I don't even know what to make of this story...

So... this is a weird and disturbing story The short version: A guy in Meshchovsk, Russia, tried to rob a hair salon at gunpoint. As he was collecting the money, the owner knocked him down, tied him up with a cord, and then locked him in a closet. Instead of calling the police, she told him to drop his pants or she'd turn him over to the police. After that, she spent three days feeding him viagra and raping him, before letting him go and telling him to get out of her sight. He ended up going to the police, and now they're both probably going to jail.

I'm sort of sitting her slack-jawed at the story. Like... what the hell?

On the one hand, I feel like it's good that he went to the police and that his claim was taken seriously... but, on the other, it's not so good that he was trying to rob someone at gunpoint.

I'm also glad that the story calls it rape, even though the headline makes it sound more like he was going to rob her but they decided to get into some S&M play instead.

Honestly, I'm still trying to decide if the story is real or not. It's so... bizarre.

I looked for verification, but, sadly, I mostly found the sorts of comments I'd expect from a story like this. Lots of variations of, "Oh, what a lucky robber!/That's hot/I wish my hair dresser would handcuff me and 'rape' me", and lots of "A woman can't rape a man/I can't believe he went to the police/he must be gay to complain about it".

And since this happened in Russia, there's the obligatory anti-Russian sentiment as well.

Anyway, I don't really know what to say about it, and I should be working on homework anyway, but I thought that it was such a weird story, that I'd go ahead and share it.

So... what is an adult again?

This story is very sad. Details are still coming out, so it's hard to say what to think of everything, but one thing really strikes me as... well... odd. The story: A child, 8, shot and killed his father and his father's friend on Wednesday. The current report is that this was not a spur-of-the-moment thing, either, but that the child planned the attack out. There's speculation that he might have been abused, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that yet. The part that I'm currently bothered by is the fact that the police want to charge him as an adult.

An eight year old. Charged as an adult.

Now, maybe someone has some insight into this that I'm missing... but if we're at the point where we charge eight-year-olds as adults, what is the point of having a distinction? Why not just make all murder trials "as adult" then?

Because it seems to me that we, as a society, have agreed that there's an important emotional/intellectual difference between adults and children, and we've generally placed the transition at 18. Now, that's sort of arbitrary, and that's why we recognize that there's some leeway, and sometimes we see value in charging, say, a 17-year-old as an adult. But at eight, a child is less than half the age we consider an adult--still a decade away. If that's not firmly in the realm of "child", what is?

And if the argument is that we need to more harshly punish this kid for what he's done? If we don't have a serious enough punishment to fit the crime? The solution isn't to charge him as an adult, but to fix the laws that we think are broken and need to be fixed.

It seems profoundly screwed up to me that someone as young as eight is going to be charged as an adult.

Huh. Who *is* a rat?

So, as part of a class, I was directed to take a look at Who's a Rat?

Essentially, we were asked to contemplate the site and what it does, and be prepared to finish the sentence "This site makes me feel..."

Unsurprisingly, the site has been the source of controversy ever since it was unveiled. It's received numerous requests from the law enforcement community to shut down or remove information, which it has declined. It's been the subject of lawsuits, which it won.

I'm not going to lie, the site makes me profoundly uncomfortable. I don't doubt that what the site does is legal- the information contained on it is apparently information that is available to the public via public records, and it's my understanding that you're required to provide substantiation for reports about informants that you're adding to the site. So, probably legal. Fine and good.

Legal doesn't necessarily equate to ethical, though. And I've got some real reservations there. Despite the site's disclaimer that it doesn't endorse violence, it doesn't take a brain trust to figure out that violence is a reasonable expectation when you're dealing with something like this. We're talking about criminal informants and undercover agents who deal with, you know... criminals. One of the site's spokespeople said of the risk of violent retaliation against informants and undercover officers:

I think it’s pretty safe to say that informants and cops know that there is danger involved in that line of work, and it would be unfair to burden whosarat.com with one’s career choice. In our opinion, the only potential danger that exists due to the site, is the danger of the government losing at trial, due to defendants using the website to gather information to prove that the informants and agents that are testifying against them are not credible.

Now, the site claims that it's only for non-violent crimes. The site was created when the site's creator was charged with drug-related offenses, and was upset about the use of informants in the charges that were brought against him. So, one can assume that he's okay with outing drug informants.

Because, clearly, retaliation against drug informants isn't an obvious consequence of being outed. Unless you were Rachel Hoffman, who was murdered back in May. Or Kenneth Smith, murdered in January. Or Chad MacDonald.

Is corruption a violent offense? I wouldn't have thought so, but informants Christine and Terrence Hodson would probably disagree.

But, the site's owners wash their hands of all this. After all, they don't endorse violence, and they're not calling for retaliation against informants. They just offer things like a $500 award for posting the most interesting or best informant to the site (this was back in Jan). And call them "rats".

There seems to be a pretty clear conflict here between the right to free speech and the expectation of privacy on the part of informants. Informants rely on secrecy and privacy to ensure their safety. Many informants are just like Hoffman- young people busted for possession for their personal use who get the book thrown at them in order to increase the odds that they'll turn over their source. Faced with the prospect of the years in jail and a destroyed future, it's not surprising that people would take a deal, even if it means becoming an informant.

