The September issue of Cosmopolitan features an article that hits home
for many students here at UW-Madison. Molly Triffin ‘s “The Scary Truth
About Rape on Campus” details the flawed systems for reporting and
processing sexual assault cases in universities across the country. It
shares personal stories of victims who were failed by these systems on
their campuses, one of whom attended UW-Madison. Although it is
certainly wonderful that Cosmo is giving this issue national attention,
there are several problems with the article and its presentation.
The
article uses specific examples and personal stories from victims to
communicate the severity of the problem with reporting sexual assaults
on college campuses. However, Triffin fails to honor the survivors in
her article by using victim-blaming language. According to her, all of
these women were “allegedly” assaulted. Each statement about their
assaults is qualified first by words that imply the possibility that
these women are lying. They “claimed” to have been assaulted. They “say”
that this horrible thing happened to them. These seemingly miniscule
changes remove all blame from the perpetrator and place responsibility
for the assault on the victim herself.
Victim blaming is
prevalent throughout the article. It is heavily implied that those
victims who choose not to report their assaults are somehow wrong.
Laura, the UW-Madison student who waited a year before coming forward
with her story, seems to have her reasons for hesitation trivialized.
Rather than address how incredibly difficult it is to report a sexual
assault to school authorities or the police, Triffin instead outright
states that victims simply “don't want to believe it happened to them.”
Again, Triffin's article places all responsibility on victims. She seems
to invalidate the reasons a survivor of sexual assault may have for not
reporting, and ultimately hold victims responsible for cases where the
assailant is not convicted. She also ignores the possibility that some
victims don’t feel reporting to the police or campus officials is the
right step for them.
The article goes on to completely disregard a
victim's right to privacy. Triffin poses the question, “So why don't
[colleges] turn these cases over to the police?” Without the consent of a
victim, no college should ever consider sending a case onto local
police. It is entirely up to the victim should they decide to file a
police report in addition to a report to campus authorities. Triffin
offers the rather unsatisfactory answer that “students want to keep the
matter private,” and does not acknowledge that a police report is not
always what is best for the victim.
On top of the victim blaming
that litters the story, there is a sense of hypocrisy present.
Cosmopolitan, while helping to normalize female sexuality, is not a
terribly socially conscious magazine. It is completely hetero-normative,
only discussing women and their sexual encounters with men. The
magazine portrays the sexes in stereotypical ways: Men are masculine and
women are feminine. End of discussion. And while the magazine does
promote the still taboo subject of female sexuality, it spends the
majority of its pages telling women how to please their men, oftentimes
boiling down the success of a relationship to conforming to gender norms
and doing whatever her man wants her to do in the bedroom.
As
these trends demonstrate, Cosmopolitan doesn’t understand the forces
behind rape culture and how sexual assault happens. Until they magazine
demonstrates it has educated itself about the implications of gender
norms, how the language we use perpetuates rape culture, what victim
blaming is and how it happens and, perhaps most important, how to
support a survivor, it will be difficult to take moves like this
seriously.
If an impact is really to be made, then the inclusion
of the occasional article on sexual assault is not enough. Before Cosmo
puts itself at the forefront of the movement to stop sexual violence,
perhaps some of its content should be reevaluated to promote a healthier
idea of sexuality.
-Tessie Benser
Showing posts with label Sexual Assault. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sexual Assault. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Students must act to prevent sexual assault
Last week, thousands of freshmen descended onto the UW-Madison campus. Eager to start the next chapter of their lives, most are delightfully overwhelmed with everything this tremendous university has to offer. Most are also undereducated about a reality plaguing this campus: Sexual assault.
Promoting Awareness, Victim Empowerment (PAVE) continually finds that the majority of students come to UW-Madison believing rape is something that only happens in the middle of the night when no one is around.
As we've seen far too many times this summer, this form of rape certainly happens and needs to be addressed, but there is another reality students need to be aware of: One in four women will be victims of rape or attempted rape during their time at college. Ninety percent of these assaults will be perpetrated by someone the victim knows. While these numbers are staggering, most students remain confused about the scenario in which sexual assaults most commonly occur.
