Blog 11, My Final Reflections

So, now that I’m back in the states, looking back on my experiences, I guess it’s time to draw some conclusions about Italian culture, and in particular, the country’s treatment of women. Although I had plenty of shocking gendered experiences while in Italy, I can’t say that I think living there was any great contrast to my life in the states. In both places I felt safe a majority of the time, less so at night, especially when I was alone. I was definitely sexually harassed more by strangers in Italy, but I think that the increase was due a lot to the fact that I walked everywhere and therefore was surrounded by strangers much more regularly. I also interacted with a lot more people than I do at home. I was always going to new places and meeting new people, as opposed to my life in the states where I am typically around the same people and frequenting the same places. With that being said, I think another reason that sexual harassment is more commonplace in Italy, is because so much emphasis is put on aesthetics. Both men and women in Italy are obsessed with beauty. When they see something, or someone beautiful, they feel the need to comment on it. This extends to men commenting on women’s looks. At times I felt truly uncomfortable and attacked by men’s words on the street because I knew for a fact that men yelling perverse phrases at me intended to make me feel objectified. At other times however, I was less sure that comments made to me were intended as an honest compliment or were meant to make me feel threatened and aware of my physical vulnerability. While all of the comments made by random men did make me feel uncomfortable, I think there is a less clear distinction in their intentions than in the U.S. because of the country’s value of aesthetics. In a previous blog, I discussed the lack of sexual harassment I experienced in the Netherlands. I did, however, experience men who came up to me and my friends on several occasions to tell us that we looked very nice today or something to that effect. You may be wondering why I have decided that the men saying I looked nice in the Netherlands were not sexually harassing me, while I do not make the same claim about Italian men. I think the reason for this is that the men who complimented me in the Netherlands spoke to me in a respectful way. They said hello, introduced themselves, and looked at us in the eye when they spoke. They asked us questions and seemed genuinely interested in our replies. This is not what occurred in Italy. While the message was essentially the same from both Dutch and Italian men, the delivery was distinctly different. Rather than stopping for a respectful discussion, Italian men would say a comment as they walked passed you on the street, or sometimes, yell it from a distance. While this was occurring, the men were inspecting every aspect of me with their eyes. These differences, not shockingly, resulted in very different feelings arising in me and my friends.

            I think that a majority of the time, when I was harassed, it was when I had my head up and made eye contact with men I passed on the street. When I realized that eye contact seemed to illicit harassment, I quickly began walking with a downward gaze. This makes me further believe in what my Women’s Studies 200 teacher taught me: that sexual harassment is an attempt to make an individual feel unentitled to public space. When I acted strong and independent in public, I was sexually harassed, yet when I acted submissive and quiet, I was not challenging gender roles, but adhering to them, and therefore was not put in my place - I was already in it. The adjustment I made by walking with my head down was one I made more consciously than my friends, I think because I spend a lot more time than most pondering our society and our individual roles within it. My personal shift from publically presenting as a strong woman to a passive one made me feel manipulated by the men on the streets who harassed me, but the other option of continued harassment was not a viable option. I was trapped in a double bind. I could either act passive in public and avoid most sexual harassment or act strong and independent and knowingly subject myself to the harassment in the process. Neither option was a good one, but I, like most women, chose the path of least resistance. Both choices were disempowering, but I personally did not wish to perpetuate sexual harassment that I could avoid. While many individuals (mostly men) impervious to and apt to deny the harmful psychological effects sexual harassment has upon women, the occurrence was emotionally draining for me, and I posit, for many other women as well.

An article written by Latoya Peterson entitled “The Not-Rape Epidemic” describes the destructive nature of sexual harassment that is often ignored by those who are not regularly subjected to it (i.e. men). Peterson begins by describing lessons that she was taught about rape during childhood and that were reinforced throughout her lifetime. She was taught to

“be aware while walking, to hold our keys out as a possible weapon against an attack. We knew we shouldn’t walk alone at night…We memorized the mantras, chanting them like a yogic sutra, crafting our words into a protective charm with which to ward off potential rapists…What we were not prepared for was everything else. Rape was something we could identify, an act with strict definition and two distinct scenarios. Not-rape was something else entirely. Not-rape was all those other little things that we experienced every day and struggled to learn how to deal with. In those days, my ears were filled with secrets that were not my own, the confessions of not-rape experienced by the girls I knew and the women I know now” (209-210).

The “not-rape” Peterson is speaking of is what I experienced in Italy. The sexual comments from strange men on the street accompanied by their looks of assessment that crept up and down my body from their self-entitled eyes are some of my experiences with “not-rape.” The men who grabbed me forcefully by the hips and began grinding on me in the clubs with no attempt to gain consent also committed “not-rape” against me. These experiences left me feeling violated and vulnerable, yet my suffering would be ignored or written off by most because I had not been raped. I often spoke with the other girls in my study abroad classes about sexual harassment, and they all had similar experiences to mine; some had much worse stories to tell. What all of our experiences had in common was that they were committed by men against women, and that the women involved felt targeted, victimized, and objectified by these men. We also felt helpless in our victimization because what had been done to us was not rape, but was simultaneously very damaging. My experiences with “not-rape” left me feeling not only objectified, but afraid. I was all too aware of the power dynamic at play whenever a man said a sexually charged comment to me, and this fear left me feeling a variety of negative emotion. At times, I would simply feel unexcited to leave my house because I knew I would have to confront harassment; at other times, I felt genuinely afraid for my safety. In public space, I was constantly reminded by men that they could overpower me and make real their admitted fantasies. I understandably began to view unfamiliar men as a cohesive group who all aimed to marginalize women. I began to view society as a dichotomous system in which men were the aggressors and women their victims.

My newly developed perspective on men and women was a not a unique one. Julia Serano’s article, “Why Nice Guys Finish Last” is a look into the men as aggressors/women as victims paradigm that is all too salient in our society. Serano then goes on to explain how this view came to exist, and why it is problematic. She begins by examining the societal expectations associated with the performance of masculinity which cause men to mistreat women. Serano transcends viewing men simply as villains and explains how they too are victims of culturally reinforced societal pressures.

Serano’s perspective is a unique and valuable because it is shaped by the fact that she has been accepted as a member of the male and female gender. She contends that “being transsexual- having had the experience of navigating [her] way through the world as male prior to [her] transition to female- has given [her] a somewhat different take on rape culture than the view that is often taken for granted among many cisgender women” (227). The main issue Serano identifies within our existing culture is the “concept of “unilateral sexism…the belief that men are the oppressors and women are the oppressed” (227). This is the belief that pervades our culture, yet Serano makes an excellent argument as to why this belief is harmful to both women and men and contends that the oppression faced by women must be broken down in tandem with the roles of oppressors forced upon men. In our society, women are viewed as, “prey and the men are predators…What should be becoming increasingly clear is that the predator/prey mindset enables the virgin/whore double bind that feminists have long been rallying against” (229) yet the predator/prey model also causes difficulties in the lives of men by dictating to them a role of domination.

Serano points out that it is not only women who are forced into a double bind, but men as well. While women are labeled as either prudish or slutty, men are trapped in the assholes/nice guy double bind. Men, just like women, receive mixed messages from society. “…Male children often receive lots of explicit encouragement to be respectful of women…the problem is that boys/men receive conflicting messages from society at large. This informal socialization comes mostly from the meanings and expectations that are regularly projected onto women and men, especially in the media and within the context of heterosexual relationships…Just as women are expected to fulfill the stereotype of being sexual objects in order to gain male attention, men are expected to fulfill the sexual aggressor stereotype in order to gain female attention. In other words, they have to act like “assholes” (232-233). Serano strengthens this argument with an appalling example. She describes a male she knew in college named Eric who was respectful and courteous to women in his first two years of college. While Eric was smart and good looking, he had little luck in the world of dating. Suddenly, in his junior year of college, Eric shifted from playing a “nice guy” role, and began being an “asshole” to women. “Instead of engaging women in conversations (as he used to), he would instead relentlessly tease them. The things he said sounded really dismissive to me, but often the intended recipient would just giggle in response. Suddenly he was picking women up at parties, and I’d occasionally overhear women who never knew Eric back when he was a “nice-guy” discussing how cute they thought he was” (234). This example is certainly not empirical evidence proving society’s culpability for creating the current problems of female as well as male double binds, but it does offer us a look into what behavior current females desire in men. Just as some women adhere to sexual objectification in order to feel wanted, “in a world where men are only ever viewed as sexual aggressors, some men will take on that role in order to gain attention and feel desirable…’Nice-guys’ are generally read as emasculated or effeminized men in our culture. In a world where calling a man ‘sensitive’ is viewed as a pejorative, the very act of showing respect for women often disqualifies a male from being seen as a ‘real man.’ I believe that this is a major reason why many heterosexual women are not sexually interested in ‘nice-guys” (236).

