We've Moved!!!

Please check out our new site at http://sacomssmediawatch.wordpress.com/

The new site is currently under construction but please check back for further updates!

The Media's Response to Lara Logan's Assault and the Prevalence of Rape Culture Logic

Trigger Warning

Hey ya’ll. It’s been awhile since the last blog post, and this post in particular has been a long time coming. Over the past few months, there have been some reoccurring themes cropping up in the media that are really getting to me. I’m going to try to focus on one of these themes and examine how it is at the heart of so many of the things we struggle against.

For those of us following the revolutions around the world, February 11th was truly an amazing day for Egypt, as President Mubarak finally stepped down. For me, however, the celebrations will forever be tainted by what soon transpired. Shortly after the announcement in Cairo, CBS correspondent Lara Logan was beaten and sexually assaulted by a gang of protestors.

According to a CBS report, "[Logan] was surrounded and suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating before being saved by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers.”

Unfortunately, this is neither an uncommon nor an unknown risk to female reporters. Largely, assaults like this go unreported, and it’s kind of a big deal that this one was made public. In consenting to allow her story to be told, Logan took a stand against the silence blanketing this relatively unspoken of issue. I think that was incredibly brave of her and it had the potential to raise awareness of a serious problem in the media business and around the world.

However, the inverse seems to have happened. Reading blog posts and forum discussions about the assault makes you feel like you’ve stepped through a wormhole into the 1950s.

“Well, what did she expect? No woman should be over there.”

“She deserved what she got.”

“What was a hot, blonde reporter doing in Tahrir Square anyway?”

“Is there a video of this somewhere? I wish I could see it.”

An online poll was even created, asking if people thought that Lara Logan was to blame for her assault. While not all reactions were as outrageous, the sheer amount of victim-blaming and slut-shaming was overwhelming.

Journalists were no better. Mary Elizabeth Williams, a contributor to Salon.com, writes about a sickening article that appeared in LA Weekly:

In a stunningly offensive blog post titled "Lara Logan, CBS Reporter and Warzone 'It Girl,' Raped Repeatedly Amid Egypt Celebration"…writer Simone Wilson managed to mention Logan’s "shocking good looks and ballsy knack for pushing her way to the heart of the action" before getting to the assault itself. She then went on to imagine how it happened: "In a rush of frenzied excitement, some Egyptian protestors apparently consummated their newfound independence by sexually assaulting the blonde reporter." Well, sure, what other motive for an assault could there be, given that Logan is, in Wilson’s words, a "gutsy stunner" with "Hollywood good looks"? And how else do Egyptians celebrate anyway but with a gang assault? It's not like she deserved it, but well, she is hot, right?

Debbie Schlussel (sort of a neo Ann Coulter figure) wrote a blog post entitled “Islam Fan Lara Logan Gets a Taste of Islam.” She goes on to say

So sad, too bad, Lara. No one told her to go there. She knew the risks. And she should have known what Islam is all about. Now she knows. Or so we’d hope. Hope you’re enjoying the revolution, Lara! Alhamdilllullah [praise allah].

Others still accused Logan of simply trying to get the most sensational story. "Lara Logan had to outdo Anderson," Nir Rosen (a liberal journalist) tweeted, referring to correspondent Anderson Cooper, who was physically assaulted during the protests in Egypt. Rosen went on to accuse Logan of warmongering and expressed doubts as to whether she was actually assaulted. (Rosen has since apologized and resigned from his post at New York University.)

These responses to Logan’s assault, to quote a friend, “utterly exemplify rape culture and rape culture logic.”

· That only young, attractive women are sexually assaulted

· That sexual assault is seen as the natural consequence of choices the survivor makes

· That survivor’s often lie about assault for attention and/or secretly want to be assaulted

· That the a person’s attitudes and dress can provoke assault

· That rapists cannot control their sexual urges

The idea that it is the survivor’s fault for being assaulted is still quite entrenched in our culture and it can be painful and infuriating to come into contact with it. However, I feel like it’s something that we need to meet head on, that it is something that needs to be combated. Misconceptions need to be addressed, myths dispersed, and people need to be educated.

Take care everyone,

Further reading:

http://community.feministing.com/2011/02/16/in-defense-of-lara-logan/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1357957/Lara-Logan-attack-Debbie-Schlussel-Nir-Rosen-criticise-CBS-correspondent.html#ixzz1GEnaN9ce

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1357957/Lara-Logan-attack-Debbie-Schlussel-Nir-Rosen-criticise-CBS-correspondent.html#ixzz1GEmmREDZ

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/following_attack_reporter_former_X4WK8V1F1lAjTJePpikvQI#ixzz1G2XU1ovz

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-02-16/news/28622335_1_lara-logan-sexual-assault-apology

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/02/16/nir-rosen-apologizes-resigns-from-nyu-over-lara-logan-tweets/

http://globalcomment.com/2011/lara-logan-julian-assange-two-cases-of-rape-culture/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1357957/Lara-Logan-attack-Debbie-Schlussel-Nir-Rosen-criticise-CBS-correspondent.html

http://ca.jezebel.com/5761919/after-lara-logans-sexual-assault-media-helpfully-her-hotness

Edmonton Sexual Assault Prevention Campaign Challenges Myths Around Assault

Sexual Assault and Rape Prevention campaigns often are associated with self-defense classes and the modification of women’s behavior (check out this educational video from the Department of Defense 1977), depicting rapists as inevitable predators and ultimately implying that women who are sexually assaulted were too weak to defend themselves or were otherwise responsible for their assault.

With this kind of precedent, the new assault prevention campaign from the Edmonton police department and Sexual Assault Voices of Edmonton (SAVE) stands out and has gotten quite a bit of media attention. The campaign is called Don’t Be That Guy, and it’s targeting potential perpetrators. The images and languages focus on debunking myths surrounding sexual assault, particularly emphasizing that women who are drunk and unconscious or nearly so cannot consent. The launch is timed particularly for the holiday party scene and print advertisements will be posted above the urinals in the bathrooms of bars as well as magazines and bus stops in order to target men between the ages of 18 and 24.

