On the Boy Scouts’ Homophobic and Biphobic Membership Policy

20 05 2013

gaybsa_thRegarding the impending vote among Boy Scouts of America (BSA) leaders of whether to accept gay and bisexual men and boys into its membership, one concerned troop leader noted:

The problem is, do I let my kids who are straight share bathrooms and shower houses with kids who are not? How do I divide these kids up for camps? I mean, do I put the gay kids together and then the straight kids together?

Unfortunately, because of its religious foundation, many in BSA see homosexuality as incongruent with the values of the organization.  In essence, it boils down to a moral issue.  But, opponents of an inclusive membership policy — one that no longer explicitly excludes gays and bisexuals — are doing a poor job of disentangling several components of sexuality.  The above quote seems to take issue with boy scouts’ sexual practices.  Specifically, there is concern about same-sex sexuality.  Yet, scouts who identify as gay or bisexual, regardless of their sexual practices, are excluded.  Their sexual identities are assumed to reflect same-sex sexual activity that would occur during scouting events and meetings.  That’s a bit presumptuous.

But, the slight openness to allowing gay and bisexual scouts, but not gay and bisexual scout leaders, suggests something more than the conflation of sexual identity and sexual behavior.  Across the board, gay and bisexual men are being characterized as hypersexual.  Their “open” presence is being described as something that will bring about prevalent same-sex sexual activity — and, of course, that’s bad!  OnMyHonor.net, a site devoted to opposing change to BSA’s bi- and homophobic policy, has offered an extensive list — top 10 reasons to oppose policy change, including:

Opening the Boy Scouts to boys who openly proclaim being sexually attracted to other boys and/or openly identify themselves as “gay” will inevitably create an increase of boy-on-boy sexual contact which will result in further public scandal to the BSA, not to mention the tragedy of countless boys who will experience sexual, physical and psychological abuse. BSA’s

Whoa, see that?  They went from sexual identity to sexual activity to… sexual abuse.  Ah, there it is!  Gay and bisexual boys and men are, yet again, being stereotyped as sexual predators.  Opponents’ concerns are not merely consensual sex among the scouts.  They are also fanning the flames of gay and bisexual boys who will rape other (heterosexual) boys and, the good old stereotype of gay men as pedophiles.  To clarify:

Rarely does a pedophile experience sexual desire for adults of either gender. They usually don’t identify as homosexual; the majority identify as heterosexual, even those who abuse children of the same gender. They are sexually aroused by extreme youth, not by gender.  [This video is also very helpful to break this myth down.]

Who Are The Real Predators?

So, if opponents are using the exclusion of gays and bisexuals as a way to keep out pedophiles, their efforts are misguided and, frankly, lazy.  But, more importantly, I find it a repulsive twist in the perpetrator-victim dynamic.  In the debates of the inclusion of gays and bisexuals, be it the removal of exclusionary policies or a change in the climate, in various institutions — the military, athletics, education, and the Boy Scouts — gay and bisexual men are regularly characterized as a threat to heterosexual men (and boys).  Somehow, a group that reflects less than 4 percent of the US population is seen as a threat to the remaining 96 percent.

Beyond the numbers, heterosexuals are systematically privileged in ways that queer people are not.  They have more power in society.  Where is this threat coming from?

And, the reality I know as a queer man is that I have infinitely greater chance of being attacked by a heterosexual than heterosexuals do by me.  I regularly see news reports of some gay man who was severely beaten or killed in a homophobic hate crime, or a transwoman who was the victim of a transphobic murder.  Worldwide, our generally peaceful protests just for equal status in society are met with violent riots or threats of violence.  In addition to the actual perpetration of violence, many queer people live in fear of violence — the effective outcome of hate crimes across the world.

In terms of sexual violence, queer people are systematically targeted, including childhood sexual abuse, and “corrective rape” perpetrated by heterosexual men against queer women.  And, the overwhelming majority of instances of sexual violence against women are perpetrated by heterosexual men; and, those committed against men, regardless of sexual orientation, are perpetrated by straight men, as well.

So, another point of clarification is needed: sexual violence is an expression of power, not sexual desire.  By that logic, it is more likely that heterosexual men perpetrate sexual violence than, and even against, gay and bisexual men.

Concluding Thoughts

The conflation of gay/bisexual sexual identity with consensual same-sex sexual activity with sexual violence (including pedophilia) is not a concern for the well-being of (heterosexual) boys.  True concern would do a better job of disentangling these aspects of sexuality and sexual violence.  Continuing to enact homophobic and biphobic discrimination does not protect children from harm (just as excluding gay priests does not prevent sexual abuse in the church).

Rather, these concerns are about maintaining the ugly practice of excluding a marginalized group, which is more likely threatened by the majority than a threat to it.  Gay and bisexual boys are being denied participation in this otherwise positive organization.  Gay and bisexual men are being denied the opportunity to serve as positive role models, offering a unique perspective that likely still upholds the values of citizenship in BSA.  And, heterosexual boys and men are robbed of opportunities to foster positive connections with gay and bisexual boys and men, including the ideal outcome of coming to see gays and bisexuals as humans with great potential rather than deviants, monsters, or villains.  The real threat is to an older, closed-minded generation that fears that the younger generation will come to see all people as equals regardless of their sexual identity; so, they aim to prevent this by enacting exclusionary policies.

It is my hope that BSA finally takes a chance on promoting equality for a change — as a person who advocates for equality, but also a queer ex-Boy Scout.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Activism, Bias, Biphobia, Children, Discrimination, Exclusion, Fear, Gay Men, GBT Men, Hate Crimes, Heterosexism, Heterosexual Privilege, Heterosexuality, Heterosexuals, Homophobia, Identity, Institutional Homophobia, Interpersonal Homophobia, LGBT People, LGBT Youth, Men, Men who have Sex with Men (MSM), Morality, Oppression, Pedophilia, Politics, Power, Prejudice, Privilege, Queer, Rape, Sex, Sexual Assault, Sexual Behavior, Sexual Identity, Sexual Orientation, Sexual Prejudice, Sexual Violence, Sexuality, Social Change, Stereotypes, Stigma, Transphobia, Violence Against Queer People, Youth

[kinsey] April Is Sexual Assault Awareness Month (SAAM) – Are We Aware Yet?

22 04 2013

This was originally posted at Kinsey Confidential.

There is still a little over a week left in April – Sexual Assault Awareness Month (SAAM).  This is our annual 30-day-long recognition of a problem that affects far too many people, especially girls and women: sexual violence.  The primary goals of the month is to raise awareness about sexual violence and, ultimately, eliminate it all together.

With nearly forty years of anti-sexual violence activism — are we aware yet?  Unfortunately, not so much.

What Is Sexual Violence?

An important starting point for raising awareness about sexual violence is to define it.  A major focus of sexual violence prevention is on sexual assault, which is typically defined as any sexual contact with a person without their consent, through coercion, or by force.

Because of inconsistent definitions in the law, especially from state to state, non-consensual sex is sometimes referred to as rape.  Some distinguish rape from sexual assault to include any non-consensual sexual acts that involve penetration.

While these distinctions are important, at least for legal purposes, they are not inclusive of other unwanted sexual acts.  So, advocates have pushed for recognition of the full range of such acts under the broad umbrella of sexual violence.  This broader category includes:

Attention to sexual violence, as a broad class of non-consensual sexual acts, also allows for attention to victims who are often overlooked, including boys and men.

The Basis Of Sexual Violence

Next, it is important to understand what sexual violence is based upon.  Sexual violence is an expression of power.  It is a tool that is used to physical, mentally, and/or emotionally control another person.  It is not an expression of sexual desire.

In understanding sexual violence this way, the myths that someone simply goes over board, gets carried away, or that their hormones got out of control are dispelled.

Beyond Individuals

By “power,” I am referring primarily to the social hierarchies, which place members of our society either at a high or low status.  Most attention has been paid to sexual violence as an expression of sexism.  In particular, women are afforded lower status and less power in society than men.  There are various things that some men do to further limit women’s status or disempower them, or even take advantage of them, including sexual violence.

So, it is important to look beyond what, on the surface, appears to be a private, individual act of sexual violence.  For example, the seemingly personal acts of acquaintance rape  and spousal rape are fundamentally political because they serve as an express of sexism.  But, sexual violence may also be based on other systems of oppression, including racism, homophobia, transphobia, classism, ageism, ableism, and fatphobia.