So how does any of this relate back to my experiences with sexual harassment in Italy? I guess I’m trying to draw a connection adherence to the “asshole” role that men are expected to play and the subsequent success with women and sexual harassment. If men learn that treating women poorly yields good results, they begin doing so in every interaction with women. Poor treatment of women by men is what has been historically accepted, especially in Italy, where the deeply engrained Catholic traditions have created a culture obsessed with female purity and male power. Both domestic violence and male infidelity are commonplace in Italy, yet men rarely have to answer for their transgressions to either their partner or to the courts. With both of these issues receiving minimal attention, one should not be shocked at the occurrence of sexual harassment. What all three issues have in common is male entitlement, but we cannot solve this issue without dismantling both sides of the problem. Women must not be held in the prude/slut double bind and subsequently, “we have to work to…ensure that men can be respectful of women without being desexualized” (239). Just as many feminists view women who willingly degrade themselves as victims of a society that teaches them to define their worth on their sexual appeal, we must begin to identify men as victims of our society in that we demand them to be dominant and oppressive.

Sexual harassment is a way for some men to express their domination of women without using physical sexual violence. It is a way to adhere to male societal standards without seemingly exacerbating female oppression. These men perpetuate misogynistic beliefs, and therefore play their prescribed role, but I contend that the men who harass only and never commit any other transgression against women are simply trying to avoid emasculation while simultaneously being as respectful to women as they are allowed to be according to current societal standards. Not that sexual harassment is ever okay, but looking at what men are taught about how they should treat women has a lot to do with how we end up being treated. Understanding that when men sexually harass us, they are just doing what society taught them to do makes villianizing them much more difficult. “’Nice-guys’…are rebellious, at least in one sense: They buck the system and refuse to reduce themselves to the predator stereotype” (239). This rebellion is tantamount to dismantling the predator/prey lens that men and women, respectively, are viewed through by our society.

Ultimately, I feel disappointed to report that I have come to no firm conclusions as the result of my gendered experiences in the two countries. While I wish this was not the case, I feel like in trying to draw conclusions, I would be over-simplifying the issue. What I am willing to contend wholeheartedly, is that my experiences in Italy opened my eyes to the complicated nature of what I once believed to be a simple case of injustice committed by men against women. Only through stepping back and examining the gendered lens through which every individual views the world, can we hope to abolish the oppressive roles prescribed to us and begin to build a society based on gender equality. One effective way to begin this process is to explore other cultures and compare and contrast other societies’ gendered injustices with our own.   

Tagged: feminismgender rolessocial justicesexual harassment

Blog 10, The Practical Approach to Solving Societal Problems Employed by The Netherlands

More love for the Netherlands coming your way! Another excellent aspect of my favorite country is their sexual education system. The Dutch are comfortable talking about sex both at home and at school. They create an open dialogue with kids from the start which has proven to yield some great results with no apparent drawbacks. The Netherlands has an extremely low HIV and teen pregnancy rate. Why? Because kids are taught about contraception. This low teen pregnancy rate translates into an extremely low rate of abortion. These Dutch are so practical. In addition, teens start having sex later than teens of other countries. This is proof that when teens are provided with information on how to be safe when having sex, they will not immediately start having sex. Who would have thought? I think a lot of the Netherlands progressive views are due to the fact that the country is not full of religious zealots, unlike our own great country.

Check out this comparative report I found. http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm

Here are a few of the statistics from the report:

Sex education is more prevalent in Europe than America, where conservatives oppose it on the grounds that it condones sexual behavior. The statistics show the unintended consequences of this policy:

Percent who have not had intercourse by age 20:

               Boys  Girls

Belgium         61     63

Netherlands     58     62

Germany         33     28

Norway          33     25

United Kingdom  24     23

France           9     25

United States   12     16

Percent of sexually active single 15 to 19-year olds using birth control:

Germany         95%

United Kingdom  92

Netherlands     88

Norway          87

Sweden          79

Denmark         70

United States   56

Teen pregnancies per 1,000 teenagers:

United States   98.0

United Kingdom  46.6

Norway          40.2

Canada          38.6

Finland         32.1

Sweden          28.3

Denmark         27.9

Netherlands     12.1

Japan           10.5

Total teen abortions per 1,000 teenagers:

United States   44.4

Norway          21.1

Sweden          19.6

Denmark         18.2

Finland         17.9

United Kingdom  16.9

Canada          16.2

Japan            5.9

Netherlands      5.5

So, from these statistics, one can pretty easily determine that comprehensive sex education leads to fewer teen pregnancies, which means fewer abortions. In addition, kids who are taught a comprehensive curriculum lose their virginity later and are more likely to use oral contraceptives. All of these are good things, so why doesn’t the US take a page from The Netherlands book? Because we are a country full of idiots and religious zealots who oppose any form of social progress, especially when it benefits women. Unfortunately, a large number of American lawmakers are bible thumping idiots. Not only do these people oppose basic rights such as abortion and contraceptives, but a lot of these loonies go as far as to deny evolution. In short, these people are fucking crazy religious zealots interested in maintaining biblically prescribed gender roles. How does teaching kids about sex upset this goal? Because it teaches both girls and boys that their bodies are their own responsibility which they are entitled to control. Kids are taught how to avoid pregnancy and STDs and also that sex is not only for procreation but for pleasure of both males and females. Crazy backwards Christians want to ensure that kids do not know about forms of contraception. They claim this is because with the knowledge of contraceptives, more teens will engage in sex. Clearly the Netherlands has proven this to be a false claim. So why do we still teach abstinence only education? Because people who oppose comprehensive sex education are lying; the reason they do not want America’s youth educated about contraceptives is because a Patriarchal society maintains control by making an example of women who break the rules. Girls who become pregnant or contract an STD become examples in our society to other girls of the worst possible outcome. If girls are able to protect themselves against these things with the knowledge of contraception, they will likely take advantage of condoms and oral birth control. If this happens, Ultra conservatives will have no one to make an example of. There will be no “irresponsible sluts” to label and demonize because girls will have the opportunity to engage in sex responsibly. In addition, our society vilifies women who enjoy sex. Patriarchy dictates that women’s bodies exist for the sole purpose of male pleasure. When women and girls are not taught about their own bodies and encouraged to seek pleasure from sex, they often will not find the act enjoyable. Keeping women in the dark about their bodies is a way to control them sexually. If we don’t know how our sexual organs work in relation to orgasms, then we won’t be interested in having sex.

