Ferraroh-no

While searching for some kind of context for Ferraro's comments, I came across this, in a piece delightfully named "Ferraro: 'They're attacking me because I'm white'", Ferraro apparently had this to say.
....[Ferraro] told a FOX News interviewer: “I got up and the question was asked, ‘Why do you think Barack Obama is in the place he is today” as the party’s delegate frontrunner.

“I said in large measure, because he is black. I said, Let me also say in 1984 – and if I have said it once, I have said it 20, 60, 100 times – in 1984, if my name was Gerard Ferraro instead of Geraldine Ferraro, I would never have been the nominee for vice president,” she said.

Oh. I see. Well there's a very simple response to Ferraro's sentiments. Actually, there are several responses from recent history:
*Al Sharpton
*Carol Moseley Braun
*Alan Keyes
**L. Douglas Wilder
**Lenora Fulani
*Jesse Jackson
*Shirley Chisholm

This is a nice set, isn't it? I think it pretty handily tears Ferarro's point down. In her defense, she may have just been ignorant that other women had run for president before her. But even granting ego centrism fueled ignorance, she'd still have to have noticed Jesse Jackson since she ran against him, right?

I am always annoyed when my choices, attitudes, and principles are called "PC". It's such a dismissive and invalidating term. It suggests the person who holds such views did not arrive at them each individually through a process of reasoning, rather that she picked them up as a package off the shelf at "Philosophies R Us". And I kinda get the feeling this is what Ferraro is implying. That if I'm a liberal feminist, I'd vote for a woman because she's a woman. That if I'm a liberal and apparently more racially motivated than sex or gender motivated, I'd vote for a black guy because he's black.

Here's why I didn't vote for Clinton in my state's democratic primary (which I declared a party affiliation simply to vote in). Clinton is an old boys' girl. She has all the proper hand stamps, ones which the feminists I came of age with were expected to embrace simply because they came attached to someone a bit more estrogeny than your average good ol' boy. I don't want more of that shit. If I had, I'd have voted for Gore in 2000 (yeah, I'm one of those "assholes" who voted for Nader mostly because I wanted something ELSE). I was on the fence for a while, seeing most people who get as far as Clinton and Obama do in party politics with a very large degree of skepticism. I looked over both of their position statements on their websites the week before the primary and from what I saw, they looked pretty damned similar. The details were slightly different. Experience has taught me that expecting a politician to stick that rigidly to a set of campaign promises is foolish so I decided the minor detail differences which were likely to be most of them swept away in a tide of people and party pleasing further down the road were not going to be enough to sway me one way or another. Truly, what did it was disability law and the fact that the Obama campaign had seen fit to even bother addressing it (that the ADA needs to get some teeth put back in it after how federal courts have handled it) and the Clinton campaign didn't.

To me, this reaffirmed my already brewing view of Clinton as more old boysy than Obama. People whose lives have been so insulated that they never had to think about how shut out someone can be based on physical factors are not people I am going to support as policy setters or leaders. And that is that. Not race. Not sex or gender. Health and equal access and disability.

All that said though, I'd be a liar if I tried to claim that Clinton's apparent pandering to a certain kind of feminine quality (presumably either shared or expected by her possible voters) didn't annoy me on a personal level also. My guess is if I were black I might feel similarly about Obama when it came to constructs of race.

So back to Ferraroh-no. My search for context dug up this quote from her in 1988: "If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."
From the same reference, Jackson punted back with his own below the belt (or bodice as it were): "Some people are making hysteria while I'm making history."

I guess while it's still fair (pardon the pun) to say she was talking about race and racism in her recent comments, I need to update my reaction to her February 2008 commentary. I'm naive when it comes to shit like this. It seems in context, her later comments (above) and much, much earlier comments (more immediately above) do make it clear she was indeed saying something along the lines of "black people get it easy because they're, you know, black..." That she included in her recent comments that she was nominated as VP primarily because she was a woman, to me, makes her seem more an apologist than anything else. I guess chalk it up under another woman with (an overblown case of) imposter syndrome.

* = Two sources (1, 2) list these people as recent candidates for the US presidency.
**However, the above two sources do not give fully equivalent sets in that one names L. Douglas Wilder and not Lenora Fulani. The other names Lenora Fulani and not L. Douglas Wilder.
Thus, here are some extra references for Wilder 1, 2 and for Fulani 1, 2.

Context?

What was Ferraro talking about when she first made her "race remarks", the ones which I read today had triggered "fury" from the Obama campaign? (quoted phrases from the press)
By my reading of what the comments quoted, I don't have an automatic interpretation. It's clear to me from the quoted remarks that Ferraro was talking about racism and sexism. Ok, so is talking about racism is automatically racist? Is assuming that sexism exists automatically sexist*?

Answers to those questions aside, it seems Ms. Ferraro, even if we take a less reproachful interpretation of her comments, is guilty of failing to accommodate a cardinal rule: you can't talk to the media about the media's biases and expect them to play nice. It's not like this is news to Ferraro. My god, the woman's been involved in politics for over 30 years now. I think it's fair to say she's someone who should know the deal by now.

After seeing headlines about the "fury" over her race remarks, I had to track down the remarks myself. (the "full" interview is below)

What I see is Ferraro speaking about racist** and sexist** attitudes and motivations as if we all knew they existed. I can see that there's room for interpretation, or more properly, interpretations. What I mostly notice is that Ferraro's commentary, as excerpted in the "full" interview below, seems to be a candid discussion about the social implication of what is clearly for some people a contest between their racist or sexist attitudes.

Do we have to pretend the world isn't sexist or racist when we speak of public, media, and media fueled perceptions of the candidates in terms of race or sex? Is there a list of words which have to be preceded by "alleged", "purported", or some other qualifier - even in a context where we all supposedly understand that racism and sexism exist?

I would have so much rather seen a response to Ferraro's comments which addressed what I see is more the point. I want to see a public discussion of institutional sexism and racism, how the manifest and interact. An open and intelligent discourse about this is so notably absent, I can't help feeling in part because as soon as a person says "sexist" or "racist" or something about sex or about race, the conversation becomes a hazardous material and we are all required to stand at least 20 yards away while the men in suits come to clean it up.

Racism and sexism are toxic, that's for sure. But discussing racism and sexism, well, that's more waste than toxic waste. More shit than poison. It can be ugly. It smells bad. It reminds us of something disgusting about ourselves, a thing we'd prefer not to think about perhaps. When we are confronted with it, we want to deal with it carefully because god knows no one wants it to hit the fan and go all over the place. Hell, there are even some people who, in a discussion of the shit, will decide to throw shit at others because they are fucked up and mistake an occasion about shit for an opportunity to revel in shit. But the shit alone, it's not going to kill us or even harm us unless we fail to dispose of it properly.