While it could be said that the campaign reinforces gendered myths around sexual assault, there is something to be said for specificity. The ads not only target a certain audience, but also challenge several pervasive myths around sexual assault. By making it about “That Guy” rather than “an evil rapist”, the ads make it clear that predatory behavior is not inevitable or distant – you could, in fact, be that guy. Your friend could be that guy. Maybe you already are that guy. The guy that sexually assaulted someone. Maybe you didn’t know that having sex without direct consent was sexual assault. Now you know. Rapists aren’t just racialized/mentally unstable/homeless/drug addicted/sociopathic strangers that hide in alleyways and kidnap women. They are just another guy at the party.

(image by Larry Wong for the Edmonton Journal)

Just the refocusing of attention onto perpetrators seems revolutionary. It is crystal clear from the get go here that this woman did not ask to be sexually assaulted, even if she is blackout drunk. The popular victim blaming strategy, prevalent not only in our common culture but in our courts, does not have a place in this campaign. It directly tells the perpetrator “You are the one exclusively responsible for this sexual assault” and by doing so, implicitly lets all survivors know that it is not their fault. While the ads are depicting a particular kind of assault, the clear responsibility can easily transition to other scenarios. Instead of the copy reading “Just because you help her home, doesn’t mean you get to help yourself” could easily be adapted:

“Just because her clothes are revealing, doesn’t mean she wants you to touch her”

“Just because she’s said yes before, doesn’t mean she can’t say no”

“Just because she likes you, doesn’t mean she wants to have sex with you”

With all the national media attention around the campaign, we can only hope that this style of assault prevention material continues and catches on.

Article in the Toronto Sun: http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/11/20/16235151.html

Article in the Vancouver Sun: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Campaign+targets+prey+drunk+women/3857999/story.html

Yale Frat Proves Itself Particularly Insensitive to Issues of Sexual Assault

Fraternities at North American universities have not been traditionally recognized as particularly sensitive to issues surrounding sexual assault (…or women).

Thanks so much Yale for proving us right.

Yale’s Delta Kappa Epsilon (DKE) fraternity has recently come under media-fire for making their pledges march around campus (and stopping outside an all-female dorm) and chanting “No Means Yes! Yes Means Anal!” among other declarations mid-October.

There has been outrage, from within as well as outside of the Yale community. DKE has issued an apology swiftly. Here is an excerpt:

The brothers of DKE accept responsibility for what we did, and want to sincerely apologize to the Yale community. We were wrong. We were disrespectful, vulgar and inappropriate. More than that, we were insensitive of all women who have been victims of rape or sexual violence, especially those here at Yale. Rape is beyond serious – it is one of the worst things that any person can be subjected to. It is not a laughing matter, yet we joked about it.

They have agreed to work with the Yale Women’s Center to create dialogue on campus around sexual violence.

I think we can all appreciate the sentiment. And while I can recognize that these boys were young, drunk and stupid and accept their apology as sincere, this is certainly not an isolated incident at Yale let alone in a larger university culture.

There’s something bigger going on here.

Salon recently interviewed an anonymous member of DKE. When asked about his previous experience as a member of the fraternity he was quoted as saying:

“Since I've been here, DKE has never actively promoted misogyny. This particular incident is an example of a thoughtless and hurtful joke, not an indication of a dangerous culture.”

I’m not so sure I agree. When a group of men are running around screaming, “No means Yes!” they are not taking consent seriously. Consent does not seem to be important to them at all. It’s even less funny when you take into consideration that 1 in 4 women in university have been sexually assaulted or experienced an attempted sexually assaulted. Or the fact that, in one survey, over half of college men reported that they have engaged in sexual aggression on a date¹

Words are important. They matter and they represent ideas; in this case dangerous ideas about consent that result in the physical and emotional harm of real people every day.

The pledges of DKE may feel sorry and embarrassed for doing what they did (or maybe for getting caught) but forgive me if I don’t totally buy the idea that this fraternity or others like it are not misogynistic. McGill is not exempt from this. Remember, that awesome Engineering Frosh chant from a few years back?

I’m glad that the Women’s Center at Yale was able to turn this disaster into a learning experience for everyone. We definitely need more forums to discuss sexual assault on university campuses. It just sucks that such an awful event had to occur to spur one.

Related Links:

The Last Straw: DKE Sponsors Hate Speech on Yale’s Old Campus via Broad Recognition

Yale Frat Punished for Stupid Chant via Jezebel

Privileged boys, impoverished ethics via Feministing

Yale frat boy talks about "thoughtless and hurtful joke" via Salon

The Daily’s Amelia Schonbek tackles the notion that a song is just a song via The McGill Daily

1. http://www.aaets.org/article135.htm

Stranger Rape Subplot Just in Time to Boost Ratings

This week is sweeps week in television, when Neilson Media Research surveys are taken of television viewers and shows try to get the ratings they need to stay on the air. For years this has meant that shows toss crazy plot twists at the viewers left and right, with tense cliffhangers and violence and drama. Private Practice (you know, that spin-off from Grey’s Anatomy with the red haired lady and Taye Diggs?) is pulling out all three. Charlotte King, a strong, sexual, and sassy female character played by KaDee Strickland, is going to be violently raped by a stranger. This isn’t really being sold as a big reveal or surprise – the show is doing its best to sell the plot in interviews and special features. According to the press, the plot is going to focus mostly on the aftermath of the attack and the way in which it effects the relationships in the show.

The idea here is that the show is aiming to give a voice to survivors of sexual assault by validating experiences about being attacked and going through a healing process. The show worked closely with Rape Abuse Incest National Network and the whole project seems very informed. Strickland notes that this experience will be a part of the character for as long as the show is on the air, and in interviews notes that this is surely not the only way that rape or sexual assault is experienced, but that the script includes elements of shame and shock that many women report experiencing. It should also be noted that this is not the first time that this show has discussed sexual assault. A different character, Violet Turner, experienced rape in college, though she never goes into detail, and as a psychologist on the show, she has also had patients who have experienced sexual assault.