Unsurprisingly, The Netherlands has a much higher percentage of non-religious individuals than the U.S. I often find myself telling people that “correlation does NOT equal causation,” but in this case, I think its safe to reject that sentiment and contend with a large degree of certainly that religion (in particular Christianity) has a major causal relationship to America’s inability to adapt not only a practical approach to sexual education, but to the topic of sex all together. The bible and its loyal “interpreters” vary in degrees to which they oppress women with the justification of God’s supreme decree, but an absolutely undeniable fact is that religion is an extremely effective tool when one wishes to justify oppression. For example, the bible demands that a girl who is raped must regain her honor by marrying her rapist. If a girl loses her virginity before marriage by choice, she should be stoned to death, and women should always play a subordinate role to their husbands. This is some fucked up shit, yet people of that past have willingly laid down their lives in the name of this book and it’s “Holy Doctrine.” HOLY FUCK. What is wrong with these people? Anyways, there are less of these people in the Netherlands, which I think directly affects the worldview of the people of The Netherlands. When you aren’t raised on a creed of Christianity that convinces you that sex is sinful and dirty when it occurs outside of marriage, you are less inclined to be against people (especially teenagers) from having access to information about it. When you are raised in a society that does not define a female’s worth by her sexual purity, you are less inclined to try to preserve young girls’ chastity through scare tactics. In short: The U.S. and our HORRIBLE sexual education cannot be fixed until our views on both women and sex become less archaic and oppressive. We have only to look at the liberal capitol to see a flourishing society rich with social welfare, working mothers and fathers, truly available abortions up to the 21^st week, legalized drugs and an extremely low rate of substance abuse, clean needle exchanges with no subsequent increase in addicts, a cap on income with no decrease in the number of motivated individuals, and according to The World Happiness Report of 2012, one of the happiest countries in the world. I’m sure that the Netherlands is not a country without problems, but by utilizing a practical approach untainted by religious dogma, the Dutch are well on their way to creating a Utopia.

Tagged: feminismpoliticssexual education

Blog 9, An Unintended and Harmful Backlash Against Female Sexual Empowerment

Most men have little to no trouble with having an orgasm during sex. Female orgasms are a completely different story. Most blame the complex structure of female anatomy, which is certainly partially to blame. The clitoris is the most sensitive and receptive area of the female reproductive organs and therefore often requires stimulation for a female to have an orgasm. I contend, however, that there is another force at work keeping women from completely enjoying sex.

As women, we have been taught our entire lives that our worth is dependent upon our virginity. Anyone who claims this to be false is full of shit. With this belief drilled into our heads, is it really a wonder that so many women have trouble reaching orgasm with a partner? In the back of our minds exists a little voice that reminds us that through sexual performance we are destroying our societal worth. Do I consciously buy into the belief that my worth was destroyed when I had sex? No. But what I was taught about my worth being determined by my purity certainly affects how I am able to enjoy sex. This is a problem that is nonexistent for a majority of males.

Most men today are invested in ensuring that their partner enjoys sex. One of the ways males try to help is by attempting to “last longer” by starting and stopping to avoid having their own orgasm before their partner has had hers. This practice could be considered a feminist advance in that women’s pleasure has become important, but simultaneously, this practice has been transformed into a machismo contest. Men and women alike discuss “how long a male can last.” This concept has in a way come to define a man’s level of masculinity. Why though, is something that is done to give a female a chance to orgasm, used as a measure of masculinity? Males often brag about how long they can last, but you’ll be hard pressed to find a man bragging about the killer orgasm he gave his girlfriend last night. I find it strange that something men would seemingly do to enhance a female’s experience has been transformed into a way for a man to prove just how masculine he is and that manliness is not defined by a male’s ability to please his female partner sexually, but rather by his ability to stay hard.

Interestingly enough, the “lasting longer” competition among males seems to be a fairly recent advent. Upon asking my 56 year old mother about whether or not the “start and stop method” was around in her day, she gave me a look of utter shock and confusion. She went on to say that when she was young, female sexual satisfaction was not sought after by females let alone their male partners. So what does this little history lesson tell us? That patriarchy was momentarily challenged by men who were interested in their partners’ sexual fulfillment, but that, just like everything else, the patriarchy killed this step forward by insisting that “lasting longer” is a sign of manliness rather than a sign of shift towards greater sexuality parity among men and women. This shift created yet another cultural system of female sexual oppression.

Tagged: feminism

Blog 8, The “Born Gay” Argument

Is this a new idea? I don’t know. But something that has been bothering me recently is that some people validate respecting gay rights because people are “born gay.” Don’t get me wrong, I’m in full support of gay rights, legalizing gay marriage, allowing people to adopt children regardless of sexual orientation, etc. But, I just can’t validate believing in this equality because people are “born gay.” I don’t dispute that people are born gay. I have absolutely no depth of understanding in how my sexuality was formed, let alone anyone else’s. My problem is that I feel like a lot of gay allies are allies because they feel that gay people had no choice. But what if they did? What if people do choose to be gay? Do they not deserve support because they are willfully going against the grain? If so, then that’s fucking stupid. I feel like consenting adults should be entitled to be in a relationship with whoever they wish to be and their relationship should be recognized in all of the ways heterosexual ones are. Shouldn’t that be what’s important? Respecting individual choice? I just feel like the argument of being “born gay” undermines any respect of personal choice. “It wouldn’t be okay if someone did choose to be gay, but they didn’t choose it” seems to be what some allies are saying to anti-gay people, but that since homosexuals didn’t choose their sexual preference, they shouldn’t be blamed. Why can’t they not be blamed simply because consenting adults making their own sexual choices deserve respect regardless of what they do in the bedroom? I understand that anti-gay bigots need to be spoken to in a way that they can understand, but I’m not sure that the “born gay” argument is really the right way to go. I feel like a comparison can be made to women who have miscarriages versus abortions. Some legislators want to enact laws requiring a murder investigation to be conducted when a miscarriage occurs. People who oppose this type of law but also oppose safe legal abortion kind of remind me of the “born gay” arguers. Essentially both issues involve people being okay with something typically not acceptable because the person involved is a victim of their own biology. Maybe I’m making too big of a fuss, because, after all people who utilize the “born gay” argument are on my side, but for the record, if you are gay, I support you not because you were born any certain way, but because I think you are entitled to live your life however you want to.

Tagged: feminismhomophobiagay rights

Blog 7, I’m moving to Amsterdam

So I just got back from a five day trip to Amsterdam, and I have concluded that the Netherlands is where it’s at. Anyone who claims that America is the best country in the world clearly has never been anywhere near my new favorite country. So what makes the Netherlands so fantastic? I’m so glad you asked.

In Italy, street harassment is commonplace. You walk down the street and hear various men yelling at you, staring at your body up and down, making you feel uncomfortable and at times in danger. In the US, street harassment is also common. Generally speaking, men from both countries seem to have little respect for women on the streets. You know who does have respect? The Dutch. Not one time during my stay did I feel the least bit uncomfortable because of what a male said to me, oh except the Italian men who felt the need to follow me to the liberal capitol. But seriously, while in Italy or the US, if a male comes up to me it’s generally to say something disgusting or to shamelessly hit on me. This was not my experience in Amsterdam. When a man said hello on the street, he seemed to mean “hello” and not “lets fuck.” When we went out to the discoteca I was nervous, thinking I would have an experience similar to the ones I’ve had in Italy. To my surprise however, even when drunk, Dutch men don’t treat you like a piece of meat. The men there seemed to be in the club to have a good time, not to try to find someone to have sex with. They were not wandering around the room looking for someone to hook up with, but were dancing with their friends. When a boy did want to dance with a girl, he asked her politely. THIS PLACE IS AWESOME. It makes me a bit sad to think about the fact that Dutch men are not some kind of saints. They just treat women with simple respect that they deserve. How depressing. Thankfully, Amsterdam has more to offer.

Prostitution is legal there. Personally, I think this is an excellent move. Prostitution will never just go away. Do I like prostitution? Nope. But I recognize that there is a demand for it. By legalizing prostitution, regulations exist to ensure better safety for both prostitutes and their clients. A condom is ALWAYS used by prostitutes in the Netherlands, which helps contain the spread of diseases. FANTASTIC. In addition, the sex workers gain a safer work environment than sex workers who have to keep their profession a secret. In the US, if a prostitute is physically harmed etc., she is in danger by reporting the crime, because her occupation is illegal. This forces prostitutes who are victims of violence while at work to remain silent. Using this system, the victims of the crime are punished instead of the person who committed the crime. Police in the US would devote little time to finding a man who beat up a prostitute because a prostitute warrants little respect in our society. In contrast, the occupation is considered a respectable one by a large number of Dutch citizens according to one poll I read.