Sexual Violence And Oppression

But, sexual violence is not merely an expression of one or more of these systems of inequality.  It is also influenced and justified by them.  For example, sexism includes the rigid control of women’s bodies and sexualities, the sexual objectification of girls and women, and so forth.  This creates a dynamic where girls and women are vulnerable to sexual violence, and in which some men feel entitled to women’s bodies.

When women are victimized, the act is justified by stereotyping men as naturally oversexed and women as asexual, or by blaming the victim.  Alternatively, others may turn a blind eye, or even deny that it occurred.

Also, sexual violence actually reinforces these systems of oppression.  Again, using the example of sexism, women’s subordinate status to men, and constrained opportunities and well-being are partly the artifact of sexual violence.  Some reports suggest 1 in 4 women are survivors of rape or sexual assault, and, thereafter are at risk for facing various health problems.  Even more women live in fear that they may be victimized (or revictimized).

Sexual Violence As A Social Problem

Reflecting the systematic component of oppression, sexual violence is not a random occurrence.  And, all members of society do not share an equal chance of being victimized.  Women make up 90 percent of survivors of sexual violence.  In addition, there is evidence that repeat perpetrators of sexual violence account for most acts of sexual assault and rape.

Sexual violence, then, reflects a society-wide problem.  Further, some social organizations and institutions play a role, either by 1) ignoring such acts, 2) failing to support survivors and protect victims from further harm, 3) failing to punish perpetrators, 4) condoning these acts, and/or 5) facilitating sexual violence.  For example, colleges and universities have been criticized for (unintentionally) creating space for rampant sexual violence on campuses.  Recently, more and more schools have come under fire for doing too little in response to sexual violence, or even discouraging reports of victimization.

Culturally, how we talk about sexual violence (or not) contributes to the problem.  Too often, in everyday conversations, the media, pop culture, and so forth, jokes are made about rape and sexual assault, victims are blamed for their own victimization, and perpetrators are excused for actions.  In fact, many have argued that we live in a rape culture because sexual violence and the cultural norms that condone it are so pervasive.

Another facet to this is the harassment and bullying that survivors face for reporting their victimization, and their and allies’ public anti-sexual violence activism.  In other words, some victims and allies who speak out face a backlash, which aims to silence them.  A strong effort is made to keep sexual violence invisible, or at least seem like isolated, random, private acts.

Sexual Violence Prevention As A Community Responsibility

Because sexual violence is such a huge, widespread problem, no one person can stop it alone.  That is why many anti-sexual violence advocates are pushing for bystander intervention – a call for others to fight against sexual violence.  This includes:

  1. Intervening when sexual violence occurs if it is safe to do so.  For example, this can mean alerting a teacher if your friend confides in you that she is being molested by her uncle (and she agrees to have you tell the teacher).  Or, making sure your friend, who is very drunk, gets home to his own bed after a party.  Or, letting your coworker know that whistling at women on the street is a form of harassment and encourage him to stop.
  2. Supporting victims and survivors of violence.  One of the most important things to do is ensure them that you hear them and believe them.  (Unfortunately, they may be doubted by others, and face the broader victim-blaming norms in society.)  Ask them how you can help them.  And, ask them whether they wish to report their victimization (e.g., to the police).  It is okay to encourage them to pursue either support for themselves or punishment for the perpetrator, but ultimately they can choose not to and you should respect that.
  3. Challenging victim-blaming and other aspects of our rape culture.  For example, speak up when you hear rape jokes or “slut-shaming.”  Or, write to media outlets or politicians who perpetuate these problems.  Or, join an anti-sexual violence campaign or organization.  Participate in your own or the nearest college’s Take Back the Night rally and other anti-sexual violence events.
  4. Educate yourself and others.  For example, help to raise awareness about what sexual violence is, how it is a society-wide problem, and what we can all do to prevent it.  Have frank, yet age-appropriate conversations with your children, students, or other young people about consent.
  5. Break the silence about sexual violence.  This goes for allies and, if they feel safe and comfortable, survivors of sexual violence.  This means bringing up the subject when opportunities arise, or even making those opportunities happen.  My own approach is to blog and cover sexual violence in the courses I teach.  While it may be difficult in some ways, I find that men who are allies to survivors can have great impact in speaking up about sexual violence.

Indeed, we are not there yet in having a good understanding of sexual violence and why it persists.  But, hopefully, we will at least be closer by next year’s Sexual Assault Awareness Month!  And, of course, our collective efforts should not be limited to the month of April.

Additional Resources

 


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Abortion, Activism, Anti-Sexism, Bodies, Bystander Intervention, Crime, Criminal Justice, Dating Violence, Desire, Discrimination, Domestic Violence, Equality, Fear, Feminism, Gender, Hate Crimes, Inequality, Injustice, Intersectionality, Intimate Partner Violence, Kinsey Confidential, Media, Men, Oppression, Patriarchy, Popular Culture, Power, Prejudice, Rape, Rape Culture, Sex, Sexism, Sexual Assault, Sexual Behavior, Sexual Harassment, Sexual Violence, Sexuality, Social Institutions, Social Norms, Society, Victim-Blaming, Violence, Violence Against Women, Women, Women of Color

Actually, Racism Could Motivate Sexual Violence

19 04 2013

*trigger warning: sexual abuse against children; sexual violence*

At the top of the list of yesterday’s most disgusting stories, and the strangest stories, is that of a white woman teacher who cried “racism” when accused of sexually assaulting one of her first-grade students.  That is, faced with the charges of touching a 7-year-old Black girls’ genitals (who she kept behind class as other students left), Esther Irene Stokes claims that she harbors racist prejudice and, as such, she despises any sort of contact with Black people.  Innocence by bigotry.

Prosecutors said that after failing a polygraph test, Stokes insisted to Humble police that she had not touched the girl “on any part of her body.”

“She doesn’t like to even touch the black children on their hand, she shies away when they try to hug her — she admitted to being prejudiced,” Blanchard said.

The complaint stated that Stokes “doesn’t like black students because she was prejudiced” and “has little to no interaction” with her accuser.

The strange self-admission of being racist came after a failed polygraph test, and other details that cast doubt on her claim to innocence:

The girl also told police that she asked the teacher to stop touching her and was made to stand out in the hall without any lunch — but Stokes also denied that.

Northwest Preparatory Academy Charter School Principal Paul A. Hardin told investigators that cafeteria records showed that the girl ate breakfast but not lunch on March 1.

Arguably, because the girl’s race is marked (Blackness is hypervisible as a master status, whiteness is invisible and taken-for-granted), Stokes may have been advised by her lawyer to announce her racism.  As a racist, there is absolutely no way in which she would willingly seek physical or sexual contact with a Black child.  As a self-labeled racist, she will face embarrassment.  But, as a child molester, she risks losing her job, time in prison, and registering as a sex offender.  But, it’s no crime to be a racist!

Racism And Sexual Desire

Actually, Stokes’s racist prejudice neither proves nor disproves the possibility that she sexually assaulted a Black child.  Arguably, some (racist) white people sexually and romantically desire racial and ethnic minorities because of their race or ethnicity.  Exotification!  The supposed ability to not see the race and ethnicity of people of color — “color-blindness” — is not much better.

The bottom line is that our sexual desires, selves, and identities develop and change within a particular social context.  We are sexually socialized in a racist society.  Collectively, what we define as beautiful (or not) is largely a product of our social hierarchies.  Black people fall at the bottom of the list of what racist white America defines as beautiful and sexy.

Distinguishing Sexual Violence From Sexual Desire

BUT!  Stokes sexually assaulted a Black 7-year-old child.  Sexual violence is not a phenomenon driven by sexual desire.  Rape and sexual assault are expressions of power.  They act to control another human being, to disempower them — not expressions of one’s desire for them.

Unfortunately, the dominant (critical) understanding of sexual violence — here adding sexual harassment, too — is that it is a manifestation of sexism and patriarchy.  (Heterosexual, cisgender) men rape, sexually assault, and sexually harass (heterosexual, cisgender) women — presumably within the same racial and ethnic, and social class groups.

But, misogyny is not the lone basis for sexual violence.  As an expression of power and control, sexual violence may be based on racism, xenophobia, transphobia, bi- and homophobia, classism, ableism, ageism, and/or fatphobia.  And, by “may,” I mean there are regular occurrences in which members of marginalized groups face sexualized violence as a product of the oppression they face.  In fact, exotification, disgust, and sexual violence are all sexual manifestations of these systems of oppression.