Strickland recently gave an interview with TV guide (not the video shown here) where she talked about her “joy” at being able to give a voice to this kind of issue, how she is “thrilled because it's a very personal thing to me, especially if you break down the statistics that one in six women will be raped in their lifetime.” The show is clearly trying to do something a little different, “really creating a legitimate experience for the audience in a way that you may not see on network television”. Irin Carmon noted on Jezebel that 1. it’s a little strange to hear someone get so excited about rape, and 2. How easy it is to use stranger rape as a source of drama, even though it erases the more common experiences of sexual assault committed by acquaintances or family members.

Update: Ratings for Private Practice experienced an unprecedented 44% boost in ratings for the sexual assault episode. The more detailed plotline includes 2 important details: 1. Charlotte is a recovering drug addict, so she has to endure her wounds without anesthetic and 2. She is refusing to go to the police or report the rape, and has only told one other character on the show that rape was even a part of the assault.

The implications of these script choices is interesting, and certainly a lot is yet to be determined. Jennifer Arrow, a blogger for E! did bring up an interesting point regarding the recent trend in plotlines where strong female characters do not report assaults committed against them:

"Is that just a more dramatic story to tell, or Is there something in our culture that doubts women who suffer rape and then speak out boldly—but trusts in women who keep their silence?"

For more on the subject you can read a follow-up by Irin Carmon on Jezebel, or a thoughtful review from NY Magazine entertainment blogger Emily Nussbaum which concludes: "No matter how well-motivated, a rape scene is a sex scene, and TV shows are fantasies. This one wasn’t sexy, but there was part of me that didn’t want them to show it at all."

Consent Comic!

Its a web comic! About consent! Its informative, adorable, important, sex positive, and well drawn! Yay! The blog might not be able to show the entire layout, so you can find the original version by clicking on the title of the post (Consent Comic!). Written by Maisha, you can find more of her web comics here.

And now, for your viewing pleasure, SEX TALK: A comic about communication, consent, and gettin' it on.

Pro Wrestler Now Fighting Against Sexual Violence

Mick Foley, pro-wrestler, just wrote a new memoir (his fourth!). His favorite chapter is about how he started listening to Tori Amos, and the place that her music had in her life. Tori Amos, it turns out, co-founded an anti-sexual assault group called RAINN (Rape, Abuse, Incest, National Network) in 1996. After meeting Amos in person, Mick Foley decided to get involved. Very involved.

Not only to all of the royalties from the new memoir go to combatting sexual assault (50% to RAINN and 50% to Childfund, giving financial support to survivors in Sierra Leone), but Foley has given much of his time and his face to the group. He volunteers weekly with the group's anonymous internet hotline and is on the organization's National Leadership Council. He's gotten a lot of press for the new book, and the wrestler has used every interview as an opportunity to talk about the RAINN and the fight against sexual violence.

Foley wrote an article for Slate, posted today, that talks about all of the things above (it should be noted that he's a very good writer). You can also read his blog to hear more. Here's some highlights about his involvement with sexual assault activism:

" I'm thankful for everything Tori has motivated me to do inside, and especially outside, the wrestling ring. For many years, I had thought of the fight against sexual violence as one best waged by women and survivors of assault. But then I heard that voice one night, in my beat up Chevy minivan, on my way home from some other road trip I can't recall. "When you gonna make up your mind? When you gonna love you as much as I do?"

Since February, I have been a weekly volunteer for RAINN's online hotline, doing my best to help victims of sexual violence piece together their lives. Last week, I was named RAINN's volunteer of the month. It's a tremendous honor, and it's amazing to think that it might never have happened if I hadn't heard that haunting voice in the back of Maxx Payne's car. So many years after that first listen, Tori Amos still inspires me every day. Most of all, she still convinces me to believe that I'm strong enough to do the things I already know need to be done."

Professional Reporter Harrassed by Professional Football Players, Blamed Because of Her Outfit

Last week, Mexican sports reporter Ines Sainz came forward with the claim that she had been sexually harassed by the Jets football team when she went into the locker room to conduct some interviews. The main debate in the media, of course, surrounds this woman’s attire and her appearance, with headlines like "Jets Flagged Making Passes at Hot Reporter" that turn sexual harassment into flirting.

The story of what happened is often noted in subsequent reports as “unclear”, but what is clearly understood is that there were inappropriate things said to and about Sainz made by Jets team members that made both she and other members of the media in the locker room at the time very uncomfortable. Sainz, in an effort to be professional, says she tried to ignore the harassment of other players and move forward with her interview.

It should be noted that English is not Sainz’s first language, and her choice of words in interviews in the English speaking press, imply subtly that their difficulty in understanding each other might contribute to the reliability of her story. The reporter’s nationality might also have contributed to the behavior of the players in the first place, but this question has not been addressed in any media prominent media reports. Meanwhile, many remarks have been made by media members about the prevalence of sexual assault in Mexican culture and how she must be used to these kinds of catcalls, because that’s the Mexican “mating call” (that’s a quote by Joy Thomas, actor and radio personality, on a panel at the Joy Behar Show on Friday).

The exclusive interview Sainz gave with Joy Behar is also interesting in that Behar, a female comedian and star of the View, spends a lot of time talking about her outfit at the time and her title as “hottest reporter in Mexico,” a question with Sainz avoids answering. She instead makes it clear that her dress is not the point, that she did nothing to provoke this harassment, and that she’s just trying to do her job. Sainz also implies that she has encountered sexual harassment for her entire career, and that she really is bringing this forward at this time at the behest of other members of the media, a point ignored by Behar.

It should be noted that there has been a varied response in the media, mostly within the frame of a “debate” over whether or not sexual harassment actually happened, but the response from the football community has been quite different. While Jets PR representatives present in the locker room at the time of the harassment refused to stop it, Woody Johnson, the Jets owner, apologized to Sainz directly, and on the same day as the incident, with the message that all team members are expected to act respectfully towards members of the press. The Association of Women in Sports and Media has pursued a series of conversations and investigations within the NFL and has said that they expect all offending participants in the incident to be punished by the NFL and the Jets. In fact, the whole incident seems to be a lot less “controversial” and instead be quite clear within the procedures of the NFL, and is framed as much more of an unclear issue within the news media like in this interview from ABC.