The Dutch just seem to have a much more realistic approach to dealing with issues than we to in the US or in Italy. By acknowledging prostitution and working to make undesirable situations safe, instead of pretending they don’t exist, a lot of positive strides have been made. The one concern I do have about the legalization of prostitution is about women involved in prostitution by force. I wonder how many women posing in the windows of the red light district are there because they truly want to be, or because someone is forcing them to be there. Amsterdam is still a hot spot for human traffickers. I wonder if the girls smuggled in to the Netherlands end up working in legal brothels. I would assume that this does not happen; as I understand it, every prostitute needs a registration card in order to be allowed to work in the country. One cannot get this card without being a citizen. This causes me to conclude that the girls working in the Netherlands as prostitutes against their will are not the girls seen in the windows, but that perhaps these women are trafficked in a more discreet way. This makes me think that legal prostitution is the means by which a majority of men who pay for sex utilize. If this is true, then I think that the country has made a good decision in legalizing sex work. Clearly I need to investigate this topic more, but so far I’m thinking Amsterdam is pretty awesome.

Soft drugs are also legal in the Netherlands. You can go to any coffeeshop and buy a small quantity of marijuana. There are also coffeeshops that sell psilocybin mushrooms. Again, I agree with legalizing soft drugs completely. Kids in the Netherlands are exposed to soft drugs and are taught that it is acceptable to do them every once in a while. Why not teach kids this? These drugs are safe to consume, you know exactly where they came from. You don’t have to worry about them being laced with anything dangerous as you do in places where marijuana is illegal. In addition, when kids are taught that something like weed is not a taboo thing to do, kids are less interested in doing it. Most of the Dutch people I talked to about the subject talked about marijuana as if it were the same as drinking an occasional glass of wine. Because they were always exposed to marijuana, they were never all that interested in abusing the drug. Most Dutch go to a coffeeshop every once in a while, the majority of coffeeshop’s business is done with tourists who travel to Amsterdam for the strict purposes of smoking copious amounts of marijuana.

The Netherlands also has a very low number of people addicted to hard drugs. This proves that marijuana is not a gateway drug, though anyone with a brain should be able to figure that out on their own. In the Netherlands, clean needle exchanges exist to help curb the number of individuals infected with HIV and Hepatitis from intravenous drugs. A lot of American politicians object to such programs, insisting that creating access to clean needles will increase the number of addicts. Once again the Netherlands has proved that this is not the case, although I feel like the existence of this type of program is common sense.

So, I’m moving to the Netherlands. Anyone else want to come?

A female life is one that embodies deference. We know and acknowledge that most men (and some women) do not believe in true gender equality. We constantly have to settle for men who treat us with respect tainted by varying levels if misogyny.

Blog 6, My Own (Unique and Most Likely Controversial) Views on Twilight and its “Anti-feminist” Themes

Okay, so it’s no new conversation; many believe that Twilight sends some pretty fucked up messages to girls concerning gender roles, sex and relationships. For those (very few) of you who are unfamiliar with the story it goes a little something like this: “I’m Bella, I’m ordinary and boring. I’m moving from Arizona to Washington State so I can get to know my absentee Dad. Woah! I’m falling for this hot guy, who also happens to be a vampire and tells me that I am not in fact ordinary and boring. He saves me from a bunch of other scary vampires, and then I get married to him at 19 and have his vampire baby. We love each other until the end of time. The end.”                        Sound like a silly story? That’s because it is. And when one decides to explore every single concrete occurrence in the book as some type of veiled allegory, I think a lot of anti-feminist themes can be identified. For example, one of the themes many have criticized the novels for is communicating to girls that they must wait until marriage for sex. Edward’s desire for Bella’s blood is turned into a symbolic representation of sexual temptation; the couple’s ability to abstain until marriage is an overcoming of this temptation.  The existence of any allegory identified by this aspect of the story has been completely contrived by critics and was probably not Meyer’s intention at all. Bella and Edward are BOTH virgins when they meet, and it is Bella who always tries to initiate sex. Edward wants to wait for two reasons. The first is that he fears accidentally harming Bella while in the middle of making love, so he wants to wait until they both are indestructible vampires. This seems like a pretty logical reason to wait. Secondly, Edward feels damned by the very fact that he is a vampire. He has left no Christian rule unbroken except one: his virginity is intact. Edward’s fear of damnation for himself extends to Bella because she plans on becoming a vampire as well. That doesn’t sound particularly un-feminist to me. Edward is concerned for both of their souls and wants to ensure that he does not break every one of God’s commandments. One could argue that in trying to spare his own soul, Edward is simultaneously assuming a patriarchal role as a so called “virginity warrior,” preserving Bella’s purity, but this argument is a moot one. Edward clearly states that he wants to leave one rule unbroken for himself. The fact that Bella will remain pure until marriage is simply a result of Edward’s desire to remain pure; her purity is not the only reason he wishes to wait until marriage. Edward chooses to try to follow the one rule he has not already gone against in an effort to alleviate his own anxiety concerning the fate of his soul, but he is not truly religious. Meyer’s “intended” message of sexual purity for women would be much more potent had Edward insisted on Bella remaining pure until marriage, if he were not a virgin, and if his character was truly religious. This is not the case, which leads me to conclude that Meyers was not in fact looking to send any veiled messages about the value of female purity. Wanting to stay a virgin until marriage isn’t in itself anti-feminist. Only when one’s virginity is connected to societal value does the belief become problematic. Edward does not wish to wait for marriage because he fears tarnishing his own or Bella’s societal worth. He just views it as a way to follow the only religious rule he has not already violated. As an added bonus, he gets to ensure that Bella’s soul is also untarnished by pre-marital sex. Edward fell in love with Bella before he knew that she was a virgin. His desire to marry her has nothing to do with her virginity. He would have married her regardless of her sexual history.

Edward’s lack of concern for Bella’s number of sexual partners becomes more apparent when he tries to convince Bella to terminate the vampire fetus. Edward says that Bella can have “normal” (werewolf) babies with Jacob if she really wants children. This statement indicates that Bella’s purity, and Edward’s possession of Bella, are two aspects of the story that are merely contrived by critics. The fact that Edward says Bella can have not just someone else’s children, but specifically Jacob’s children, is what makes Edward’s statement so important. Had Edward simply said that Bella could have an invitro fertilization etc., one could argue that he is simply trying to bargain his way to controlling her. The fact that he says these hypothetical children would be Jacobs reveals how truly un-possessive Edward is over Bella. Jacob and Bella love each other romantically, but Bella chooses Edward because her love for him is stronger than her love for Jacob. Edward is aware of Bella’s feelings for Jacob and gives his permission for her to act on these feelings physically if it means that she will terminate her life-threatening pregnancy. Edward is not only rebuking any claim to ownership of Bella, but also giving her license to violate their marital vows by having a sexual relationship with Jacob while Edward remains faithful to Bella. Then again, maybe Edward is just a manipulative bastard, but I think I’m going with the former hypothesis; someone who glitters can’t possibly be THAT crafty. 

Another aspect of the story that is certainly not anti-feminist is Bella’s assertion of her right to control her own reproductive system. When Bella discovers that she is pregnant with Edward’s weird half vampire baby, Edward and the rest of the Cullens (except Rosalie) want Bella to abort the fetus in order to ensure her own health. They have no idea whether carrying the fetus to term will kill her, but in the early stages of pregnancy Bella’s ribs are cracked by the fetus, so the general consensus is, no, Bella will not survive the birth of the vampire baby. This turns out to be a correct assumption, but Edward manages to turn Bella into a vampire just after she has the baby so she doesn’t die. (yay!) Anyways, this aspect of the story is pretty pro-feminism. Bella is urged by others to make a choice about her body, but she insists that the choice is hers alone and that she wishes to take an alternate course of action. If that’s not feminist, I don’t know what is. Granted, in this situation Edward can be viewed as a controlling douche who is trying to tell Bella what to do with her body, but once again we must maintain proper perspective. Bella is pregnant with a vampire baby that Edward knows will likely kill her. He does not urge Bella to abort the pregnancy because he wants to control her, but because he knows that she will die. This is no different from a husband urging his wife to abort if she has a life threatening condition that will be exacerbated by pregnancy. In both situations, the partner is entitled to no form of control over the woman’s choice, but they are entitled to feel emotional about the prospect of losing her, and these feelings inevitably come out in conversations. Is this wrong? No. Men in these situations are entitled to their feelings and to expressing them. Edward never tells Bella to abort, he asks her, begs her to do so. This response is not an un-feminist one, it’s a natural one. Ultimately, Bella’s choice is accepted by Edward, because he respects her choice regardless of his own feelings on the subject. Both Bella’s assertion and Edward’s respect of her assertion are certainly not anti-feminist sentiments.