Racism And Sexual Violence

Black feminist scholars like Patricia Hill Collins and Angela Y. Davis have explained the links between racism, sexism, and sexual violence.  Sexual violence serves as just one manifestation of racism and sexism.  Within the matrix of domination, wherein systems of oppression intersect and reinforce one another, one aspect of the intersection between sexism and racism is the sexual violence faced by women of color.  In addition, sociologist Joane Nagel has written about the way race and ethnicity (and racism) and sexuality (and homophobia and sexual violence) work together to define social boundaries, include and exclude, and privilege and oppress.

Sexual violence has been used as a tool of racism throughout history.  White men have raped, assaulted, and harassed Black women both during US slavery and after.  The reproductive systems of American Indian and Black and other women of color have been attacked through forced sterilizations — even today through racist campaigns of the pro-life movement:

Racist Pro-Life Ad

Boys and men of color are victims of racism-based sexual violence, as well.  Under enslavement, Black men, too, were raped and sexually assaulted by whites.  In the not-to-distant past, Black men’s sexualities were controlled and policed through lynchings.  Most of these executions were extralegal punishments based on false accusations of sexually assaulting or harassing white women.  Many entailed castration and mutilation of the Black men’s bodies.  Even today, many Black boys and young men are preyed upon.

Other men of color have been targeted throughout history, as well, including the regulation of Chinese men’s sexualities through the Chinese Exclusion Act coupled with restrictions on interracial marriage.  In addition, racism and xenophobia have been enacted abroad through sexualized violence, especially in wars with other nations (e.g., the sexualized torture at the US prison in Abu Ghraib, Iraq).

Concluding Thoughts

My primary intention in this post is to highlight the ridiculousness of this case of sexual abuse.  According to media reports, it does not sound as though Stokes’s claim to innocence will hold up.  But, no one was present to witness what occurred in the classroom.  Either way, the claim that her racist prejudice would prevent her from treating a Black child as subhuman, unable to decide for herself what she does and does not do with her body, is BS.

I am not arguing that she is necessarily “more guilty” because she is a self-identified racist.  But, her prejudice certainly does not make her any less guilty.  If, for some reason, the evidence of the molestation does not hold up in court, her own admission to harboring prejudice and actually discriminating against her Black students should certainly be grounds to bar her from teaching anywhere.  Pedophile or not, this woman is disgusting and has no business teaching and interacting with children.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Abortion, Academia, Advertising, Age, American Indians, Black Feminism, Black Men, Black People, Black Women, Bodies, Children, Cisgender People, Crime, Desire, Discrimination, Education, Ethnicity, Fatphobia, Gender, Heterosexuals, Homophobia, Injustice, Intersectionality, Media, Minorities, Oppression, Patriarchy, Pedophilia, People of Color, Power, Prejudice, Race, Racism, Rape, Relationships, Sex, Sexism, Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment, Sexual Violence, Sociology, Teaching, The Body, Transphobia, Violence, Violence Against People of Color, Violence Against Women, White People, Women, Women of Color, Youth

Oppression As Terrorism

7 03 2013

What image comes to mind when you hear the term “terrorist“?  I can imagine most Americans think of something like the images that a quick Google search yields:Screen Shot 2013-03-07 at 7.14.25 AM

Right now, these are the kinds of images that predominate US discourse on terrorism, particularly after the terrorists attacks in NYC, DC, and PA on September 11, 2001.  Before that, this was the image of terrorism, at least in my mind:

That of domestic terrorist, Timothy McVeigh – a white supremacists.  As a nation, we are more fixated on the threat posed by those pictured in the first image — those people in that country.  Our fear of terrorism is used as justification for our xenophobic prejudice toward nations outside of the West.  Arguably, it also undergirds the vehement anti-immigration sentiment, now that “immigrant” has become synonymous with “Hispanic,” “Latino,” “Mexican,” and “illegal.”

For the oppressed members of the US — people of color, women, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans* (LGBT) people, religious minorities, and immigrants in particular — terrorism exists daily within our borders.  Defining terrorism simply as a systematic effort to evoke fear and terror in another group, oppressed groups experience both violence and the threat of violence (i.e., terrorism).  In addition to the daily microaggressions and discrimination, these marginalized groups are kept in “their place” through violence and terrorism.

Power And Defining Violence

Continuing to gobble up every idea in sociologist Patricia Hill Collins‘s book, On Intellectual Activism, I got the encouragement I needed to write this post, which I have been contemplating for some time.  She has a chapter, “The Ethos of Violence,” in which she argues that violence is not a given phenomenon.  Rather, it is socially constructed, wherein its meaning is taken from its historical and social context.  But, as I usually do when drawing upon a social constructionist perspective, I echo her argument that the power to define socially is not shared equally.  Rather, dominant social groups hold the power to define violence.  Whites, the middle- and upper-classes, men, heterosexuals, US-born citizens, and so on define violence.

Take the unfortunate example of the shooting in an elementary school in Connecticut.  It would be unimaginable to think anyone would dispute that this was a tragedy — yes, even one that warrants the overdue changes to gun control laws in the US.  But, as some pointed out, that kind of rare tragedy in middle-class white America garners great national attention, while everyday violence in urban, poor, and Black and Latin/o neighborhoods rarely get attention.  As Collins’s points out, these events, though more common, are not treated as noteworthy violence because they do not directly affect the privileged members of America.  In fact, such violence is treated as something to be routinely expected of the inferior classes of people who are stereotyped as natural savages.

Look at the intense political battles against protections from discrimination and violence for women, trans* people, people of color, and lesbian, gay, and bisexual people.  It is difficult to fathom how one could oppose protection from violence.  But, men, cisgender people, heterosexuals, the wealthy, and whites are shielded from violence.  As a part of their privilege, they neither witness nor experience violence enacted toward them because of their status.

Oppression As Terrorism

Collins also notes that, in addition to the violence enacted against oppressed people, they are also terrorized by the threat of such violence.

The routine nature of violence is highly significant in maintaining the social control needed for social inequalities to be seen as natural, normal, and inevitable.  The significance of violence goes much deeper than the small number of visible violent acts that actually occur in relation to the size of the American population as well as the interpretive climate needed to define it.   Rather, the threat of violence constitutes a powerful tool of social control.  For example, women who monitor what they wear, where they walk and with whom, and the time of day they appear in public places adjust their behavior in response to the fear of violence against them.  Women do not have total access to the streets because these spaces remain coded as male spaces, at least most of the time.  A particular woman need not be raped to know that some streets are always dangerous or that all streets are sometimes dangerous.  The fear of physical and sexual assault is sufficient to keep her in her place.

In the above quote, Collins points out that, while at least one-quarter of women experience actual sexual violence, they and the remaining 75 percent of women are plagued by the threat of sexual (and other forms of) violence.  That sexual violence affects women such that they live in fear and adjust their behaviors to minimize their vulnerability and this fear constitutes a form of terrorism.  And, that seemingly isolated acts serve to threaten and disempower an entire marginalized group (women), rape and sexual assault constitutes a type of hate crime.

In a forthcoming article in Journal of Homosexuality, considering the intersections among race and ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation, Doug Meyer and I found that white men and heterosexual men (the sample was too small to consider all three identities simultaneously) were the only groups wherein fewer than half (~30 percent) reported being afraid to walk alone at night within 1 mile of their own homes.  All women, regardless of race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation, Black and Latino men, and sexual minority men had comparable percentages of those who said they felt such fear (between 70-80 percent).  These patterns held even as we accounted for their prior experiences of robbery or other crimes.

Marginalized groups have real reason to live in fear.  The rates of documented acts of violence are high — just imagine what the rates would look like if most acts of violence were actually reported.  And, think about the costs of the fear that most members of marginalized groups experience.  This fear and the efforts one may take to protect oneself from violence can mean watching every aspect of your behavior, remaining vigilant and in a heightened state of arousal when walking alone, being wary of strangers of privileged groups, staying away from certain parts of town, or forgoing certain activities all together.  For myself, as my partner and I visit Richmond next week to search for a place to live, I have such concerns weighing on my mind; where will we feel safe as an interracial queer couple?

Given their privilege, whites, men, cisgender people, heterosexuals, those born in the US, and the wealthy do not have to experience nor think about violence and the fear of violence.  Beyond that, they do not have to acknowledge or validate the fear experienced by members of oppressed groups.  Further, they have the power to subvert our claims of violence, either as isolated acts that are not motivated by hate (rather than systemic violence and terrorism) or even as something victims brought on themselves.  Maybe it was the short skirt she was wearing.  Maybe it was the hoodie he was wearing.  Maybe he flirted with the guy.  Maybe she “lied” about her sex-assigned-at-birth.

