“I Shot the Sheriff” comes to mind

This is not the first, nor I fear the last news report we hear about law a enforcement official sexually assaulting women in their custody. This latest incident occurred in Oklahoma.

Authorities have charged Sheriff Mike Burgess with “coercing and bribing female inmates so he could use them in a sex-slave operation run out of his jail.”

[S]tate prosecutors filed 35 felony charges against him, including 14 counts of second-degree rape, seven counts of forcible oral sodomy and five counts of bribery by a public official. [...]

Among other things, Burgess is accused of having sex with a female drug court participant who was in his custody. The crimes are to have occurred between October 2005 and April 2007.

A federal lawsuit filed in October claims Burgess told one drug court participant he would have her sent to prison if she didn’t comply with his sexual demands. [...]

Burgess also faces two counts each of sexual battery, rape by instrumentation and subornation of perjury, and one count each of engaging in a pattern of criminal offenses, indecent exposure and kidnapping.

He could be sentenced to 467 years in prison if convicted on all counts, special prosecutor James Boring said, though a lesser sentence would be more likely.

The topic of violence against women came up at dinner last night. My friend shared a story about a conversation she had with a group of men who were trying to convince her that violence against women, and particularly rape, is a result of how men have evolved. Now I must confess I’m not precisely sure how they made this case, and I am sure it’s not because they are “anti-evolution” since I know some of the men and we are all activists who engage others in support for the theory of evolution.

My friend’s response to them was something like (not sure this is a completely accurate quote): “Then maybe the answer is that every time a man is convicted of raping a woman his punishment is to have his penis cut off — and then chopped up into a thousand little pieces in front of him. Maybe THAT would inspire men to evolve in a new direction.”

It’s an interesting thought.

People who know a lot more about this subject than I do have often told me that men who commit this type of violence rarely do it just once. For that reason they cringe when they hear the term “serial rapist” used to describe some men, because to them EVERY rapist is a serial rapist.

We have heard about the sexual violence taking place in our military, against our own female soldiers. There are countless stories of women being used as weapons of war, with the action usually involving rape and other forms of torture. We know that sexism is ingrained in our culture, and contributes to a sense of entitlement some men feel towards women. My question is when, as a nation, are we ever going to address this?

I can hear the comments now … your post is titled “I Shot the Sheriff” … you’ve talked about chopping off a man’s penis … doesn’t this contribute to the whole issue of violence?  Maybe it’s the way some women have evolved.

kareem hears a sexist

I haven’t seen the film “Horton Hears a Who” but find the following message telling about our culture. Basketball great Kareem Abdul-Jabbar might seem at first glance an unlikely source of insight on the issue of sexism, but he has clearly demonstrated why stereotyping is not only wrong, but dangerous.

In his post “Horton hears a racist” — Abdul-Jabbar’s take on the “Horton” film — the star athlete asks: “How can a beloved Dr. Seuss story do so much harm?”

This isn’t a review of the movie, it’s a review of how Hollywood sometimes contributes to the divisiveness within the country. Ironically, Horton Hears a Who has done more damage to our society than the recent slate of politically motivated movies about the war in Iraq (Rendition, Stop-Loss, Lambs for Lions, Redacted, In the Valley of Elah, etc.) has done good. For one thing, more people saw Horton than saw all the other movies combined.

How can a beloved Dr. Seuss story do so much harm? Well, the original book by Dr. Seuss is just fine, a timeless tale that has been delighting children since it was first published in 1954. The story of the brave elephant that is willing to endure the harshest condemnation from his friends and community in order to protect those in need is a wonderful lesson for children.

But then along comes the movie. To make the story long enough for a full-length movie, a sub-plot was added about the mayor of Whoville who has 96 cheerful daughters and one brooding son. This is where things take a nasty turn. Basically, the mayor ignores his 96 daughters in order to groom his uninterested son to become mayor. Why doesn’t he groom one of his much more enthusiastic daughters? And, of course, it is the brooding son who, in the end, saves the entire world of Whoville. The daughters? They get to cheer from the sidelines. While it’s true that in the book a “very small shirker named Jo-Jo” does add his tiny voice to the din and thus saves Whoville, but that promotes the idea that we all have our part to play in our community, not that sons are smarter than daughters.

“Hey, it’s just a cartoon,” you might say. But this particular cartoon will be seen by millions of children around the world. And they will come away with a clear impression that a single son is worth more than 96 daughters. Those boys are inherently more valuable than girls, and more likely to be successful (in this case, in saving the world) than girls.

What’s especially insidious here isn’t just that the subplot was written and approved and filmed, but that since the movie has come out, there hasn’t been a popular outcry about it. That we don’t even ask why, in the years it took to make the movie, no one along the line said, “This isn’t a good message to send to our kids.” Is it because sexism is so ingrained in our society that we don’t even flinch at it when it’s shoved in our faces?

So where is the outcry?

If you read the comment thread following the post you will discover that tragically, sexism is so ingrained in our culture that even when it’s so clearly pointed out to them many still fail to see it.

Clinton: the woman vs the person and feminism vs humanism

Whew … the title alone might be enough to either draw you in, or turn you away completely, depending on your perspective. I love Melissa McEwan’s writing, and the title of this post combines two of her recent entries at Shakesville that I think are must read posts:

Clinton the Woman vs. Clinton the Person
posted by Melissa McEwan

“… a commenter said (with regard to the “when he hears the senator’s voice, he’s overcome by an urge to punch her in the face” quote highlighted in my Feminism and Humanism piece): “I want to punch Clinton the person, not Clinton the woman.”

“These are not separable identities. [...]

“I see this notion everywhere—that some violent urge toward Hillary Clinton isn’t aimed at “Clinton the woman,” but at some other magical version of her where her sex and gender have been erased, presumably along with the entire cultural context of womanhood. The semantic contortions invoked to extricate “Hillary Clinton the person” from “Hillary Clinton the woman” are an attempt to do an end-run around that context, to create a space outside of reality, where Hillary Clinton exists in some sexless, genderless limbo and people can talk about wanting to injure that non-woman without all the icky negative images injuring actual women conjures for most decent people. [...]

“Here’s the thing: Hillary Clinton can’t escape the context of womanhood by wishing it away, and you can’t wish it away, either. She can’t wave a magic wand and erase it to her benefit, and you can’t declare it irrelevant while discussing how you want to pummel her. She doesn’t get to say, “I’m not running for president as a woman; I’m running for president as a person,” because being a woman still matters in this culture; womanhood still precludes full personhood. You don’t get to pretend that’s not the reality in which we live to declare you’re punching “Hillary Clinton the person,” not “Hillary Clinton the woman.”

This provides additional context for the previous comments.

Feminism 101: Feminism and Humanism
posted by Melissa McEwan

Why feminism (where “feminism” means sex equality) cannot be subsumed by humanism (where “humanism” means equality for all humans): Because the majority of humans still don’t understand why calling Hillary Clinton a cunt and a whore is sexist.

That’s the short version. But since I am never succinct when verbosity will do…

From Rebecca Traister’s Hey, Obama boys: Back off already! (emphasis and bracketed edit mine):

One of my closest girlfriends, an Obama voter, told me of a drink she’d had with a politically [faux]gressive man who made a series of legitimate complaints about Clinton’s policies before adding that when he hears the senator’s voice, he’s overcome by an urge to punch her in the face.

That’s a visceral and violent reaction to something that is specifically feminine.* And as long as there are men, who would ostensibly be part of the “humanist” movement, yet retain a visceral and violent reaction to the feminine, there is no foundation for a sexless, “humanist” movement.