         What most people forget about this story is that while Edwards saves Bella in a physical sense from multiple antagonists, it is Bella who saves Edward in a more all-encompassing way. Bella in an introverted person who enjoys being alone and she is completely content to remain so. In contrast, Edward has been actively seeking a partner long before he and Bella meet. While Edward saves Bella multiple times from physical threats, Bella is the savior of Edward in an emotional sense. When Edward believes (falsely) that Bella has died, he attempts suicide because he dies not want to live in a world which does not include Bella. While this is certainly a concerning reaction, Edward’s reaction is not anti-feminist. I contend that his response illuminates the degree of love and devotion (as well as obsession) that he feels for Bella. He does not see her as a disposable object, but an irreplaceable person.

 The argument for the intended existence of anti-feminist allegories is supported by some with the fact that Meyer is a Mormon who has stated that she has found the most fulfillment in being a wife and mother, despite her literary success. First of all, the author’s religion does, like all other Christian religions, encourage abstinence until marriage, but the fact that she is a member of a more foreign and often stigmatized form of Christianity certainly adds to the assumption that she would incorporate themes of the importance placed on female purity. When people hear the word “Mormon,” their mind conjures up images of child brides in Warren Jeff’s FDLS compound. This is not, however, an accurate depiction of modern Mormonism and if Meyer were any other denomination of Christianity, her personal religious convictions would not be used as a testament to her “true” anti-feminist goals.  In addition, it’s very un-feminist to tell women where they should find fulfillment. If Meyer’s happiness is indeed found in her role as a wife and mom, then that’s great. Why should any woman be vilified for expressing these feelings? Feminism is about creating choices for women and one of those choices is marriage and children. Granted, women are to a degree encouraged to “opt out” of a career and “opt-in” to being a house wife, but attacking women who choose domestic life does nothing to further the feminist movement. In contrast, it creates yet another prescribed role for women, which goes against the entire principle of feminism. If Meyer were to say that her greatest happiness comes from writing, I doubt that she would be celebrated as a feminist hero, nor would that reaction be warranted. People cannot control what does and does not make them feel fulfilled. Why attack Meyer for following her bliss while simultaneously being an INCREDIBLY successful author? Seems to me that she’s got the best of both worlds, and that should be celebrated by feminists, not denounced. 

Some also feel concern about the fact that Edward prevents Bella from going where she wants to when he feels she is putting herself in danger. Once again, when one applies Bella and Edward’s situation to real life, yes, parallels are found that do indicate that the two have an unhealthy relationship. The problem with drawing those types of comparisons is simple: Twilight is not real life. Edward is not preventing Bella from living a normal life, he is preventing her from going to hang out with a pack of werewolves, some of whom have a history of physically harming others because they have trouble controlling their impulses when they shift from human to wolf. Edward’s actions seem a bit more justified when one considers that he is trying to ensure no physical harm is done to Bella, and that a true threat to her safety exists when she is with the wolves. Should Edward have prevented Bella from seeing the wolves by disabling her car? No, but I don’t think we can conclude that Edward’s attempts to shield Bella from a very real threat translate into Edward being an abusive, controlling boyfriend. The supernatural element of the story calls for actions of both Bella and Edward that vary greatly from normal life, that’s what makes the story interesting. The presence of the supernatural elements calls for actions of the characters that are not acceptable in real life. The secrecy of both the vampire coven and wolf pack are necessary, and therefore the characters can easily justify behaviors that are clearly problematic when they transpire in the world of reality.

The reason the story appeals to so many is the format in which it is written, but the style has caused many to attack the protagonist, claiming that she is an anti-feminist heroine.  The novels are written in the first person; the reader jumps into the character of Bella, viewing themselves as the protagonist. The number of (white) (middle-class) teenage girls who found not only solidarity but true identification with Bella is due largely to the fact that the novel is written in first person. Bella’s personality and abilities need to be consistent with those of a normal American teen girl in order for this identification to truly take place, which explains precisely why Bella is an average teenager. She’s a little bit socially awkward, good at school but not great, and pretty but not beautiful. This description is applicable to about 90% of teenage girls, if not more. Is it really so shocking that a story about someone so like themselves can become a story about them when said story is told in the first person? No, not at all. This literary tactic is precisely why the series is so successful, so attacking it is a bit silly. The Hunger Games series utilizes the same tactic and no one is complaining about how plain and un-feminist Katniss is. While many criticize Bella for her lack of personality, they forget that her “vanilla” character is precisely what got and kept them interested in the story because they were able to project themselves into the character of Bella.

Many argue that Bella is the epitome of an anti-feminist heroine whether or not the perceived allegories are examined. This could not be further from the truth. When viewing the story literally, rather than interpreting a fictional story with mythical creatures as an allegory, Bella is a brave and strong individual. She is not afraid of surrounding herself with vampires and werewolves, both of whom are capable of killing her with minimal effort. She also constantly fights with both Edward and Jacob, demanding to be viewed as a capable individual. In addition, she does not prescribe to female beauty standards. She never wears make-up and hates dressing for formal events. The stereotype of a typical chatty teenage girl is certainly not applicable and COME ON, the girl drives a stick shift truck and in the movie, Bella even tells Edward that she wants to hyphenate her last name when they get married. Granted, Bella does makes dinner every night for her father and always does the dishes, but as discussed earlier, women shouldn’t be attacked as un-feminist for doing these tasks. Many also attack Bella as un-feminist because she does not express aspirations for higher education or a career. Not wanting either of these is not inherently un-feminist. In addition, neither Bella nor Edward desire these things for a simple reason: they don’t need an income. The Cullen family lives together; while Bella and Edward have their own house, they are part of the Cullen coven. The coven already has copious amounts of money so it is not necessary for Bella or Edward to have a job. What are they going to do with all of their time? I don’t know, but no one is anti-feminist simply because they have accumulated enough money to not need a job.

There are also some pretty feminist characters are present in the series. For example, there is Jessica, the valedictorian of Bella’s class. While one could argue that Jessica’s sometimes catty attitude and ditsy comments make her the opposite of a feminist character; I disagree. She has her cake and eats it too, in a way. She looks like a stereotypical popular high school girl and sometimes chooses to act the part, while also earning the highest GPA of her class. The vampire, Victoria, is also a strong female (albeit evil) character. The entire wolf pack and Cullen coven work together to protect Bella from Victoria, and she still almost kills Bella. The character of Victoria and particularly her physical and mental abilities display a depiction of female superiority by Meyer. All of these conclusions are based on the literal transpirations of the novel, but equally feminist conclusions can be drawn from an examination of the perceived allegory of Bella’s (fictional) relationship (with a vampire) translating into a message about real life relationships. 

Every critic claiming that the novels are anti-feminist attacks Bella. They claim that she is a depiction of a weak female, both mentally and physically. She constantly needs a male figure in her life and is lost without one. The deep depression Bella is in for months when Edward leaves her is what leads many to this conclusion. While I do not deny that Bella’s reaction is extremely unhealthy, I contend that her depression is due largely to the fact that the Cullen’s absence for Bella’s life returns her to the normalcy that she has always detested. The only fantastical aspect of Bella is her association with the Cullens, it is the only thing that separates her from a completely mundane and boring life. Bella not only values her relationship and experiences with Edward but with the entire Cullen family. When Edward leaves, Bella’s connection with the supernatural is severed. When this relationship is re-formed by means of Jacob, (the werewolf) Bella begins to heal. The male characters of Edward and Jacob are not simply an addiction in and of themselves; Bella wants to be special, and this is accomplished through her relationships with the mythical creatures Edward and Jacob. They are the medium through which Bella experiences the supernatural, and can therefore claim individuality. She is privy to knowledge that normal people are not, and she values this status. Yes, Bella loves both Jacob and Edward, but a definite factor which contributes to her overall feelings about both of them is their supernatural state. Bella, like most other people, desires to transcend mediocrity. The only way she is able to do this initially is through association. This is not an anti-feminist or uncommon goal and can often be used as a platform for personal development away from normalcy. This is precisely what happens to Bella when she becomes a vampire. At this point, she no longer defines her associations and knowledge of the supernatural as an escape from mediocrity, but rather her participation as a member of the supernatural. Another important aspect of the story which contradicts claims of Bella’s portrayed physical inferiority in that she constantly requires Edward to save her, is that this type of rescue is no longer necessary once Bella becomes a vampire. At this point, Bella becomes physically self-sufficient and prepares to fight the Vulturi in order to protect Renesme. 

