• TAASA on Facebook

  Texas Association Against Sexual Assault (TAASA) | Promote Your Page Too
  
• 
• Search for:

• Tags

  • activism
  • child sexual assault
  • crime
  • diversity
  • feminism
  • gender
  • gender socialization
  • harassment
  • masculinity
  • media
  • media commentary
  • pop culture
  • public policy
  • race
  • rape "jokes"
  • rape culture
  • sex offenders
  • sexting
  • social justice
  • youth

• Categories

  • Announcement
  • Guest Post
  • Humorless Feminist
  • Motivating Moments
  • News
  • Powerful Women
  • Uncategorized
  • Vlog

• Recent Comments

  • Rose Luna on The Chicken or the Egg
  • Morgan Curtis on The Chicken or the Egg
  • Tim Love on Hearing things we don’t want to hear…
  • Kayla on Hearing things we don’t want to hear…
  • Lara on What could possibly make you think that’s ok?

• Blogroll

  • abyss2hope
  • Broadsheet
  • CALCASA Public Policy Blog
  • Change Happens: the SAFER blog
  • Child Abuse Survivor
  • Feministing
  • Grits for Breakfast
  • Prevention Works
  • Racialicious
  • Sentencing Law and Policy
  • Sex Crimes
  • The Curvature

• Admin

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

The TAASA office will close beginning Wednesday, December 24 and will re-open on Monday, January 5. We wish you happy holidays and a happy new year!

It seems that Texas Youth Commission authorities equate sexual assault with consensual sexual behavior. The Houston Chronicle reports that five inmates at TYC have “either engaged in sexual activity or were sexually assaulted by other inmates.” TYC spokesman Jim Hurley said that TYC has “a zero tolerance policy for any type of sexual behavior in our facility, whether actual sexual assault or a consensual sexual relationship.”

This attitude is likely to make the inmates at TYC much less safe. It minimizes sexual violence by failing to differentiate it from consensual sex, and ignores the fact that sexual violence is about power and control over someone else, more than it is about lust. Classifying sexual assault as sexual behavior rather than violent behavior sends a dangerous message to both victims and perpetrators.

by Tim Love and Morgan J Curtis

We promised to do a follow-up to the anti-homophobia pledge, and just when you were probably starting to give up on us, we are finally making good on our word.

So, we tried really diligently to come up with a nice round list of ten. And then, we thought to ourselves “Selves, why are we trying to adhere to some externally-imposed norm that lists like this have to be in tens or fives?” Forget that. Below are the six ideas that seemed important to use at this time as a follow-up to the resolution poster earlier. And if you are still hung up on the externally-imposed idea that lists should be in multiples of five, then please feel free to send us four or nine or fourteen (you get the idea) more ideas that really speak to you. It’s obviously not an exhaustive list, but it’s a good start.

1. Notice your language – Does your language suggest an assumption that everyone is heterosexual? Do you ask women about boyfriends and husbands or men about wives and girlfriends without knowing their sexual orientation? For example, an instructor in a class Morgan was taking always said, “when you go home to your kids or your spouse…” Using terms like “spouse” are meant to cover both men and women who might be married, however, when marriage is only available to a certain segment of the population, it also inherently leaves out people who might be in committed relationships without the option of marriage, or who have chosen not to get married (and we can talk about that in a different blog post). In contrast, a different instructor would refer instead to people’s “partners” when discussing romantic relationships. These two different approaches set a very different tone in interactions and can be the difference between making people feel welcome or making them feel alienated. It might seem like a small issue, but language is a very strong component in setting and perpetuating norms. What kind of language do you use? Also, some heterosexual individuals have chosen to use the term “partner” to refer to the person they are in a romantic relationship with, rather than referring to the person as their wife, husband, boyfriend or girlfriend. (Note: If you make the choice to use the term “partner”, resist the urge to correct people if they assume you are not heterosexual. Use the opportunity, instead, to talk to the person about why they shouldn’t make assumptions.) Read more

Here at the office we screened The Price of Pleasure, a documentary that explores the sexism and racism in pornography. Often, the debate over pornography centers on “pro-sex” and “anti-sex” arguments. The problem with pornography, though, isn’t the sexuality, but how that sexuality is expressed: through demeaning and humiliating women and people of color.

