Rape or Rape-Rape?

October 20, 2009 at 9:00 am · Filed under Feminism, Posted by Tamara, Society, Violence Against Women ·Tagged , , , ,

Because apparently, to some parts of our society (and most specifically Whoopi Goldberg who came up with this Polanski defense on The View) there’s a difference. Folks, and I say this with great anger and disgust, there is no difference. This isn’t high school, I’m not standing at my locker asking my friend if Bobby likes me or like-likes me, rape is what it is, and what it is, is a horrible act of sexual — and frequently gendered — violence. This is the society we live in, where we come up with childish terms to excuse the behavior of a privileged and powerful white man.

In 1977, Roman Polanski was accused of giving a thirteen-year-old girl champagne and drugs, and then raping her. He was initially indicted on six felony counts, including rape by use of drugs, child molesting and sodomy. He pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse and was sentenced. This is why I call it rape and him a rapist. This is why I don’t use cutesy terms and this is why I don’t defend him.

It was rape.

He is a rapist.

According to the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network (RAINN), 1 out of every 6 American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime, and 1 out of 33 men. 29% of sexual assault and rape victims are between the ages of 12-17. Only about 6% of rapists ever serve a day in jail, or, to look at it in another way, 15 of 16 rapists walk free.

Roman Polanski walked free. He spent a short period of time under psychiatric evaluation and when he was sentenced to serve the rest of his 90 days he fled the country and for the past thirty years has been living as a free man.

October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month. While you’re angry at Polanski and Goldberg, frustrated with the hundreds of entertainers who demanded Polanski be freed, and furious at the society in which we live that allows for marking a difference between “rape” and “rape-rape,” do your part to prevent rape and sexual violence. Support RAINN and speak out about what rape really is.

Rape-rape. Honestly.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment

Caster Semenya and (Fe)Male Athleticism

October 19, 2009 at 9:00 am · Filed under Feminism, Posted by Tamara, Society ·Tagged , , ,

When Caster Semenya won the women’s 800-meter title at August’s world championship in Berlin, people were blown away. She won by 2.45 seconds, finishing the race in 1 minute, 55.45 seconds. In running, those 2.45 seconds are amazing, at the very peak of female performance. (The women’s 800m world record is 1:53.28.) Instead of celebration, Semenya was met with questions. How could a teenaged girl improve so much in so short a time? Was she, gasp, a man?

As a society, we don’t question when male athletes improve rapidly and amazingly. And if we do question, we ask about performance enhancement drugs, we test, life goes on from there. He is innocent or he is guilty, but he is and remains male. Not so for Caster Semenya, whose improvement prompted a series of humiliating demands and displays based on how society thinks women and men should look, act, and achieve. She was tested to prove or disprove gender, and, worse, those supposed results were leaked to the press, putting what should have been a private medical condition on public display. Then was the interview and photo shoot for a South African magazine where Semenya was feminized via clothing, hair, and makeup in order to conform to society’s female norm.

There’s a base assumption here that women cannot achieve or make great leaps in achievement without being male or infringing on male domains. When Caster Semenya approaches the women’s 800m world record she is nearing the peak of what women have achieved–of what we know they can achieve–and her gender is questioned because of it, not because of the achievement, but because it is female achievement.

They say Semenya is intersex, having no ovaries but internal testes. They say this, as well as her voice, her appearance, and her athletic talent make her a man. I say Caster Semenya is whoever she wants to be and that women can achieve and excel just as well and as often as men, and that when they do their gender should never be in question.

The International Association of Athletics Federations will rule on these tests and Semenya’s status in the athletic community in November.

Bookmark and Share

Comments (2)

One small step.

July 22, 2009 at 3:49 pm · Filed under Posted by Tamara, Society, Violence Against Women ·Tagged , ,

Last week, the Obama administration opened the way for foreign women who are victims of severe domestic violence to receive asylum in the United States. As it stands now, an applicant for asylum in the U.S. must show a “well-founded fear of persecution” because of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or “membership in a particular social group” so the inclusion of abused women in this category is a step in the right direction. But is it a big enough step? I don’t think so.