Critics of Bella also claim that she is anti-feminist because she puts up with constant abuse in the way of stalking and controlling behavior, yet she still loves both of her abusers, Jacob and Edward. Again, let me state that I in no way believe that this allegory was intended, nor do I think that this story can in any way translate into real life (you know, non-vampire/werewolf relationships). But, if you insist on disagreeing with me, I will explain why this allegorical interpretation of Bella as anti-feminist is STILL wrong.

If Bella and Edward’s relationship is translated into a real life one (where Edward is a human and they no longer have to worry about all of the crazy shit) then yeah, their relationship has some serious issues. But, in their relationship, Bella is the victim of abuse. As a victim, why is everyone attacking her? Shouldn’t one empathize with victims of partner abuse? Victim blaming is never conducive to stopping future abuse. Victim blaming is rooted in established Patriarchal control and male entitlement as well as ownership of women. Those who claim that Bella is an anti-feminist character because of her unhealthy relationship with Edward are victim blaming, and therefore perpetuating the cycle of Patriarchy, which is certainly not conducive to furthering feminist goals. If one simply cannot resist evaluating the text as if it were some profound allegory about how teenage relationships should be (by glorifying stalking, controlling behavior and partner violence among other horrible things) maybe one should consider thinking of Bella in terms of what she is: a victim. Is every woman who is trapped in an abusive relationship an “anti-feminist?” No, that’s idiotic. Abusive relationships are incredibly hard to get out of for multiple reasons. A woman may fear physical retribution; she may believe that she cannot live without him, or that no one else will want her (many abusive partners say such statements). These are just a few reasons women remain in abusive relationships, and a multitude of others exist as well. In Bella’s case, multiple reasons can be listed, fear of violence from Edward towards both Bella and himself (he tried to kill himself over her once, remember?) is certainly a main one. If you want to attack someone in the novel because they are an anti-feminist, I suggest attacking the abusers, not their victim. 

Could Edward’s actions (within a scenario that will never exist in real life) be perceived be impressionable minds as acceptable behavior of a real life boyfriend? Yes, this is a possibility. But that does not warrant claims of the book’s anti-feminist themes. Those who read Twilight and then attempt to apply a fictional story about vampires and werewolves to their own personal lives and relationships probably should not be reading the books in the first place. A very clear distinction exists between this story and reality. The characters of Twilight make sometimes questionable decisions when one is reading the text with a feminist lens in hand, but these decisions only truly become questionable when one removes the surrounding context of the story and places the events into a realistic scenario. This is precisely the problem; people need to stop reading so much into the story. Additionally, any person who applies the story of Twilight to realistic situations clearly should not be reading fiction. It is the job of a parent to ensure that children are exposed to age appropriate media, and to clear up any misunderstandings concerning how fictional stories can or cannot relate to real life situations.  Do I deny that problem after problem arises when one applies Edward and Bella’s actions to a real life relationship? No. That would be the most fucked up relationship ever. The important thing to remember is that not every piece of literature has profound societal value. Sometimes a novel can be just a story, an opportunity to escape reality and experience something new. Twilight is undeniably one of the most successful works of escapism. Most readers are enthralled by the fantastical creatures and fly through the books. Are they particularly well written? Nope. Do they offer any great insight into society when read at face value? No. And I think the problem is that people refuse to believe that these novels were written to be read on a concrete level. If one is simply unable to accept this, then I suggest changing the way we view feminist works as a whole. We need to analyze the series and the perceived allegories in a new way, one that gives young readers a little bit more credit. Instead of harping about Twilight’s anti-feminist themes which teach young girls that having a controlling boyfriend is cool, why not expand our definition of feminist works to include books that point out societal problems and then discuss with impressionable young girls how these commonly accepted occurrences within relationships are indeed exceptionally problematic? For example, one could consider the work a feminist one in that it displays exactly how abusive relationships are formed, and how they are able to continue. In creating a dialogue centered around the topic of unhealthy relationships, girls can see tactics employed by an abusive partner and parents can get involved in teaching their kids about what does and does not constitute a healthy relationship. To me, this seems like a much more productive response to the threat (perceived by some) to the feminist values instilled in today’s young women. What better way is there to eliminate any such threat to future generations of feminists than to create an open and truthful dialogue? This dialogue needs to address all of the areas which readers find problematic with concern to implicitly teaching and outright glorifying unhealthy romantic relationships. 

Would I encourage my children to read the Twilight series? No, they will not open a box on Christmas morning that contains Meyer’s fiction. Simultaneously, if my kids want to read these or any other books that are age appropriate but have also been attacked by some for their problematic themes, I won’t stop them. Even if I believed in the existence of anti-feminist rhetoric in the Twilight series, I would in no way fear that the feminist beliefs instilled in my children and reinforced throughout their entire lives could be unraveled by one work of fiction. That is a ridiculous and unwarranted fear, especially if a parent takes the time to discuss with their children any problematic aspects of the work, in particular, any subliminal messages that are perceived. In creating this type of discussion, parents can simultaneously help their children understand problems that have been identified by adults, and children will themselves become active readers who are capable of identifying problematic aspects of a work. In short, how can you expect adults to identify problems within any type of media if they are not instructed on how to do so in childhood? This skill, like any other, must be developed, and one cannot develop the ability to identify problematic works without proper exposure to them.

Tagged: twilightfeminismbella swanStephanie Meyermedia literacy

Blog 5, Francesca

So I actually wrote this paper for my Dante class, but I feel like it belongs on my blog too.

Dante’s Inferno is full of allegories, one of the most pervasive being Francesca and her metaphorical significance as the embodiment of carnal love. Scholars invariably agree that the woman often referred to as simply, “the donna,” becomes the metaphor for sex dominating oneself. She “subjects reason to desire” by violating her vows of marriage and having an affair with her husband’s brother. As a result, both Francesca and her lover, Paolo, are delegated to the second circle of hell where they are trapped forever in their vice with no hope of human development. They are in a state of static consciousness, each only able to think of their carnal desire for the other. While Francesca is certainly the embodiment of carnal love, as she tells the story of the events to Dante and clearly does not regret her choices, with embodiment comes also blame. Francesca carries all of the blame while truly yielding less than all of the responsibility for what transpired. Paolo is responsible for his fate, yet Francesca is forced to assume all of the responsibility for a situation that was created by both of them. While Francesca loves Paolo and consents to the relationship, she has no alternative. Women of the era were not permitted to deny the affections of a man. Francesca’s choices are non-existent, so she chooses to embrace her own sexuality. She cannot change her situation, but she can change how she feels about the sex that she will be having either way. She has no choice but to partake in the affair yet she, not Paolo, represents carnal love to the reader. The purpose of this paper is not to argue that Francesca does not love Paolo or that she does not want to have sexual relations with him. Rather, I contend that because Francesca, as well as other women of the time, is not granted the right to say “no,” to sex, any sexual act that she does consent to is tainted with the overarching threat of coercion or force. In addition, I wish to explore why Francesca alone is the embodiment of carnal love when both she and Paolo committed adultery.   