So shit's there and it's not going anywhere. It's piling up while we alternately pretend not to notice it, or notice it each time anew as if it was NEVER there before with cries of OH MY GOD HOW DID THAT SHIT GET IN HERE???!!! and then an often short lived shit storm ensues.

Well, below is the latest shitstorm. The selection below is representative. So far, absent from the reaction in the press is the reasoning behind the interpretation that Ferraro's comment are racist. I am definitely interested in hearing comments from anyone who has that perspective and can discuss*** it with me. If there's some reasoning which would make this something other than a "YOU SAID JEHOVAH!!!" reaction here in the press, I'd truly like to understand it.

* = I've experienced the latter accusation first, second, and third hand in a variety of contexts.
** = I mean these terms to include so called "benevolent" forms of racism and sexism, not just the other more familiar kinds. Benevolent racism is what underlies the "That Barrack Obama/Condoleezza Rice is so articulate!" sort of comment. Benevolent sexism is what my neighbor was spouting last month when he told me he'd vote for "Hillary over Obama" (note which names are used) because "women's hearts are more peaceful. Women are more caring. We need that right now."
*** = No shit throwing allowed. Please keep hands and feet inside the cart at all times while the ride is operating. Do not taunt happy fun ball.


Geraldine Ferraro let her emotions do the talking, now people are talking!
The Daily Breeze
By Jim Farber, Staff Writer
As the only woman ever to be selected by a major political party for the position of vice president of the United States, Geraldine Ferraro is uniquely suited to comment on the political events of the day.

An outspoken advocate for women's issues and a staunch supporter of presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, Ferraro offered her views on the state of the nation and the race for the White House.
...
Speaking by phone from her New York law office, the 72-year-old former Democratic congresswoman outlined the themes of her talk. She also offered pointed observations regarding the Barack Obama juggernaut and what she sees as a sexist media bias against the candidate of her choice.
...
When the subject turned to Obama, Clinton's rival for the Democratic Party nomination, Ferraro's comments took on a decidedly bitter edge.

"I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama's campaign - to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against," she said. "For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign.

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." Ferraro does not buy the notion of Obama as the great reconciler.

"I was reading an article that said young Republicans are out there campaigning for Obama because they believe he's going to be able to put an end to partisanship," Ferraro said, clearly annoyed. "Dear God! Anyone that has worked in the Congress knows that for over 200 years this country has had partisanship - that's the way our country is."
...

Reaction:
Obama fury over Clinton backer Ferraro's race remark
AFP
"That's a really outrageous and offensive comment," Rice said on MSNBC television after Ferraro, who sits on Clinton's finance committee, had said: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position."

"It is the sort of comment that we have heard repeatedly, I'm afraid, from some of the Clinton surrogates," said Rice, Obama's leading adviser on foreign policy.

She said Ferraro's remarks were "far worse" than those of another foreign policy aide, Samantha Power, who was forced to resign from the Obama campaign last week for calling Clinton a "monster."

"I think if Senator Clinton is serious about putting an end to statements that have racial implications, that diminish Barack Obama because he's an African-American man, then she ought to really repudiate this comment and make it clear that there's no place in her campaign for people who will say this kind of thing," Rice said.

turn out

Hate crimes rose 8 percent in 2006
By Michael J. Sniffen, AP Writer
WASHINGTON - Hate crime incidents rose nearly 8 percent last year, the FBI reported Monday, as civil rights advocates increasingly take to the streets to protest what they call official indifference to intimidation and attacks against blacks and other minorities.

Police across the nation reported 7,722 criminal incidents in 2006 targeting victims or property as a result of bias against a race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic or national origin or physical or mental disability. That was up 7.8 percent from 7,163 incidents reported in 2005.

I read this and I am satisfied that there is visible outrage. There damned well should be. But I also immediately wonder where the outrage is over the numbers 358,220 and 38.5.

The first is the number the US Department of Justice 2005 personal crimes report gives for women who were victims of rape* or sexual assault** in 2005. The second, again, from the US Department of Justice, is the percent of women who reported an incident or threat of rape, sexual assault to the police.

Yes, there are Take Back the Night Rallies every spring - often on campuses or in university-heavy cities. But that's a bunch of feminists, right? And feminism is considered a political stance, not an attitude encompassing basic human rights. Where's the basic outrage and anger over the victimization of women? Seriously. Where the fuck is it?



For the data/methods interested folks out there, here's the methods for the 2005 survey

And from that document, we get the following definitions:
* Rape = Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, anal or oral penetration by the offender(s). This category also includes incidents where the penetration is from a foreign object such as a bottle. Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape.

**Sexual assault = A wide range of victimizations, separate from rape or attempted rape. These crimes include attacks or attempted attacks generally involving unwanted sexual contact between victim and offender. Sexual assaults may or may not involve force and include such things as grabbing or fondling. Sexual assault also includes verbal threats.

Help support the Jena Six

(From the NAACP)
- Donate to the NAACP–Jena Fund : 4805 Mt. hope Drive, Baltimore, MD 21215. This donation will help the NAACP advocacy activities in Jena.
- You may also donate to the families directly by contributing to the Jena 6 Defense Fund. Donate online or mail donations to: Jena 6 Defense Committee, P. O. Box 2798, Jena, LA 71342.

Some backstory on the Jena Six

The Case of the Jena Six: Black High School Students Charged with Attempted Murder for Schoolyard Fight After Nooses Are Hung from Tree
Democracy Now
July 10, 2007
Six black students at Jena High School in Central Louisiana were arrested last December after a school fight in which a white student was beaten and suffered a concussion and multiple bruises. The six black students were charged with attempted murder and conspiracy. They face up to 100 years in prison without parole. The fight took place amid mounting racial tension after a black student sat under a tree in the schoolyard where only white students sat. The next day three nooses were hanging from the tree.


Judge Reduces Charges in Jena 6 Case But Refuses to Overturn Mychal Bell Conviction
Democracy Now
September 5th, 2007
A Louisiana judge has refused to overturn the conviction of Mychal Bell. He and five other African American teens were arrested and charged with attempted murder after a schoolyard fight in which a white student was beaten and suffered a concussion. An all-white jury found Bell guilty of second-degree battery and conspiracy in June. On Tuesday, a judge dismissed Bell's conspiracy charge and prosecutors announced they've reduced the attempted murder charges against two others among the Jena Six.

Court Overturns Conviction of Mychal Bell
Democracy Now
September 17th, 2007
In Louisiana, a state appeals court has overturned the conviction of 17-year-old Mychal Bell, one of the Jena Six, but he remains behind bars. Last year Bell and five other African American high school students were arrested for beating a white student during a schoolyard fight. The fight occurred after white students hung three nooses in a tree in the schoolyard. An all-white jury convicted Bell of aggravated second-degree battery but on Friday a Louisiana appeals court ruled that Bell should not have been tried as an adult. Bell has been in jail since December and remains locked up after Friday's ruling.

