones were RAGING. I asked her why she didn't want to. I told her what I thought above. She started to cry.

That's arguably the most disturbing takeaway from the thread: these guys are so disconnected from reality that they don't even feel the need to look women in the face to be sure they're interested.

It's very clear that many of these people didn't feel like what they were doing was wrong because they didn't (and/or still don't) think of themselves as rapists. Rapists are the scary strangers hiding in the bushes. Rapists don't feel remorse. Rapists prey on pure girls, not sluts who show cleavage and want to fool around. Some even say that straight up; "I didn't want to be the kind of guy who pressured girls, so I said it was fine [when she asked if she could stop performing oral sex]," says a man who had literally just pressured a girl who had "always been quite flirty" to go down on him.

Many stories end with Redditors expressing how horrible they feel about what happened:

I have never in my life felt as shitty and depressed as when she told me that she felt what happened was rape. The depression made me have to drop out of school and go live back home. My parents thought I was gonna try to kill myself so I started taking medication and going to therapy and it actually helped a little. I'm over my depression now but I never, and will never, feel as low as I did because of that night.

I still think about it sometimes, and I feel terrible. It took a very long time for me to get over her. Dated another girl immediately after for many months, wishing it was this first girl the whole time. Then I met someone who really helped me get past her. I've never done anything like that ever again, and never will. I just wish I hadn't learned that lesson in that way, and that she had to suffer for it.

It's not hard to see why some people would dismiss this thread as a circle jerk of rape apologists, especially because some quality Redditors assured the storytellers that "it's not your fault." (This is Reddit, after all.) And certainly this isn't light reading for everyone. But I think it's a mistake to write it off. Charlotte Shane put it well in a recent essay for The New Inquiry on moving past rape by being able to talk about it in non-victimizing terms:

...our culture is unable to address rape with the sobriety and clarity the topic deserves because we are still unable to address sex with the sobriety and clarity it deserves. The contention that rape should be regarded as an asexual act has done nothing to remedy this. Nor will it. As activist and writer Wendy McElroy points out, "there can be as many motives for rape as there are for murder and other violent crimes … Rape is every bit as complex." Insisting that no rape is ever "about" sex but is rather about an individual man acting on a patriarchal mandate to sow terror by exercising "power" does a disservice to us all.

This sorry state of affairs should foster honest conversation, not suppress it. We should not be so desperate to establish the seriousness of rape that we stigmatize intelligent discussion of it.

(Emphasis ours.)

I'm trying to be hopeful, that some of these men feel remorse, and have never done it again. However, I still don't feel comfortable about any of this. I want better answers. I want someone to say, "yes, I assaulted someone, and I feel awful about it. And this is why I did it." The responses still feel very much like "I did it, but you can't blame me because hormones, etc." For me the worst part of listening to survivors' experiences is the way they depict fear. I have a friend who is very clinical about her assault, so I can be just as clinical, but how do you look in someone's eyes and see nothing but fear and feel nothing or be unsure as to what is happening?

I want to understand how people are capable of heinous acts, because only by understanding can we address the motivations and then prevent rape.

1 is 2 Many, the new anti-violence against women campaign

Ok, so this is what I don't get, the emphasis on women. Women shouldn't fear men, agreed. Men shouldn't fear men, women shouldn't fear women, men shouldn't fear women or anyone shouldn't fear anyone else regardless of how an individual identifies. We should do away with violence and fear in general.

I understand policies focusing specifically on protecting women because by in law our policies don't protect women or any marginalized group with out drafting a specific amendment or clause, see civil rights, gay rights, and of course women's rights. I just wonder about the good here by the emphasis on protecting women from men, plus there is a bit of an infantilization thing happening here when they talk about stopping violence when you witness it. Of course, they don't say stop violence when you see violence, they say stop a woman from being the victim of violence from a male aggressor.

Teen sexual assault survivor faced jail time for tweeting names of rapists

World dies a little. 


Anyone surprised this happened in Kentucky? Not really. 