Knowing this dangerous misconception exists, it should be the university administration's responsibility to inform all, but especially new students, of these undeniable realities. Currently, the university invites freshmen to participate in a sexual assault prevention program, one that has proven effective. Pre-tests show that most students start the program ill informed about the definitions, realities and dynamics of sexual assault, but, based on their post-test scores, leave with a better, more comprehensive understanding.
Still, only 13 percent of students completed the workshop in the fall of 2010, while 27 percent had partial completion and 60 percent did nothing at all. Because the program is not mandatory, there is no way to ensure students will take the initiative and complete it.
However, 80 percent of those who completed either all or a portion of the program felt it was important for colleges to provide a sexual assault prevention program to its students, this compared to 49 percent of the population who did not complete any of the program. This gap suggests that once students are taught about the realities of sexual assault, they realize how severe of an issue it is and how important it is for students to be educated about the topic.
One gentleman who completed the program said, "It helped me understand how I can help stop sexual assault from happening to people around me. Even if I'm not involved in it, I can help stop it." This is an incredibly powerful take-away. If every student had this attitude, the impact would be profound and felt around campus. Yet, because the university does not enforce this program, the potential for change is lost.
That said, we cannot simply point our fingers at the university administration and expect them to rid this community of rape. Is there more they could be doing? Absolutely, but we cannot expect anyone else to take action against rape until the majority of students step up and actively recognize it as a serious problem on campus.
Passive disdain for sexual assault is not sufficient. We need to use our collective voice to say we will not let our campus be a place where rape is prevalent. We will not let our institutional leaders or peers turn a blind eye when something tragic happens. And, most of all, we will not let ourselves remain idle when offered the opportunity to make a difference and learn.
Doing this not only means holding perpetrators accountable, but also breaking down the existent rape culture. We need to remember that alcohol is not a gateway to consent. We need to stop blaming rape victims for what they were wearing, how much they were drinking or how promiscuous they are, but instead blame the rapists for not getting consent. Most of all, we need to remember that consent is a freely given ‘yes,' not the absence of a ‘no.' Rape would occur far less frequently on campus if this simple distinction was recognized by all. Sexuality may be a private issue, but sexual assault is a community problem. We all must work together to stop it.
PAVE is a student organization dedicated to ending sexual assault, dating/domestic violence and stalking on the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus through education and activism. PAVE's kickoff meeting will be held at 7 p.m. on Sept. 15 in the PAVE office, room #3147 of the Student Activity Center. For more information or to find out how to get involved, e-mail uwpavemedia@gmail.com.
-Jacqueline O'Reilly
**As published in The Daily Cardinal
Promoting Awareness, Victim Empowerment (PAVE) continually finds that the majority of students come to UW-Madison believing rape is something that only happens in the middle of the night when no one is around.
As we've seen far too many times this summer, this form of rape certainly happens and needs to be addressed, but there is another reality students need to be aware of: One in four women will be victims of rape or attempted rape during their time at college. Ninety percent of these assaults will be perpetrated by someone the victim knows. While these numbers are staggering, most students remain confused about the scenario in which sexual assaults most commonly occur.
Knowing this dangerous misconception exists, it should be the university administration's responsibility to inform all, but especially new students, of these undeniable realities. Currently, the university invites freshmen to participate in a sexual assault prevention program, one that has proven effective. Pre-tests show that most students start the program ill informed about the definitions, realities and dynamics of sexual assault, but, based on their post-test scores, leave with a better, more comprehensive understanding.
Still, only 13 percent of students completed the workshop in the fall of 2010, while 27 percent had partial completion and 60 percent did nothing at all. Because the program is not mandatory, there is no way to ensure students will take the initiative and complete it.
However, 80 percent of those who completed either all or a portion of the program felt it was important for colleges to provide a sexual assault prevention program to its students, this compared to 49 percent of the population who did not complete any of the program. This gap suggests that once students are taught about the realities of sexual assault, they realize how severe of an issue it is and how important it is for students to be educated about the topic.
One gentleman who completed the program said, "It helped me understand how I can help stop sexual assault from happening to people around me. Even if I'm not involved in it, I can help stop it." This is an incredibly powerful take-away. If every student had this attitude, the impact would be profound and felt around campus. Yet, because the university does not enforce this program, the potential for change is lost.