“In addition to meeting other strict conditions for asylum, abused women will need to show that they are treated by their abuser as subordinates and little better than property, according to an immigration court filing by the administration, and that domestic abuse is widely tolerated in their country. They must show that they could not find protection from institutions at home or by moving to another place within their own country.” [Source]

Do you have any idea how hard it’s going to be for a woman to prove any of that? In a culture where domestic violence is widely tolerated it is just that, tolerated. Assumed to exist. Considered to be the norm. Who will speak up for this woman and help her prove she is little better than property? Who will testify that she is subordinate to her husband when in her country that is just how things are? Who will even think they should or could?

I see a few mistakes being made here. One is the assumption that it’s as simple to speak out against your abuse and abuser and get help in other countries as it is in the U.S., and another is that it’s simple to speak out against your abuse and abuser and get help in the U.S.

Abused women lack options. They may not have transportation, money, or access to phone or internet in order to contact someone for help. They may be, and most likely are, ashamed, because their abuser and society have lead them to believe they should be. They may be afraid of retaliation and an escalation of violence if they do seek help. And that’s here, in the U.S. If our shelters and support services asked these women to prove they were subordinate, treated like property, and could find no other help, before we granted them our assistance, how many do you think would even ask?

Abused women in patriarchal countries where abuse is widely tolerated have even fewer options. It isn’t out of line to assume that many women in these countries live below the poverty line and don’t have money to cover costs of transportation, and even if they did their cultures may very well prohibit women from being in public without a male escort. Like abused women here, they are ashamed and fear retaliation should they leave or seek help. And, making matters worse, if they are from a country where abuse is widely tolerated–common, one might say, even accepted–who will speak up for them and help them prove their abuse when to nearly everyone that abuse is accepted as the norm?

It’s nice that the U.S. is making this offer, but it almost seems like a tease to me. I imagine any woman seeking asylum in the U.S. to escape her abuse is doing so in a state of desperation. Asking her to then go on and prove, in some unnamed way, that she was abused in the specific way outlined by the requirements, and that she had nowhere to go for help in her own country, is putting an unfair burden on someone who has already been burdened enough.

You’ll see her wounds. You’ll hear her quiet testimony. You may feel her shame. Let that be enough.

National Domestic Violence Hotline: 1-800-799-SAFE (7233)

Bookmark and Share

Comments (1)

A few thoughts on celebrity and narrative

July 20, 2009 at 2:03 am · Filed under Feminism, Pop-culture, Posted by Samantha, Society

This weekend I finished reading American Eve: Evelyn Nesbit, Stanford White, The Birth of the It Girl and the Crime of the Century, by Paula Uruburu. In a way, my response to the book as a whole can be summed up in a response to the title–intriguing topic, presented in a complex and rather confusing manner, and ultimately more than a little awkward.

Evelyn Nesbit was, as the title suggests, one of the early female products of the birth of the mass-celebrity era. At the turn of the twentieth century, she enjoyed a period as a noted beauty who served as a model for numerous significant artists as well as advertisers. Among other iconic images, she was one of Charles Dana Gibson’s “Gibson Girls.” Her career took her from Pittsburgh to New York City, where she began acting as a chorus girl on Broadway. All of this was before she turned eighteen, though that fact was frequently obscured.

She came to the attention of Stanford White, a prominent architect of the time, who assumed a role of father figure, provided for her financially, and eventually drugged her, raped her, and convinced her the safest path from there was to quietly become his mistress. After several years of this, another wealthy man, Harry Thaw, entered the picture, obsessed with the ideas of possessing Evelyn and destroying White. The “crime of the century” comes in when, several more years down the line, Evelyn married Thaw, who proceeded to shoot White and claim it was because White had “ruined [his] wife.”