And if the point of the site is just to give defendants a chance to learn about the person who informed on them, to test that person's credibility (the stated purpose of the site), then why are they also outing undercover agents? I can sort of understand the idea that a criminal informant might have some credibility issues by virtue of being a criminal and an informant. Now, maybe I'm overly optimistic, but isn't the idea of an undercover police officer supposed to be that they are so credible that the police are willing to put them undercover in a criminal situation in order to capture someone? I know that the police aren't always trustworthy, but the fact that they're undercover doesn't make them less credible than any other cop is. And while being a cop is already a dangerous job in many places, outing an undercover officer most certainly raises the danger level.

So, there you go. We didn't really get a chance to talk about it in class, but I really wanted to, so those are my thoughts at the moment.

Thursday notes...

1. RIP Del Martin, founder of the Daughters of Bilitis, gay rights advocate, and one half of the first same-sex couple to legally exchange vows in San Francisco.

2. It's that time again! No, no, not the return to classes and being stuck behind yellow buses on your way to work (well, okay, yes, potentially that too), but time to answer the WAM! call for proposals! Sadly, with my starting my first year of grad school, I probably won't be making my own submission (although, you know, if anyone is looking for a someone to present about video games or comics, it wouldn't take a lot to convince me), but you should be thinking about it. On this, the sixth year of the conference, they're bringing in a theme. If you've got something to say- and I think most of us do- you should definitely consider answering the call.

3. For the love of Gromit, can someone tell The Media to stop making asses of themselves? First it was "One Legged Hooker Slain", and now a story about an obese woman accused of murdering a child that ends with the line "So, currently, the lady remains at large."

Now, I get it, apparently any story about a fat person must include some kind of jokes at their expense. Because, HAHA! Fat! But... no, wait. I don't understand that. I actually don't understand why a journalist thinks that it's okay or professional to make fat jokes in an article.

If nothing else, can we show an ounce of journalistic professionalism in the face of the fact that a child is dead, killed by having his head crushed?

Maybe I'm weird, but I don't think that's an appropriate place for jokes.

Not a credible threat?

So, this is news.

I'm curious about several things.

First of all:

However, federal sources have said that the incident may have had more to do with drugs than with a plot to assassinate Mr Obama, despite local police claims.

The federal officials said that the verbal threats against Mr Obama were made during one of the arrests, but were not considered credible. "It could turn out that these were nothing but a bunch of knuckleheads, meth heads," a US government source has claimed.

They're caught with a spotting scope, two high-powered rifles with scopes, walkie talkies, and a bulletproof vest. What, exactly, does it take to be considered a credible threat?

Second of all: Who in the hell jumps out of a sixth story window and thinks that they're getting away from the police that way? For gods' sakes, I don't like to jump from six feet. Six stories? That's just stupid.

Craziness.

At this point, I guess I'm just glad that they're bad drivers and got their dumb asses pulled over before they could put the plan into action.

And that one of them jumped from a sixth floor window to try to get away.

Because it makes me happy when bad people do really really dumb things in the process of getting captured.

This made me cry...

I'm on my way to work this morning, listening to the radio, when the news comes on.
A man in Lancaster, CA stabbed his girlfriend to death with a sword, in front of their four children after an argument. The 911 tape of their daughter pleading with the opperator to get help was played, and it was the most horrible, gut-wrenchingly sad thing I've heard in ages.

Now, it's been about an hour and I'm sitting here thinking about it, and the thing that's pissing me off right now is that I know that the thing that's going to get paraded out as soon as this starts gaining traction is that there was a history of domestic violence, and some people are going to start saying things like "Well, she should have left."

And while the question of why a particular person stays when they're a victim of domestic violence is an important one, it's not actually helpful in this case at this point. We'll never know why stayed, because he murdered her. And the fact that she stayed should not, in any way, excuse, validate, or implicate her in her murder. The question "Why?" is important in that it can allow the people who care to provide assistence and help the victim escape the cycle of violence. In retrospect, the why is less helpful, and if it's used as a weapon to implicate or denigrate the victim, it's in particularly poor taste.

I hope they catch this guy very very soon, and I hope that those poor kids get the care that they'll need. I can only imagine how completely screwed up you'd be after watching your father stab your mother to death with a sword.

..edited 9:06 am...

Apparently, there's already a discussion happening over at Feministe about the question "why don't victims leave?" It's not about this case in particular, but more about the general questions around domestic violence. I'm reading through it right now, and some of the comments are very good- the point about how the question "why" is too big and cumbersome, while questions like "what is preventing the victim from leaving" tend to get more concrete answers (some of which Thomas mentioned in the comments here already). I hadn't thought of that before, but that makes some sense. Anyway, just thought I'd point to it, since it was a weird coincidence, and since some of the points are very good.

And I thought McCain's "I'm like Teddy" comments were bad...

h/t Latoya at Racialicious

So, let's play a game...

One of these things is not like the others.

Joe Francis is making my blood boil again, this time from the pages of a GQ men.style.com feature. How is it that, even from fucking prison, this jackass just can't shut up? The good news is that this article makes it even clearer, if that's possible, just how completely relentless his assholery is.