The debate does seem to make a jump from 'Are these outfits professional?' to 'Should anyone this attractive wearing clothing such as this expect to be sexually harassed in the presence of male athletes?' There does also seem to be a bit of a more nuanced controversy in whether or not sexually harassment needs the clear accusation of the survivor in order for behavior such as this to be punished. Sainz has said that she isn't sure if sexual harassment happened, and that it really is up to the NFL and their investigation (at the end of the ABC interview).

For commentary from the blogosphere, the Bitch Magazine blog has issued a “Douchebag Decree” to the media for their coverage of the story, with particular attention to a slideshow by The Daily Caller called "Baby Got Back".

Miami's Child Sex Offender Homeless Colony

Trigger warning (especially for the articles linked here)

In 2005, a powerful lobbyist in Miami Beach named Ron Book (after discovering that his young daughter was the survivor of sexual assault) helped to pass local residency restrictions on child sex offenders found guilty in a court of law. These restrictions barred child sex offenders from living within 2500 feet of any place where children gathered: schools, daycare centers, or playgrounds. These restrictions meant that entire cities became off limits for these perpetrators to live after being released from prison. While probation restrictions may differ, many of them face only a curfew and living restrictions within this curfew, but are free to work or spend their days without spacial restrictions.
What ended up happening due to this ordinance and others around the region, is that sex offenders were released homeless, and told that one of the only places that they could live was under the Julia Tuttle causeway, a homeless colony of child sex offenders living under a bridge of the highway. This has caused major problems for the government of the region, as they try to deal with a very specific homeless population. The DMV even started issuing drivers licenses with the address listed as "under the Julia Tuttle causeway bridge". Other regions around the country have found themselves with similar colonies, prompting people to doubt the effectiveness and safety of the original ordinances meant to create a safer space for their children. By destabilizing the sex offenders, experts on sexual crimes were saying that it could create a much less safe environment for children.
For more information, you can read an article from Newsweek from last July about the situation in Miami (warning, very detailed and very triggering). Embedded in the article is also a short video clip about life under the bridge. And you can also listen to a story from this week's The American Life episode - theme Bridges - which looks at the more recent developments and is much less about the offenses of perpetrators and more about the legal and political ramifications of the policies

It's About Time We Post About the Catholic Church

(Trigger warning)

We’ll start with a basic timeline, mostly taken from the NPR website:

In 1981, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) was appointed prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican's watchdog agency for faith and morals, including internal investigations of crime within the church. He held this position until his appointment to the papacy in 2005.

During his stay as prefect, the church dealt with several major abuse cases, including the Reverend Lawrence C. Murphy, who later admitted to the molestation of over 200 boys at a school for the deaf in Wisconsin, priest Gilbert Gauthe, who pled guilty 11 counts of molestation in Louisiana, and priest James Porter in Massachusetts, who pled guilty to the sexual abuse of more than 25 children.

In 1992, it was discussed and recognized at a conference of United States Bishops that some Bishops had been involved in the cover-up of sexual abuse within the church. In 1996, letters sent to Cardinal Ratzinger by Milwaukee’s archbishop requesting the investigation and trial of Murphy and another priest accused of abuse are unanswered.

1997, Ratzinger closes the case of Rev. Marcial Maciel Degollado, the founder of The Legion of Christ accused of sexually abusing boys under his authority and care in Mexico.

In 1999 that priest John Geogehan is formally charged with child rape. It is brought to light during the trial that the priest had been repeatedly accused of molestation, but had been moved between parishes to avoid scandal. In 2002, Geogehan is sentenced to 10 years in prison, Documents surfaced during this time which proved the cover-up of these abuses by Cardinal Bernard Law, who later fled to Rome and resigned as archbishop of Boston.

In 2004, a report by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice finds that between 1950 and 2002, about 10,000 people have filed abuse accusations against about 4,000 catholic clergy members. The US conference of Catholic Bishops creates a report which details these allegations. That same year, several parishes in the US declare bankruptcy caused by the millions of dollars spent on reparations to survivors of the abuse.

After elected Pope Benedict XVI, the Vatican investigation of Rev Maciel is reopened and he is found guilty of several incidents of sexual assault. The Pope orders the Reverend to resign and take up a life of “prayer and penance”. This occurs among more declaration of bankruptcy by various American parishes, which also prompts speculation that the bankruptcy declarations are being made in an effort to further conceal the details of abuse claims that might otherwise be revealed in court.

Earlier this year, sexual assault cases against catholic priests in Germany, Ireland and Brazil join the mass of cases coming from the United States. Included in the evidence emerging for the cases includes the Pope’s communication with Bishops in California and Tuscon who wrote asking for the trial and defrocking of priests in their diocese found guilty (within a court or church tribunal) of sexual assault. The lack of action, as well as messages which warn about the price of scandal and otherwise delay the defrocking, are just a part of this current scandal. The Pope was also a part of a possible cover-up of a perpetrating priest as archbishop of Munich. Although his responsibility and role are unclear, it seems that Ratzinger, at first reports of abuse, sent the priest for therapy and rehabilitation. [More details of all these cases can be found on the same NPR page as the timeline,

To supplement these news based resources, we can also look at some opinion based pieces on the issue.

The week of April 12^th, Newsweek’s cover features the following title: “What Would Mary Do? How Women Can Save the Catholic Church From Its Sins”. There are two articles inside, “A Woman’s Place Is In the Church" by Lisa Miller, where the subtitle says a lot. “The cause of the catholic clergy’s sex-abuse scandal is no mystery: insular groups of men often do bad things. So why not break up the all-male club?”. The article feels a little contrived, specifically because it seems to be looking at one issue – the disempowerment of women in the Catholic Church and the sexist nature of such exclusions, particularly in the clergy – and tries to tie it in with another. The subtitle, and other passages, would have you believe that the article is trying to argue that women are incapable of sexual assault or cover-up of sexual assault, and that their inclusion in the church would lower inherently reduce such crimes. The article itself states that this is “obviously” untrue. The connection that it actually makes, albeit less clearly, is that the assault issues in the church are about power, and that this power is also at play in the institutional mistreatment of women by the church. Of course, this is never said directly, and if I could pinpoint a thesis for this article, I would say that Miller’s main point is that the church needs to modernize in order to fix its problems, including the long awaited inclusion of women. .