Both Nesbit’s story and Uruburu’s presentation of it can be analyzed from a variety of angles just in terms of feminism; Evelyn’s rationalization of her rape and abuse by both White and Thaw, Evelyn’s mother’s actions throughout her life in using Evelyn’s beauty and ambitions to support their family, the conflicted fetishization and abhorrance of youthful female sexuality woven throughout the case. What particularly stood out to me, however, is how the model for public consumption of a female celebrity has not changed much if at all in the century-plus since Evelyn Nesbit took the stand in Harry Thaw’s trial and was obliged to recount every detail of her sexual abuse.**

Women who rise to fame on the wings of beauty or performance are expected to provide a tremendous, unceasing output of product for public consumption. This will last an indeterminate period of time, until there is a scandal or a fall–and there must be a fall, a fall is required. Celebrities are placed at a point of intersection between reality and fiction, and the fictional axis demands a narrative arc that ordinary, genuine life does not provide. Therefore, one way or another, one will be created.

In the course of the fall, the woman will be required to perform confessional and repentance, as Nesbit did during Thaw’s trial. She exposed all of her secrets, told her entire story, was judged in the press and public eye. And then she disappeared offstage, her arc complete and her story exhausted. Uruburu’s book devotes a single chapter to Evelyn’s entire life following the end of Thaw’s trial, when she was 22. The rest of her life took place after the narrative had ended, and thus had no reason to exist.

Some celebrities do get second chances, Fitzgerald’s second acts. More men than women, though, and it’s a fiercely uphill battle. Our culture prizes the narrative above all else, a tendancy that has been established for over a century at the least.

** Every detail, that is, except the names of anyone besides herself and White. Names were to be whispered to the stenographer to protect everyone’s reputation–except Evelyn’s, of course.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment

Lean on Me

July 13, 2009 at 2:49 am · Filed under Feminism, Posted by Samantha, Posted by Tamara, Society ·Tagged

Fem2.0 Blog Carnival: For Women, the Other Side of Work Is NOT Play… It’s Caregiving: Caregiving is a job for which women usually don’t get or expect monetary compensation. It is a critical aspect of work/life and healthcare issues. How can caregiving be made easier to make our lives easier? What is caregiving in all its shapes and forms? What role does it play in women’s lives? What can be done, or what changes need to happen, to facilitate caregiving?

A dialogue in response to this-

TAMARA: One of the things that immediately came to my mind when I saw this was that one of the biggest dangers I see for myself and my friends when it comes to caregiving is that we neglect to give care to ourselves. We spend our personal–and often our professional–lives caring for others but when it comes to our own needs, those don’t even make the list! We’re lunch-skippers, lack-of-sleepers, and it seems we’re almost always in need of a little self-care.

SAMANTHA: We don’t want to seem selfish. What’s worse than a selfish woman, right? Failure to nurture is a failure at the very center of constructed womanhood; after all, in the cultural lore, childless women need to be the aunt who babysits, or the teacher who surrogate-parents a generation, or at the very least a crazy cat lady who caregives to animals. Taking care of yourself first goes against an extremely powerful cultural impulse, and honestly most of the time it’s just too hard to do that. So who needs sleep, of course instead I’ll volunteer to help out with this other thing.

TAMARA: I’ll admit it, occasionally I’m resentful. I care for others and yet it seems very rarely does anyone care for me or even notice I’m in need of care. I feel guilty about this, of course, because Good Girls don’t ask for anything in return. Maybe that’s my problem, maybe I should ask.

SAMANTHA: Asking is being demanding, though, and that’s very nearly as bad as being selfish. And of course there’s the element of thinking that you shouldn’t have to ask, that people should notice; but of course any good servant (caregiver) is invisible. Wow, I’m exceptionally cynical today.

TAMARA: We don’t expect others to care for us but it would be nice. I rarely ask for it, and when I do, it’s very awkward. Many of my woman friends are like that. Control issues, an inability to step out of our roles as caregivers and into role of cared-for, I don’t know.

SAMANTHA: Control issues, absolutely. And I suspect that we get a little charge of superiority, as well; after all, we’re filling that damn cultural role, and not even getting anything in return! Martyr complex. And the very best women are martyrs, aren’t they? Old-school American Puritanism: your reward is in heaven.