That said, we cannot simply point our fingers at the university administration and expect them to rid this community of rape. Is there more they could be doing? Absolutely, but we cannot expect anyone else to take action against rape until the majority of students step up and actively recognize it as a serious problem on campus.
Passive disdain for sexual assault is not sufficient. We need to use our collective voice to say we will not let our campus be a place where rape is prevalent. We will not let our institutional leaders or peers turn a blind eye when something tragic happens. And, most of all, we will not let ourselves remain idle when offered the opportunity to make a difference and learn.
Doing this not only means holding perpetrators accountable, but also breaking down the existent rape culture. We need to remember that alcohol is not a gateway to consent. We need to stop blaming rape victims for what they were wearing, how much they were drinking or how promiscuous they are, but instead blame the rapists for not getting consent. Most of all, we need to remember that consent is a freely given ‘yes,' not the absence of a ‘no.' Rape would occur far less frequently on campus if this simple distinction was recognized by all. Sexuality may be a private issue, but sexual assault is a community problem. We all must work together to stop it.
PAVE is a student organization dedicated to ending sexual assault, dating/domestic violence and stalking on the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus through education and activism. PAVE's kickoff meeting will be held at 7 p.m. on Sept. 15 in the PAVE office, room #3147 of the Student Activity Center. For more information or to find out how to get involved, e-mail uwpavemedia@gmail.com.
-Jacqueline O'Reilly
**As published in The Daily Cardinal
Monday, February 21, 2011
PAVE discusses sexual assault myths from "Law & Order"
On Wednesday, Feb. 16, 2011 at 7 PM,
Promoting Awareness, Victim Empowerment (PAVE) screened an episode of
“Law and Order: Special Victims Unit” called “Confrontation.” Post the
viewing, PAVE hosted discussion about the portrayal of, among other
things, rape and stalking.
“Confrontation” opens with the rape of Elizabeth held at knifepoint. She soon confronts her rapist with a club and starts to hit him. Detective Stabler, lead detective for the Special Victims Unit, eventually finds her dead in an alley. Her murder sparks an intense investigation into a series of rapes in the Brooklyn area. During the investigation, the SVU discovers the victim had been stalked by her rapist and was likely rape more than once. This holds true with the rapist’s other victims. Throughout the episode, his other two victims encounter a lot of turmoil, including one, Gina, committing suicide. Eventually Luke Dixon, an office assistant at the realtor’s office his victims were renting through, is arrested for his heinous crimes. It is later uncovered that he rapes women to impregnate and thus create a master race.
All of the students found “Confrontation” disturbing, especially its pervasive stereotypes. The first myth the show encourages: victims do not know their attackers. This is false. Around 90 percent of rapes occur by someone close to the survivor—an acquaintance, a friend or partner. Myth number two: survivors cannot be raped more than once. This, too, is false, especially since rape survivors are at least twice (and even as high as four times) more likely to be raped again, with people caught in a cycle of domestic violence often experiencing repeated rape. Myth three: rape is only rape when it’s violent. Only 10 percent of rapists use extreme force and/or a weapon. The fourth myth the students remarked on was the show’s notion that there is only one way to “get over” being raped: anger. There is no one or right way to cope with being assaulted; every victim is different, every victim wants and needs different things. Saying there is only one way to heal adds to the victim blaming that often occurs.
Although the students were upset with the episode’s myths, they did remark on its highlights. For instance, “SVU” did a good job of portraying that rape is not about sex, but instead about power and control (although “Confrontation” did say it was about power and rage, which perpetuates the image of rape as angry and violent). In addition, the episode did an excellent job of showing how under-reported rape is because of victim’s fear of not being believed. The episode even touched on victim blaming, showcasing that it is not always men who blame women (who are the primary victims) for the rape. That said, students were upset that victim-blaming occurred in the first place.
Stalking was another crime featured in the episode. Students remarked that it was barely touched on, and even though it occurred, it was sensationalized and suggested that all stalkers are psychopaths. This is a falsehood some people would like viewers to believe, when in fact more than 75 percent of victims are stalked by someone they know, while 30 percent of victims are stalked by current or former intimate partners.
By portraying rape and stalking in sensationalized ways, the media perpetuates myths and stereotypes about these two topics. This is not to say that all media does this, and therefore that media is bad. However, one needs to use a critical eye and hear when the media talks about said issues; enabling stereotypes only covers up the reality.