The next pages of the issue are filled with a response, “counterpoint” article which actually ends up saying almost the same thing. The article, “What Went Wrong” by George Weigel, concerns itself more with countering of the women issue than the sexual assault issue, by asserting (correctly) that “there are no gender guarantees when it comes to sexual abuse.” This article also uses examples of child sexual assault in schools and families, ALL examples of power imbalances and abuses thereof, to argue that this is not a problem unique to the catholic church and the religious policies (such as celibacy for the clergy) are not the thing that needs fixing. He uses the vows of the clergy to make the case that the church must emphasize these strict policies rather than modernization. The subtitle for this article was “Don’t blame celibacy. To fight the plague of sexual abuse, the church needs to become more catholic, not less,” one which I thought was more true to the article it preceded than the subtitle for Miller’s article.

[interestingly enough, Weigel’s article contains the following statement: “The Catholic Church in America has taken more rigorous action since 2002 to protect the young people in its care than any other similarly situated institution, to the point where the church is likely America’s safest environment for young people.” I’m not sure what he means by ‘similarly situated institution’ or even ‘rigorous action’, but it’s an interesting claim.]

When it comes to a discussion of sexual assault and the root of the problem, both of these articles almost say the same thing. They both deny that it has anything to do with religious practices such as celibacy. They both accuse the church of being concerned more with its image than with its youth. They both analyze the crisis by putting the abuses within the context of power, though neither of them directly say that this is the cause of the assaults. The closest quote I could find was in Miller’s article, was actually a quote taken by the Reverend Marie M. Fortune, founder of the multifaith organization FaithTrust Institute which aims to end sexual violence. “You can make a good argument that part of the problem is hierarchy,” doesn’t quite approach the conclusion which both authors hint at in their respective articles.

For more interesting articles: The recent coverage implies that survivors are usually boys – inspiring this article and more concerning the voice of girls also surviving abuse. I would suggest browsing www.catholic.org, because their defensive articles are met with a very interesting discussion in the comments section with contributions by skeptics, survivors, converts, and many people struggling with their relationship with their church and identity. Jezebel has also commented on the scandal, with this article (a response to an article in the Guardian) as well as others. If you have any other suggestions of interesting links, feel free to suggest them in the comments

Nike still sponsoring athlete accused of sexual assault

Yesterday in the New York Times, Timothy Egan wrote an opinion piece about recent events concerning Pittsburgh Steelers Quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, who has been accused of rape by a 20 year old woman last month in Georgia. This comes in addition to a rape accusation from less than a year ago, after which the charges were dropped, and further accusations from a third woman. Roethlisberger has not been charged with any crimes, but the allegations led to a six game suspension from the NFL, and local Pittsburgh sponsors have dropped the star athlete. But Nike has stuck by and continues to use the athlete to sell products.

Egan's article is mainly directed towards the shoe company, highlighting corporate responsibility and siting the continuing sponsorship of Tiger Woods as another example of poor moral corporate character. He also compares the case with that of Michael Vick, who was dropped from Nike after pleading guilty of conducting a dogfighting operation in 2007. The message, says Egan, is that abusing animals is unacceptable, but "cruelty towards women is OK."

Other sports writers have also contributed their opinions to the discussion, including Fox Sports' Jason Whitlock who strongly accused the women of lying about their experiences by saying "Statements made by drunken sorority girls are not facts" among other things. His article focuses on the poor judgment of Reothlisberger, who should have known better than to have public sex with such a high profile position. He uses 'common sense' advice that women are generally told to follow at frat parties to avoid getting raped as a means of accusing the girls of behaving irresponsibly, and uses an email that he received from a former sorority girl to make the case the girl's accusations were probably just a means of excusing themselves for embarrassing, sexually aggressive behavior.

Another interesting part of the whole deal is the comments section of Egan's article, almost all of which fall into 4 categories with few exceptions:

1. Egan is totally right and they will never buy Nike again

2. Egan is totally wrong - how dare he assume guilt in a case that was never actually brought to court? Innocent until proven guilty, after all.

3. The concept of "corporate ethics" is a myth and Nike's stance is hardly a surprise

4. Comparing the sexual assault case for Reothlisberger to the (assumedly consensual) adultery of Tiger Woods is an unfair comparison

One comment (number 17) is particularly telling of some of the common misconceptions about sexual assault in today's society. It accuses Egan of making claims where he is not qualified and says "If this football player had *raped* this girl, you best believe he would be charged." Unfortunately, the statistics tell a very different story, with the US Department of Justice finding that between 1992 and 2000, only 67% of sexual assault cases were ever reported. And while statistics can certainly be flawed, these results are certainly telling of a trend which the media tends to ignore.

A sum up of the events can also be found on Jezebel.com.

A Question of Humor

Last season on SNL (the current season just started 3 weeks ago), a repeat sketch emerged that caught my eye.

The sketch features cast member Kenan Thompson as an ex-con, brought in to the police station to give a speech to three young male trouble makers about staying out of trouble. The dialogue of the sketch follows a very dependable formula. Thompson (plus the guest of the week as another ex-con) starts talking about how small misdemeanors turn into bigger crimes which can land a guy in jail. Thompson offers his own story as an example, and retells the plotline of an iconic movie – the Sound of Music, the Goonies, Back to the Future, etc. When one of the kids calls him out on the stolen plotline, the ex-con’s pull him out of his chair or otherwise get in his face and tell him that this is NOT a joke. Here Kenan starts talking about rape in prisons, using pretty graphic imagery and yelling loudly. The thing about this part is that he describes the rape almost exclusively using puns from the movie he just summarized. For instance, in an episode with Taylor Swift he uses the Back to the Future to describe the “1.21 Jizzawatts” awaiting the young man in jail.

I’m afraid I couldn’t find available clips on the internet that would play in Canada, but all three installments of the sketch, called Scared Straight (with guests Taylor Swift, Tracy Morgan, and Charles Barkley) can be viewed from the US on Hulu.