TAMARA: Well, to borrow your cynicism, it isn’t as if we’re going to get rewarded here. Ouch. I don’t do it for a reward but I definitely get a sense of validation when my caregiving is recognized as something valuable. It’s as if it and I are one and the same, as if it’s such an integral part of me that I literally cannot feel right if it is not acknowledged and valued. (NB: There’s a wonderful book of essays called “Women’s Growth in Connection: Writings from the Stone Center” that discusses this and other aspects of women’s development.)

SAMANTHA: Oh, absolutely. Being the one who listens, the friend who always has a shoulder to cry on, that becomes such an important part of my identity. And of course then trying to talk about my stuff, to let someone else fill that role, feels like giving up part of my identity. It’s a scary thing. And around and around we go in a self-reinforcing cycle.

TAMARA: It’s become important in navigating my friendships that a concept of “give and take” is directly stated. Today it’s your turn to need, tomorrow it may be mine… For some reason that makes it easier for both the caregiver and the cared-for.

SAMANTHA: That might be the best way, explicit communication of needs. Because otherwise, I definitely have a tendency to burn myself out. I just run out of sympathy to give. I picked up this term somewhere on the Internet, though I can’t remember where- “compassion fatigue.” You still care, you want to feel bad for your people who are hurting, you want to support them and be there for them, but you just have nothing left. And that makes you a bad person, of course, because why can’t you suck it up and be there for your friends? It’s a vicious, self-punishing thing.

TAMARA: Because of course then you feel worse, they feel worse, and it keeps going until there’s this group of women sitting around in their misery, each one resentful that no one has noticed and guilty she hasn’t done more for her own friends. Why can’t we just be nice to ourselves? We need to stop playing into these societal roles. Maybe we can’t escape them on a grand scale but we can in our own most intimate circles.

SAMANTHA: Sometimes it’s harder to be honest with your nearest and dearest about this than strangers, though. You can cut off a stranger and walk away with relatively little remorse, but not being there for your BFF? What kind of person are you? Still, sucking it up and having the conversation is probably essential to staying sane.

TAMARA: One of my biggest worries heading into a caregiving profession is burnout. But I’ve realized I’m not so much worried about the effects of this burnout on myself but on those I should be helping. Should be, listen to that. Because I want to be helping, I feel as if I can’t stand by and not help, but it’s still somehow programmed into me that helping–caring–is what I should do.

SAMANTHA: It all comes down to drawing boundaries, I think; making sure to fence off a piece of ourselves for ourselves. Easier said than done, but it’s a goal to keep in sight.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment

This is not your empowered female archetype.

June 9, 2009 at 1:44 am · Filed under Feminism, Pop-culture, Posted by Tamara ·Tagged

In the July issue of Harper’s Bazaar Naomi Wolf writes about “The Power of Angelina (Jolie),” suggesting that women want her and want to be her because she has and does it all. Jolie, she says, transgresses boundaries, rebrands single-motherhood, and even defies the social stigma of “homewrecking.” All of this is because Jolie has “created a life narrative that is not just personal [but] archetypal… [bringing] together almost every aspect of female empowerment and liberation.” Key to Wolf’s argument is how Jolie has apparently defied one of the main forms of social control instituted by the patriarchy, the Madonna-Whore dichotomy. Women can be good but not sexy, they can be sexy but then obviously they are not good, and Jolie is both good and sexy.

Wolf’s argument falls apart, in my opinion, after she declares this and explains just how Jolie changed from “an attention-seeking, slightly Goth upstart” to this archetypal symbol of female empowerment. The turning point, she says, was Jolie’s son, Maddox, and Jolie’s supposed rebranding of single mothers from “society’s pathetic cases” to goodwill ambassadors who care not only for their own children but for all the world’s. Then came her involvement with Brad Pitt, the “ideal masculine counterpoint” for young Maddox, and Jolie’s avoidance of “the scarlet letter” by providing her son with this new father-figure. Apparently all you need to live the life of an empowered female archetype is to be a mother and wife-figure.

Wait.

If Jolie has indeed become an icon of female empowerment because she’s living our dream life (as Wolf suggests) then what does this say about society’s views of what women want? Jolie herself might be actively defying the Madonna-Whore dichotomy but if it took a child and an attractive live-in lover to raise her status in the eyes of the general public–or at least Naomi Wolf–then I don’t think much has changed at all.

