Upskirt photos are legal in Massachusetts.

Yeah, I don’t know how to begin this one. First upskirt photos are a thing. These are photos taken without a person’s knowledge or consent up their skirts/dresses by a pervert…yeah, I’m comfortable with that statement. States have been considering bans and laws restricting these photos because invasion of privacy, unwilling participants in pornography, minors, etc. However, Massachusetts has decided that closed readings of the law doesn’t not prohibit such photos.

ThinkProgress had a piece by Aviva Shen on the ruling. Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court ruled on Wednesday that it is not illegal to secretly take photos up women’s skirts. Michael Robertson was charged after his arrest by Boston transit police for taking photos and videos up the skirts of several women on the subway, but the court dismissed all charges. Because institutional misogyny.

Of course, the judge is sympathetic to anyone who would find themselves the victims of upskirt photos because they should have a reasonable expectation of privacy, but current state law doesn’t address that. The “Peeping Tom” laws in Massachusetts only protects women (stated in the Shen post, but I would hope it protects all people) from being photographed in dressing rooms or bathrooms when they are undressed. Upskirt photos are usually taken when the individual is fully clothed so no law broken.

The court wrote this statement: “A female passenger on a MBTA trolley who is wearing a skirt, dress, or the like covering these parts of her body is not a person who is ‘partially nude,’ no mention what is or is not underneath the skirt by way of underwear or other clothing.” What I love about this, and by that I mean hate, it the policing of women’s clothing because if you don’t want an upskirt photo taken, better wear pants. It also reinforces rape culture because the expectation is all men are and will take these sorts of photos.

Robertson’s lawyers argued that the photos are a matter of free speech because obviously. Upskirt photos keep finding their way into the news partially due to the spread of camera phones and THE INTERNET. However, the law hasn’t been as adaptive. Most voyeurism laws give people a “reasonable expectation of privacy,” but that is hard to prove when in a public space. Additionally, Massachusetts isn’t alone in the acquittal; perpetrators in Oklahoma, Indiana, and Washington have been cleared of charges. Of course, in response to one case where a man took an upskirt photo of a 10-year-pld girl, Indiana has passed a ban on upskirt photos back in 2011.

See I’m not sure why this is all that different from revenge porn. The same principles apply: photos taken and/or shared without the consent of the subject. This is a modern form of assault. The motive is sexual exploitation of an individual who can’t or didn’t consent. This might be a little extreme for some people, but clearly this is where technology is taking us. 

***UPDATE: Gov. Deval Patrick signed a bill prohibiting upskirt photos in Massachusetts. 

Paul Ryan asks social scientists to back up his ludicrous poverty plan, and they laugh him out of the room

Ok, that probably didn’t happen, but a girl can dream, right? Ryan’s budget has traditionally been these ideological statements of grandeur that are really the rhetoric we’ve come to know and detest from the right wing. This time, Ryan is trying to add some credibility to his proposal by including a review of scholarly literature of ALL THE THINGS or just all the anti-poverty programs (kids leave this to the professionals). Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine, commends Ryan for his attempt, but notes this is a disaster.

 

The Fiscal Times contacted a number of researchers Ryan cites, and they are saying Ryan knows nothing about their research. Essentially, Ryan is picking and choosing what information from the reports and research to include. For example, Jane Waldfogel, a professor at Columbia University and visiting scholar at Russell Sage Foundation noted that Ryan seemed to leave out data from the most successful years from the war on poverty. Chris Wimer, a lead author on the paper and a researcher at Columbia, noted that Ryan discounts the major expansion of the earned-income tax credit in 1993 and the dotcom economy from the 90s. Barbara Wolfe, professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, states Ryan’s paper just misstates her findings on the effects of housing assistance on labor outcomes.

 

I can’t even believe that Ryan would use anything published by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities…they have a list of errors. Bold move, Ryan, bold move. Chait cites libertarian economist Tyler Cowen who concluded that Ryan’s report shows “only a marginal command of the scholarly literature, and it is a good example of how the conservative movement is still allowing the poverty issue to defeat it and tie it up in knots.”

 

What this all comes down to is that Ryan believes his is a policy wonk, when he clearly isn’t. I blame the people who enabled him in the first place. Ryan knows jack about policy and even less about poverty. Doing a comprehensive literature review on poverty relief programs is an ambitious scope of work for even the most knowledgeable researchers. There is no reconciling evidence and Ryan’s proposal.

 

Of course Ryan’s budget goals are pretty static. He has committed to balancing the budget within the decade, but he wants to achieve this by increases to defense spending, while refusing to increase taxes, all while promising to maintain Social Security and Medicare for all current retirees (note the word current). The only place he has left to cut from is the poverty relief programs.