Douchebag du jour (VIII and V)

It's that steaming pile Mark Rowan again.

I don't blame you if you're thinking "Who the fuck is that?" He's a nobody but he's been working hard to make a name for himself by being a major douchebag. Let's not disappoint him folks. I may not say it in a paper funded by student (and indirectly, taxpayer) dollars, but I'll write it here. Mark Rowan is a douchebag who deserves, no I'm sorry, who it seems really needs to someday personally experience what genuine suffering feels like.

That life tends to involve pain for all humans is rarely a thing I take solace in, however when it comes to people like Rowan, I find a comfort in knowing someday life will kick him hard. Maybe it won't be until the end, when he's drooling into his hospital jello cup, subject to the numerous degradations of age and illness that a modern "middle class" and better life nearly guarantees as its final reward. But it will come. I sincerely hope that during whatever dark hours life holds in store for this birth defect, he has a moment to ponder the many ways in which his existence has been a waste of human - hell, even mammalian - potential. The boy simply refuses to heave himself up off his scaly belly and stop rolling in his own muck. Someday, I hope that muck drowns him.

For those of you who don't remember Rowan, he's the editor of a campus newspaper in CT, The Recorder. He's the guy who approved and defended a column called "Rape only hurts if you fight it" in February 2007. Shortly after the shit rather publicly hit the fan over that column, Rowan called his decision a "lapse in judgment". His apology for that lapse was pithy, but only in an ironic sort of way.
"We didn't know the campus community as well as we thought we knew, and because of that that's why we're getting this backlash and we're sorry because of it."

Rowan won douchebag du jour (V) here way back in May of this year for being the umpteenth "boy who called witch hunt" when the community The Recorder is funded by tried to hold him accountable for his seriously fucked up take on editing.

This time, Rowan has approved and defended a cartoon published in The Recorder called "Polydongs" which makes a joke about the abduction and torture/assault of a teenage minority female. The Recorder ran this cartoon on September 12th - about a day after the story about Megan Williams' abduction and torture broke.

Below is a description of the cartoon from Take Back the Recorder.

Panel 1: Polydong 1: "You know...when I eat a bowl of smacks or golden crisps, my urine smells like honey."

Panel 2: Polydong 2: "...Does it taste like honey, too?"

Panel 3: Polydong 1 (faded, focus of panel is on a door barred with chains and a padlock): "I dunno. I'd have to ask that 14 year old Latino girl tied up in the closet." (from under the closet door: "!Yo tengo hambre!")

Panel 4: Polydong 2 (in a bubble bath): "Oh. Tell Jaunita I say 'hola.'"

Beneath the panel: "The Recorder does not support the kidnapping of (and subsequent urinating on) children of any age or ethnicity."

Rowan's defense this time:
Rowan noted that he got two comments from Hispanic girls who thought the comic strip was funny.

megasuperdouchebags supreme

By now you've probably heard about the six deformities who kidnapped a woman in West Virginia. I read today's story on it because I had noticed a headline last night saying something about no hate crime charges. Sure enough, the prosecutor is not bringing hate crime charges against the six (arguably there could be gender as well as race in there - I'm sure they called her gender slurs during the ordeal). Below is a list of names of the six, who are currently being held on $100,000 bail each after being charged with the list of crimes next to their names. When I first saw that there was any bail, I was pretty pissed. But today I realized with people like this, $100,000 bail equivalent to no bail. Hell, they probably have more teeth among them than dollars.

I doubt anyone's going to post bond for them since (according to this news item) over the last 16 years, police have filed 108 criminal charges against the six which included first degree murder, domestic assault, brandishing a deadly weapon. One of them, Bobby Brewster, apparently had been charged in assault on Ms. Williams in July. Still, in a time when bail is based as much on the prosecutor's perception of the severity of the crime, it seems like this is a bit light.

So...there's talk of racism. Clearly there's the big undeniable, horrific racist and sexist crimes themselves. But I notice the racism and sexism of the institutions which should have been able to prevent this from happening. These people were in and out of the legal system for the better part of two decades, sometimes for quite serious crimes. The first degree murder charge came down to manslaughter. The woman charged served five years. Talk about a slap on the wrist. Moreover, according to the news item I read today, one of the six assailants (Bobby Brewster) assaulted this woman in July - but there was no court date set.

Here's the list of charges and charged, followed by a bit of the news item.
Bobby Brewster, 24 - charged with kidnapping, sexual assault, malicious wounding and assault during the commission of a felony
Frankie Brewster, 49 - charged with kidnapping, sexual assault, malicious wounding and giving false information during a felony investigation
Danny J. Combs, 20 - charged with sexual assault and malicious wounding
Karen Burton, 46 - charged with malicious wounding, battery and assault during the commission of a felony
Alisha Burton, 23 - charged with assault during the commission of a felony and battery
George A. Messer, 27 - charged with assault during the commission of a felony and battery

Neighbors: Torture suspects were trouble
By Shaya Tayefe Mohajer, Associated Press Writer
September 13, 2007
....
Authorities say they held a 20-year-old black woman for about a week at their mobile home, where she was tortured, sexually assaulted and forced to eat rat droppings.

Megan Williams' captors, who were white, choked her with a cable cord, stabbed her in the leg while calling her a racial slur, poured hot water over her, made her drink from a toilet and beat her, according to criminal complaints.

State authorities said Wednesday they would not to pursue hate crime charges because the other charges the suspects face carry stiffer penalties. But federal civil rights violations remain an option, U.S. Attorney Charles T. Miller said.

Missing the point

I'm not sure how this guy got to "there isn't any benefit of early integration" (benefit relative to segregation that is), even from the US Supreme Court ruling. (NY Times article on ruling and FindLaw's summary and opinions)

Challenge to Lynn's race policy is revived
High court buoys foes of school transfer rule
By April Yee, Globe Correspondent
July 5, 2007

Lawyers representing a group of Lynn parents who began challenging the city's desegregation plan eight years ago revived their legal battle this week, days after the Supreme Court declared similar plans unconstitutional in Seattle and Kentucky.
...
Chester Darling , the lawyer who previously brought a suit by Lynn parents all the way to the Supreme Court, hopes that a successful challenge will prompt other Massachusetts school districts to end their desegregation programs.
...
"We want to go in there and have the district court judge in the federal court say, 'OK, you're right,' " Darling said yesterday. "What benefit of integration in kindergarten do you get if you force a white kid to sit next to a black kid? There isn't any."

bad moon?

I saw two fights today. The first was at the local dunkin donuts where A and I had walked on my new "I'm going to get out and walk and exercise god damn it" kick. We chose to sit inside rather than at the nice shadey parking lot gazebo outside on account of there being two or three skeezy looking guys hanging out in the gazebo. We briefly discussed them, why we both got a skeeze vibe off them, and then had moved on to talking about covert sexism and social network group dynamics when my (sometimes considered paranoid) tendency to constantly monitor my environment paid off. Except I had to pee and it was a bit of a walk home, so I couldn't leave when I noticed the discussion at the counter taking on an ugly tone.