Wolf’s glorification of motherhood is writ large in this essay. Jolie is “the ultimate in single-mom chic” and “an übermom [who mothers] on a global scale.” She’s maternally extravagant, with her well-thought-out multiethnic family and “seems, without breaking stride, to care for half a football team of children while the rest of us tread water with our own biological offspring.” Not a word is mentioned about the day-to-day hardships of parenting and how Jolie’s money and fame give her options and advantages other mothers may not have.

In a similar vein, Jolie’s relationship with Pitt is highlighted as Wolf perceives Jolie to “[have taken] for her own pleasure the male seen as the most desired of the tribe.” There’s a nod to Jolie’s supposed “disdain [for the] social constraint” of marriage (this is in reference to Pitt’s to Aniston when he and Jolie began their relationship, not Jolie and Pitt’s unmarried status) but the breakup of that marriage is secondary to Jolie’s ability to take the man who is “always ranked at the top of indexes of male beauty and virility.”

Wolf briefly sets aside this obsession with motherhood and relationships to praise Jolie for her community service, giving us a paragraph on Jolie’s “elegant bone structure” and the clothing she wears while engaging in these charitable acts. Jolie may be doing more than looking pretty but Wolf certainly doesn’t seem to care.

Wolf may think she’s praising Jolie in this essay, but she isn’t, nor is she successfully demonstrating that Jolie has broken any new ground by way of female archetypes. She’s judging Jolie by the children she has and the man she’s with, not by who she is. Sorry, Naomi Wolf, but I just don’t see empowerment and liberation in that.

Bookmark and Share

Comments (3)

Third World Women: Not Your Guinea Pigs

April 17, 2009 at 3:08 am · Filed under Feminism, Posted by Tamara, Reproductive Health ·Tagged

Pap Smears May Soon be Replaced by DNA Testing: An eight-year-study funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and published in the New England Journal of Medicine has found that a new DNA test may provide a better method for screening for cervical cancer than the Pap smear test. The DNA test is different from the Pap smear in that it actually tests for the human papillomavirus, which is the leading cause of cervical cancer. It is so effective at testing for the virus and screening for cervical cancer that many experts are optimistic that women over the age of 30 will be able to drop the traditional Pap smear altogether and simply get the DNA test once every 3, 5 or possibly even ten years.

Sounds good to me. Sounds great to me, actually. I’m all for an easier, better test that will protect me and maybe save my life. There’s only one problem, the women they tested this on: 130,000 Indian women from 497 villages throughout the country. Well, this isn’t looking too good. Thank you, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, for funding a study that used women from developing countries as its guinea pigs.

“The control group of participants consisted of those who received the typical form of care in the country, which involves simply telling them to go to the hospital if they wanted to receive a screening. The second group received Pap smear screenings, the third group received flashlight-vinegar visualization for identifying potentially cancerous cells, and the forth received the new DNA testing.”

And then what? And then we took these results and gave them and their benefits to women in developed nations who can afford health care. The New England Journal of Medicine article makes reference to this low-cost test helping women in developing nations and eventually replacing the faulty tests they have now. The problem remains, however, that many women in Indian villages cannot afford healthcare at all so this new test–developed based on their experiences–will remain out of their reach.

I’m uncomfortable with this. I think I should be. It isn’t enough to someday offer this test in Indian hospitals, we need to make sure Indian women (all women) have access to it. Especially since we’re testing it on them.

Bookmark and Share

Comments (1)

Hey, hey, hey, what’s in your head?

April 17, 2009 at 2:45 am · Filed under Feminism, Pop-culture, Posted by Tamara ·Tagged ,

Zombie Feminism. Ever since Dr. Frankenstein reanimated a woman to serve as his monster’s bride and she said no, the zombie woman has been a weird figure for female resistance to control. Zombie feminism is an uneasy subgenre, daring to use freakish gore and death slapstick to pose questions about what it might take for women to become unrapeable. Or for men to see women the way women see themselves. The question is, why do we have to imagine ourselves as monsters in order to tell stories about what it would be like to become fully human?