A 17 year old rape survivor, Savannah Dietrich, faced jail time after she tweeted the names of her rapists. The District Attorney decided not to press charges which would have carried a punishment of 180 days and $500 fine. 


A plea deal was struck between the DA and her rapists, and she was angered by the lenient punishment. Dietrich said: 

“There you go, lock me up,” before tweeting their names, “I’m not protecting anyone that made my life a living Hell…They said I can’t talk about it or I’ll be locked up.  So I’m waiting for them to read this and lock me up.  F**k justice.  Protect rapist is more important than getting justice for the victim in Louisville.”

Dietrich was interviewed by The Courier-Journal, and she spoke about her decision to breach the confidentiality agreement: 

“So many of my rights have been taken away by these boys,” said Dietrich, who waived confidentiality in her case to speak to The Courier-Journal. Her parents also gave their written permission for her to speak with the newspaper. 

“I’m at the point, that if I have to go to jail for my rights, I will do it,” she said. “If they really feel it’s necessary to throw me in jail for talking about what happened to me … as opposed to throwing these boys in jail for what they did to me, then I don’t understand justice.”

Dietrich's rapists shared pictures of the attach around their school after it happened. Resulting in her being afraid to leave her house. So it seems to me kind of fair, their names go on the internet and no one can un-see those pictures. Why are the rapists protected and not the survivor?


Surviving sexual assault involves dealing with the shame alone and in private. People do not understand and they do not know how to talk to you. Additionally, people think you are supposed to deal with it quickly and with dignity somehow. Being told you can't talk about it reinforces the shame and victimization surrounding the assault. There is also something seriously wrong with protecting the identities of rapists, minors or otherwise. If you rape, your name should go out into the world, even if you plead out. 


I am completely disgusted that the DA is concerned about ruining the lives of the rapists, but has little concern for the survivor. Dietrich will not be serving time because of the publicity she received
from her story. 

Rape, now more common than smoking in the US

The findings from the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS), a study conducted by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention n 2010, reports nearly 1 in 5 women are estimated to have been the victim of rape. Rape for the purpose of this study is defined as unwanted complete or attempted sexual penetration, including victims who did not have the capacity to give consent.

The study shows the perpetrators are usually known by their victims (91.9%), and more than half of the time their own partner. Young adulthood is the period of highest risk for first sexual victimization. 80% of female victims report their first rape occurred before age 25, 42% before age 18.

The lifetime prevalence of stalking was less than the prevalence of non-consenual sexual contact, evidence suggests that this trend could be changing as technology provides new opportunities to sexually harass. In 2010, 1.27 million American women were raped, which is one woman every 29 seconds, and 5.1 million were stalked, which is about one woman every 7 seconds.

Using the data collected by the NISVS, investigators will monitor national and state specific trends in the prevalence of sexual violence and stalking for the first time, characterize the type of individuals who are high risk of being a victim or perpetrator of a sexual crime, and to investigate the health consequences of sexual victimization.

The first NISVS report found a high prevalence of forced sex, which according tot he figures, the number of American women who have been raped is greater than the number who currently smoke. Some question whether these statistics are accurate.

The 2010 NISVS was a telephone survey, which was designed to include landlines and cell phones. 16,507 completed interviews: 9,064 of the participants were on a cell phone, and 7,461 were on a landline.

They used the American Association for Public Opinion research Response Rate 4 formula. The response rate is the number of fully and partially completed interviews over all eligible cases, which is the sum of total cases with complete interviews, refusals, non-contacts, other spoken languages, and a correction factor for cases of unknown eligibility. The NISVS was 27.5%, which is pretty low; 305 is low, but if it dips below that the data is usually considered no good. Mostly due to non-contacts. The rate is actually better than the national average for telephone surveys.

There is evidence to suggest the participants weren't a nationally representative study. That being said the results are still concerning. If these results are correct then an obscene number of women are being sexually assaulted, and the vast majority by men they know (which we already knew from previous studies).