"Oh what, we can't come to the dunkin donuts now?" a small dark haired woman was saying. She had come in with a bulky man in a black T-shirt. Just after they came in, one of the skeezy fellows came into the shop. I didn't turn around fully because that is just such a bad idea in the context of Skeeze and confrontation but presumably the slight woman was addressing Skeezy as he was the only person up there other than the guy she had come in with.

"Hey sweety" I said to A "it's time to go. I have to piss, but when I get back, we're outta here, ok?" I took the fastest leak ever in the women's room, but still not fast enough. I heard the ruckus through the closed door and down the hall. When I came out, Skeezy was inside still yelling and the other two were in the parking lot - yelling. There was iced coffee all over the window. On our way out, A and I stepped over a pair of wrap around sunglasses spattered with more coffee and ice, lying next to an empty large plastic cup.

The other fight was at the gas station-convenience store a little while later. I filled up then went in to buy some snacky stuff to go with dinner. As I came in, I didn't get any creepy fucked up person vibe like I had gotten at the dunkin donuts, but I did notice some tension at the lottery counter near the register. Something about dropped money and a guy having picked it up but then coming back to return it. "I did ask" the guy was saying to one of the clerks, "I didn't ask him in particular but in general I said 'did anyone drop some money'. He didn't say anything, no one did. But I'm coming back now..."

I didn't linger. It didn't seem bad, but I could tell the woman behind the lottery counter was testy, and the man making her testy was being quite persistent.

As I got in line, it became more heated and they both began raising their voices. Another clerk who had been working at the register walked over to the lottery counter clerk and said "Look, just go call him and tell him to come back. I don't want a confrontation. We have customers." The one involved in the already well underway confrontation said "I'm not walking around the corner and leaving you alone here with HIM".

Surprisingly, that is not when it got bad. When it got bad was when the guy, for like the fourth time that I could hear, said "Well how was I supposed to know he was your cousin?" and then, this time, added "He was black" (for the record, the guy was black and the clerk was white). "Ok that's it! I'm calling the cops" the clerk said and suddenly a cell phone materialized in her hand (what was all that shit about walking around the corner to call her cousin?).

The woman at the register asked me "Do you want a bag?"
And the guy turned to me and the other customer waiting in line and asked"Would you walk all the way back someplace to return money someone dropped?"

I said "Yes. But I'm a huge sucker." Then, because he was still talking in my general direction, and the women were still tied up with calling the police (the one calling and the other looking just totally freaked out by how fast this got fucked up), and because I've been the one ranting in a store and no one has ever threatened to call the cops on me (or been afraid to leave the other clerk alone with me) I added "I understand...I do. But is all this really worth it?"

Douchebag du jour (VI)

It's former MA governor and now presidential hopeful Mitt Romney.
I know, the last two douchebags have not exactly been news. But douchebaggery of such grand proportions warrants the mention despite the obvious source.

AP
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Wednesday denounced the Rev. Al Sharpton's remarks about God and his Mormon faith, saying it could be construed as "a bigoted comment."

"It shows that bigotry still exists in some corners," said Romney...

Sharpton said, "As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways"

Romney is a douchebag for the presuppositions, which are:
Bigotry is not widespread, it is hidden in corners.
Reverend Sharpton's remark was the most bigoted thing we're likely to encounter in our privileged lives.
Before Reverend Sharpton made this remark, we all were unaware that bigotry exists.

no girls allowed

When a university does not address sexual assault, it is essentially hanging up a "no girls allowed" sign. By "address" I mean any number of actions - maintain a rape crisis center and rape crisis counsellor team, ensure campus is well lit and safe, provide facilities and operational support for a campus safety escort service (i.e. walkers and vans), make sexual assault defense and prevention programs available for all students, promote sexual assault awareness campaigns among the campus and greater campus community. All of those things take funding and in today's climate of profiteering universities, funding is the last thing they are going to put into a problem they'd rather not acknowledge in the first place.

Take Yale. (please)
Today, Yale was in the news. A Yale student who says she was sexually brutalized after a party dubbed "Camp Yale" is accusing the university of not enforcing underage drinking laws or doing enough to warn students and faculty about sexual assault.

Oh the Hartford Courant. So willing to give the benefit of the doubt despite the legality of the situation. It's not a matter of the student "say(ing) she was sexually brutalized". The woman's rapist plead "no contest" to the charges. Why continue to play the "who says" and "alleged" game after a conviction has been secured? Why do it if we are going to unequivocally declare the Duke lacrosse players innocent without their having been found innocent at trial.

But I digress. I read the Yale lawsuit article with interest, translating from the original misogynist text as I went. I think this is an interesting tactic this woman is taking in suing the university. My own experience at universities is that they do NOT like to address the fact that sexual assault occurs on their campuses or among their student populations. It is frustrating to watch as someone who has been largely indirectly affected by sexual assault. This woman was assaulted by a man who had been allowed to stay on campus after a prior similar assault
The lawsuit says that Yale should have known about Korb's violent tendencies, after he allegedly bit another student. The suit accuses Yale of glossing over previous incidents of sexual violence and failing to educate students about the problem.

Wait, they knew he bit someone before? What the hell were they thinking? Were the Yale administration waiting for him to go buy some guns and shoot up the school? Ah but I forget. Only sensible people would consider a college aged boy who goes around BITING girls to be in any way pathologically fucked. And sensible, when it comes to assault on women and the men who assault them, is not the common approach. The immediate Virginia Tech response to the first two killings showed the common thinking on it: Providing the boy only bites/stalks/assaults(bites?) girls, he's not going to be considered a threat to the community as a whole. Hence no need to throw him out of school, alert the community, mandate counseling, or treat him as any kind of threat. He's a personal problem, a disturbance at worst. No reason to rock the boat or worry people needlessly.

But I have to say, what struck me was this little nugget.
Responding to years of complaints, Yale last fall opened a rape crisis center that combines counseling and prevention programs under one roof.

Allow me to underscore the important part of that sentence:

Last year Yale finally got around to opening
a rape crisis center.

LAST fucking YEAR?!

Here's a random thought - I can't help thinking that had there been a means for support and empowerment of the victims of sexual assault before LAST fucking YEAR, perhaps we as a country would have been spared some men's rise to power as political figures.