When Samantha brought this rant to my attention I had to confess to her that I have seen one of the movies discussed: Zombie Strippers. I’m what you might call a fan of the zombie genre. And I also had to admit that I laughed at it, with its low-budget comedy and over-the-top gore. There was no way I was going to take it seriously, not when it starred porn star Jenna Jameson and horror king Robert Englund. No way until I read this article, that is.

When I read someone asserting that this movie–and the others described in the article–are an actual, valid subgenre I start to blink a little. Okay, I start to blink rapidly. If I were to think deeply about Zombie Strippers, I wouldn’t see it as anything feminist. With one exception (who immediately uses her new “gifts” to make additional money), the strippers in this movie deliberately become zombies in order to get more money out of their male customers. They aren’t fighting back against exploitation or control, they’re simply fighting amongst themselves to see who can be top stripper at the place where they work.

I think we need to ask ourselves who the audience for these movies are. Especially Deadgirl, the main focus of the quoted rant, which the author describes as follows: “You’ve got a naked girl, strapped to a bed in a mental institution, being raped by a bunch of teenaged guys.” This is accompanied by a photo of a naked girl in a rather provocative pose where one can see clearly between her legs. Is this an example of “zombie feminism” or merely more of the same exploitation of submissive bodies?

It isn’t that the woman comes back from her (mostly) violent death and gets revenge on the men who raped/killed her, it’s that she was raped and killed to begin with. Instead of wondering if the female zombie attacks are a resistance to male control, we ought to be wondering about the male control and domination that got her dead in the first place. Is it that women are imagining themselves as monsters in order to feel strong and in control or that men imagine women as monsters when they are not being fucked or killed?

This movie, and others like it, are not a brand new form of feminism. They’re more of the same exploitation that’s been around for years.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment

It’s Okay to Want to Stay

March 2, 2009 at 12:51 am · Filed under Feminism, Posted by Tamara, Society, Violence Against Women ·Tagged , , , , ,

On February 8, Rihanna was allegedly attacked by her boyfriend, Chris Brown. Brown was arrested and may face charges. A photograph of an obviously battered Rihanna was leaked to the internet. Rihanna supposedly went into seclusion and Brown released a statement saying he was seeking counseling. Everyone had an opinion and fortunately most of them were kind. We all seemed to agree, at least in this case, that intimate partner violence is wrong, it’s tragic, and that Rihanna deserved all the compassion we could provide her. Few people wanted to discuss or even see the photograph because that sort of violation of her privacy after what she had already allegedly endured was much more than Rihanna should ever have to go through.

As an advocate, I was torn. IPV is a hidden crime and bringing it to light can only help those who think they have to suffer in silence. Having a female role model like Rihanna become a victim of IPV and then stand up for herself can, and hopefully did, inspire someone else to stand up for herself. Having male role models like Jay-Z and Kanye West speak out against IPV can and, again, hopefully did, inspire people to speak out in their own communities and lend compassion to their friends. However I was concerned that being in the public eye would make things harder for Rihanna, that people would forget she was a person who deserves the dignity that IPV takes away from you.

Last week news broke that Rihanna and Chris were back together and working through their issues. [Source] All that compassion the general public had for Rihanna? It’s gone. Go ahead, check the comments on that linked article. Now Rihanna is “guilty,” “stupid,” and “has no self-respect.” She’s “trash” who deserves what she gets and she’s “a sorry excuse for a woman.” That last commenter hopes she gets beat again because she “needs it.”

The focus of IPV advocates has been to get the woman out of the abusive situation. If she leaves the house and the relationship then she won’t get hit again. Simple fix, right? Well, no, it isn’t, not entirely. It ignores the many reasons why women can’t leave, and it also ignores the rationality of not wanting to leave. Just as there is nothing wrong with leaving there is also nothing wrong with wanting to stay.