 

Naturally, the majority of spending cuts proposed by Ryan come from the federal poverty relief programs. Because of where Ryan’s proposed spending cuts come from, he’s starting to look like a someone fashioning themselves out of Ayn Rand’s archetype. All I can say is finally Ryan is starting to be concerned with his image. Let the rebranding begin, except it isn’t going to be as a policy wonk and definitely not as a poverty expert. Research is never going to show that cutting poverty programs helps the poor, in fact most research now shows austerity kills…indirectly. He can read (or skim…have an intern skim) all the research; it isn’t going to show what he wants it to. Maybe Ryan should join his brethren and claim social scientists are part of the liberal elite?

Holy crap guys, drinking doesn’t make men rapists, like we all already knew: SCIENCE!

Alcohol doesn’t make someone a rapist; rapists target women who drink because they are rapists. The end.

Just kidding. But seriously, science. A study, “Blurred Lines? Sexual Aggression and Barroom Culture,” [can’t even make that shit up] was actually done on whether alcohol insisted sexually aggressive behavior, and the answer is no. Instead, men prey on women who have had too much to drink. The study was done by University of Toronto and the University of Washington where they observed young people’s behavior in bars. They found that the man’s aggressiveness didn’t match his level of intoxication. No relationship was found.

There was a relationship found, which said the men are targeting women who were intoxicated. Yep, time to recognize that some men exhibit predatory behavior and it isn’t cute or sexy it is fucking scary. The researcher trained 140 young adults to go to bars in Toronto and note every incident of aggression. The observers worked in pairs of one man and one woman to reduce potential bias. Additionally, the study was conducted in public places so there isn’t really much that can be said about sexual assault and rape. However, taking this behavior through to the natural conclusion, yes, yes there are something we can infer.

They found that 25 percent of all incidents involved sexual aggression. And 90 percent of the victims of sexual aggression were women and those inciting the aggression were men. The majority of the aggression was physical, and about two-thirds including aggressive physical touching without consent. About 17 percent of the aggression involved threatened contact. Only 9 percent involved verbal harassment.

The researchers say that the men may perceive intoxicated women as more amenable to advances or as easier targets who can’t rebuff them. The lead research and senior scientist at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health at the University of Toronto, “There’s no reason that women should be touched against their will.”

Because the men were more likely to make aggressive advances against intoxicated women demonstrates these incidents were intentional. The study also found the bar employees rarely stepped into stop the aggressive behavior.

So maybe the rape apologists can pack it in now? Probably not, we know these people don’t really like facts. However, this does fly in the face of anyone arguing that drunken sexual assaults are the fault of two drunk parties because well the menfolk aren’t intoxicated. It also isn’t the fault of the intoxicated person as some would suggest because the aggressor is actively looking for vulnerable targets.

The study was releases on Monday in Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, which is available on Wiley. I initially read about the study in pieces by Maanvi Singh for NPR and Callie Beusman for Jezebel.

Cleveland once again is the most miserable city in the USA

False, well kind of. According to Patricia Reaney’s article for Reuters Cleveland is the most miserable place. This is attributed to high unemployment, dismal weather, hefty taxes, corruption, and mediocre sports teams, which is why it made the Forbes.com list.

This is all crap we’ve heard before including the statements on Forbes’ website, “Cleveland nabbed that top stop as a result of poor ratings across the board. It was the only city that fell in the bottom half of rankings in all nine categories. The city has been dubbed with a less than endearing nickname: the Mistake by the Lake.” Well, that’s just not true, “Mistake on the Lake.”

The rankings included jobless rates, inflation, taxes, commuting times, crime rates, performance by the city’s sports teams, weather, pollution, and corruption by public officials. This article isn’t exactly accurate…Cleveland has had what we’ve called a crippling depression for the better part of the last few decades. Additionally, the assertion that the foreclosure crisis has hit Cleveland hard in the last year, well yeah, but it started in 2007…in 44105. Seriously, my parent’s block had 13 houses torn down, it looks like a war zone. But the houses have been vacant for a while. I guess it feels like someone just figured out how bad it is, but they aren’t really interested in addressing why just ripping on Cleveland.

The Forbes.com list is dominated by Midwestern cities including Detroit and Flint. The cite stated, “A lot of the cities that showed up on our list are going through hard times right now, dealing with high unemployment, with declining manufacturing bases. Many have experienced strong net migrations out of the city over the last 20 and 30 years.”

“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.