The thought that Yale only just LAST fucking YEAR opened a rape crisis center makes me seethe. I want to go put a brick through something Yale-ish. It's so indicative of the problem though isn't it? It's a perfect illustration of what marginalized groups face in US culture these days, especially in the academic culture. A flat out denial of a problem, a complete disavowal of any possibility of racism, sexism, ageism, anti-gay belief (gotta have a new word btw, a post for another time), classism (oh god a huge one) on the one hand while ensuring there is NO way to record or address any instances of the afore mentioned "-isms" available to students, staff, or faculty. The way harassment, discrimination, bigotry and other systemic oppressive behaviors are treated on campus is to allow the denial to dictate funding and programming - no sexism = no need for a sexual harassment office. A belief in no rape = no need for a rape crisis center. And thus there are no records. Or falsely low records of occurences of discrimination, harassment, rape.

How many complaints do you think are likely to result when the university model is to say "Look, it's not that we don't believe you. It's just that we only take complaints written in orange ink" and then refusing to buy orange pens.

The unsurprisingly low number of official (orange inked) complaints are used as further evidence that nothing like that happens here, further cause to not fund such facilities and programs, and the whole thing perpetuates itself.

I am glad someone is suing. Yale's obvious lack of concern for the reality of sexual assault is tantamount to a civil rights violation. It wouldn't be if rape didn't happen. While we'd all love to believe this it is not only incorrect, it is wrong.

I'll be sure to follow the lawsuit as well as I can. I don't know that it will be easy since following the story means it needs to make it into the news as it progresses and I have no faith the news outlets will pick it up to report on anything beyond the novelty of a woman having the chutzpah to sue over a climate which made the sexual assault more likely, which one might argue facilitates and enables sexual assault.

DWNW

Excerpted from The Washington Post

Black, Hispanic, and white drivers are equally likely to be pulled over by police, but blacks and Hispanics are much more likely to be searched and arrested, a Justice Department study found. Police also were much more likely to threaten or use force against blacks and Hispanics than against whites in any encounter.

The study, released yesterday by the department's Bureau of Justice Statistics, covered police contacts with the public during 2005 and was based on interviews by the Census Bureau with nearly 64,000 people age 16 or over.
...
- African Americans (9.5 percent) and Hispanics (8.8 percent) were much more likely to be searched than whites (3.6 percent).

- African Americans (4.5 percent) were more than twice as likely as whites (2.1 percent) to be arrested. Hispanic drivers were arrested 3.1 percent of the time.

Among all police-public contacts, force was used 1.6 percent of the time. But officers were more likely to use force against or to threaten to use force against African Americans (4.4 percent) and Hispanics (2.3 percent) than against whites (1.2 percent).

I know this is probably preaching to the choir (all two of you) but I couldn't let this one go uncommented. This is a good non-gender/sex based example of continuing "subtle" bias in our culture. Sometimes I get the sense that americans in general believe bigotry is a myth so when there is evidence of it I personally think it is important to discuss it.

I've noticed there is a large number of people who are apparently "reasonable", who hold a set of unexamined principles which conform to late 20th century cultural ideals, and many of whom I think have lived lives which are in general socially, emotionally, and spiritually relatively undemanding. Let's call them "the masses" for convenience.

Members of "the masses" act as if they believe they and their ilk are not sexist, racist, anti-gay, fearful they will catch cripple cooties, or hateful of old people. Most of us like to think such attitudes do not exist in our worlds and when we do acknowledge them we ascribe them to others, to caricatures of people (who may well be people themselves but who are so extreme as to count as something other in the mass mind - e.g. "those white supremacists like the ones we saw on Jerry Springer/Jeraldo/etc."), places ("red state", rural), and times (anything before nineteen sixty something, right?).

We are so fucking wrong. Sexism, racism, hatred of homosexuals, old people, sick and disabled people all exist in vibrant diverse attitudes of our neighbors, friends, coworkers, and other community members. Yes they do. When we hear or see things in those arenas which bear the hallmarks of bigotry, we will jump through hoops to explain them away: Bigots are not from NY/NJ/DC/CA (insert state here), are not young, and smell like Strom Thurmond, therefore my friend having said "that's so ghetto" is not racist and the fact that I can't finish a full sentence without using the word "gay" to mean something disparaging or otherwise negative is not anti-gay. Can't be. I'm not a bigot.

I'm not sure why this line and style thought is so alluring. It seems like it would involve so much energy to contrive and believe such a huge lie. I'd love to think it's because people want to believe good things about themselves, others, and humanity in general but I am about 99% that isn't true.

I think it's because people don't want to acknowledge that others might not be having a great time, or that there is no "great time" to be had (you know, the one we all can get if we just try hard enough...someday you might even be president! (some restriction apply, see all white male founding fathers for details)).

As a woman, abuse survivor, and semi-professional thorn in the side, I've found members of "the masses" sincerely and deeply do not like to be told or in any way discover that some people's lives are significantly not ok. In general, I've found people of all walks show a very strong preference for refusing to see or acknowledge that many of the systems and circles they exist in rely on principles of inequity - i.e., principles which serve to exclude or limit the full participation of some set(s) of individuals who have a priori been designated as "other".

My more strictly feminist experience suggests the reason for this blindness (and anger) is that to see clearly would mean to see that what one has is not necessarily what one deserves and that threatens some part of the sense of self worth. However, it seems sometimes to be baser than that even.

And it is with this cheery attitude that I greet my Monday.

Assumption, part one

I'm back from Providence. The conference was good, three students from my division presented posters there. A___ and I had a good time, even though it rained pretty much the whole week. He bought a "More cowbell" t-shirt and I bought this one.


On Thursday, several of the grads and I went out for dinner. It was me, my fella A___, and my labmates N____, Sharon, and M____. We had a some fun involving taking under the table pictures (I'll post them later), but there was one interaction that was troubling and which will have lasting repercussions. One grad student had made some assumptions about how far a joke can go and it ended with hurt feelings, anger, and distrust.

This was not the first big bad assumption of the week. The first one happened on my first day at the conference. In fact, it happened within the first 10 minutes of my first day there. My interaction also involved assumptions, a slightly different set of them and a slightly different response from the offended party (me), but it keeps kicking around in my head.

First I'm posting the grad student dinner Thursday night assumption and the grief it caused. I'm describing race and ethnicity related aspects because they become relevant.

My friend and schoolmate M____ is Asian. He's a great guy, witty, a little self conscious, and prone to self deprecating humor. My friend and schoolmate Sharon is also friends with M____. Sharon, an american of mixed but mostly white european descended background, is fun but sometimes insecure and plagued by esteem issues which she occasionally overcompensates for in social settings by hard ball joking with friends. For a while now, I've noticed Sharon and M____ (as well as Sharon and G___, another international student in our program) engaging in "off color" jokes. For example, Sharon had once been joking about how we should all draw self portraits for the student website. Hers should be colored red, she had said, since her skin tone is somewhat ruddy and she's prone to eczema. She then said "And G___ (indian student) should have like 8 arms and be blue!" at which G____ laughed lots. "And M___ should be yellow!" More laughing by Sharon, G____ and M____.