Terrorism And The State

What complicates this further is that the state, which proclaims to protect all Americans, is implicated in violence against the oppressed.  Laws on the books are either selectively or weakly enforced.  Proposed laws to protect marginalized groups from violence are somehow characterized as a threat to privileged groups.  And, too often, the state itself enacts violence (e.g., police brutality, injustice in the criminal justice system, forced sterilization, interment, enslavement, raids).  Who protects us when even our protectors enact violence against us or fails to intervene when others attack us?

How quickly we developed national efforts to guard against terrorism (and protect our national borders from “illegals“) — of course, that is when dominant groups come under threat.  There has never been a Homeland Security to protect against racism, sexism, heterosexism, cissexism.  The oppressed are on their own for that.  Ironically, it seems that when the state moves to protect all Americans, the oppressed become suspects.  Anyone with brown skin can be searched and demanded for their “papers.”  Transgender and gender non-conforming people are subjected to additional screening through TSA security checks at airports.  But, c’mon — this is in the name of security for all!

Another Irony Of Oppression

Something akin to the “double bind” or “dual-edged sword” that oppressed people face — the sense that you are “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” — is a sense of irony about systems of oppression.  A good example of the “double bind” for women is the reality that they are penalized for being feminine in a masculinist society, but then punished if they are “too masculine” — something that, in overly simplistic pragmatic terms — would make sense to get ahead in life.  But, what I find more ironic is a twist on certain aspects of oppression.

In particular, I find it ironic that members of oppressed groups face everyday threats of violence, discrimination, and subtler expressions of hatred, yet are characterized as a threat to dominant society.  People of color are subject to violence by, yet are portrayed as violent to, white America.  Gay men, in particular, are frequent targets of homophobic violence and discrimination by, yet are characterized as threatening to, heterosexual men.  Women, if given the power to control anything (even their own bodies!), are seen as a threat to the livelihood of the nation.

There is an exchange in the 2007 movie version of the play, Hairspray, that sticks out in my memory:

Screen Shot 2013-03-07 at 10.31.36 AM

Seaweed: “And this young lady right here is Penny Pingleton.”
Penny: “I’m very pleased and scared to be here.”
Motormouth Maybelle: “Now, honey, we got more reason to be scared on your street.”

Concluding Thoughts

I suppose the take-away points of this post could be: 1) calling for better attention to collective understandings of violence and terrorism, which erase the ways in which oppressed people are attacked and terrorized daily; and 2) calling for real, sustained efforts to account for, outlaw, and remedy the vast amount of violence that routinely occurs against marginalized groups.

This should entail, as Collins points out, better understanding violence at the intersection of systems of oppression, including the heightened risk of violence among those who belong to multiple oppressed groups (especially women and LGBT people of color and poor LGBT people and women).  For, even within our own communities, we face violence.  Yet, for some reason, many members of privileged groups continue to dismiss our efforts protect ourselves from discrimination and violence — basic, fundamental rights — as “special rights.”


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Academia, Activism, America, American Indians, Asians and Asian Americans, Black Communities, Black Feminism, Black People, Black Women, Bodies, Bullying, Cisgender People, Cisgender Privilege, Cissexism, Classism, Congress, Crime, Dating Violence, Discrimination, Domestic Violence, Ethnicity, Fear, Gay Men, Gender, Gender Identity & Expression, Gender Non-Conformity, Government, Hate Crimes, Health, Heterosexism, Heterosexual Privilege, Heterosexuals, History, Homophobia, Hypervigiliance, Immigration, Injustice, Intellectual Activism, Interracial, Intersectionality, Intimate Partner Violence, Invisibility, Irony, Latina/o People, Law, LGBT Communities, LGBT People, Male Privilege, Marginalized Groups, Me, Men, Microaggressions, Middle-Class, Middle-Class Privilege, Minorities, Minority Stress, Oppression, People of Color, Politicians, Politics, Poverty, Power, Prejudice, Privilege, Queer, Queer People of Color, Race, Racism, Rape, Reproductive Health, Research, Secondary Marginalization, Sex, Sexism, Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment, Sexual Orientation, Sexual Prejudice, Sexual Violence, Sexuality, Silence, Social Constructionism, Social Science, Society, Sociology, Stereotypes, The Body, The State, Trans*, Transgender, Transpeople of Color, Victim-Blaming, Violence, Violence Against People of Color, Violence Against Queer People, Violence Against Trans* People, Violence Against Women, White People, White Privilege, Women, Women of Color, Xenophobia

A Gay Guy’s Guide To Feminism – A Brief Introduction

4 03 2013

With the start of Women’s, Womyn‘s, and Womanist Herstory Month this past Friday, I have been wondering what more I can do to challenge sexism — including my own.  As I have noted in previous posts, I have an evolving awareness that my own disadvantaged social location as a brown queer man does not make me immune to sexism, nor any other system of oppression.

One important task of my anti-sexist advocacy is to become aware of the ways in which I am privileged as a man.  I know this to be a particular challenge for queer men because of our awareness that we are disadvantaged among men.  So, I was disappointed to find little beyond a few personal reflections from feminist-identified gay men to guide me and other queer men to understand and appropriately fight sexism.  The Guy’s Guide to Feminism seems like a good start, but I find it useful to engage gay men from their unique relationships with sexism, women, and male privilege.

Feminism For Gay Men 101

Though I am just at the beginning of a lifelong journey to understanding sexism and my own male privilege, here are a few lessons I would like to impart to my fellow gay men:

      1. We are men.  We hold male privilege.  Period.
      2. Yes, number 1 is true despite our sexual orientation and despite our gender expression (no matter how feminine, androgynous, or queer).  Though gay masculinity is devalued relative to hegemonic masculinity (i.e., white heterosexual middle-class able-bodied young/middle-age masculinity), it is still privileged over all femininities.
      3. Systems of oppression are linked including — particularly relevant to this discussion — sexism, heterosexism, and cissexism.  As such, our liberation is tied to the liberation of ciswomen and trans* people.
      4. While number 3 is true, we are not immune to sexist attitudes and behaviors.  And, most importantly, being gay does not make us anti-sexist.  Our marginalized status among men may make it easier to understand sexist oppression, but it does does not preclude us from it.  Just like heterosexual cisgender men who engage in anti-sexist activism, we must be active in challenging the prejudice, discrimination, and violence against women, and to keep our male privilege in check (i.e., give it up or use it for good).
      5. Though we generally are not sexually attracted to women, we are just as capable of sexually harassing or assaulting women.  The root of sexual violence is power, not sexual attraction.  I must point out here that too many of us have sexually harassed or assaulted women and naively excused the behavior as innocent because we are gay.  Sexual violence by any perpetrator is wrong.  But, that of gay men has the added element of placing our women friends and allies in the difficult position of questioning whether to feel violated or upset.
      6. Related to number 5, we must stop treating the women in our lives as objects or accessories.  Yes, many heterosexual women are guilty of doing this to us — the gay BFF, every girl’s must have! — which is also wrong.  Friendships that exist because of her gender or your sexual orientation are forms of exotification.
      7. Attraction to male-bodied individuals, men, and masculinity must be stripped of the presumed aversion to female-bodied individuals, women, and femininity.  We need not be repulsed by female bodies just because we are not sexually attracted to (cis)women.  Even when joking, this is no less problematic than (cisgender) heterosexuals who proclaim to be repulsed by people of their same sex.
      8. Certain aspects of gay men’s culture that promote pride and empowerment among us come at the expense of women’s empowerment.  To call a fellow gay man “bitch,” “cunt,” and, more commonly in the drag scene, “fish,” is to use a term that derogates women.  Though they may be positive in intent and meaning, these are not instances of reclaiming pejorative terms used against us: self-identifying as queer is; “servin’ up fish!” isn’t.  Just think how outraged we would be if women decided to adopt “faggot” as a term of endearment among themselves.
      9. Our queer, bisexual, and lesbian sisters are oppressed by heterosexism and sexism.  We, as LGBT and queer people, will not be fully liberated by addressing homophobia and heterosexism alone.
      10. Related to number 9, we must recognize that LBQ women are often subject to our sexist prejudice and behavior, ranging from anti-lesbian jokes to outright exclusion (often disguised as innocently bonding with other gay men or even the product of our exclusive attraction to men).
      11. The way that we devalue femininity among ourselves is another arm of sexism.  The “no femmes” sentiment, aptly called femmephobia, is nothing more than the hatred of femininity, which is associated with women.  Beyond eliminating this silly prejudice in our anti-sexist efforts, we do ourselves the favor of freeing the constraints on how we can behave and express our gender.
      12. We owe it — yes, we owe it — to the ciswomen and trans* people who have fought against the injustices we face to fight against those they face.  Even when kept at the periphery or outright excluded, transpeople have fought for equal rights and status for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. Many lesbian and bisexual women served as caregivers to gay and bisexual men with HIV/AIDS during the 1980s and 1990s, while also fighting along side those who worked for better HIV/AIDS health care.  Feminists of all walks of life have advocated for our protection from prejudice, discrimination, and violence, seeing it as important in (and linked to) activism against sexist discrimination and violence against women.