Francesca has no options lacking oppression in her society, so she chooses to subject her desire to reason in order to mitigate possible suffering. She states to Dante when telling him how she came to reside in hell that, “Love, which is quickly kindled in the gentle heart, seized this man for the fair form that was taken from me, and the manner afflicts me still. Love, which absolves no one beloved from loving, seized me so strongly with his charm that, as thou seest, it does not leave me yet. Love brought onto us one death” (77). Francesca states that she loves Paolo, but also acknowledges that he had the right to her body with or without her consent.  Francesca does not passively tolerate sex but rather devotes herself to passionate love making. Dante vilifies Francesca for this, but in reality, Francesca is simply embracing the perks that accompany her oppression. Had Francesca simply tolerated sex with Paolo rather than relishing in it, perhaps Dante would have chosen to distribute the blame evenly upon the lovers. The fact that Dante does choose only to vilify Francesca is reflective of the past, as well as current, Catholic view on sex. Women are raised to believe that their worth is defined by their chastity. Men are not held to this standard and are instead evaluated on their strength and earning potential. Francesca’s worth as a woman is ruined when she has sex with Paolo, while his worth remains relatively the same. To perpetuate this sexist system, Francesca alone is blamed for the transgression through her embodiment of carnal love.

The lovers are murdered by Francesca’s husband when he discovers what she and Paolo have been doing. This is the reaction that was expected of a husband in this time period, yet Francesca is punished for an act that she would have been forced into had she not willingly participated. Francesca’s worth as a woman is diminished so greatly by the affair that her husband no longer desires to be married to her. As divorce was not an option, Francesca’s husband resorts to murder. The fact that Paolo is murdered by his own brother is reflective of how serious the infraction was, as well as how Francesca is viewed as property rather than as a person. As a commodity, women can easily be bought and sold, and therefore replaced. Paolo is murdered because he stole his brother’s property; Francesca is murdered because she is no longer valuable. Both murders are justified under the belief that women are property and therefore have no rights.

 While Francesca’s voice, and Paola’s lack thereof, in the telling of the events plays a role in her representation of carnal love, one must recognize why Francesca is telling the story. Paolo weeps while Francesca speaks; one can infer from this fact that Paolo would tell the story were he not preoccupied. Ultimately, a reader must question why Francesca embodies carnal love instead of Paolo. One can argue that Dante is reflecting upon the poor state of a society that grants so few rights to women, but I contend that Dante’s choice to fully embody the sin of carnal love in Francesca rather than in both she and Paolo is for a different reason. Dante lived in a time far before the rights of women were considered; the blame placed solely on Francesca was most likely a choice Dante made without meaningful intent. His choice to place the blame only on Francesca is more of a reflection of the beliefs of the time period than an intended misogynistic dig at women or an illumination of injustice.

Tagged: dantedante alighieriallegory

Blog 4, letter to the governor

So I got mad one night an wrote the dear Governor of Virginia a letter in hopes of swaying him to vote no on one of the most horrifying pieces of legislation ever created. He did not do what I asked him to. I guess a small victory exists in that the required trans-vaginal ultrasound was changed to a required trans abdominal ultrasound, but I’m still pissed off.

Dear Governor,

The blatant attacks against women need to stop. This bill (HB 462) has no medical basis; its purpose is clearly to shame and guilt women for doing nothing more than exercising their right to bodily autonomy. I urge you to veto this bill. The lack of accessibility to abortion in our state is already outrageous. To add yet another obstacle will do nothing more than add to the number of women who turn to unqualified individuals rather than medical professionals for abortion services as well as the number of children born to mothers who are unable or unwilling to care for them. Women will always want and need abortions. I implore you to accept this fact and participate in resolving this issue rationally, without allowing your own personal beliefs and religious dogma to stand in the way of granting others what should be considered a fundamental right, the right to control one’s own body.

Sincerely,

Katelyn Mock

Blog 3, letter to victim blaming police officer

Dear Officer,

  My name is Katie Mock and I am a student at James Madison University in Florence. You may remember the brief discussion we had in the middle of your speech on safety concerning the way in which you chose to present sexual assault. I feel that I was not able to voice my opinion in the manner I wished to at that time, and so I would like to take the opportunity to do so in this letter. Unfortunately, I do not know your exact wording, but I do know that a paraphrased version of the statement made by you which I find outrageously misogynistic was along the lines of, “Now I hate to say that any girl asks to be raped, but going to a club in provocative clothing is an invitation to Italian men as well as many American men.” This is a horrifying statement. It is never a woman’s fault when she is raped, no matter what she was wearing, if she had been drinking, not even if she had been naked. The statements you made which I found problematic did not end there unfortunately. When I suggested that you teach male students not to rape in tangent with teaching young women how to be safe from rape, you scoffed at me stating that “there has not been a problem with male students raping anyone” and that knowing not to rape women goes without saying. These statements are equally as problematic as the former. An assumed knowledge of women’s right to bodily autonomy clearly does not go without saying. If that were the case, rape would not exist. You are perpetuating misogynistic beliefs through statements such as these, and had I not insisted that you tell the male students not to rape, all you would have taught them in your lecture is that, to a degree, women who wear provocative clothing deserve to be raped.

As someone in a position to affect change in the way my generation views rape, I wish you had made an effort to change the minds of any men in the room who did/still do hold misogynistic beliefs about women and validate rape if the woman is wearing suggestive clothing. You had the chance to tell all of the men in the room that rape is wrong, in all circumstances, and you scoffed at me when I suggest that you take advantage of that opportunity so that at least one less man will take advantage of a woman’s vulnerability. I was even more horrified by your statements concerning sexual assault when I was informed that you travel to various schools to give the exact speech you gave to me and my classmates. You have no right to look down on the Italian or American men you spoke of who see women dressed in provocative clothing as deserving of rape if you make no effort to change the societal standard of which you speak. A platform for change clearly existed, but you chose to ignore it, and instead place all blame and responsibility onto the possible victims, rather than on the possible aggressors. In both American and Italian society, women face horrific acts of sexual violence regularly, it is estimated that one in four college women will be a victim of sexual assault or attempted sexual assault while she is a student. Some estimate that the statistic is actually one in three. I contend wholeheartedly that some percentage of these assaults was committed by an American male student against a female American student while they both were studying abroad in Florence. Perhaps the girl was wearing something provocative when it happened, perhaps the male in question had his own views of misogyny affirmed by your statement that females dressed provocatively are asking to be raped. While it is certainly wise to teach women things such as not to put their drink down or not to walk home alone, telling women that they are inviting a sexual assault if they are dressed provocatively does nothing more than perpetuate victim blaming. You also discussed alcohol use, which I believe to be important; however, you only discussed women’s use of alcohol, suggesting that we keep our own drinks to a minimum in order to avoid victimization. I wish you had also discussed the well proven fact that men are more likely to commit sexual assault when they have been drinking. You placed the responsibility onto the women to not be raped, rather than on the men to not rape, which is deplorable.

You also failed to address what a person should do if they have been the victim of sexual assault. You should be providing resources to victims, and trying to change the way people view sexual assault, not perpetuate old beliefs rooted in male entitlement to sex and slut shaming. In suggesting that a woman who was dressed provocatively and was subsequently raped was asking for it, you are teaching women that if they find themselves in this scenario, that they should stay silent and suffer alone. I’m extremely disappointed in the way you chose to present the subject of avoiding sexual assault. You did nothing but perpetuate and validate these beliefs in any who held them in our meeting, regardless of your personal stance on women’s right to bodily autonomy.

 I hope that in the future you will ensure that misogynistic notions of male entitlement are absent from your speech, as well as the concept of women who wear provocative clothing as “asking to be raped.” I hope that you address men on how not to rape with as much emphasis as you put on the portion of how to not get raped. I recognize that your speech was given with good intentions, and hope you recognize that by considering my argument and hopefully incorporating my ideas into your speech, you will affect more, not less, positive change. You would not only be educating students on how to stay safe in the city, but also offering a relatively new way to think about sexual assault, male culpability and a female’s right to go where she wants, wearing what she wants, without fear of sexual violence. Deeply seeded misogynistic societal views cause men to feel that they have the right to victimize in the first place, I beg you to help change these views in order to mitigate the threat of sexual violence from its root of patriarchal dominance. This would be a stark contrast to your current method of vocalizing victim blaming and functioning under the assumption that no male needs to be told not to rape. I recognize that you are trying to help students to avoid becoming victims of sexual violence, but I urge you to simultaneously be involved in the problem’s resolution.