There's a particularly amusing bit where he's talking about his time in jail, and how it's not what he expected. He talks about how he's "a god" on the inside- that he's revered like a rock star because of his association with Girls Gone Wild. But, he continues: "The one thing I fear is one of these fucking people showing up at my house. I’m a different class. They’re dumb. They’re the people you see on Cops. Those are the people you see in jail."

Hey, Francis, speaking of "dumb"?

You're in jail, too.

Twit.

Still, that passage is really significant, in my mind. Not just because it's quickly followed by his making an incredibly inappropriate remark towards a female guard (who, according to the author, "gives him that disapproving-but-flattered half frown."), but because I think it's a strong message about how we treat and view people like Francis. Here's a man who has made a name for himself by being a violent, abusive maniac. Oh, yes, Girls Gone Wild is what started it all, but it's not GGW that made him a public figure- there are thousands of pornographers who never gain a fraction of the notoriety that Francis has.

Why?

Because Francis goes out of his way to abuse, humiliate, and intimidate everyone he comes in contact with. The Times article was the first time I really started to learn about who this guy was, and every interview he gives, every appearence he makes just further cements the perosna he's cultivated. Even the GQ article mentions it a few times- he's portrayed and plays up this image of being "a 15-year-old boy who just can't help himself". He's the very image of "boys will be boys", grown up.

If ever there was somebody who more purely embodied that ideal, and just how dangerous it is, it's Francis. Even the GQ article, which seems at times weirdly sympathetic towards Francis, makes note of how manic the guy is, and how it'd probably be good for society if jail broke him a little bit. We ought not tolerate a 15-year-old acting like Francis does. The lack of self control would be enough to get most of us in trouble at that age. And Francis isn't 15. He's over twice that.

But Francis's personal douchebaggery is only part of the problem... and not even the biggest part. That Francis is an asshole is a personal failing, and it should be enough to get him ostracized, and has clearly been enough to get him in trouble with the law. But the sad fact is that it's also made him a celeb. As he points out, he's "a god" in prison. These are people he despises- he calls them idiots, and does everything he can to avoid them, but they still treat him like a rock star?

Latoya quotes the most impressive display of clueless assholery from Francis over at Racialicious, and I think it's worth repeating. It comes on page four, when Francis begins talking about the people he considers enemies:

His enemies list has grown as he sits in jail, and it was recently expanded to include Access Hollywood reporter Maria Menounos, who did an interview Francis didn’t like. “She called me the ‘ever defiant Joe Francis,’ ” he howls. “Fuck yeah, I’m defiant! It’s like that defiant Rosa Parks won’t give up her seat. Fuck you, Maria. The ever defiant Nelson Mandela just can’t stand apartheid. The ever defiant Martin Luther King. The ever defiant Jesus Christ. You fucking stupid whore. If I saw Maria Menounos, I’d punch her in the face.”

As the tirade ends, he quietly starts repairing the phone he busted by banging it against the glass. “I’m not comparing myself to Rosa Parks or Jesus Christ. I’m comparing myself to someone standing up for their rights,” he says. “I’m just saying you can have an unpopular person who is criminalized and demonized. Jesus Christ was crucified by Pontius Pilate at my age. He was not a popular guy.”

1. When you attempt to point out a similarity between yourself or your situation, and someone like Rosa Parks or Jesus Christ and their situations, you are, in fact, comparing yourself to them. When you suggest that your legal troubles and the fight you've picked are somehow similar to Martin Luther King Jr.'s fight, you are, in fact, comparing yourself to him.
And you, sir, are no Martin Luther King Jr.
2. You're an unpopular person because you're an asshole, a liar, a rapist, and a violent maniac. There's a very significant difference between being an unpopular person because you're challenging the status quo in the pursuit of equal rights, and being an unpopular person because you're a violent rapist asshole who cheated on his taxes. Oddly enough, I find myself seriously lacking in sympathy for the second.

The article is disturbing, and I think that the author misses the mark when he tries to claim that Francis's "real passion is dominating other men." It may be true that he has a passion for that, as well, but his disregard and hatred of women is so thick, you'd need a machete to get through it.

And, seriously? He spent a year in a detention center that let him order pizza?!
*sigh*

Yeah, that's justice.

Castration as punishment...

Fox News (I hate to link them) is reporting that the LA senate passed a bill yesterday, 32-3, that gives judges the ability to add subject convicted sex-crime offenders to chemical castration after a first offense, and requires it for repeat offenders. Convicted criminals will have the option to opt for surgical castration instead of chemical, if they desire.

I'm still thinking about this, but I have to admit that it makes me profoundly uncomfortable. More after I've had time to figure out what, exactly, I think.

In the meantime... your thoughts?

Make Sure You Get That Sex-Work Slam In...

Jill just posted about the murder of a gender non-conforming teen. Simmie Williams is being described by most articles as "cross dressing" or as "a male teen dressed as a woman".

A kid is dead.

Thank gods that the Miami Herald is there to point out that he was "shot in a Fort Lauderdale neighborhood known for transvestite prostitution".

Wouldn't want people to be too sympathetic, now, would we?

In Praise of Judge Shalina Kumar

After reading a story about someone admitting to wrong-doing getting away with it, it's good to see a local story about an abusive monster getting a real setence.