We owe it to our ciswomen and trans* friends and allies — and ourselves — to be better feminists.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Activism, Allies, Anti-Sexism, Attitudes, Bodies, Cisgender People, Cissexism, Coalitions, Community, Discrimination, Diversity, Equality, Exclusion, Feminism, Gay Men, GBT Men, Gender, Gender Identity & Expression, Heterosexism, Heterosexuality, Heterosexuals, History, HIV & AIDS, Homophobia, Identity, Inequality, Injustice, Intersectionality, Justice, LBT Women, Lesbians, LGBT Communities, LGBT Culture, LGBT People, LGBT Rights, Male Privilege, Marginalized Groups, Me, Men, Men who have Sex with Men (MSM), Oppression, Patriarchy, Pejoratives, Power, Prejudice, Pride, Privilege, Queer, Rape, Sex, Sexism, Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment, Sexual Identity, Sexual Orientation, Sexual Prejudice, Sexual Violence, Sexuality, Stereotypes, The Body, Transgender, Transphobia, Violence Against Women, Women

A Call For Bystander Intervention To End Racism

27 02 2013

In the recent sociological blog debate on racism versus the supposed dawn of “post-racism” in America, we often touched on problems that make talking about racism difficult, if not entirely impossible.  In addition to institutional constraints, there are interpersonal factors that can derail meaningful conversations about race and racism.  In addition to calling attention to these barriers, it is important to make explicit that too few people take on this difficult task.

Responsibility For (Anti-)Racism

In general, too few people consistently assume responsibility for talking about race and racism, and fighting racism more broadly.  That kind of work is presumed to be taken on by activists and leaders of social movements.  But, in particular, the responsibility generally falls in the laps of those victimized by it — in this case, people of color.  As Jason noted in his contribution to the “post-racism” blog debate, racial and ethnic minorities generally face this burden alone.

But, people of color are neither alone in this racist society nor the creators of this system of oppression.  Whites are implicated by virtue of the benefits they receive (i.e., white privilege) from the historical legacy of racism, as well as today.  Eliminating racism, then, is just as much their responsibility, if not more, as it is for people of color.

As I re-watched a few of ABC’s “What Would You Do” social experiments regarding race and racism, I was reminded just how problematic America’s sense of responsibility for racism and anti-racism are.  While too few whites intervene when they witness racist discrimination in stores against (innocent) people of color, many seem quick to intervene to sanction Black people’s criminal behavior but not that of whites (see part 1 and part 2).  (Three young Black men sleeping in their own car got more calls to 911 than did three young white men vandalizing and breaking into someone else’s car.)

A Personal Anecdote

Racist events are plentiful, from small slights to extreme forms of violence.  So, there are too many missed opportunities to confront racism, or at least learn from these events to do things differently in the future.  One such event stands out in my own life.

At the start of my second semester of graduate school, my cohort and I sat through the beginning of our training and preparation to carry out a telephone survey on social attitudes that summer.  In talking through concerns for the project, whether we as  interviewers “talk black” was posed as a potential bias in our interviews.  It felt as though as though a grenade had gone off right in the middle of class, but we continued on ignoring it.  I thought, “was I the only one who heard that?”

This event only became an issue when my colleagues of color and I were overheard joking about the racist comment the following week.  That was brought to the attention of the professor who, out of concern, asked us whether and how to “handle” this.  Three weeks later, we finally devoted an entire two-hour class to discussing the comment about “talking black” — a phrase the professor wrote explicitly on the board to facilitate our conversation.

Of course, five minutes that felt like an eternity passed before anyone broke the thick silence that suffocated the room — it was me, naturally, in which I called attention to that deafening silence.  As the tense conversation carried on, my cohort was divided, with the students of color and anti-racist white students taking issue with the concern about “talking black,” and the rest remaining silent, or speaking up to say they did not see a problem or even recast the comment in their head so that it was not problematic.

The conversation boiled down to whether the commenter said “talking black” or talking black, where the quotation marks became the symbolic boundary between belief that there is a(n inferior) style of English unique to Black Americans and the knowledge that others believe that (but not believing it oneself).  Only a racist person would forgo the quotation marks, for this would reflect their own beliefs.

With the conversation ending with a half-ass apology from the commenter, that one’s upbringing in the Midwest should suffice as an excuse for one’s racist prejudice, we left the room more divided than ever before.  The rest of our department remained curious bystanders, but nothing more came of these events outside of the efforts of students of color to challenge racism in the department and university.

To add insult to injury, later in the semester, my colleagues of color and I overheard some of our classmates complain about the ongoing divisiveness, placing blame on us for not having gotten “over it” yet.  Their simultaneous lack of understanding and lack of sympathy only further fueled the division.  I am happy to say that a great deal has been forgiven, but one can never forget such events.  But, sadly, because little came of it, we saw yet another racist event occur years later.

A Call For Bystander Intervention

I, as others before me, call for a bystander intervention approach to ending racism.  Too often, individuals not directly involved in a dangerous or difficult scenario — or bystanders — simply stand-by and watch without intervening to provide help.  As such, in the case of the prevention of sexual violence (since this “bystander effect” was coined after no one intervened in the brutal rape and murder of Kitty Genovese), advocates have strongly emphasized the need to turn bystanders into potential interveners – “bystander intervention.“  Applied to racism, this means that individuals are called to action to intervene if they witness racist discrimination, bullying, or violence.

However, I push this anti-racist bystander intervention one step further beyond intervening in difficult situations.  Similar to my calls for bystander intervention to prevent sexual violence (i.e., rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment), I stress that our anti-racist work must include a sense that racism is a community issue and, as such, anti-racism is a community responsibility.

Ways To Intervene

A related aspect is noting that racism exists at multiple levels and, as such, there are an infinite number of ways in which we can fight it:

  1. One can intervene when they witness racist discrimination or harassment.  Of course, this depends upon a number of factors that make this easier said than done.  And, no one should intervene in ways that place them at risk for getting hurt.  If it is a scenario of extreme violence, like a racially-motivated hate crime, a safe means of intervening may be to call the police.  If it is an instance of the unfair firing of a Latina coworker, you could approach your supervisor to note that you feel your coworker deserves a second chance.
  2. Challenge racist prejudice.  This can entail calling people out who appear to harbor prejudice toward people of color, or hold misguided stereotypes.  It also means calling out offensive comments that others’ may make about racial and ethnic minorities.
  3. Challenge yourself.  No matter one’s racial or ethnic background, and one’s racial ideology, no one is immune to the pervasive poison of racism.  It is important to also check your own biases and actions.  Do you seek out friends of the same race?  Do you avoid “that part of town”?  Do you do certain things, at least in part, to avoid appearing racist?
  4. Educate yourself.  Unfortunately, most Americans leave formal education knowing little about racism and the history and experiences of people of color beyond obligatory coverage during Black History Month.  To push beyond this, one can take the time to learn more (even from March to January).  Read books about and by people of color.  Go see films on historical and contemporary accounts of the lives of racial and ethnic minorities.  Visit museums that feature exhibits on race and ethnicity.  Become comfortable talking about race and racism with the people around you, no matter their race and ethnicity.
  5. Support victims of racist prejudice, discrimination, and violence.  As I wrote the first suggestion, I realized that there are so many concerns that one may have in directly challenging racist actions.  But, there are fewer concerns regarding harm in supporting victims of these actions.  Though your supervisor who unfairly fired your Latina coworker very well could threaten you, as well, you are freer to reach out to your coworker.  See if she wants to talk, needs help finding a new job, or even filing a discrimination or EEO complaint.  Even outside of severe instances of racist acts, you can be a supportive ally by really hearing people out when they reveal their experiences to you (rather than blaming them or encouraging them to think of alternative reasons for those acts).
  6. Challenge racist practices of organizations and institutions.  Though the days of overt racist laws and policies are mostly gone, there are still many — albeit neutral in intention and language — that disproportionately harm people of color.  It is important to challenge these, just as it is to challenge racism at the individual-level.  Maybe you can speak up if your workplace implements a dress-code policy that unfairly targets racial and ethnic minorities.  Take action to prevent the efforts to repeal Affirmative Action and other policies that aim to redress racial inequality.  Educate yourself and others about how new policies or policy change can contribute to racial equality, even if they are not targeted solely toward people of color (e.g., Affordable Care Act).