The clip brings up some interesting questions, particularly because of its nature. The puns themselves are pretty silly – and do not require the violent scenario in order to be valid sexual puns about innocent movies. The guests themselves look equally ridiculous, especially Taylor Swift, acting like tough punk ex-cons. I would say that there are (just an opinion though) a handful of very funny elements present in the piece, not the least of which is Bill Hader fighting back laughter towards the end of the sketch. However, the sexual assault allusions make me uncomfortable.

The issue here is using sexual assault and humor. The sketch walks a funny line though, because it isn’t quite saying that sexual assault is funny, but using sexual assault as a excuse to make silly puns about iconic films. However, by using the puns, it creates a dialogue whereby the inclusion of sexual assault is funny . . . Its altogether a little confusing.

There are several questions being raised here:

What does the sketch say about sexual assault? How far is too far? What makes something funny? Where is the line between harmless and harmful humor?

I imagine that because everyone has a different relationship with humor that the answers will vary, but this is also a conversation that goes far beyond a few SNL sketches.

Share your thoughts, comments, additional questions!

Rihanna Speaks Out, "I didn't Cause This"

Rihanna speaks out about the assault she faced from Chris Brown. Some people are claiming this is a publicity move because of her new album, but whatever the reason, she has some very powerful things to say to other survivors of domestic violence.

~~~~~~~~

Rihanna: Going back to Brown after beating 'wrong'

NEW YORK — Rihanna said Thursday that she regrets going back to ex-boyfriend Chris Brown after he left her bruised and battered during a February assault, warning other women facing domestic violence to not let themselves become blinded by love.

"It's completely normal to go back. You start lying to yourself," the 21-year-old singer said on "Good Morning America" in her first TV interview following the beating. "I'll say that to any young girl who is going through domestic violence: 'Don't react off of love.'"

Brown, 20, was arrested Feb. 8, hours after he was accused of beating Rihanna after the couple attended a pre-Grammy Awards party. He later pleaded guilty to felony assault and a judge ordered Brown and Rihanna to stay away from each other.

In the interview, Rihanna, who is no longer with Brown, said she was ashamed to go back to him after the attack. "That's embarrassing — that's the type of person I fell in love with. So far in love, so unconditional, that I went back," she said. "That's not what I want to teach people."

The attack occurred in Los Angeles' Hancock Park neighborhood as Brown drove a rented sports car. A Los Angeles police detective described a brutal attack in a search warrant affidavit filed in the case, stating Brown hit, choked and bit Rihanna and tried at one point to push her from the car. A photo of her bruised face was circulated on the Internet. In an interview with Glamour magazine, posted online Tuesday, she said about the leaked photo, "I felt like people were making it into a fun topic on the Internet, and it's my life."

In her interview with "Good Morning America," Rihanna said she soon realized that, as a role model to young women, her returning to Brown sent the wrong message. "When I realized that my selfish decision for love could result in some young girl getting killed, I could not be easy with that part. I couldn't be held responsible for telling them, 'Go back,'" she said.

"I didn't realize how much of an impact I had on these girls' lives until that happened," she added. "It was a wake-up call for me, big time, especially when I took myself out of the situation."

Brown's career suffered after his arrest, with sponsors dropping him and radio stations refusing to play his music. Both he and Rihanna had to cancel several high-profile appearances, including planned performances at the Grammy Awards the day of the attack.

Brown has apologized to fans and has said he has repeatedly apologized to Rihanna for the attack.

In August, Brown said he was still in shock about his actions. He also revealed that he called his mother, who was a domestic violence victim, the night of the attack and broke down.

ABC will air more chunks of the interview on Friday's "Good Morning America" and then Friday evening on the news magazine "20/20." Brown also will recount his perspective in an interview to air Friday on MTV.

Rihanna's interview coincides with the debut of her new single, "Russian Roulette," from her upcoming album, "Rated R." It's her first CD since 2007's multiplatinum "Good Girl Gone Bad."

In Thursday's interview, Rihanna said, "I am strong. This happened to me. I didn't cause this. I didn't do it. This can happen to me and it can happen to anybody."

Rape Victim's Choice: Risk AIDS or Health Insurance?

Christina Turner feared that she might have been sexually assaulted after two men slipped her a knockout drug. She thought she was taking proper precautions when her doctor prescribed a month's worth of anti-AIDS medicine.

Only later did she learn that she had made herself all but uninsurable.

Turner had let the men buy her drinks at a bar in Fort Lauderdale. The next thing she knew, she said, she was lying on a roadside with cuts and bruises that indicated she had been raped. She never developed an HIV infection. But months later, when she lost her health insurance and sought new coverage, she ran into a problem.

Turner, 45, who used to be a health insurance underwriter herself, said the insurance companies examined her health records. Even after she explained the assault, the insurers would not sell her a policy because the HIV medication raised too many health questions. They told her they might reconsider in three or more years if she could prove that she was still AIDS-free.

Stories of how victims of sexual assault can get tangled in the health insurance system have been one result of the Huffington Post Investigative Fund's citizen journalism project, which is calling on readers to provide information and anecdotes about the inner workings of the insurance industry. The project aims to uncover details and data that can inform the larger debate over how to fix the nation's health care system. As the Investigative Fund reported in September, health insurance companies are not required to make public their records on how often claims are denied and for what reasons.

Some women have contacted the Investigative Fund to say they were deemed ineligible for health insurance because they had a pre-existing condition as a result of a rape, such as post traumatic stress disorder or a sexually transmitted disease. Other patients and therapists wrote in with allegations that insurers are routinely denying long-term mental health care to women who have been sexually assaulted.

Susan Pisano, spokeswoman for the health insurance industry's largest trade group, America's Health Insurance Plans, said insurers do not discriminate against victims of sexual assault and ordinarily would not even know if a patient had been raped.

"These issues you are bringing up, they deserve to be brought up," said Pisano. "People who have experienced rape and sexual assault are victims and we want them to be in a system where everyone is covered."