48-year-old William Pattison was convicted of four counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and one count of pandering for sexually abusing his daughter, starting when she was only a child, and pushing her into prostitution by not allowing her to see her own child unless she complied with his demands.

All of this, and the man was a corrections officer.

The judge in the case- Oakland Circuit Judge Shalina Kumar- sentenced Pattison yesterday, to 40-60 years- despite sentencing guidelines calling for a minimum sentence of only 10-15 years. The judge said that the guidelines failed to account for various elements of the case, like his position of power.

Pattison still faces charges for allegedly abusing another relative, and the woman with whom he had another child.

Judge Kumar also setenced a Cleveland man, Timothy Jeffrey, to 25-40 years yesterday, for the kidnapping and molestation of an 8-year-old girl.

And, back in November, she ruled against Kid Rock, asking "What's special about him? Why does he get to violate a court's order?" She then entered a default against him in another complaint seeking damages.

In a time when I keep seeing report after report of judges dismissing or under-sentencing serious offenses, it's good to see a judge that appears to give these crimes the serious sentences they deserve.

A tip: Assaulting people is not a joke.

Via Feministing:

Some people think assault is funny stuff.

Two men held down a woman and tried to cut her underwear off with a pocketknife.

The story:

A woman enters the bar and sees two men that she considered friends at the bar. She walks up to them, and they begin to talk. At some point, the men begin joking about her underwear, and asking her what kind she was wearing. When she told them it was none of their business, one of them "joked" that he was going to cut off her underwear. She apparently replied that he wasn't "man enough" to do that.

Then, one of the men held her down against the bar, as she screamed for help, while the other man reached down her pants, and cut each side of her underwear. The bartender refused to help because they'd "make things worse" for him. She finally managed to get away from them, but lost her shoes in the process. They offered to return her shows in exchange for the underwear, which she did so that she could go and get help.

When the police questioned the men, one of them said that they were just joking around, and that it was time for her "to take one for the team". What the fuck does that even mean? The other man claims to have done similar things in the past, and that everyone else in the bar was watching and laughing.

He conveniently forgets that she was in the bar. And that she was apparently not laughing. In fact, she was yelling for help.

He claims that he tried to apologize, but that she wouldn't talk to him.

Gee... I can't imagine why not. I mean, it's not like you held her down and tried to cut off her underwear in a bar full of men who apparently found this hill-are-ee-us, while one of them poked her breasts and suggested you cut off her bra next, and then refused to return her shoes until she gave you her underwear, or anything.

Oh, wait, no. That's exactly what you did.

That someone should have to explain to these assholes that it's not okay to hold people down and cut off their underwear makes me sort of ill.

"The War _____ Christmas": Fill in the blank.

While certain conservatives would have you believe the correct choice there is "on", I'm really thinking that it's looking more like "of".

I almost feel like I should apologize for the Christmascentric posting this week, but, seriously, the hits, they just keep on coming. Today's "Are you fucking kidding me?!" moment comes court-a-see of Pandagon, who made me aware of this story about a Jewish man attacked on the subway.

His crime? Responding to a "Merry Christmas" with a "Happy Hanukkah." On the last day of Hanukkah. Two weeks before Christmas.

Yeah.

So, basically, the story goes like this: A group of Jewish twenty-somethings are on the Q train to Brooklyn, when someone offers a "Merry Christmas". One of the men, let us call him Walter Adler (since that's his name) replies back with "Happy Hanukkah". Which, to reiterate, makes sense, given that it was, in fact, Hanukkah. And not Christmas. And he's Jewish. Not Christian. In a sane and rational world, the story would end there, or maybe with someone responding back "Happy New Year" or "Merry Kwanzaa" or whatever. In a musical, they'd all end up singing "Jingle Bells". Sadly, we live in neither a sane and rational world, nor a musical.

Instead, we live in a world where some twit... well, twelve twits, in fact... think that the appropriate response to being wished a happy Hanukkah is "Oh, Hanukkah. That's the day that the Jews killed Jesus" and to hurl anti-Semitic insults at the group of men.

Oh, and to beat them up.

That's the Christmas spirit, alright. If there's one thing worth celebrating at Christmas, it's Jesus' love of senseless violence and cultural/religious intolerance. I know Jesus, and he'd totally want us to beat people up, break their noses, and give them stitches for well wishing. He'd certainly want us to confuse the festival of lights- a holiday that celebrates the rededication of the temple in Jerusalem after it was desecrated by Antiochus IV sometime around 160 or 170 BCE- with the celebration of his death. Which, in fact, the Jewish don't celebrate.

But many Christians do. It's called GOOD FRIDAY, people. For the love of... well, Christ... Good Friday is the holiday marking Jesus' death, not Hanukkah!

Ugh.

It gets better, though. One of the attackers, Joseph Jirovec, has already been convicted of an earlier bias attack against four black men in Gerritsen Beach, and, gods help us, claims that he's "trying to stay out of trouble" because he wants to "straighten out everything" in his life. Oh, and he wants to join the military after he serves his jail time.

Here's a clue, JJ: Staying out of trouble would involve not jumping people on the Q train. In fact, it would preclude beating people up, regardless of where they are. Ass.