  • For many victims, leaving an abusive partner does not guarantee physical safety and raises other risks. Leaving can destroy any chance for financial security and can place children in precarious legal and emotional circumstances. Leaving can mean the loss of home, health care, a job, an education, custody, a faith community, immigration status, or the support of family or friends.

  • Many victims don’t want to leave. Victims want someone to change their partners – to help him stop the violence, to be a better partner, a better parent. Since the violence is the problem, asking for help to fix the problem makes sense. It is a rational request, given the commitment most victims have to their families and their relationships and the very high stakes of leaving. At the same time, victims want protection, someone to shield them and their children from the violence and control by enforcing some of society’s most basic principles.

  • The focus on strategies for leaving has created an expectation that victims should leave. The view that leaving is the answer to domestic violence is so strong that it has become the standard by which victims are judged. Leave and you are worthy of the full range of services and protection. Stay and the resources may be limited, the consequences sometimes severe. Victims who don’t leave are often unfairly judged to be making poor decisions, viewed as “not being serious” about stopping the violence, or as somehow responsible for not preventing it.

[The above bulletpoints were reprinted/adapted from the publication titled When Battered Women Stay…Advocacy Beyond Leaving by Jill Davies for Building Comprehensive Solutions to Domestic Violence (BCSDV), a project of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence]

Before you judge Rihanna for talking to Chris Brown (and possibly desiring to reconcile with him), think about how her desire to want him to change, to be a man who does not hit her, is a rational desire. There is nothing wrong with her for wanting a person she presumably loves to be a loving partner in return. There is nothing wrong with any person who wants this. She has not suddenly become complicit in her own beatings, she does not deserve or desire them, and she is not stupid. Just like the rest of us she wants to be safe, happy, and loved, and there is nothing at all wrong with that.

Related posts by Tamara:
An Open Letter to Chris Brown
Wake up and smell the Madonna-Whore dichotomy


Call for help, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
National Domestic Violence Hotline: 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) or TTY 1-800-787-3224.
National Sexual Assault Hotline: 1-800-656-HOPE (4673).
National Teen Dating Abuse Helpline: 1-866-331-9474 (1-866-331-8453 TTY).

Bookmark and Share

Comments (2)

Dave’s Not Here!

January 4, 2009 at 3:27 pm · Filed under Posted by Tamara, Society ·Tagged

I don’t know if you’ve heard, but here in Massachusetts we’re living through the end of civilization as we know it. It’s terrible. Buildings are crumbling around us, grandmas are kicking kittens, and nobody, but nobody, has a good thing to say about anybody. It’s crazy, I tell ya! The end is nigh!

Oh, you want to know why? Because on January 1, 2009 having less than one ounce of marijuana for personal use became a civil penalty rather than a criminal offense.

You can see how terrifying it must be to live here during the decline and fall of the Commonwealth. Just ask the Boston Herald who Saturday morning printed an article titled “Boston Goes to Pot” complete with photo of–gasp–a technology professional “brazenly” smoking up in public! Nero tokes while Boston burns.

According to the Herald, some towns–encouraged by the state–are considering laws making it illegal to smoke marijuana in public. What are these laws going to say: It’s illegal to do something illegal in public? Isn’t that a bit, well, stupid? I’ve always operated under the assumption that it’s illegal to do illegal things everywhere, and that includes in public. I kind of want to say that again. It’s illegal to do illegal things. Everywhere. The punishment for personal use of marijuana has changed but the drug remains illegal. It is illegal to buy it, to sell it, to possess it. One more time: it is illegal.

Having established the legalities of the situation you’re probably wondering why Boston has its Puritan panties in a bunch. Aside from that Puritan panties thing, I don’t know. Despite the Herald’s article and the fears of commenters on every article written on this subject from prior to the election until now, mobs of pot-smoking delinquents and hippies haven’t taken to the streets to light up. The 7-11s probably won’t have to increase the amount of Doritos and breakfast burritos they stock. Kids aren’t packing a bowl in the playground, teachers aren’t passing joints around the cafeteria. This change in the law is a gateway to nothing more than a one hundred dollar fine. I think we’re all going to be okay.

These views are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect those of my partner-in-blog.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment

Older Posts »