I was uncomfortable and had misgivings about laughing along with this kind of joke. But G____ and M____ were laughing and going along with this, saying "it's ok, it's funny!" so what do I do? Is it my place to turn what is apparently a funny ok interaction into something awkward and offensive by coming down on all of them for making ethnic/racists jokes about each other? Is it my place to play the parent and say "Sure, it's funny now but someday one of you is going to go too far or say it at the wrong time and then it'll make a big mess." Instead I said something non-commitally chastizing like "Wow you guys like pushing it..." the response to which was further reassurance that "It's ok. It's funny".

Ok. It's funny if you guys say it's funny. I guess.

Turns out it's not always funny.

Sharon has a habit of joking about M____'s driving. I've witnessed this before, and I've witnessed M____ joking along, seemingly merrily, saying that he's a scarey driver because he's Asian. I remember the first time I heard this I said "I can't believe you think your driving has to do with your being Asian." I know that on more than one occasion, M____ has told me the joking is ok because he is a bad driver. Now whether or not M___ is a bad driver is a bit beside the point, but let's go there for a minute. I've been in the car with him. Yes, there was one time when he didn't notice the "left lane ends" sign on the highway and had to merge in fast at the last minute. But other than that, he wasn't that bad. He was certainly not as bad as a mile a minute talker impulsive American woman named Rachel who always drove in the passing lane, continually drifting on and off the rumble strip because she was lighting her cigarette, talking animatedly to me, searching her Dave Matthews CD to find that part where he says something incredibly funny and witty that I just have to hear, having a side dialogue with herself about said CD, and checking her missed calls on her cell phone. Now that, my friends, is a BAD driver. M___ doesn't even come close to that shit.

For some reason though, Sharon thinks M___s driving is that bad. Sharon and G___ drove into Providence with M___ Thursday for Sharon's poster presentation. It was on the way to dinner that night that Sharon brought up M___ 's driving, saying "That is the LAST time you drive!" The usual hahahaha kind of M___'s a bad driver discussion ensued between her, G___ and M___ , then died off when we were seated at the restaurant. G____ brought it up again over appetizers and drinks by saying he was not sitting in the front seat on the way home and joking about how Sharon had lied about needing to study so she could sit in back. I added "So you guys call reverse shotgun?" And Sharon spent about a half hour going on about how bad M___ 's driving is. Jokes ranged from what kind of music M___ can and can't listen to while driving, whether dance music makes the driving better, to me telling them about how my brother blasted diva dance music all the way up to my sister's the other week and saying about half way up "Hey, let me know if the music is bothering you, ok?" and me saying "Oh thanks, that's sweet. It's ok right now though," and him replying "Good. I mean, I don't plan to turn it off. I just want to know when it is bothering you so I can fully enjoy it."

(which was funny...he and I do rip on one another and sometimes our feelings get hurt. But we have 33 years of shared history and we can be quite explicit about what is and what is not funny and I think this helps...more on that in another post)

During the M___ 's driving bashing joke fest at dinner Thursday, I recall Sharon saying several times "It's ok, he doesn't mind. He admits it!" And M___ adding, at least early on, comments like "Yes, she's right. I admit it. I'm a bad driver." In retrospect, I wonder what made Sharon feel she had to make this repeated disclaimer. I can't recall if I said much of anything, or if anything I did say sounded discouraging, or if this was just her responding to some semi-conscious understanding that she might be going a little too far even for M___.

At one point, M___ mentioned that his driving was good enough for them to give him a license. He said this still in the joking sort of discourse style. Sharon jumped on it. She said "Yeah I know. How did they ever give you a license? What did your boyfriend take the test for you?" I think M___ said something like "Um..that would be a little hard since he's not (Asian)," and Sharon said "Maybe he taped his eyes up so they'd be slanted..." then she dissolved into hoots of laughter.

I honestly don't remember where I went at this point. I know I heard her say the eye thing but I don't know what I said or did. For someone who can recall conversations in such detail, I find this is strange. I know I felt that familiar "this is too close to offensive for me" feeling but I have no recollection what my overt reaction was.

My fella A___ later recounted that he said something like "Wooah, that's pretty rough!" after the eye comment. I did notice that the dynamic shifted, and I noticed G___ barely said a word for the rest of dinner. I was pretty oblivious to M___ 's reaction, I have to say, and I feel bad about that. He told me later that he was really pissed off and considered getting up and walking away or saying something mean back to her. He also reminded me that at one point after Sharon had assured us (or herself) again that "It's ok he admits it" I had said "As long as M___ 's ok with it..." I am glad I at least said something like this. I feel like an idiot for not noticing that M___ was increasinly NOT ok with it though.

Not long after the unenthusiastic reception to this comment, Sharon piped down about M___'s driving. The next day, I got an e-mail from M___ . Among other things, here's what he said.

when (Sharon) was going on about how scary my driving was, etc. i am sure you noticed the change in my mood when something was said.
....
i thought about talking to her in person what she said was a bit out of line and was actually very derogatory in nature. but i didn't have a chance since G____ was with us in the car. i thought about emailing her but... she might just think "i am being too sensitive" and i am afraid that she might start making fun of me with that. "oh M____'s driving is scary, and on top of that, he was hurt when i said his driving sucks, such a lamo"
...
i do use the slanted eye stuff to describe myself... just like some black people use the N word among themselves or describe themselves.. but the difference is we own the words because they were given to us (not as a pleasant gift but nevertheless they were given to us).

I'm not sure if I can express how bad I felt that I didn't notice the change in M__'s mood. I was really horrified when I got his e-mail. Not that he was offended, I mean, this joking had always made me uncomfortable because I worried about if and when the line would be crossed. It doesn't surprise me that this happened. I felt bad because I had let myself believe that this kind of joking was ok even when part of me knew all along it wasn't. Yes, I didn't fully join in even the supposedly good natured race bashing, but I also didn't do what I think I knew all along was the right thing to do. Which is to completely refuse to participate in the conversation or to say to them, together or separately, "This joking is fucked up guys. Maybe M___ doesn't mind. MaybeG____ doesn't mind. But you know what? I do."

So I called M___ after getting his message and he came over my apartment. We smoked and talked at my kitchen table for a long time. We talked about Sharon, we talked about boundaries and how to express them. We talked about how just because something is ok sometimes that doesn't mean it has to be ok all the time. And mostly we talked about how if you trust someone enough to be friends with them, you need to trust them enough to establish and defend boundaries even if you worry about there being social risk involved. Yes, they might continue after you tell them how you feel, and yes that would suck. But if someone really is a friend, you should give them a chance to stop, and you owe it to yourself to stand up for yourself, even with an intimate. Beliefs about intentions always being good, about no hard feelings, about unconditional trust, etc. are tricky and can result in feelings of betrayal when they are not explicit, i.e., when they are assumptions.