Now he's claiming that the attack wasn't anti-Semitic, or religiously motivated. After all, his mother is Jewish, so he can't be an anti-Semite. Also, he wants everyone to know that he's a member of the Bloods, and most of his friends are black, so he can't be a racist, either.

There are photographs of Jirovec and three of the other attackers over at The Moderate Voice, if you want to see the face of this brain trust. The pictures really are worth a thousand words. To say that they glorify violence and a disturbing attitude towards women is an understatement.

Still, there's a bit of a silver lining to the story: A good Samaritan, in the form of Hassan Askari, jumped in to help the victims, and gave Adler a chance to pull the emergency stop cord. Askari came away with two black eyes, and some cuts and bruises, but his intervention probably saved Adler and his friends from more serious injuries. Several releases have noted that Askari is Muslim, and that there's some significance to the story about a group of Jewish youths being assaulted by a mob of Christians, but saved by the intervention of a Muslim. I have no idea exactly how to read that, but I think it's amazing that one guy decided to stand up to the mob and try to help these people, by himself.

When I'm thinking of what the Christmas spirit ought to be about, I'm going to be thinking of people like Askari.

Not every missing person is a young white woman...

This is heartening. A white police chief, Malcolm McMillin, is calling the media out on their handling of missing persons cases. Chief McMilling has been heading up a search for Latasha Norman, an honors student at Jackson State University. McMillin is contrasting the relative silence on his case with the intense media coverage to happens during cases where it's white women who go missing.

This is something that few people really like to talk about, but it does come up sometimes. Why do we only get national coverage when it's a stereotypically pretty white woman that goes missing? Why don't we see national coverage over a case like this?

It's rare to see a police official speak out in such a frank manner:

As far as the interest by the national media in the story, I think race probably had an impact... ...It's a small college in the South. It's the daughter of simple people who maybe are not important outside of their circle, and maybe we don't attach the same importance to them that we do for other people...

I think that there are a number of factors that make the media latch onto one case over another. If there are celebs or politicians involved in a case, the media is all over it, for example. The biggest factors certainly seem to be race, youthfulness, and prettiness.

Consider the major cases that come to mind when you think of "missing woman": JonBenet Ramsey. Chandra Levy. Laci Peterson. Jennifer Willbanks. Natalee Holloway. Jessica Lynch.

The problem with cases like these isn't that they receive media attention- it's that the media becomes so absorbed in those cases that it fails to cover cases of other missing persons. When a person goes missing or a murder is unsolved, time is of vital importance, and the police need all the leads that they can get in order to try to solve the case. If it's a kidnapping, the best chance for getting the person back safely passes quickly, and the media can play a huge role in helping get police leads. When the media cover a story about a missing person, people might have seen the missing person can give the police tips and can help find that person. When the media fail to cover a missing person case in favor of running more and more coverage about the missing white woman, they're limiting the effectiveness of the search.

And to say it explicitly: I don't have a problem with the news covering these cases- I don't think that they need to stop covering cases- but I think that they should be doing a better job covering a variety of missing persons or unsolved murder cases. Not just the cases where they think that the victim fits a certain demographic.

What would you do...

I just finished reading this story. Angela Leet was making a purchase at a gas station and passed a note to the clerk when she signed the receipt that said "If I need help, be a witness." Eight minutes later she was brutally murdered by her husband, who shot her in the driveway of their home.

Now, the clerk said that sie could tell that something was wrong, and asked her if she need help. Leet seems to have indicated that something was wrong, and showed the clerk her black eye, but signed the receipt and got back in the car and drove away.

I'm not sure what the clerk did after that.

I hope that the clerk called the police, but the article doesn't mention that. If I were still working retail and a customer did those things, I think I'd do my best to try to stall them in the store, while I called 911. She was clearly in some kind of trouble, and, from the clerk's description, afraid of getting back in the car. At the very least, I'd think you'd call 911 and say "Hey, this woman was just in here, and I think she's being assaulted or kidnapped, here's the note she left on the receipt."

I assume that most of us have never been in a situation quite like this, but what about you? Have you ever stepped in to prevent some kind of spousal/partner abuse? Have you ever called the police when you suspected something violent was happening? Have you ever failed to intervene and wished you had?

There was a situation in a building I lived in where a woman and her boyfriend were living together, and had a really messy breakup. The entire time I lived there, they fought constantly. Most of the time it was just annoying and loud and I wished they'd shut up or break up, but after they broke up, he came into the building and was pounding on her door and they were fighting. They eventually got back together, and, as far as I know, he never assaulted her, but, to this day, I feel guilty for not calling the police.

He didn't belong there, and he was pounding on her door and making a scene. I should have called, and I didn't. I can only imagine how I'd feel if he had done something. At the time, I was terrified that if I did something, it would come back to me, and he'd retaliate. I was afraid to go into the hallway and make sure everything was okay, because he was there, and he was bigger than me. I was afraid to call the police because... well... I'm not exactly sure why. I guess part of it was that I was afraid I'd call the police and he'd already be gone, or he'd know it was me that called or they'd say that nothing was wrong, and the police would be upset with me.

All of which I realize are ridiculous.