Turner's story about HIV drugs is not unusual, said Cindy Holtzman, an insurance agent and expert in medical billing at Medical Refund Service, Inc. of Marietta, Ga. Insurers generally categorize HIV-positive people as having a pre-existing condition and deny them coverage. Holtzman said that health insurance companies also consistently decline coverage for anyone who has taken anti-HIV drugs, even if they test negative for the virus. "It's basically an automatic no," she said.

Pisano, of the insurance trade group, said: "If you put down on a form that you are or were taking anti-HIV drugs at any time, they [the insurance companies] are going to understand that you are or were in treatment for HIV, period," she said. "That could be a factor in determining whether you get coverage."

Some doctors and nurses said that the industry's policy is not medically sound. "The chance of a rape victim actually contracting AIDS is very low. It doesn't make any sense to use that as a calculus for determining who get health insurance," said Dr. Alex Schafir, faculty instructor at Providence St. Vincent Hospital in Portland, Ore.

Nurses who deal with sexual assault cases say the industry's policy creates a significant problem for those treating women who have been assaulted. "It's difficult enough to make sure that rape victims take the drugs," said Diana Faugno, a forensic nurse in California and board director of End Violence Against Women International. "What are we supposed to tell women now? Well, I guess you have a choice - you can risk your health insurance or you can risk AIDS. Go ahead and choose."

Turner, now a life and casualty insurance agent, said she went without health coverage for three years after the attack. She second-guesses her decision to take the HIV drugs. "I'm going to be penalized my whole life because of this," she said.

Several women told the Investigative Fund that after being sexually assaulted they had been denied care or ruled ineligible for health insurance because of what were deemed pre-existing conditions stemming from their assaults -- particularly post traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD.

A 38-year-old woman in Ithaca, N.Y., said she was raped last year and then penalized by insurers because in giving her medical history she mentioned an assault she suffered in college 17 years earlier. The woman, Kimberly Fallon, told a nurse about the previous attack and months later, her doctor's office sent her a bill for treatment. She said she was informed by a nurse and, later, the hospital's billing department that her health insurance company, Blue Cross Blue Shield, not only had declined payment for the rape exam, but also would not pay for therapy or medication for trauma because she "had been raped before."

Fallon says she now has trouble getting coverage for gynecological exams. To avoid the hassle of fighting with her insurance company, she goes to Planned Parenthood instead and pays out of pocket.

A New Mexico woman told the Investigative Fund she was denied coverage at several health insurance companies because she had suffered from PTSD after being attacked and raped in 2003. She did not want to disclose her name because she feared that she would lose her group health insurance if she went on the record as a rape victim. "I remember just feeling infuriated," she said.

"I think it's important to point out that health plans are not denying coverage based on the fact that someone was raped," said Pisano of the insurance trade group. "But PTSD could be a factor in denied coverage."

"That might not be a discriminatory action, but it certainly would seem to have a discriminatory impact," said Sandra Park, staff attorney at the Women's Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union. "Insurance discrimination against rape victims will only further discourage them from coming forward to law enforcement and seeking medical help."

Even when patients have coverage, there are fundamental disagreements between insurance companies and doctors about what mental health treatment is medically necessary. The Investigative Fund spoke with doctors, psychologists, and licensed clinical social workers around the country who work regularly with victims of sexual assault. They said that their patients have been experiencing an increase in delays and denials, particularly for talk therapy.

"There's a lot of anger about this in the medical community," said Dr. George Shapiro-Weiss, a psychiatrist in Middletown, Conn. "You don't realize what an Alice in Wonderland web this has become."

"A lot of my patients are being told that their treatment isn't medically necessary," said Keri Nola, an Orlando, Fla., psychologist, who said about 75 percent of her patients are victims of sexual violence.

Several therapists cited problems with managed care companies that specialize in mental health. Such firms generally work under contract with health insurers to hold down costs while still authorizing appropriate care.

Some therapists and patients said the managed care companies have cut off necessary treatment for sexual assault victims in the name of cost containment. "The companies are peppering them with questions about their symptoms, and about their histories, and asking, 'Well, are you sure you really need therapy?'" said Jeffrey Axelbank, a New Jersey psychologist. "For someone who has been traumatized, it can feel like another trauma, and it makes the therapy less effective."

Pisano, of the insurance association, said it was not fair to draw a larger pattern from such anecdotal evidence. "These situations are evaluated on a person-by-person basis," she said. "There is nothing routine about this."

Jim Wrich, a Madison, Wis., a consultant who helps employers evaluate the companies that manage their mental health care, said his work has made him wary of the industry. "This is absolutely routine - these denials," Wrich said. "The default position is to reject care."

Magellan Behavioral Health Services, Inc., one of the nation's largest managed-care companies with more than 58 million customers, said that it does not routinely turn down treatment requests from victims of sexual assault or other clients. "We're not denying care. We are exercising our responsibility to make sure that medical necessity is met," said Dr. Lawrence Nardozzi, Magellan's medical director. "I think the process works well."

Asked if cost is a factor in the company's decisions, Magellan spokeswoman Erin Somers said: "If all the safeguards are in place to determine whether treatment is medically necessary and appropriate" then "the cost takes care of itself."

A former care manager for Magellan said in an interview that she felt pressure to deny care for cost reasons. Lois Gorwitz, a psychologist with thirty years of experience who went to work for Magellan in California in 2000, said her superiors would tell her: "We are not denying this person treatment, we are denying them their benefit. If they want the treatment they can still pay out of pocket." But, Gorwitz said, "You know that means that the person is not going to get the treatment because they can't afford to pay out of pocket."

Gorwitz quit after two years. "It's a very uncomfortable feeling of not being able to offer help," she said.

Asked for a response, Magellan's Somers said, "I think you should keep in mind that there have been a lot of changes at Magellan in the last seven years. I think the people who work at Magellan now are not having that experience."

WATCH a video about a rape victim's efforts to obtain mental health services and read more at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/21/insurance-companies-rape-_n_328708.html

The story of prisoner F95488