Concluding Thoughts

Obviously, everyone cannot become leaders of social movements like Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. or lead deadly anti-racist efforts like abolitionist John Brown or the slain Mississippi civil rights workers.  Most of us are not lifelong activists.

But, there are many opportunities throughout a given day to make a difference, no matter how small.  For, even small acts add up to a big contribution to challenge prejudice and stereotypes, educate oneself and others, end racist discrimination and violence, and promote racial diversity and equality.  Just as we are all implicated in racism, it will take all of us to end it.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : "Post-Racial", Academia, Activism, Affirmative Action, Allies, America, American Indians, Anti-Racism, Asians and Asian Americans, Attitudes, Black Communities, Black People, Bullying, Bystander Intervention, Civil Rights, Crime, Debate, Discrimination, Education, Equality, Ethnicity, Faculty, Hate Crimes, Higher Education, Inequality, Injustice, Institutional Discrimination, Institutional Racism, Interpersonal Discrimination, Interpersonal Racism, Justice, Knowledge, Latina/o People, Law, Marginalized Groups, Me, Minorities, Oppression, People of Color, Prejudice, Privilege, Race, Racism, Rape, Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment, Sexual Violence, Silence, Social Change, Social Movements, Society, Stereotypes, Teaching, Unfair Treatment, Violence, Voting, White People, White Privilege

No More Sexism-Colored Glasses?

31 01 2013

The United States Military has finally lifted its ban on women armed service members serving in combat.  Women have long participated in military and war, and have increasingly been allowed to participate in all spheres and roles.  However, the ban preventing women from serving in combat remained the last
official barrier to their full inclusion in military activity.

In many ways, this move is overdue, considering the number of women service members already serving in combat.  The notion of a contained combat zone reflects war practices of yesteryear; so, beyond excluding women from war all together, there remains little possibility of protecting them from direct combat.  The longstanding reasons for prohibiting women from participating in the military — and then, once included, arguments against allowing women into specific spheres and jobs in the military — also reflect outdated views about women, sex and gender, the body, and sexuality.

Not Discrimination, Just Practical!

It is now (somewhat) unpopular to openly espouse some of the most hostile sexism of the past.  Rather, like in the case of the lingering combat ban, opponents have pointed to practical matters:

Over the years, people have made silly cases against women in combat, but the prevailing argument seems to have been that women have less upper body strength than men — and so would have trouble carrying heavy rucksacks over long distances or wounded soldiers out of harm’s way.

As a soldier, if you’re injured and cannot move, do you want a 6’1″ 220lb. muscular man to carry you to safety, or a scrawny 5’2″ woman to slowly drag you out of danger (likely leading both of you to your deaths)?  When framed that way, it makes it more difficult to refute such concerns.  The problem inherent in this opposition is it underestimates the strength of all women (and/or overestimates the strength of all men) and exaggerates the differences between women and men by erasing the diversity among women and among men.  If we are actually concerned about the 5’2″ marine’s strength, why exclude 6’1″ muscular women from combat while including short, petite men?

Body shape and size aside, there is a good chance any fellow soldier will be able to carry you to safety.  Even beyond equality between women and men in strength, some things make me think women are actually stronger and tolerate a lot more pain in life than men.

But, some view the world through sexism-colored glasses, taking a perspective that places differences between men and women at the center, with beliefs about women’s inferior status, strength, intellect, and talent used as justification.  The problem, though, is that sexism also affords men the power to force this view, now matter how inaccurate; the reality according to sexism retains the status of Truth while everything else is an opinion.

Women Were Already In Combat

As I noted above, the lift of this formal policy prohibiting women from battle comes after women were already involved in war and combat. But, sexism-colored glasses blind us to the multiple wars that exist.  War is not merely a series of battles between nations (run by men) that officially declare war, drawing on armed militaries, and ultimately reach some peace settlement.  Throughout history, everyday, and everywhere, there are ongoing wars against women: sexism, patriarchy, misogyny, intimate partner violence, femicide, sexual violence, sexual harassment, sexual objectification, reproductive control, and so on.

War on Women

The Battle (For Equality) Is Not Over

Lifting the ban on women serving in combat is, indeed, a major victory for gender equality in the military.  But, the institution, like every other, remains anything but equal.  Though there are few remaining policies that explicitly discriminate against women, women in the military remain targets of discrimination, harassment, and sexual violence.  Among women service members who file charges when sexually assaulted or harassed, many are silenced, dismissed, or even falsely diagnosed with mental illness and discharged from the military.  Further, women and children of other nations are often unnecessarily or unfairly attacked, harassed, and sexually assaulted by US troops.

On a related note, we are still celebrating the recent repeal of the US Military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which prohibited openly lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people from military service.  However, transgender and gender non-conforming people are remain excluded from service.  And, although LGB individuals are officially included, the military is slow to recognize same-gender relationships and marriages, and to afford military benefits to same-gender partners.  By no means is the US military free of sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and racism.  But, there has been some (slow) progress toward equality.


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : America, Attitudes, Bodies, Difference, Discrimination, Equality, Gender, Gender Identity & Expression, Gender Non-Conformity, Heterosexism, Homophobia, Injustice, Institutional Discrimination, Justice, Law, LGBT People, Marriage Equality, Media, Military, Oppression, Politics, Power, Prejudice, Progress, Rape, Sexism, Sexual Violence, Sexuality, Social Change, Social Norms, Society, Standpoint, Stereotypes, The Body, Transgender, Transphobia, War, Women

How To Derail The Push For Equal Rights: Talk About Sex!

4 11 2012

Man entering women’s restroom.

“We just plain don’t like ‘em!” would be a difficult argument to sell as grounds to oppose equal rights and protection under the law for a marginalized group — and, this especially true in this era of supposed “political correctness,” “color-blindness,” and “post-racial”ness.  As such, opponents of equality must find more palpable reasons to either prevent the enshrining of equality into law or to strip away existing civil rights laws.

A few anti-equality strategies have existed for what seems forever:

  • Spread prejudice like a contagious virus!  Essentially — in the example of race — convince the white majority that people of color are inferior, whether it be due to biology, education, or culture, thus deeming them worthy of unequal treatment.
  • Selectively cite passages from the Bible!  Whether you want to justify the continuance of enslaving an entire race of people, or oppose interracial marriage or same-gender marriage, or maintain arbitrary restrictions on when and who can have sex, simply flip through the Bible (note: other religious texts do not seem to carry the same weight) until you find a passage that can be interpreted to support the status quo.  Or, if you are really gutsy, you can just make something up, like blaming lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people for natural disasters that affect everyone, including heterosexuals and cisgender people!
  • Pit marginalized groups against one another!  Want to really distract the majority from the problematic position of opposing equal rights?  One sure way to mix things up is to pretend to care about the well-being of a minority group, and suggest that granting more, “special” (i.e., undeserved) rights to one marginalized group threatens those of another.  A great example is the on-going effort to demonize Black Americans as a bigoted, uneducated mass that blindly follows religion in opposing the legalization of same-gender marriage.  Clearly, they are so behind the times, in this overwhelmingly LGBT-friendly nation!  This strategy is great because you can restrict the rights of one group while demonizing the other, or even convince the majority that the latter group has achieved full equality.

Scare Them With Sex

Hope is a great way to motivate and inspire a mass.  It worked for gay activist Harvey Milk, and it sure seemed to work to elect President Barack Obama.  Arguably, on the other side of the coin of hope is fear.  What better way is there to get people stirred up about something than to make them feel threatened.  And, if you really want to stall social progress, toss in some element of sex: promiscuity, teen pregnancies, sexual violence, pedophilia, pre- or extra-marital sex, sex work, etc.