One issue the film addresses is the argument that the women who work in the field do so willingly (and make a lot of money doing it), therefore it isn’t exploitive. This is an issue with which I have personally struggled, but there are some interesting points brought up in the film:

First, women who work in the industry do make money, and some of them make a lot of money, but that isn’t the norm. It is the porn producers and distributers that make the most profit, and those people are overwhelmingly men (who get rich by profiting off women’s bodies). Second, as one woman who previously worked in the porn industry pointed out, there’s a real problem with the labor system when a woman’s best economic choice is to take off her clothes. Finally, though the women who perform in pornography do choose to do so (the issue of choice here is the topic of another post), all women are impacted and affected by our increasingly pornographic culture and the commodification of women’s bodies, whether we buy into it or not.

What do you think? Can one be pro-sex but anti-pornography? Who is to blame for the increasing “pornification” of our culture?

Texas is considering closing some of the state’s schools for the disabled due to wide-ranging civil rights violations at the schools. At the center of the debate is how to best meet the needs of people with mental disabilities and severe physical disabilities that require extensive care. Are state-run schools the best option, or would people’s needs be better served with community-run care?

Advocates for closing the schools say community options are the answer, because they allow for more freedom and personalized care. Opponents insist that the schools provide the constant care and structure that residents need and that the answer is increased funding to the schools to improve care.

I’m not going to pretend to know the best solution, but I do know that it is vital for decision makers to remember that the residents of the state facilities are people, and their voices and input should be considered when making decisions that affect their lives. People with profound disabilities, whether physical or mental, are often treated as less than human, and their opinions and desires are ignored by caretakers and lawmakers alike. This mentality is the same one that allows those who abuse people with disabilities – physically, sexually, emotionally – to justify their actions to themselves. If someone is less than human, then it isn’t really abuse, is it? I sincerely hope that before schools are closed and people are displaced, lawmakers and other decision makers will take the time to get to know some of the residents and listen to their needs.

Having someone’s best interest at heart isn’t good enough if you don’t take the time to learn it from them, or when that isn’t possible (as is the case with people who are unable to communicate due to their disability), those closest to them.

Injustice is a difficult thing to talk about.  Sometimes we feel it all around us, but can’t point at any one event or characteristic of our world and say, “There it is.”  It can deeply affect how we feel inside, and yet because we can’t always name it or explain the feeling, it can get stuck inside of us and feed destructive anger and paralyzing despair.  

In the history of social movements, music has often been the one vehicle that can accomplish the complete expression of injustice – put to words our thoughts and emotions and release and express the anger, pain and despair that sits within our stomachs, allowing our very souls a voice so often silenced.  This release and expression allows our spirits to be uplifted and often helps us find a clear path for action.  For me, it has been singers like Pete Seeger, whom I saw perform at a protest in Fort Benning, Ga., Ani Difranco, Rage Against the Machine and, recently, the Flobots and Eliza Gilkyson.  For many of those who struggled for civil rights in the 1960′s, that voice was that of Odetta, who passed away in New York yesterday at the age of 77.  A Reuter’s story quotes “The Times” as saying that Rosa Parks was once asked which songs meant the most to her.  Rosa’s reply was, “All the songs that Odetta sings.”  The poet Maya Angelou once said “If only one could be sure that every 50 years a voice and a soul like Odetta’s would come along, the centuries would pass so quickly and painlessly we would hardly recognize time.” 

To find out more about the amazing voice, message and life of Odetta please check out the Reuter’s story above or simply google “Odetta.”  Also, you can listen to some of her music, including “O Freedom” which she sang at the Civil Rights March in 1963.

Have you discovered a song or singer who gives full expression to the injustice, or the good, you feel and see in the world around you?