I told M___ that I felt bad, especially since I am the one who says something usually, even when there is social risk. It's sort of my hallmark. The reasons are many. I'm just one of those people who refuses to keep her trap shut when there's shit like this going on around me because even by silence you can be part of it. I'm still upset at myself for not saying something, and M___ and I talked about that too. So I guess it wasn't just him who needed the counseling. It was a two way street. I shared some of my experiences with him, told him it is usually not easy for me to say something even though the frequency of my doing this might make it seem so. That I often feel my blood racing when I go to speak, that I worry that I will offend if it is a friend. But that it is important to me to be true to myself and that I've discovered friends feel worse if they find out after the fact that they inadvertently hurt or offended you. My experience has been it's best to say something directly and promptly, you can use humor if you want but you have to be willing to back it up with a firm statement to stop if the person continues.

So I guess I re-learned my lesson that if something rubs me the wrong way, I'm not going to be a part of it, even tacitly. I am not going to engage in perpetuating damaging assumptions. And I think M___ may be realizing that his habit of self deprecation might perhaps be a form of self abuse and might set his friends up for making some bad assumptions about what is hurtful and what is not.

Too far?

How far is "too far"? This is a question that is on the table in my department. If you read this blog regularly (all two of you), you might have seen some references to a student I call Dookie. Dookie is a problem just waiting to happen. He's a malignantly arrogant first year student with antisocial tendencies.

It began almost immediately with lab space issues. Dookie took over a very large chunk of the lab he was to share with three other grads. The other grads are a mid-40s white American woman, a mid-20s Asian man, and a 30ish white American man. Dookie and the woman are both first years. The mid 20s male student is in his second year, and the 30ish male student is an upper year. Before classes had even started, the others from Dookie's lab were complaining bitterly about his space use. Not only had he staked out a large and prime bit of lab real estate as "his desk", he had also moved several pieces of large equipment onto the small work areas left for the female and Asian grad student to share. I identify them this way intentionally, because I believe it was why Dookie chose to shove the shit onto their desks and not onto the white American man's desk.

The students complained to one another and to other grads. But they didn't complain to the faculty member whose lab it was, their advisor, or our department head. Eventually the complaints got back to Dookie. Dookie responded to the person who brought the issue to his attention by saying that I (yes, me, PFG, your beloved blogger) must have been relating untrue rumors about him, rousing the rabble, etc. When I heard this, I immediately went to Dookie to set him straight, to let him know that he had pissed off so many people it would be impossible to tell who had said what to whom at this point. We had a chat that left me feeling like I had to take a shower. His position was that if people didn't voice an objection even to what is generally considered poor and antisocial behavior (even in kindergarten), then they deserved to be used. I finally ended the conversation, abruptly because there is no other way to end a conversation like this. As I was leaving, Dookie said "I can see you and I will not be best friends, but it's good to know we can speak civilly to one another." I made a noncommital sound like agreement so I would not reinforce his mistaken notion that I wanted to continue a conversation with him as I proceded out of the building.

He then asked me out to dinner.

Fast forward....
Dookie stories kept coming.
The older female grad no longer feels comfortable working in the lab. A female international student mentioned that he had been hitting on her and had said something about women having the best place to keep a man's sperm. Dookie fell behind in his research and when he was called to task about it, he blamed his Asian lab mate for not being available to help him. My lab mate recounted Dookie's attempts to talk about his lecture to his lab on "the significance of the female orgasm". "It was disgusting!" my lab mate shouted, They shouldn't have to hear that!". A cross campus teaching assistant e-mail list practically shut down over Dookie's callous, personal attacks on other students who had used the list to discuss their distaste for a racist campus paper cartoon about international teaching assistants.

And now it has happened. He finally went "too far". Last week, Dookie lost his shit on another first year, a rather young white, middle class, suburb raised female. She happened into Dookie's lab looking for the Asian grad student so they could talk about class. The older white male grad was there alone when she arrived, and he said the Asian grad student would be back in a minute. She sat down at the Asian grad's desk to wait. Dookie returned and asked her to get out of his chair. When the female grad student said "But I thought this was ___'s chair..." Dookie told her he wanted to use the computer on the desk the chair was at (the desk Dookie had effectivly designated the Asian student's desk months ago). The young female grad moved to the chair next to it and said "Ok, I'll sit over here then," or something similar. And that's when Dookie called her a bitch. He addressed several statements about her to the older white male grad student, calling her a "little bitch" and "fucking bitch" repeatedly, saying she had "given him lip" in a class while he was proctoring the end of the semester evaluations. He accused her of flirting and using her feminine wiles to get other people to do her work for her, and said she couldn't think for herself.

She is bringing harassment charges against him. She sent an e-mail to several students in our department who have been so vocal with their complaints to ask if they would be willing to sign on to a group complaint with the dean of students' office. Among other things, this is what she got back:
I don't feel that I have one specific event that warrants some sort of "prosecution." I have had several...encounters...in which he has acted completely unprofessionally and has been a total jackass, but he has not said anything derogatory that would warrant a specific complaint.
Another response was similar. While these women will admit to having had problems with him, will refuse to work with him, will avoid him even if that means avoiding their common areas, they seem to feel his behavior is not reportable. In short, the responses were "I support your stand but refuse to stand with you because what happened with me and him was bad but not officially bad".

Where the fuck do they get this from? It's not from the harassment policies, I am sure of that. In both the workplace and education federal antidiscrimination laws, the terms are "severe, persistent, or pervasive". Meaning a pattern of what might appear as "isolated" encounters across several individuals can be argued to be pervasive. Further, sexual behavior is not a requisit. The guidelines on Title IX protection state: "It is also important to recognize that gender-based harassment, which may include acts of verbal, nonverbal, or physical aggression, intimidation, or hostility based on sex, but not involving conduct of a sexual nature, may be a form of sex discrimination that violates Title IX if it is sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive and directed at individuals because of their sex."

What is driving these expressions of what counts as "too far"? I looked up "sexual harassment" and "reluctance" on google. I found this paper by a college undergrad. Yes, an undergrad. I wish she would come and lecture to my graduate peers. I can't fact check all of it, but her exposition calls attention to one factor that has been proposed to account for the reporting reluctance of the type my peers are displaying:

Brooks and Perot (1991) and Fitzgerald et al. (1988) agree that another contributing factor is that women need to view the behavior as offensive and serious before she [sic] will report sexual harassment. Jensen & Gutek (1982) suggest...that...women who believe that it is their fault that things "went too far" may not report incidents of sexual harassment unless they believe that the acts were very offensive and serious.

While this segment of the paper is couched in terms that suggest sexualized harassment as opposed to sexist mistreatment, it seems the underlying point is quite relevant here. How far is "too far" for an exchange that has progressed into incivility? If it goes there, if it goes too far, who is to blame? And what is the blame that is to be had?