Scholars who study how some matter related to sex is used as a fear tactic have called this “sex panic.”  That is, some sexual issue is argued to threaten the smooth functioning of society.  In many ways, the issue — say, comprehensive sexuality education in public schools — is intentionally shrouded by myths, stereotypes, biased or falsified research, and is often used to oppose or at least stall movement on a particular social or political issue.  Sometimes, the sexual issue is not even centrally related to the key issue being debated.  Here is a recent example:

Beware: Male Rapists Pretending To Be Transwomen!

Do you oppose the legal protection of transgender individuals from discrimination?  Hmm, well — one potential distraction is to draw on the cisgender majority’s fears of (cis)women helplessly being raped, and occasionally toss in some panic about pedophilia and threats to children’s sexual virtue.  Ongoing at Evergreen College:

“The decision to allow a transgender 45-year-old college student who identifies as a woman but has male genitalia to use the women’s locker room has raised a fracas among  parents and faith-based organizations, who say children as young as 6 years old use the locker room.”

This also has an element of pitting groups against one another.  Do we want to protect transpeople from discrimination, or do we want to protect (cis)women and children from sexual violence?

There are so many problems with this logic… where do I begin?  First, I will note that it is interesting that we go from protecting transpeople from discrimination in employment, public accommodations, and so forth, to concerns about the bathroom, nudity, and sex.  This stems from the real concerns that transpeople are frequently subject to discrimination, harassment, and violence — even in the bathroom!  Yet, ironically, the debates have flipped concern for the well-being of a marginalized group to concern for the protection of the privileged majority from the minority group.  The threatened has become a threat; the victim has become the victimizer.  This makes me think of one of my favorite lines from the 2007 remake of Hairspray:

Penny Pingleton, a young white girl (Amanda Bynes): I’m very pleased and scared to be here.

Motormouth Maybell, a middle-aged Black woman (Queen Latifah): Now, honey, we got more reason to be scared on your street.

Second, there is some effort to confuse the boundaries of who falls into the minority group, and who to the majority group.  Despite the challenges around accepting one’s (trans)gender identity, and to publicly acknowledging one’s identity, gender identity is talked about as an elective, easily moveable boundary.  So simple, a man could dress in feminine attire and freely use women’s facilities.  Somehow, transmen are erased from the conversation, and we reinforce the notion of males as natural rapist and females as natural victims.  And, transwomen continue to remain outside of the category of women; when we speak of concerns about women being raped in the bathroom, we only mean “real,” cisgender women.

Third, the rhetoric of rapists posing as women perpetuates the myth of the stranger lurking behind the bush, waiting to leap out and assault a helpless, unsuspecting victim.  Though most survivors of sexual violence know the perpetrator as romantic partners, relatives, friends, coworkers, etc., many carry an image of a mysterious, masked perpetrator, in this case, going to the lengths of dressing in feminine attire to prey on girls and women.

Fourth, bodies are conflated with sex, and sex is perpetually conflated with risk and danger.  In this case of the locker room at Evergreen College, complaints were made that girls saw a transwoman’s penis.  Okay?  And, I am sure they also see other women’s genitals, as well.  They have also seen women’s — cis and trans included — feet, hair, backs, arms, faces, and so on.  Clearly, genitals stand out as especially sexualized and provocative.  And, because we are talking about sex, we are worried about the harm it may cause — even outside of sexual violence.

Of course, sex panics are not limited to efforts to oppose equal rights and protections for transgender and genderqueer people.  The supposed concerns of gay men raping heterosexual men were often raised, or at least alluded to, from those who opposed repealing the US military’s ban on open LGBT servicepeople.  There is a long history of painting Black men as sexual predators who threaten the well-being and sexual virtue of white women — a viscous myth used to justify segregation, banning interracial marriage, and grounds to execute Black men through lynching based on lies or questionable evidence of a crime.  And, we continue to see myths shroud effective discussions about reproductive rights (especially abortion) and sexuality education in schools, namely by drawing forward concerns of sexual “irresponsibility” (i.e., promiscuity, unintended pregnancies, teen mothers).

Moving Forward: Education And Accountability

I will not attempt to provide a solution for ceasing the effective use of sex panics to derail equality.  But, there are some things that would be extremely helpful to move in that direction.  First, it is important that we take responsibility for educating ourselves.  This means taking the time to learn about the issue at hand in full.  In less than 24 hours, many voters around the country will be deciding whether to legalize same-gender marriage, bar public funding for abortion services, and eliminate Affirmative Action policies.

Rather than only hearing some of the overly-dramatic, often bigoted perspectives that call to deny marriage equality or rollback government initiatives to support women’s reproductive health and the equal opportunities for people of color, I would encourage taking a moment to find out what is really at stake.  Whether or not same-gender couples can get legally married has no bearing on the lives and relationships of heterosexual people — so, what will opposing it do?  Defunding Planned Parenthood would severely constrict its abortion services, but it also will constrain its resources and services for other aspects of sexual and reproductive health; further, only a small portion of PP’s budget goes to abortion services.  And, the sad reality is that doing away with abortion all together will not eliminate abortion — just access to safe, legal abortion services.  Affirmative Action — a policy that aims to redress the history of racist and sexist oppression in the US and promote equal opportunities — in its current, scaled down form, primarily serves to make hiring and admissions practices transparent and highlight the importance of taking into consideration a candidate’s background.  Doing away with the policy eliminates what little inequality-conscious practices exist in jobs and education.

I would also suggest that we must do a better job holding politicians, religious leaders, celebrities, and so forth accountable for the tactics they use to advocate certain causes.  It almost appears that little recourse exists, besides talk, for advancing lies, myths, stereotypes, and bigotry.  Though, for example, the Republican party may be slightly hurt in terms of votes and donations by their ongoing War on Women, many like Todd Akin continue on in their position.  It seems it is only when they are the subject of sex panics (i.e., sex scandals) that they are either forced out of their position or voluntarily step down from it.  Or, as many say, “no one died when Clinton lied,” referencing former President Bill Clinton’s extramarital affairs, leading to a Republican-led effort to impeach him from office.  Yet, his successor, George W. Bush, attempted to enshrine homophobic discrimination into the US Constitution, and failed to provide urgent aid following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita because of the large disadvantaged Black population in affected areas.  So long as we vote for and financially support leaders who lie and recycle tired stereotypes and myths, they stay in power.

Other than self-education and holding leaders accountable — Vote!  And, please keep these things in mind when you do.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Abortion, Activism, Affirmative Action, Black People, Bodies, Children, Cisgender People, Civil Rights, Criminal Justice, Discrimination, Divide & Conquer, Education, Elections, Equality, Gay Men, Gender, Gender Identity & Expression, Gender Non-Conformity, Genderqueer, Hate Crimes, Heterosexuals, History, Human Rights, Inequality, Injustice, Interracial, Irony, Justice, LGBT People, Marginalized Groups, Marriage Equality, Men, Minorities, Moral Panics, Morality, Oppression, People of Color, Politics, Power, Prejudice, Progress, Queer, Race, Racism, Rape, Reproductive Health, Reproductive Rights, Sex, Sexism, Sexual Assault, Sexual Health, Sexual Orientation, Sexual Violence, Sexuality, Social Change, Social Movements, Society, Stereotypes, The Body, Transgender, Transphobia, Violence, Voting, Women, Youth

[kinsey] What Is Sexual Harassment? A Different Perspective

15 10 2012

Anti-sexual harassment rally.

This was originally posted at Kinsey Confidential.

Think about this story for a moment:

In November [2009], … the Cheesecake Factory restaurant chain agreed to pay $345,000 to six male employees who claimed they were repeatedly sexually assaulted by a group of male kitchen staffers at a Phoenix-area restaurant.

Okay, now let me share another story with you:

…but one thing I noticed about him was that he feels up every woman he meets.

The first story came from an MSNBC article about the rising number of men filing formal claims of sexual harassment in the workplace.  The second story is a critique of a character on “The Real Housewives of Atlanta”, who is a gay man: can gay men sexually harass straight women?  I bet that there is a good chance that after reading the first story, you thought to yourself, “oh, the male perpetrators must be gay!”  And, after reading the second, you might have caught yourself questioning how a gay man could sexually harass a woman – why would he want to?

The point of this exercise is to highlight that many of us assume, even subconsciously, that sexual harassment entails some unwanted and harassing behaviors motivated by sexual desire.  So, some might find it confusing that a heterosexual person would harass someone of their same gender, or that a gay man might harass a woman.  But, what underlies sexual harassment is an expression of power – not desire.