Anyway, if I had it to do over again, I'd call the police. Whatever weird hangups I'm having are nothing compared to the actual threat to someone, and the risk that that person could be physically harmed. My weird emotional/mental hangups about calling the police aren't worth risking another person's safety over. I'm glad nothing happened in that case, but my lack of action and the potential for much worse outcomes still bothers me and disappoints me to this day. And stories like this just reinforce to me how important taking action is.

This headline pisses me off... -or- Porn stars are people, too.

So, I was browsing the local paper, and I came across this headline: Missing college student led a double life as online porn star. The story is about Emily Sander, a woman who went missing last weekend, and is, at this point, assumed dead. Police are searching for a man named Israel Mireles, since he was the last person seen with her. They searched his hotel, and found "a large quantity of blood".

Now, read the first line of that article: "A missing Kansas college student believed to be the victim of foul play apparently led a double life as an Internet porn star by the name of Zoey Zane."

What, exactly, does this have to do with anything?

At this point? Nothing. The police are looking into it, but so far there's no reason to believe that her posting pictures on the internet had anything to do with whatever happened to her. According to a close friend of the missing woman, Sander had just recently signed a contract for the work, and had told her parents, but didn't want people to know. So what does ABC news do?

Oh, they go and ask her grandparents about it. Nice.

Ultimately, this sort of thing pisses me off. It's not enough that this woman is missing and presumed dead, or that the primary suspect is likely making a run for the border with his pregnant 16 year-old girlfriend? They have to publicize her private activities? They have to confront her grandmother with this?

And the comments are worse. The very first comment to the article? "So where are the photo's Freep?" Lovely. Because, yeah, that's classy- this woman is probably dead, and you want to ogle her naked pictures. Ass. Over on this story the comments aren't any better:

"Missing Student May Have Been Porn Star"...That headline is taken from an abcnews.com headline...Does anyone know if it is true? If it is true, it would represent and sad and disgusting turn in this case. Therefore, we may all have been wrong thinking that this missing person story was as tragic as the other stories listed the ABC news site because there is no evidence they engaged in reckless and dangerous activities.

I know that other blogs have covered this before, in relation to judges treating sex-workers like shit, but, Christ on a cracker, this woman is missing and presumed dead, and the fact that she posted some pornographic pictures on the web represents a sad and disgusting turn in the case? Really? It wasn't sad and disgusting when it was thought that a random guy murdered her? And the story is less tragic because she may have done porn? Posting pictures of herself was a reckless and dangerous activity? Fuck you.

It doesn't matter what her professional occupation was- she's still a human being, and still deserving of respect and sympathy. Why does the fact that she's done some internet porn matter one iota? Why should it be less tragic? That she did internet porn doesn't make her more deserving of violence. That she did internet porn doesn't make the fact that she's missing and presumed dead less painful to her family and friends. If it turns out that she has been murdered, it doesn't make the murderer less sick, or the crime less heinous and deplorable.

The attitude that women who work in porn are less valuable as human beings or that terrible things that happen to them aren't as bad as if they happened to someone else is what is really disgusting here. I left a comment to that article saying as much. It's not enough to be angry and say these things on my own space, where the asshole who made the statement isn't likely to see it.

Courts to victims: "You don't count."

If you're not reading The Curvature, you ought to be. Cara is relentless- she's always posting a story that I haven't seen yet or that other blogs haven't jumped on yet, and this was no exception.

Not only does she break stories, but she breaks them down, too:

Like the judge who thought that a prostitute wouldn’t care about being raped because, well, she’s a prostitute, this judge seems to think that a woman who won’t testify in a domestic violence case doesn’t care about the abuse. He of course fails to take into account that women who are abused are very commonly either 1. afraid of their partner 2. think that they are to blame for the abuse or 3. have mental health issues that make them want to stay with their partners. This does not mean that the abuse did not occur — as any reasonable person should already know.

The prostitution story she's talking about is this horrible story, by the way.

Either of those stories, alone, is horrible enough. Taken together, and in the face of the many other examples of questionable judicial rulings, and mistreatment by police, and it's hard not to think that maybe they're part of a larger problem.

One might even say a systemic one.

One might, in fact, go so far as to call it institutional.

To expand on what Cara is saying (and to shamelessly reference my own comments): the judge's argument doesn't make any sense beyond (or even on) the surface level. Even if we agree that it's possible that some people might consent to being struck repeatedly in the face, that the victim did not come forward and testify does not suggest that she, in fact, consented, but, rather, suggests the opposite.

The judge is reaching for an unlikely reason for the the victim's behavior when a simpler, and more likely, explanation exists. The sad reality is that victims of domestic violence often do not feel safe coming to the authorities or testifying against the people abusing them. Many times, the victims have come to think that there is no escape, and that going to authorities will leave them with no support, or, worse, will escalate the violence that they're experiencing.

Even if we accept what the judge is saying- that there are "rare cases; sadomasochists sometimes like to get beat up,"- we should be asking if that is likely, and if that makes sense in regards to this case, or if the victim's behavior is more likely the result of fear.

The test for this is rather simple: Assume that the judge is correct for a moment, and that the victim, in this case, was actually a consenting partner to the incident, and that this was some kind of sadomasochistic game or something. Does the victim's behavior make sense in this context?