Aut

Yes, Connie Schultz is cooler than you

Connie Schultz is a Pulitzer Price winning journalist, and she has verbally whipped conservatives on television. She rocks my world on a normal day just by posting darling photos of her dog to twitter. She also happens to be married to my U.S. Senate crush, Sherrod Brown.

Earlier this week, a conservative go getter wrote her to inform her, he has "numerous photos" of her with Senator Brown in one she is hugging him. In response, Connie Schultz posted their conversation on Facebook.

Wonkette pulled together some tips for this journalist and his generation:
1. Spell your target's name correct.
2. Don't announce you are going an expose, this will not end well, at the very least it tips your opponent off.
3. Fact check, even Wikipedia will tell you Connie Schultz is married to Sherrod Brown.

I love this, because it is ridiculous. Watch out media elites with scandalous relationships with politicians. Don't think being married will protect you.

Courtesy of the one and only Bridget

Ann Friedman came up with these pie charts entitled Checking In with the Patriarchy, and because I don't feel like I'm doing enough to terrorize the patriarchy as of late, I though re-post.

Friedman mentions Louis CK, but I've recently learned that Joseph Gordon-Levitt doesn't think most  pretty women are funny, which is just ridiculous. Pretty women have to be funny and have an all around good sense of humor, how else could they deal with the majority of the population. In fact, some of my best friends are pretty, and they are very funny. Though not quite as funny as I am.

Regardless, How We Are Fucking with the Patriarchy is brilliant. I would have added all around bitching on the internet, but I really like the fingers crossed for the gay gene and leggings, because no one, no one likes leggings.

"Nice Guys" and Rape Culture

So honestly, I wasn't sold on this post. Largely because I hear or read the phrase "nice guy/s" and I get irrationally angry because of the loaded connotations, but I digress.

Ben Atherton-Zeman wrote a post for MS. Magazine's blog, entitled "Nice Guys" Contribute to Rape Culture. Shocked, shocked, I say. Apparently, this whole Daniel Tosh being an asshole and not funny is now a thing (personally, I think he was an asshole and wasn't funny for a long time before a bad rape joke, but hey, just a woman with no sense of humor), which got Atherton-Zemon's attention. Tosh's defense is essentially, "I'm a nice guy" and it is our fault if we are offended. Atherton-Zemon takes apart the notions of rapist lurking in bushes and the idea that batterers are not the guy you can be in love with, which is all very good and not new. He contributes all of it to feminist (something good attributed to feminism, what?).

Then he drops "rape culture", which glorifies objectification and male ownership of girls and women. Bringing in notions of masculinity and sexual coercion. Pointing out that it isn't only the batterers and rapists that befit from rape culture.

Atherton-Zemon then discusses that he doesn't really care about Tosh, but instead how rape culture contributes to the larger defense of rapists, largely through, the mythos. But he's a great coach, done so much for the community, a nice guy. Atherton-Zemon argues for the abolishment of the nice guy defense of violent men. I can't help but agree. The major points here are at rape culture contributes to the larger issue, so even if someone makes a rape joke, it is isn't at the expense of rapist or a culture that condones it then it is one more way to say that it is ok.

Jezebel has a great post about How to Make a Rape Joke, and yes, they are funny. I suppose that in the end, personally, I get so enrages about all this because we've all been rape apologists at sometime or other, which contributes to rape, because if this behavior (whatever it might be a sexual assault, a rape joke, etc) is ok once, then we condition people to view it as acceptable.

Ohio

So Ohio and I are in some kind of abusive relationship. I go with the intent of seeing a friend and her mom, then immediately leave to visit family in West Virginia. Yes, seems like a waste of a drive, but extenuating circumstances. Instead I stay in the Cleve for eight days only to come back to DC for eight days and turn right back around.

At least this time my siblings and I are going to the Irish Festival, which is all that it sounds like. My last trip had highlights which included Blaine and the photo below. I guess there were other good things, but really it was too stressful and sad to be awesome. Seriously though, the photo: only in Ohio.

So Ohio, there is at least some potential that I'm getting my life together to make decisions that will pay off in the long run. Win? It is weird trying to make plans and decisions for the next few years opposed to just for right now.