• 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 arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates by Cambridge Police Sgt. Crowley sparked a national debate on race relations when Gates accused Crowley of racism. The tension surrounding the discussion is mounting. During a routine weekly visit, my brother inquired about my thoughts on “Gates vs. Crowley.” The discussion quickly disintegrated into a shouting match reminiscent of our “Longhorns vs. Aggies” arguments during Thanksgiving. Both of us received fragments of information from news sound bites, hardly a comprehensive approach to obtaining information. My interpretation of the facts was contrary to his. All the diversity training in the world could not restrain our knee-jerk reactions. Even President Obama, most often characterized as deliberating and thoughtful, was caught in the firestorm when he uttered a statement he later acknowledged as “unfortunate” and a teachable moment.

My brother and I finally agreed to disagree, neither conceding to each other’s point of view and no closer to understanding the root of the problem. A meeting over beers is scheduled for Professor Gates, Sgt. Crowley and President Obama this week. Is alcohol diplomacy enough to quell the deep-seated emotional debate? What exactly is the teachable moment? Will the painful truths finally get addressed? Or will this teachable moment merely pass unsettled?

Girlsnotchicks.com has a coloring book that combats some of the harmful gender role stereotypes that girls are exposed to from birth.

Authors Jacinta Bunnell and Julie Novak say on the homepage:

We have had enough of books that make girls think that they are not any good.
We have had enough of books that make girls think that they are too young,
too old, too fat, too ugly, too bold, too loud, too independent.
We like books that ask girls to take pride in ourselves.
Those of us who have been raised as or identify as girls
have have often been given the idea that there is something wrong,
weak and limited about being a girl or woman.
This is not and never has been true.
Girls are not chicks. Girls are thinkers, creators, fighters, healers and superheroes.

Agreed!

This is my favorite image featured on the website, but the others are great, too. Online ordering is available.

Broadsheet reports on a bill proposed in New Jersey that would send minors caught “sexting” to classes about the dangers of the practice – rather than having them face criminal consequences.

I think author Tracy Clark-Foy’s analysis is right on:

I have to say I’m a bit skeptical about the usefulness of these scare-you-straight classes… If we really cared about educating kids about the dangers of ‘sexting,’ why not instead incorporate these discussions into ongoing sex-ed classes, rather than an annual lecture or handout?… [But] one thing is for sure: This is a far preferable approach than criminalizing normal, hormonal teenagers.

[Emphasis mine.]

This is just enraging.

As you’ve probably heard, someone recently victimized ESPN sideline reporter Erin Andrews by secretly videotaping her changing in a hotel room. The perpetrator has not yet been found.

As if that is not bad enough, Fox News’ Fox and Friends and CBS’s The Early Show both aired parts of the footage, obscuring parts of her body. Apaprently, neither of these news outlets have any respect for Andrews or her privacy. As if it isn’t bad enough that this video is spreading around the internet – now mainstream news sources are airing it on television? In my opinion, both outlets are just as guilty as the people who made this video since they are helping distribute it. Particularly since it sounds like Fox actively sexualized it: “Fox News’ stills, which were prominently displayed on-screen, repeatedly showed Andrews’ face while covering some of her body parts with lacy red tape.” They didn’t blur her or use the typical black censored bars, they used lacy red tape.

According to Media Matters, “While airing stills of the videotape, Fox & Friends co-hosts called the videotaping ‘disgusting’ and ‘outrageous.’ Co-host Brian Kilmeade said that ‘you should not be clicking on’ the videotape.” [Emphasis mine.] That’s right, while showing the video, the hosts encouraged viewers not to watch it. Do they really think that obscuring her body makes airing this gross violation of privacy acceptable?

It sounds like Fox and CBS may face some legal trouble because of this, although it’s not certain… According to the Washington Post, “Grossman [Andrews' lawyer]responded to an e-mail question about whether he plans to go after those outlets by reiterating his statement that Andrews plans to seek civil charges against ‘anyone who has published the material.’ ”

While the production of the video is not a sexual assault, it is a sexually-motivated crime; therefore, I classify it as sexual violence. Andrews may not have been physically harmed, but she has no doubt been traumatized by the experience. I am disgusted that Fox and CBS chose to contribute to her violation by showing the video rather than just reporting the news.

I just read a heartbreaking story from the Dallas Morning News about two pre-teen boys who were put on the sex offender registry for abusing their sister. According to their parents, the boys were influenced by a pornographic movie a friend showed them. No force was involved, but because of their sister’s age, the crime was classified as aggravated sexual assault. Certainly, the boys were troubled and needed help – but is sex offender registration really the answer? Now young adults, both boys have been in and out of prison (but not for sex crimes). They and their families blame the stigma they’ve faced over the last 10 years. Their story, and countless others I’m sure, demonstrate some of the problems with Texas’ sex offender registry.

As Diane Jennings reported (also in the Dallas Morning News), many people, including experts in the field, are shocked to realize that children as young as 10 can be listed on Texas’ sex offender registry. According to the article:

Judge Tim Menikos of Fort Worth, past chairman of the juvenile justice section of the State Bar of Texas, says that since mandatory registration ended, judges rarely require juvenile registration. But according to a Dallas Morning News analysis of the Texas sex offender registry, there are about 4,000 people on the registry who were younger than 18 at the time of their crime, including 1,004 younger than 14.

Over 1,000 pre- and young teens listed on the registry? Does that sound like justice to you? Whatever happened to giving juvenile offenders a second chance?

Today is day four of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings. Throughout the hearings, critics have continued to characterize Sotomayor’s background and personal experience as an impediment to impartial rulings.