I think it should be obvious that the answer is "no," it does not. If the victim was a consenting party to the assault, it doesn't any make sense that she would not come forward to exonerate the attacker. After all, if she was consenting to being struck in the face, why wouldn't she come forward when they arrested her attacker to say "Why are you arresting my partner? He didn't do anything to me that I didn't give consent to, and he's innocent of the crime you're charging him with."

The judge, instead, ignores an obvious, simple, and well documented reason why a victim might not come forward, and jumps on an unlikely, absurd, and unreasonable one, and, in the process, sets the justice system even further back. Over and over our courts keep showing the victims of crimes that they shouldn't trust the judicial system to protect them. When courts dismiss cases even when the police witness the crime taking place, it sends a chilling message to victims of abuse: even when we see it happen it doesn't count.

On "Accidental Rape"

One of the comments that came up in Jill's post about rape and power was the point that rapists always know that they're raping. Several people pointed out that "rape is never an accident." There was also the suggestion that rapists always know what they're doing- or, to reword it slightly, rapists know that they're rapists- they don't rape without knowing that they're raping. Personally, I'm really not completely convinced of this.

One of the reasons that I advocate a shift in the ways that we think about sex is precisely because I think that the current model leads to rape. Right now, we're taught to think about sex as thing- largely a thing that men want and women have. Under this model, sex is often seen as a conquest- you're victorious if you have sex. This, I think, is at least partially responsible for some of the ways that people pursue sex- this is why people think it's okay to lie in the pursuit of sex, or why people think that it's okay to get someone drunk and "take advantage of them."

I'm going to try to find the stats, but I remember reading that surveys have shown that there's a divide between what people say and what they believe surrounding sex and rape. Most people will, if you ask them, agree that rape is wrong. But, when you start asking about specific situations, you start to see a divide form. There are many people who firmly believe that a situation is only rape if it meets all or most of the following:
The attacker is unknown to the victim.
The victim explicitly says "no".
The attacker threatens the victim with a weapon of some kind.
The attacker beats/chokes/strikes the victim.
The victim fights back, but is overpowered by the attacker.
The attacker penetrates the victim.

And, certainly, those are sufficient conditions to consider an attack a rape, but are the necessary? I think that many of us can agree that the first condition isn't necessary at all, given that most rapes are apparently perpetrated by someone the victim knows.

The fact is, there's not widespread agreement about where we draw the line regarding rape. I think the line ought to be obvious- but, unfortunately, that doesn't make it so.

I think that SarahMC was the first to mention rapists knowing whether or not they're rapists:

Even if women aren’t able to say “no” or get away for whatever reason, you’d think the fact that they freeze up and aren’t active/enthusiastic during the act would give these oh-so-innocent men pause. If your partner fucking freezes while you go to town on her body, it may be because you are raping her.

No, I totally agree with this- if you're with someone, and that person is giving you anything less than enthusiastic consent, you ought to check in and find out what is going on, because it could be the case that the other person is not on-board with what is happening. If you don't, you very might be raping that person.

So, yeah, these sorts of people- the sort of person who doesn't really care whether his/her partner is particularly enthusiastic and interested in the sex- the sort of person who sees the other person as a means to getting off? They're not exactly innocent. I think that the analysis that these sorts of people just don't care is right on. They don't care about the other person's feelings particularly.

Which is not quite the same as saying that they realize that they're rapists. It's possible to be a shitty, selfish human being without being a criminal. It's entirely possible- and, given the skewed model of human sexual relations that I think our society embraces, not particularly surprising- that some people who rape think that they're just participating in typical sexual behavior. When you have a conquest model of sex that you're working from, "taking advantage" of someone who is drunk and passing in and out of awareness doesn't parse as rape, because that person hasn't told you "no."

See, part of the problem is with the way many people read consent. For some people, consent isn't an affirmation, it's lack of a negation. In other words, some people think that it's only rape if the other person actually says "no" in a forceful way. If the other person is drunk and passing out, well... you can't say "no" if you're passed out, so it's not really rape.

Do they think that they're being nice?

Oh, absolutely not. But, they see sex as a struggle- a conquest- a thing to be taken from another through almost any means. They see the drunk victim as a person whose guard has been dropped, and is no longer capable of denying them access.

So, in that way, yes, I think that there are people who are rapists who simply don't realize that's what they are. I think that they probably think that they're just participating in typical sexual behavior. No, they don't care about their victim's feelings.

That's why I think it's so vital that we reframe the nature of consent and the ways that we view sex. If there's as much misunderstanding of consent as I think there is, we need to get people on the same page. We need to make it clear that lack of resistence is not the same as consent- consent is consent. We need to make it absolutely clear that, if you engage in sex with someone who is not giving you enthusiastic, affirmative consent, you might be raping that person.

Sarah reall nails another important part of this idea in her response on that thread:

As for the issue of whether or not the rapist knows they are raping in these cases, I would argue that they may not label the action as rape themselves and then justify the action to themselves because they feel entitled to their victims’ bodies.

I think our culture is so caught up with the idea that rapists are only strangers who jump out of trees and brutalize their victims in ways beyond the rape, that recognition of what rape actually is in most circomstances is often both unknown by both the rapist and the victim. If there was a pre-established relationship or freindship, the victim does not always recognize it is rape and blames herself. I’d argue the same could be true for the rapist, given the pre-established relationship, as well as our cultural misogynistic attitudes towards women’s bodies, a rapist may be convinced he is ENTITLED to her body.