-Cara Dorzok
“Confrontation” opens with the rape of Elizabeth held at knifepoint. She soon confronts her rapist with a club and starts to hit him. Detective Stabler, lead detective for the Special Victims Unit, eventually finds her dead in an alley. Her murder sparks an intense investigation into a series of rapes in the Brooklyn area. During the investigation, the SVU discovers the victim had been stalked by her rapist and was likely rape more than once. This holds true with the rapist’s other victims. Throughout the episode, his other two victims encounter a lot of turmoil, including one, Gina, committing suicide. Eventually Luke Dixon, an office assistant at the realtor’s office his victims were renting through, is arrested for his heinous crimes. It is later uncovered that he rapes women to impregnate and thus create a master race.
All of the students found “Confrontation” disturbing, especially its pervasive stereotypes. The first myth the show encourages: victims do not know their attackers. This is false. Around 90 percent of rapes occur by someone close to the survivor—an acquaintance, a friend or partner. Myth number two: survivors cannot be raped more than once. This, too, is false, especially since rape survivors are at least twice (and even as high as four times) more likely to be raped again, with people caught in a cycle of domestic violence often experiencing repeated rape. Myth three: rape is only rape when it’s violent. Only 10 percent of rapists use extreme force and/or a weapon. The fourth myth the students remarked on was the show’s notion that there is only one way to “get over” being raped: anger. There is no one or right way to cope with being assaulted; every victim is different, every victim wants and needs different things. Saying there is only one way to heal adds to the victim blaming that often occurs.
Although the students were upset with the episode’s myths, they did remark on its highlights. For instance, “SVU” did a good job of portraying that rape is not about sex, but instead about power and control (although “Confrontation” did say it was about power and rage, which perpetuates the image of rape as angry and violent). In addition, the episode did an excellent job of showing how under-reported rape is because of victim’s fear of not being believed. The episode even touched on victim blaming, showcasing that it is not always men who blame women (who are the primary victims) for the rape. That said, students were upset that victim-blaming occurred in the first place.
Stalking was another crime featured in the episode. Students remarked that it was barely touched on, and even though it occurred, it was sensationalized and suggested that all stalkers are psychopaths. This is a falsehood some people would like viewers to believe, when in fact more than 75 percent of victims are stalked by someone they know, while 30 percent of victims are stalked by current or former intimate partners.
By portraying rape and stalking in sensationalized ways, the media perpetuates myths and stereotypes about these two topics. This is not to say that all media does this, and therefore that media is bad. However, one needs to use a critical eye and hear when the media talks about said issues; enabling stereotypes only covers up the reality.
-Cara Dorzok
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Men needed to win fight against domestic violence
There are countless stereotypes associated with domestic violence, but
one of the most common has to be that it is a crime solely perpetrated
against women. While there is some merit to this thought, it is not
completely true. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 73 percent
of domestic violence victims are female. Of course, this means that 27
percent are male, and yet when people think about domestic violence, the
image of a strong man beating up a weak woman is typically what comes
to mind.
This notion yields a negative consequence: By suggesting that women are the only victims of domestic abuse, society believes it is women’s problem to solve. Hopefully people realize this isn’t true, but the stereotype has sunk in enough that there is a noticeable gap in the number of women and number of men actively volunteering in victim advocacy and violence prevention.
At Promoting Awareness, Victim Empowerment (PAVE), men are some of our most vital volunteers. In our commitment to educate the campus about the realities of domestic/dating violence, our male volunteers often take a leading role, writing editorials or leading a class that delves into the specifics of such crimes. I’ve witnessed firsthand that the difference men can make is profound, yet there is a gap in the gender of our volunteers.
There are a number of possible reasons for this. Social connotations are definitely one of them. Contrary to what some people may feel, it is not sissy or feminine to work for an organization like PAVE. After all, isn’t the idea of men protecting women a theme we constantly see in the media? This is not to say men should be the shields protecting women, but they can most certainly stand by women’s sides and help to end the suffering.
Another stereotype preventing male participation is the belief that their help isn’t welcome, that a man’s involvement is a perpetrator’s involvement. This is simply not true. It is no more fair to men that they are constantly labeled abusers than it is to women that they are constantly labeled victims.