On Monday, Dr. Tom Coburn, Senator from Oklahoma, released a statement on Sotomayor: “The American people need judges who will interpret the Constitution, not rewrite it based on ideology or personal opinion.” As you probably know, her opponents have repeatedly accused Sotomayor of racism for discussing the way identity shapes judicial decisions. Coburn’s statement stresses the importance of objectivity and fairness and demonstrate his fear that Sotomayor’s life experiences (i.e., her gender and ethnicity) will negatively affect her decisions as a Supreme Court judge.

In 2006, amid Judge Samuel Alito’s Supreme Court nomination hearings, Coburn seemed to think that Alito’s personal experience and background served to benefit the court, rather than limit his ability to serve. Take a look at the video.

An excerpt from the exchange:

COBURN: I think at times during these hearings you have been unfairly criticized or characterized as that you don’t care about the less fortunate, you don’t care about the little guy, you don’t care about the weak or the innocent. Can you comment just about Sam Alito, and what he cares about, and let us see a little bit of your heart and what’s important to you in life?

ALITO: Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point… when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position. [Emphasis mine.]

I have expressed my disdain about the accusation of racism against the first Latina woman to be nominated as a Supreme Court justice previously. It is not my intention to attack Dr. Coburn, but to underscore the condescending overtones of the hearings. Dr. Coburn’s (and others’) words and sentiments speak for themselves and I believe offer confirmation that many of the attacks against Sotomayor are unfair. When Alito expressed his unique outlook due to his personal history, Coburn approved, but Sotomayor’s personal experiences are a liability. What’s the difference? What are your thoughts on the hearings? Are gender and race an issue in the way Sotomayor is being treated?

House Bill 3148 was passed by the Texas Legislature, but vetoed by the governor last month. According to the El Paso Times, the bill “would have allowed people … who were 21 or younger and had consensual sex with someone who was at least 14 and not more than four years younger than them, to petition a judge to remove their name from the sex offender registry.”

Currently, Texas law treats young adults convicted of statutory rape for sex with minors close to their age the same way it treats predatory adults who target children or young teens. Clearly, there is a difference in power dynamics with these types of situations, but our justice system does not currently recognize it.

I understand that statutory rape laws exist for a reason. A much older person can easily coerce or manipulate someone much younger than them into “consenting” to sex. I believe, however, that in most cases when the two parties are relatively close in age, true consent is possible. Branding young people (typically men) as sex offenders for life because they had sex with someone a few years younger than them, regardless of circumstances, is not justice. I am not saying that they should never be prosecuted or punished, but I do not think that (in many cases, anyway) the crime should brand them a sex offender.

Personally, I have many qualms about a sex offender registry in general, but if we’re going to have one its purpose should be to alert the public to people who pose a realistic threat. If 18-year-olds who had sex with willing teens just a few years younger than them are lumped in with child molesters, the registry as a protective tool becomes useless.

This law simply would have allowed people convicted under certain circumstances to petition to have their name removed from the registry. It would not have granted an automatic exemption, it only would have recognized the nuances of this issue and allowed certain people who aren’t, in fact, a danger to the public, to avoid being registered as sex offenders. I hope someday to current law amended so that it no longer treats all people convicted of sexual crimes as a homogenous group – we would all be safer.

This is video of Senator Florence Shapiro accepting the “Courage of Conviction” award at the luncheon in her honor on June 18. This was only the third time this award has been presented, and it honors people who have taken a stand for the anti-sexual violence movement and put themselves on the line, even when it is difficult, unpopular or an uphill struggle.

Senator Shapiro was recognized in part for her work on “Ashley’s laws,” legislation that passed in 1995 and focuses on sex offenders who target children. Another of Senator Shapiro’s focus areas has been Texas’ sex offender civil commitment program, the only outpatient civil commitment program of its kind in the nation. Both of these areas demonstrate Senator Shapiro’s passion for and dedication to addressing sexual violence in Texas.

I apologize for taking so long to post this video. I am still learning how to use the new camera and software, so it took me awhile to figure out the technical aspects.

A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to spend an evening out with a large group of primarily women. These were important women in my life, including my partner, and our main connection was the Hays-Caldwell Women’s Center we either had worked at or were still working at – the center where I first became involved in this work directly. We were having a blast and unwinding, in a way that only such close friends and/or people who’ve worked so closely with violence on a consistent basis can. At one point in the night, I just sat back and looked down at either end of the table, and I was overwhelmed, inspired and humbled. I realized I was sitting in the company of greatness.

Maria Limón, TCFV prevention team member, recently reminded how easy it is for us to forget the daily acts of courage and success we are witness to – that this society we live in requires us to look for greatness elsewhere and to focus on the overwhelming nature of our struggle to end violence without seeing what amazing work we’ve already done. Sitting at that table, this idea rang as true as ever. In a sexist and violent society, I was sitting with a group of over 10 women who dedicated themselves to taking on that sexism and violence on a daily basis. There were mothers, students, directors of programs and front line staff. Each one of these women was radical, though they wouldn’t all identify as such. They resist violence against women in their work, and they also have survived and actively struggled against the sexism, violence and degradation they face in their own lives.

Active resistance against oppression is a radical act, and it is important to recognize it as such. As I sat there listening to their laughter in the face of such violence, not a dismissive laughter, but a triumphant and defiant laughter, I was reminded of how lucky I’ve been to work with such amazing women throughout my life.

Tell us about the women you work with and the women in your lives who are part of the resistance against the sexism and violence they face daily. Help us be inspired, like I was that night a few weeks ago and continue to be everyday.