Something bad happened in Santa Barbara. On Feb. 17, 2007, sometime after midnight on a fast-eroding bluff of beach right below 6547 Del Playa Drive, Jane Doe was raped. She said Eric Frimpong did it, and an all-white jury agreed. But the nature of the case, and some of the more slippery details surrounding it, has divided the community, raising questions about the reliability of the victim's memory, the true character of the accused, the motives and tactics of law enforcement, even the fairness of the justice system. Amid all the controversy, though, two simple truths remain: A young woman was victimized, and a young man's dream was shattered.

This article discusses the story of a man who was convicted with and sentenced to 6 years in a California state prison for raping a woman, both students at the time at University of California at Santa Barbara. This might be controversial, but the whole thing is just really, really interesting -- it's well-written and sheds some light on the hell both parties go though once the charges are filed; you might have to read a little deeper to find the survivor's, but it's there.
________

By Sam Allpour

It's March 3, 2008, a brilliant day in Santa Barbara. But for Eric Frimpong, it feels like hell. He's in Superior Court, encircled by sheriff's deputies, making one more trip to the Department 2 courtroom. This is his last stop on the outside for a while, a painful reminder of how far he has fallen. He left his native Ghana in 2005 to play soccer for UC Santa Barbara; a year later he became a campus hero while leading the Gauchos to their first-ever national championship. If the immigrant experience can have a sound, Frimpong's sound was a raucous stadium. But in 2007, just weeks after being selected by the Kansas City Wizards in the MLS draft, he was accused of raping another student on the beach near his house. Now he's a convicted felon.

Frimpong enters the courtroom, which is packed with students and parents, former teammates and coaches -- row upon row of supporters. They've come for the sentencing that concludes a trial that has rocked this community: People v. Eric Frimpong. Or more accurately, People v. Eric Frimpong and His People.

A victim's advocate reads a statement on behalf of the accuser, referred to in this story and in news coverage throughout the trial as Jane Doe. "I don't care that he's a soccer star…and I'm a nobody," the statement says. "Eric Frimpong ruined my life."

There's a rumble in the gallery. If his supporters could chime in now, they'd say that the kid in the prison garb has never spoken an unkind word or acted aggressively toward anyone. They would remind the court of the points made at trial: that his accuser was a woman with little memory of what happened that night because of a near-toxic blood alcohol level; that Frimpong's DNA wasn't found on the victim; that semen found on her underwear belonged to a jealous boyfriend, a white student who was never a suspect. They would argue that overzealous law enforcement was determined to nail a high-profile athlete, facts be damned, and that this was the Duke lacrosse case all over again -- except that the defendants in the Duke case were white men from affluent families with the means to navigate America's justice system, unlike Frimpong, who is poor and an immigrant.

Judge Brian Hill, citing Frimpong's clean record and "a lot of community support," delivers his sentence: six years in state prison. As Frimpong is led away, many people in the gallery are crying. Out in the hall, Paul and Loni Monahan stand solemnly while the courtroom empties. Their son, Pat, was Frimpong's teammate, and the Monahans -- a white, middle-class family -- had ­embraced "Frimmer" like a son and a brother. Loni distributes copies of a printed statement: "We will continue to fight for Eric. We will not rest until he is exonerated and the ugly truth of his wrongful prosecution and conviction comes out." When the leaflets are gone, she leans against a wall, tears flowing. "Eric believed in our system," she says. "He believed justice would prevail." Then she straightens. "Before I was sad," she says. "Now I'm mad."

Something good happened in Santa Barbara. Even now, as Frimpong sits behind a glass partition in the visitors' room of a California jail, he smiles easily while talking about where he's come from and what he has achieved. The way he sees it, he has always been fortunate.

Back in Ghana, in western Africa, he and his three younger siblings were raised by their mother, Mary, in the poor farming community of Abesin, but her job as a typist with the government forestry department allowed the family to have plumbing and electricity, unlike many of their neighbors. Eric was an engineering major and a midfielder for Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, in Kumasi, when he caught the eye of UCSB assistant Leo Chappel, who attended a 2005 match to scout the son of a Ghanian pro but ended up offering a scholarship to Frimpong instead. The first words out of Frimpong's mouth? Thank God. The next: What's UCSB?

By that August, the Gauchos had a crafty midfielder with intangibles to burn. Frimpong's intelligence, instinct and vision, along with his speed and touch, made him an on-the-ball force. He also had a winning personality. "Frimmer was very humble and considerate, on and off the field," says head coach Tim Vom Steeg.

As a senior the next year, the 5'6" Frimpong developed a reputation as a lockdown defender in leading the unseeded Big West champs to a string of improbable NCAA tournament wins. When the final whistle blew on the 2006 national championship game, the Cinderella Gauchos had defeated four-time king UCLA. Frimpong earned All-Big West honors, a spot in the MLS supplemental draft and the gratitude of his peers. "He was the heart and soul of the team," says Pat Monahan. "Eric won us that championship."

Everyone around Frimpong was buoyed by his success: his mother, friends and classmates, prominent locals who had helped him out along the way with invites to dinner, rides to the store and, when he struggled with homesickness during his junior year, a fund-raiser that yielded $3,000 for a ticket to Ghana. "We all tried to pitch in, because Eric's so darn likable," says Tim Foley, a booster who made Frimpong a regular guest at his family's home. "He was an American success story."

The Monahans were especially proud. Frimpong had met his "American parents" on move-in day in 2005, and they promptly invited him to spend Thanksgiving in San Diego. They gave him his first cell phone and laptop and took him on family vacations. They sat in their kitchen for hours listening to his stories about Ghana. They were also impressed by his knowledge of the Bible, and his quiet spirituality helped bolster their own faith. "He was going to graduate, play professionally, make more money here than he ever could in Ghana and bring it back to support his family," Loni says. "Eric really had it all."

Something bad happened in Santa Barbara. On Feb. 17, 2007, sometime after midnight on a fast-eroding bluff of beach right below 6547 Del Playa Drive, Jane Doe was raped. She said Eric Frimpong did it, and an all-white jury agreed. But the nature of the case, and some of the more slippery details surrounding it, has divided the community, raising questions about the reliability of the victim's memory, the true character of the accused, the motives and tactics of law enforcement, even the fairness of the justice system. Amid all the controversy, though, two simple truths remain: A young woman was victimized, and a young man's dream was shattered.

Click here to read the rest.