People like to think in black and white, but for most situations, including this one, narrow definitions don’t fit. We know the vast majority of men are anti-violence and don’t practice it in their relationships. This routine awareness could be channeled into violence prevention, but because of these labels, it rarely is.
Perhaps the ultimate reason men (and women, for that matter) are hesitant to be active in this endeavor is because the task of eliminating violence is daunting. Tapping someone on the shoulder and saying, “Psst, don’t hit your partner!” rarely yields the effects we would like, and when your gender has been stereotyped as abusive, it can be easiest to just ignore the situation. When this holds true, it is best to start with an approachable and doable first step.
This is what Ben Atherton-Zeman does. For a crime that can feel so massive, Ben narrows domestic violence down to what someone at UW-Madison might see or experience. Taking situations that are far too familiar, Ben dissects the ways victims and those around them may react when confronted with the reality of dating violence.
He also touches on the imperfect system of support most victims encounter when seeking both personal and legal help. All of this is meant to shed light on an often-silenced issue and encourage people to do something about it.
None of this is meant to imply that if you don’t get involved with violence prevention you’re ignorant or don’t care about these issues. That’s obviously not true. And while we at PAVE would love nothing more than to see some smiling male faces in our office making buttons or at our events, we’d also be satisfied with knowing men are out there recognizing what the problem is and doing what they can in their everyday lives to make sure it doesn’t happen.
This general awareness and casual advocacy is what Ben’s message gets at. He’s not looking to create the next male head of PAVE, but rather day-to-day activists who speak up when they hear a wife-beating joke, intervene when they see an argument turn physical and support a victim when one comes to him for help. This widespread consciousness is what will ultimately eradicate domestic violence.
-Jacqueline O'Reilly
(as published in the Badger Herald on February 9, 2011)
http://badgerherald.com/oped/2011/02/08/men_needed_to_win_fi.php
This notion yields a negative consequence: By suggesting that women are the only victims of domestic abuse, society believes it is women’s problem to solve. Hopefully people realize this isn’t true, but the stereotype has sunk in enough that there is a noticeable gap in the number of women and number of men actively volunteering in victim advocacy and violence prevention.
At Promoting Awareness, Victim Empowerment (PAVE), men are some of our most vital volunteers. In our commitment to educate the campus about the realities of domestic/dating violence, our male volunteers often take a leading role, writing editorials or leading a class that delves into the specifics of such crimes. I’ve witnessed firsthand that the difference men can make is profound, yet there is a gap in the gender of our volunteers.
There are a number of possible reasons for this. Social connotations are definitely one of them. Contrary to what some people may feel, it is not sissy or feminine to work for an organization like PAVE. After all, isn’t the idea of men protecting women a theme we constantly see in the media? This is not to say men should be the shields protecting women, but they can most certainly stand by women’s sides and help to end the suffering.
Another stereotype preventing male participation is the belief that their help isn’t welcome, that a man’s involvement is a perpetrator’s involvement. This is simply not true. It is no more fair to men that they are constantly labeled abusers than it is to women that they are constantly labeled victims.
People like to think in black and white, but for most situations, including this one, narrow definitions don’t fit. We know the vast majority of men are anti-violence and don’t practice it in their relationships. This routine awareness could be channeled into violence prevention, but because of these labels, it rarely is.
Perhaps the ultimate reason men (and women, for that matter) are hesitant to be active in this endeavor is because the task of eliminating violence is daunting. Tapping someone on the shoulder and saying, “Psst, don’t hit your partner!” rarely yields the effects we would like, and when your gender has been stereotyped as abusive, it can be easiest to just ignore the situation. When this holds true, it is best to start with an approachable and doable first step.
This is what Ben Atherton-Zeman does. For a crime that can feel so massive, Ben narrows domestic violence down to what someone at UW-Madison might see or experience. Taking situations that are far too familiar, Ben dissects the ways victims and those around them may react when confronted with the reality of dating violence.
He also touches on the imperfect system of support most victims encounter when seeking both personal and legal help. All of this is meant to shed light on an often-silenced issue and encourage people to do something about it.
