On Take Back the Night

As I take a break from taking notes on why Paul Feyerabend thinks we should throw method in science out with the bathwater, I want to talk about Tuesday night.

Tuesday, April 9th at UR was Take Back the Night.  For those of you who don't know what Take Back the Night is, it began in Philadelphia in the 1970s in response to the problems that women face walking alone at night.  Women are taught to fear the dark and the things that go bump within it, and Take Back the Night is intended to empower women and reclaim what has repeatedly been taken away.  It is primarily a sexual assault/rape awareness campaign, and at UR involves an open-mic style speaking event and a candlelight vigil.

It is a really moving event, but I think more than anything what I love about Take Back the Night is the extent to which it 1) puts a face to the idea of a survivor of sexual assault and 2) forces you to look at people as whole, complex individuals who have faced things and have proven themselves to be extraordinarily strong in the face of something that breaks a lot of people.  I know that I, personally, have this overwhelmingly powerful reaction whenever I see someone now who I have seen speak at TBtN in the past.  It is a combination of sympathy, empathy, and respect, sadness for what they have gone through, and pride for the strong and wonderful people they continue to be in spite of it.

I was heartbroken to see the sheer number of women who are a part of my daily campus community who went up to speak about something that no one should have to face and extraordinarily impressed and inspired by the number of strong, brave, beautiful women who refuse to let their rapists, stalkers, abusers, or scars define them.

I am proud to know you.  I am proud to fight with you.

Yours,
Rachel Leigh

On The Right to Slut

Four days ago, a blog post surfaced called "What the Right Doesn't Get About Elections."  I am not going to link you to it, mostly because I don't want the asshat's blog to get any more traffic than it already has.  What I will tell you is that The Guardian, Gawker, and Jezebel have all done response pieces that use actual excerpts from the post, and you should go find those.

Basically, what the post explains is that Romney lost because Barack Obama won the "Slut Vote," young, unmarried women.  These young, unmarried women take birth control, get breast exams and cancer screenings from Planned Parenthood, support their own or other women's rights to have dominion over their own uteri, are poor black women, rich white suburban brats, and single mothers.  And they want the government to pay for their "right to Slut."

Now, we've talked a bit about Slut Shaming here before, but let me reiterate what it means, despite the fact that it is not the main purpose of this post.  Slut shaming is the idea that a person's worth can be inversely correlated with the number of people they have slept with -- that the more partners or pre- or extra-marital encounters a person has, the less they deserve to be treated like a person.  This contributes, in large part, to the disgusting societal idea that a woman who is not a virgin cannot really be raped, that she "was asking for it."  Slut shaming is a problem.  A person's sexuality does not determine their worth.  You totally have a Right to Slut, if that is what makes you happy and seems like the right choice for you.  You also have a Right to Abstain, if saving yourself until marriage is something that really matters to you.  A person's sexuality, regardless of how it coincides with your personal beliefs, does not determine their worth as a person.

What we're really here to discuss today is Mr. "bskillet"s ideas of what defines a slut.  He points to women who are young and unmarried, because "older and married women vote Republican."  Clearly, every unmarried woman is a slut who wants the government to subsidize her promiscuity.  Despite the fact that many unmarried women either abstain or only have a single partner before they marry.  But clearly, SLUTS AHOY.  He goes on to say that poor, black women voted for Obama because he supports their rights to get government handouts for the babies they kept and have the government pay for the babies they didn't want.  The fact that this disgustingly frames all poor, black women as baby-machines that want to do nothing more than have sex and pop out children so the government will pay for them apparently eludes this man.  I also wonder if he's ever met a black woman or if he's only heard from Fox News about what they're like.  Actually, I'm just going to expand that to all women.

And theeen we get into my favorites: all women who take birth control or go to Planned Parenthood are irresponsible, promiscuous, rich, white brats.  The majority of Planned Parenthood's work includes important medical services like breast cancer screenings.  Last I checked, tumors don't care whether you're male, female, sexually-active, or celibate.  And free breast exams are the best kind of breast exams.

So not all women who go to PP are whores, but of course, why would you take birth control if you weren't slutting it up all over the place?  Well, aside from those women who, again, only have one partner but aren't ready to be parents, married women who are still on the pill because, again, they are unready to be parents, and girls who are exercising their perfectly healthy right to control their own sexuality without the risk of pregnancy?  Medical necessity.  The most common treatment for ovarian cysts?  Hormonal therapy - also known as birth control.  Debilitating cramps that leave you out of work or school for days?  Birth control.  Severe migraines?  Some doctors will suggest birth control.  Abnormal periods?  Birth control.  Bad acne, hair loss, breast sensitivity?  All can be treated with birth control.  There's this funny thing about birth control in that it contains large doses of estrogen and other synthesized female hormones -- which means that it's often exactly the right thing to fix whatever lady-problem you might be having.  None of these are problems that "putting an aspirin between your knees" is going to fix.

The takeaways here: not all women are sluts, there's nothing wrong even if they are, and the far Right REALLY needs a lesson in how birth control actually works.

Yours (But Still Entirely Mine),
Rachel Leigh, proud member of the apparent "Slut Vote"

On Perspective 2 (or Fighting Real Problems Instead of Making Up New Ones)

This post might very well lose me friends.  But I just calls 'em like I sees 'em, and this isn't something I take lightly.

I have never backed down from the idea that I am a feminist -- I'm kind of one of those people of the belief that if you or someone you care about identifies as a woman, than you have no right or sense to not support things that would help make the lives of women everywhere better.

But maybe I haven't been clear on my views towards those people who calls themselves activists who are, in reality, looking for something to complain about.  I came across this tumblog that literally blasted everything from meat eaters to a child abuse awareness campaign.  The campaign in question won the Gold Lion award at Cannes and depicts the cycle of child abuse, showing each child being abused and eventually growing into their abuser.  Actually, you can see them here: http://www.buzzfeed.com/copyranter/powerful-child-abuse-ads.  And why was she targeting this campaign?  Because the verbal abuse image depicts a woman yelling at her children.

She said the campaign disgusted her -- not the acts portrayed as a part of it -- but the fact that it only depicted a woman yelling, which she thought fueled the "nagging" stereotypes about women.  Statistically, it might have made sense to make the abusers in all three images men (each image represented a form of domestic abuse -- sexual, physical, and verbal) because an overwhelming percentage of abuse is male-dominated, but doing so would have been unfair to both men and women because, due to the structure of the campaign, it would eliminate the possibility of women as perpetrators or victims, and they do, in fact, fill both roles, more often than we'd like to believe.  And, unfortunately, women are far more likely to perpetrate verbal abuse than any other kind of domestic abuse -- and would it really have been better for the global image of women to have the only woman in the campaign be a sexual predator or a violent monster?  Or simply to put a woman as a passive victim?

This is just one case, among many, I'm afraid, where people get so caught up in the politics of activism that they forget what's actually important.  This campaign should disgust you, but not for it's content.  What it depicts, and the fact that child abuse is still a prevalent issue in America, one that's still not talked about because it's taboo, which creates a self-perpetuating cycle of violence as children who feel mistreated grow up to mistreat others.  Your need to be confrontational, to take an issue with everyone just so you have something to say -- has made you blind to the real issue, which makes you unable to do anything to stop it.

So until you start complaining about the real issues and stop letting the small details distract you from the problem at hand, I am still going to take issue with the way you handle things like this.  Your loss of perspective is terrifying.

(infinitesimally) yours,
Rachel Leigh