And I honestly believe that education and changing the ways that we view sex are the best ways we have to change that.

Re: On Rape and Power...

Jill's post about the horrible case of Jeffrey M. Marsalis is an amazing and important read. I'm sure that a lot of you have already read the post, but in case you haven't, you should definitely check it out here.

I think that this is an important conversation to have. An analysis of what rape even is sometimes seems ridiculous. It sometimes feels like we ought to already have passed that particular conversation, but then cases like the one she's discussing come up, and I realize that we're not all on the same page, and it really brings home the point that there are a lot of people who don't know or understand what actually constitutes rape, even within the feminist community.

I think that this is one of the reasons why education is so very important. In part, I suspect that at least some rapists don't realize that they're rapists. I wouldn't even feel comfotable speculating on numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised to discover that there are some people who really are surprised when their victims report the rape, because they don't even realize that they've done anything wrong.

Do I think that education is the magic bullet that will help end rape? Of course not- I think that there's a lot of work to be done, but I think that education makes a difference. I think that a clearer understanding of rape and what it looks like can only help. Even if I'm wrong, and there aren't any rapists who don't realize what they've done, it helps because it helps give voice to the victims. It helps people find the words to describe what happened to them, and it helps to remove the silence that surrounds many victims of rape.

Anyway, Jill's post is really powerful and moving, and it's a razor sharp analysis. Go. Read it.

Forcible penetration isn't injurious... now you know.

Given Eastern Michigan University's previous track record, I almost feel like I shouldn't complain, but the DPS release that they sent out this morning just strikes me as being a bit poorly worded.
Thoughts?

Eastern Michigan University
Department of Public Safety

Informational Release October 12, 2007

Criminal Sexual Assault - Report number 07-1599

On October 11, 2007, a 20-year old resident of Ferndale, Mich., who is
not an EMU student, reported that she was on the EMU campus on Sept. 19,
2007 at approximately 9:30 p.m. The victim reports that at this time,
she voluntarily got in a car parked in the Ann St. Parking Lot with a
person she had just met. The victim reports that while in the vehicle,
the person committed criminal sexual conduct with forcible penetration
on the victim. The victim reports that she and the suspect got out of
the vehicle, when the suspect spoke with a second person, whom she did
not know, who grabbed her arm and walked her back to the vehicle. The
victim reports getting back in the vehicle and the second suspect
committed criminal sexual conduct with forcible penetration while in the
vehicle.

No weapons were used during the assaults and no injuries were reported
by the victim.
...

First of all, we've got the rather conspicuous avoidance of the word "rape". I'm not really sure why, because "criminal sexual conduct with forcible penetration" is wordier and more awkwardly phrased. And the explanations that some people have used in other cases don't really seem to apply here, since, a. this isn't a trial, and b. they're using "criminal sexual conduct" which is just as much against the law as rape is. It'd be like saying "forcibly coerced her into going to a place she didn't want to go, against her will, and without telling other people where she was" in place of "kidnapped her". I'm just not clear on the benefit.

The other problem is with the last line I quoted up there. I understand what the line means, but it just seems... I don't know... wrong to say "no injuries were reported" after you've said that the victim reported that someone "committed criminal sexual conduct with forcible penetration" against her. I'm not sure how that could be worded in a way that doesn't leave me feeling sort of off, though. I understand that what they're trying to say is that her attacker didn't break her arms or cut her or beat her up, but... I don't know, it just seems like there's a disconnect between "forcible penetration" and "no injuries were reported."

And, as the friend who passed this along pointed out, it sucks, and is indicative of the larger problems we're facing, that this could happen and that the victim would wait a month to report it. I know that this isn't a new thought, but a system where rape victims feel so helpless that they'll wait a month to report it (if they report at all) is seriously broken.

They're there to serve and protect... right?

Jender has a great post up on Feminist Philosophies (Why Don't They Call The Police?) that reminded me of this post from Ann at Feministing.

Whenever stories like that turn up, there are almost always a few people who chime in with "well, why didn't the call the police?! Why didn't they do something?!"

And, I can understand where that comes from. We all want to believe that we would do something if it were us. This, despite the evidence to the contrary.

I know that I've been guilty of the "but, calling the police is easy!" sort of comments, though. It can be tough to directly intervene, but just alerting the authorities doesn't seem like it should be that hard, right?

Then I see a story like this or I read about someone like Kathryn Johnston, or the Jena 6, or the Newark case, or the Tampa Bay rape case, or the Megan Williams case...

And it drives home a point: for an awful lot of people living in our country, the authorities do not represent a friendly force.

When you've got story after story of people in authority positions who are flat-out bigots... when you've got EMS and 911 workers who refuse to lift a finger to help a woman bleeding and crying in the ER lobby, right up until the police come and arrest her, and she dies as they drag her away... when the police arrest a woman on her way to the hospital because she's having a miscarriage, and refuse to help her...

If we want a society where people will turn to the authorities in times of need and when people need help, we need to create a society where we can trust that those authorities will actually help us in times of need, and not further victimize us.