If you have a sense of self worth, if there is nothing in your core that suggests you deserve shame, ridicule, derision, scorn, objectification, beratement, then when you are subjected to this in an exchange that has all the conventional assumptions of being a professional or polite social encounter, you are SHOCKED and horrified. If you do not believe you deserve this or that someone has an unspoken right to casual displays of this sort of behavior, when someone who makes a habit of shitting on people casually chooses to shit on you, the questions you might ask yourself shouldn't start with "well does this really count as shit?" For christ's sake, of course it's shit! And it's on you! And he put it there! Now make a fuss! Get angry! It's ok to not want to be shit on!

Why would graduate student aged women not understand this? Let's ask the undergrad.

Fitzgerald et al. (1995) reviewed research on behavioral responses to sexual harassment… Internally-focused responses included: ignoring the harassment and doing nothing to arrest it (endurance); pretending that the situation was not happening or had no effect (denial); reinterpreting the situation or interpreting the intentions of the harasser as non-negative (reattribution); and perceiving the harassment as self-induced (self-blame)...

Internal responses are victims' attempts to handle the situation on their own due to fears of retaliation, not being believed, hurting one's career, or reluctance to cause problems for the harasser. The study concluded that victims most often practice avoidance, emphasize the positives, and endure, hoping that the situation will disappear without the embarrassment or retaliation that often accompanies a formal complaint....Women will continue to use these mechanisms inadvertently perpetuating the problem of sexual harassment as long as real organizational protection from stigma and retaliation fails to exist (Fitzgerald et al., 1995).

One thing I must add to this (really comprehensive) discussion of motivation for the responses to harassment is that the "internal" responses may arise not just from a sense of helplessness. They could be interpretted as a dysfunctional attempt to establish control while denying the reality of the harm that the behavior has done. I see this kind of response as a logical outcome of the post-second wave feminist backlash of the late 70s and 80s. Popular strategies of invalidating feminist social complaint and critique entailed a variety of tactics, mostly involving ad femme attacks which portrayed the dissenter as pathologically disposed to chronic discontent, as a miserable, malicious, individual who whips up hysterical responses to even the "teensiest" behavior she finds personally nonadvantageous. These stereotypes made their way into our mainstream culture, as new terms like "feminazi" can attest to. A whole generation's acceptance of such portrayals and a concomitant desire to want to avoid not simply being labeled as but actually becoming such a hideously unacceptable (and unlovable!) monster is wrapped up in the bigger lie that the members of our society are equal. This is the monsterous gold leaf letter Lie that encompasses notions like institutionalized racism ended in the 60s; homocidal bigotry is not condoned or encouraged by our current social values; sexualized aggression is not sold side by side with all our favorite name brands; people from underdeveloped nations will benefit from "investment" by foreign (US) owned industry; and there is no gender or sex role war being waged on the battle fields of women's bodies and consenting adults' desires to openly love and be loved by each other.

If we unquestioningly accept key pieces of The Big Fat Lie, which so many of us do, we have a hard time extracting ourselves from it even when it threatens us quite directly. If we are threatened but refuse or can't let go of this lie, we have two clear paths.
a) We can acknowledge the afront, which brings the very real social threat of becoming (through being labled as) an unsympathetic perpetual victim or a troublemaking feminazi.
b) We can refuse to acknowledge the level, scope, or degree of the offense. We can put on a good face, be a team player, go on with the show. We can be feminine about this. We can acknowledge that there are real problems, real instances of harassment, but that our encounters do not even come close to those indisputably overt ones, like when a guy who shoves his hands up co-workers' skirts is elected governor of California. We might express sympathy for the women in those obviously clear cut circumstances of legally valid or at least highly publicized sexual harassment, cluck our tongues disapprovingly. We each can keep pushing how far "too far" is in our own lives until we wake up someday and there is nothing more than empty open space where there used to be a person.

Myself? I choose to reject the lie. I know that I will be called a troublemaker (been there, done that), a feminazi, and a perpetual victim. But those will be labels that others apply, and I will be me.

So how far is "too far"?
It's here.

Rhode Island - Small

I gotta get going and get into the lab today but I was just having my coffee and muffin and reading the local headlines. This one sort of grabbed me.
Racial profiling study shows nonwhites still searched more often August 8, 2005
AP
PROVIDENCE, R.I. --The latest round of data used for a racial profiling study of police departments in Rhode Island showed nonwhite drivers still were more than twice as likely to be searched as white drivers. But the statistics also showed white drivers were still more likely to be found with contraband.

Full news story here
ACLU report (basis of the story) here

I have mixed feelings about Rhode Island. For starters, I think there is a karmic issue there. The few times I've tried to go to Newport, something bad has occured. I am certain at this point that if I were to actually get there, I might find that I regret it. The last time I tried was the day I woke up with vertigo. I had big plans to go, I'd looked up the cliff walks and all that. We were going to do it. Then BLAM! Sick. I've not felt well since. I've decided to never make Newport plans ever ever again.

Historically, I've not like the state. Growing up on the South Shore of MA, I think I developed some kind of regional prejudice about RI - that it was populated largely by tacky, non-rich people who liked to act rich. I suspect this is entirely based on a series of TV ads for ONE travel agency that had numerous offices in RI. In the ads, a really annoying set of kids grinned and yelled at the camera about how fucking great their family's twice yearly vacations to disney world were. All of them had on Mickey ears. Suffering through far too many of these ads on the UHF station while my siblings and I watched our occasional cartoons afterschool (Spiderman, Star Blazers, Battle of the Planets), Saturday morning's Creature Double Feature, or any number of Sunday afteroon movies, resulted in a strong childhood aversion to RI. As an adult, I have to admit that the Crimson Travel Agency ads, as annoying and disturbing as they were, are not truly sufficient grounds for disliking an entire state and it's citizens.

However, with adulthood came layers of awareness that I didn't have as a child. For starters, when driving on Route 128 in MA, beware the RI plates. I don't know, too much salt water in the Ocean state maybe affects the brain. They don't do highway driving well. Further, there is a feeling of sleeze I get when I have driven through RI (usually it's through, once or twice it's been to and from but that was for T's family beach vacations and those have oh so many negative and/or painful associations). I don't know why exactly. The year round forest of lawn signs with slogans like "Balducci for Animal Control Officer" hint at strangely Machiavellian town and state workings.

Well something about RI has always bothered me a little. Honestly, it probably really is just some kind of indelible reaction to the damned gapped tooth exhuberant disney visiting kid in his mickey mouse ears. I'm sure there are some nice and not racist people in RI. They just aren't cops or cop bosses.

(BTW, amusing observation from talking to a cop in my new home town recently. I never realized how hard it is not to say "cop" and various other casual terms for officers of the law until I found myself in a position when I felt I should try not to)