None of this is meant to imply that if you don’t get involved with violence prevention you’re ignorant or don’t care about these issues. That’s obviously not true. And while we at PAVE would love nothing more than to see some smiling male faces in our office making buttons or at our events, we’d also be satisfied with knowing men are out there recognizing what the problem is and doing what they can in their everyday lives to make sure it doesn’t happen.
This general awareness and casual advocacy is what Ben’s message gets at. He’s not looking to create the next male head of PAVE, but rather day-to-day activists who speak up when they hear a wife-beating joke, intervene when they see an argument turn physical and support a victim when one comes to him for help. This widespread consciousness is what will ultimately eradicate domestic violence.
-Jacqueline O'Reilly
(as published in the Badger Herald on February 9, 2011)
http://badgerherald.com/oped/2011/02/08/men_needed_to_win_fi.php
Monday, November 29, 2010
"Rape": a word not to be used casually
I recently read a story in the LaCrosse Tribune about the use of the
word “rape” to describe situations that have nothing to do with sexual
assault. The article itself was very even-handed and made no accusations
against people who use the word “rape” inappropriately. It didn’t claim
that people who use this word casually are intentionally trying to
belittle victims of sexual assault or are otherwise sexist. It certainly
didn’t call for fining or imprisoning people who use the word to refer
to situations other than an actual rape.
Yet, that is the reaction some people had to this article. The article was an effort to convince people to make a free choice to use more accurate and polite language in their conversations. It was very similar to recent efforts to encourage people not to use the word “retarded.” However, many commenters saw it differently. One cried, “More censorship from the oversensitive liberal masses.” Another even claimed to sympathize with victims of rape or other sex crimes, saying, “There are too many people I know who've been victims of sexual crimes for me to make light of what's a very serious issue. That being said, we as a society cannot allow this type of politically correct censorship.”
If the article had argued that people who use the word “rape” inappropriately should be subject to criminal penalties, I would wholeheartedly agree with the above commenters. But the article didn’t say that. It was merely a reasoned argument about why people shouldn’t use the word to describe things that don’t have anything to do with sexual assault. In fact, by the (incorrect) logic of these commenters, they are themselves “censoring” the writer of the article.
In this country we are fortunate enough to have the right to say just about anything we want. But we don’t have the right to speak without being criticized. You can say anything you want, no matter how offensive it is. But other people have the right to criticize you for saying it. You can respond by changing your language. You can respond by making a logical argument about why what you said actually isn’t as bad as the other person thinks it is. Or you can just ignore the people who think you are offensive, and continue doing whatever you want. What you can’t do is accuse people who criticize you of censorship. Well, you can—but you are being factually inaccurate.
Link to original article: http://lacrossetribune.com/news/opinion/article_0ae7bee4-f449-11df-b3a5-001cc4c002e0.html
—Alex Wagner
Yet, that is the reaction some people had to this article. The article was an effort to convince people to make a free choice to use more accurate and polite language in their conversations. It was very similar to recent efforts to encourage people not to use the word “retarded.” However, many commenters saw it differently. One cried, “More censorship from the oversensitive liberal masses.” Another even claimed to sympathize with victims of rape or other sex crimes, saying, “There are too many people I know who've been victims of sexual crimes for me to make light of what's a very serious issue. That being said, we as a society cannot allow this type of politically correct censorship.”
If the article had argued that people who use the word “rape” inappropriately should be subject to criminal penalties, I would wholeheartedly agree with the above commenters. But the article didn’t say that. It was merely a reasoned argument about why people shouldn’t use the word to describe things that don’t have anything to do with sexual assault. In fact, by the (incorrect) logic of these commenters, they are themselves “censoring” the writer of the article.
In this country we are fortunate enough to have the right to say just about anything we want. But we don’t have the right to speak without being criticized. You can say anything you want, no matter how offensive it is. But other people have the right to criticize you for saying it. You can respond by changing your language. You can respond by making a logical argument about why what you said actually isn’t as bad as the other person thinks it is. Or you can just ignore the people who think you are offensive, and continue doing whatever you want. What you can’t do is accuse people who criticize you of censorship. Well, you can—but you are being factually inaccurate.
Link to original article: http://lacrossetribune.com/news/opinion/article_0ae7bee4-f449-11df-b3a5-001cc4c002e0.html
—Alex Wagner
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)