 Sincerely,

 Katelyn Mock

Blog 2, I hate victim blaming police officers

As a feminist, I try to constantly identify sources of oppression and eliminate them. The sources I have always found to be the most problematic in combating are those coming from people who are on my side to begin with. Recently a police officer visited the JMU in Florence students to educate us about how to stay safe in the city. Clearly this man wants all of us to be educated on how to avoid victimization, and majority of the speech was composed of logical advice, until the officer began speaking about sexual assault. His words were something along the lines of “Now I hate to say that any girl asks to be raped, but going to a club in provocative clothing is an invitation to Italian men as well as many American men.” I tried to sit still, to not have one of my outbursts of feminism. I sat there for three…two…one…nope, couldn’t do. I raised my hand straight into the air as my slouched body immediately sat up straight. The officer gave me a nod, indicating that he was willing to hear my question and I was off. Heart beating in anger, I began “I’m rather bothered, that you have given all of the girls here a lesson on how to not get raped, but you have failed to address the male students in the room on how they should not rape.” To which he replied “Well we haven’t had a problem with male American students raping anyone,” which made me almost laugh out loud by the way. I was quite angry, which causes me to be terribly incoherent and poor at communicating. All I was able to string together was something along the lines of “Excuse me but the estimated percentage of reported rape in the United States is somewhere around eleven percent, so I assume that it is the same here.” He looked at me, shocked, and then said succinctly, “This goes without saying, (looked at the boys) boys, don’t rape.” The officer then moved on, and I was far too angry to say anything else.

 What I wish I had said is the following: “You misogynistic asshole, this is a horrible way to discuss sexual assault and you should not be the individual chosen to talk to students about it, because clearly you hold some pretty fucked up beliefs about rape and women in general. NO, it’s never a woman’s fault when she is raped, NO, a woman is not asking to be raped, NO, saying “do not rape” clearly does not go without saying. If that were the case, rape would not exist. You are perpetuating your misogynistic beliefs through your speech, and had I not insisted that you tell the male students not to rape, all you would have taught them in your lecture is that, to a degree, women who wear provocative clothing deserve to be raped. As someone in a position to affect change in the way my generation views rape, I wish you had made an effort to change the minds of any men in the room who did/still do hold misogynistic beliefs about women and validate rape if the woman is wearing suggestive clothing. You had the chance to tell all of the men in the room that rape is wrong, in all circumstances, and you scoffed at me when I suggest that you take advantage of that opportunity so that at least one less man will take advantage of a woman’s vulnerability. You have no right to look down on the Italian or American men you spoke of who see women dressed in provocative clothing as deserving of rape if you make no effort to change the societal standard of which you speak. A platform for change clearly existed, but you chose to ignore it, and instead place all blame and responsibility onto the possible victims, rather than on the possible aggressors. In both American and Italian society, women face horrific acts of sexual violence regularly, it is estimated that one in four college women will be a victim of sexual assault or attempted sexual assault while she is a student. Some estimate that the statistic is actually one in three. I contend wholeheartedly that some percentage of these assaults was committed by an American male student against a female American student while they both were studying abroad in Florence. Perhaps the girl was wearing something provocative when it happened, perhaps the male in question had his own views of misogyny affirmed by your statement that females dressed provocatively are asking to be raped.While it is certainly wise to teach women things such as not to put their drink down or not to walk home alone, telling women that they are inviting a sexual assault if they are dressed provocatively does nothing more than perpetuate victim blaming. You also discussed alcohol use, which I believe to be important; however, you only discussed women’s use of alcohol, suggesting that we keep our own drinks to a minimum in order to avoid victimization. I wish you had also discussed the well proven fact that men are more likely to commit sexual assault when they have been drinking. You placed the responsibility onto the women to not be raped, rather than on the men to not rape, which is deplorable.

You also failed to address what a person should do if they have been the victim of sexual assault. You should be providing resources to victims, and trying to change the way people view sexual assault, not perpetuate old beliefs rooted in male entitlement to sex and slut shaming. In suggesting that a woman who was dressed provocatively and was subsequently raped was asking for it, you are teaching women that if they find themselves in this scenario, that they should stay silent and suffer alone. I’m extremely disappointed in the way you chose to present the subject of avoiding sexual assault. You did nothing but perpetuate and validate these beliefs in any who held them in our meeting, regardless of your personal stance on women’s right to bodily autonomy. I hope that in the future you will ensure that misogynist notions of male entitlement are absent from your speech, as well as the concept of women who wear provocative clothing as “asking to be raped.” I hope that you address men on how not to rape with as much emphasis as you put on the portion of how to not get raped. I recognize that your speech was given with good intentions, and hope you recognize that by considering my argument and hopefully incorporating my ideas into your speech, you will affect more, not less, positive change. You would not only be educating students on how to stay safe in the city, but also offering a relatively new way to think about sexual assault, male culpability and a female’s right to go where she wants, wearing what she wants, without fear of sexual violence. Deeply seeded misogynistic societal views cause men to feel that they have the right to victimize in the first place, I beg you to help change these views in order to mitigate the threat of sexual violence from its root of patriarchal dominance. This would be a stark contrast to your current method of vocalizing victim blaming and functioning under the assumption that no male needs to be told not to rape. I recognize that you are trying to help students to avoid becoming victims of sexual violence, but I urge you to simultaneously be involved in the problem’s resolution.

Ugh, why can’t I be eloquent when I need to be?

Blog 1, Italy v. USA

So I’ve been in Florence for an entire week now, examining Italian culture with a feminist lens, and what I continue to ask myself is whether or not Italy has a better or worse perception of and respect for women than American men. Certain facts about Italy force me to conclude that they are vastly more progressive than our own society. For example, women in Italy can have a federally funded abortion in a hospital no questions asked in the first trimester and in the second trimester if the life of the woman is at stake, if there is a fetal deformity or tests have confirmed that the fetus has a genetic disorder. These laws are a stark contrast to our own laws on abortion. In the US, while Roe v Wade legalized abortion, it is effectively illegal in our country due to the procedure’s lack of accessibility. Only the wealthy of our society have true access to safe legal abortions. At the same time, the way that men act towards women in a social environment leads me to conclude that Italian society is not as progressive as I previously believed. I recently was at a club in Florence with about ten other girls I know from school. We were all dancing and noticed that as soon as we walked onto the dance floor, that we were surrounded by a circle of men. They stood around us watching us dance, at first I was uncomfortable but I wrote it off and ignored them. Suddenly, I felt someone come up behind me and grab me by my hips. A man had started grinding on me, and when I turned around and looked at him with an expression of pure shock and confusion, he looked at me as though what he was doing was completely normal. This type of behavior was experienced by some of the other girls I was with. The men surrounded us, scoped out which one of us they wanted to dance with and then started dancing with no attempt to gain any type of consent. I’ve never felt more like a piece of meat in my life, and I go to JMU for Christ sake. At least at JMU parties, boys have enough respect to ask a girl before he starts dancing with her. The men here also seem to feel much more entitled to comment on women and their looks in particular. At JMU, you’ll likely get a few cat calls on your way to a party on Friday night. But in Italy, men seem to be comfortable cat calling women all of the time. The number of looks you notice men giving you in general in also much higher; they seem to feel more entitled to assess women’s bodies without shame here. I am unsure however, if the Italian men treat Italian women in this fashion, or if the fact that I am American plays a role in how the men treat me. Recently at a bar, I was told by one of my friends that an Albanian man was yelling at a girl who refused his attention stating something along the lines of “You American girls…all you want to do is come here to fuck Italian men…” I’m curious if the reputation that precedes American girls is what causes the Italian men to act so aggressively towards us, though, I’m a bit disconcerted at the fact that American girls are shamed for having sex while abroad, but no one seems to be upset with the Italian men who sexually harass us on the streets and touch our bodies without our consent in the clubs. Double standard much?

            I’m unsure of what conclusions can be drawn from these two examples alone. I will surely need to spend more time immersed in this new culture and call on more examples. One thing I am certainly sure of: I’m not in Kansas anymore.