The Traditional Definition Of Sexual Harassment

Beginning with the US Civil Rights Act of 1964, the dominant, legal definition of sexual harassment that has evolved overtime is one of harassing behaviors or differential treatment that are sexual in nature.  This includes unwanted sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and creating a hostile environment.  While it is understood that men can also be the victims of sexual harassment, men as harassers and women as targets of harassment is central to our common understanding of sexual harassment.  In fact, sexual harassment is commonly defined as a form of gender-based discrimination (against women).

Sexual Harassment As A Gendered Expression Of Power

There is a great deal of work, particularly in the social sciences, women and gender studies, and sexuality studies that demonstrates that sexual harassment is an expression of power, especially along the lines of gender.  For example, three sociologists recently published a study in which they found that women who hold supervisor-level positions are more likely than women who do not to experience sexual harassment.  These experiences for women supervisors largely serve to put them “in their place,” signaling that they are unwelcome in a position of power as women.  Unfortunately, factors beyond interactions among individuals appear to place women at greater risk for harassment: working in male-dominated fields, and being physical and socially isolated from other women.

Sexual Harassment Is Not (Only) About Gender

Indeed, women are not alone in being targets of sexual harassment.  Though less common, some men are victims of these experiences, as well.  In another sociological study on sexual harassment, a number of men reported experiencing sexually harassing behaviors; however, men are much more apprehensive to define these experiences as sexual harassment, probably because the common understanding limits these experiences to women.  This study also pointed out two interesting dynamics: adolescent males and men who are financially vulnerable (i.e., feel they do not have control over their financial situation) are more frequently targets of sexual harassment.

Indeed, sexual harassment is not merely a gendered phenomenon.  For example, there has been a great deal of attention in research to racial differences in women’s experiences of sexual harassment.  This work has explored whether women of color are more often targeted than white women, there are racial differences in defining one’s experiences as harassment, and whether women of color experience sexual harassment differently than white women.  Some Black feminist scholars like Patricia Hill Collins and Angela Y. Davis have noted that sexual harassment and other forms of sexual violence are manifestations of sexism, as well as racism and classism.

But, I wish to push this perspective one step further — sexual harassment is the sexual-based expression of any system of oppression, be it sexism, racism, homophobia or heterosexism, transphobia, classism, ableism, ageism, fatphobia, or xenophobia.  A few examples come to mind:

  • A white heterosexual man jokes with his Black heterosexual male coworker that he must have large penis.
  • A heterosexual woman doctor asks a lesbian patient about the particular sexual activities she engages in with her female sexual partners to make sense of why the patient does not regularly use (male) condoms or other forms of birth control.
  • A girl from a working-class background is teased frequently by boys at her school that she provides oral sex in the school bathroom to make money.
  • A cisgender man repeatedly asks his neighbor, a transman, about parts of his body and his sex life.

A Different Perspective

So, two related points come from this perspective on sexual harassment.  Sexual harassment is not limited to the unwanted and harassing behaviors that are sexual in nature by (heterosexual) men targeted toward (heterosexual).  To focus just on gender and, specifically on men as harassers and women as victims, forces us to overlook the other various ways in which sexual harassment occurs.  As a consequence, many people whose experiences fall outside of this traditional view may fail to define their experiences as sexual harassment, leading them to forgo seeking legal recourse or protection, or any actions to end the harassment in general.

The other related point is that this male-harasser-female-victim perspective is somewhat heterosexist; that is, it presumes that all parties involved are heterosexual.  By extension, this means that heterosexual desire must be present — one that entails a sexually aggressive heterosexual man and a sexually-disinterested heterosexual woman.  I must state this clearly, here: sexual harassment is not an expression of desire.  As such, one individual may repeatedly sexually harass another individual whom they do not find sexually desirable.  (In the case of sexual harassment between men, for example, it is probably the case that that heterosexual men sexual harass gay men much more frequently than the reverse.)

Now that US laws have shifted to reflect the reality that some men are survivors of sexual violence, it may be time to broaden how we define sexual harassment.  Indeed, we are beginning to acknowledge that men, too, are targets of sexual harassment.  But, it may be necessary that we recognize that sexual harassment may be an expression of racism, heterosexism, sexism, transphobia, classism, or any other form of oppression – as well as the intersections among them.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Activism, Bodies, Cisgender People, Classism, Discrimination, Equality, Feminism, Gender, Gender Identity & Expression, Heterosexism, Inequality, Injustice, Intersectionality, Kinsey Confidential, LGBT People, Marginalized Groups, Minorities, Oppression, People of Color, Power, Race, Racism, Rape, Sexism, Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment, Sexual Orientation, Sexual Violence, Sexuality, Social Norms, Society, Sociology, Transgender, Transphobia, Violence, Violence Against Women, Women, Women of Color, Work

Sexual Violence Among Children — How Do We Define It?

28 01 2012

The New York Times recently covered a story about a six-year-old boy who was suspended from school after touching the thigh or groin of another boy:

It started as schoolyard roughhousing during recess, with one boy’s hand allegedly touching the upper thigh, or perhaps the groin, of another. There were no reported witnesses, and it remains unclear if anyone complained, but the principal immediately suspended the student, placing the incident on the boy’s record as a case of “sexual assault.” The children involved were first graders — the purported assailant just 6.

The severity of the punishment for this incidence has caused a stir, highlighting a number of other cases where parents raise doubts about the appropriateness of the punishment:

Experts said such incidents are not isolated, but rather part of an emerging national trend. A similar case caused a sensation in Boston in November when a 7-year-old faced sexual harassment charges for kicking another boy his age in the groin during a fight.

Due to heightened concerns over bullying in recent years — spurred by a public awareness campaign following several child suicides — school administrators now feel pressure to act boldly in cases where students might face harassment.

Yet, what appears to be driving these concerns is the appropriateness of defining these behaviors as sexual assault:

Indeed, calling a matter “sexual” when a first-grader is involved seems at odds with California statutes that indicate that such intent can only be applied to children who are in fourth grade or older.

Stuart Lustig, a board-certified child psychiatrist at the University of California, San Francisco, said that in general it is quite common, normal even, for young children to touch each other’s genital areas. “It’s curiosity,” he said. “It’s not sexual in the adult sense.”

Dr. Lustig added that it would only become a concern if a young child does not stop when told the behavior is inappropriate. However, he said he had heard of cases where schools have acted immediately to discipline youngsters, even over a single schoolyard kiss. “Schools can sometimes respond very strongly because of the legal environment,” he said.

That is, there is apprehension — even legal codes — to conceptualize certain behaviors among young children as sexual violence.  But why?  It may be that:

  1. we believe that children are too young to understand sex and sexual violence, thus, they cannot be held accountable for their actions — at least for the first instance, and for minor, less intrusive events.  But, does this also mean that children are too young to discern touching and attention they want from that which is unwanted?
  2. we believe that children are too young to be sexual.  So, touching at this age should be seen as mere curiosity.  But, doesn’t this mean children are too young to consent, and, as such, all touching is considered sexual violence?

Then, what is sexual violence among children?  Are certain behaviors (touching, staring, flirtation) considered inappropriate if they are unwanted by the target of such behaviors?  Or, does it depend on the severity of the behaviors, either in how intrusive they are or how much they harm the target of the behaviors?  Or, rather, does it depend on the intentions of the child enacting these behaviors?

An Important Moment

Following the change to the federal law defining rape to include violence against men, this is an important moment to fully engage these kinds of messy questions.  In understanding sexual violence as an expression of power over another, we must ask ourselves what power, oppression, and violence look like for children.  Just as we are apprehensive to believe that a six-year-old boy intended to sexually assault another boy, we may be apprehensive to believe that six-year-olds understand power well enough to comprehend and enact sexual violence.  Despite also denying that young children are sexual, we must engage the question of consent for sexual activity and attention.  But, we cannot overlook that children can be the targets of unwanted sexual activity or attention just because young children may not be old enough to fully comprehend all of these complex issues (adults obviously struggle, too).

Childhood may offer an important moment to teach children about sexual violence so that they may better recognize it (and, hopefully prevent it in their communities) in adulthood.  We are sending mixed messages to our youth in ignoring some forms of sexual violence and severely prosecuting others, especially where the expressions of violence are more akin to bullying than sexual assault, rape, and sexual harassment.  Fortunately, there are some places like Middle Way House that work directly with children to teach them about healthy, consensual friendships and relationships.  But, obviously, there is so much more to do.


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Categories : Children, Community, Education, Media, Oppression, Power, Rape, Relationships, Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment, Sexual Violence

« Previous Entries