So Marissa Mayer gets attacked for taking a 2-week maternity leave and building a nursery next to her office, yet a short while back Anne-Marie Slaughter was getting taken to task for leaving her executive level position in government because she couldn’t balance work and family?

Personally, I am relieved that Mayer is finding ways to make a high-level career and motherhood work. I would not have been able to stomach the gleeful gloating that would have erupted had she had her child and then stepped down.  When Mayer’s selection at Yahoo! was announced, the big question was whether a new mom could handle that level of responsibility.  And it appears that she can, with an ample support system and a ton of resources.  Just like men do.

Frankly, I am little dismayed about all the outrage over her nursery and 2 week maternity leave.  I don’t read about those things and feel like she’s doing or getting anything out of the ordinary for a high level executive.  But I also don’t internalize comments like “My baby is easy” as “and if yours isn’t, you’re a terrible mom” or equate a 2 week maternity leave with hating on maternity leave.  Most of the vitriol is coming from other women – why?

Katie Roiphe had a valid point when she pointed out that liberals (her word, not mine) are always pushing for more female executives and yet look at the treatment of Mayer and Sandberg.  Who wants to be a feminist executive when you get attacked for being successful?  Why are we not supporting these women for making it, especially in the male-dominated tech field?

I am not a high level executive, as I have time to write for this blog and spend an incredible amount of hours reading feminist-y stuff on the internet.  But I have worked directly under high level executives before.  In that organization, there were 4 male executives and three female executives.  Each of those 7 people easily spent twelve to fourteen hours in the office and worked every weekend.  All had a bunch of advanced degrees.  Traveled at the drop of a hat.  Subsisted on coffee and bars.  Scheduled meetings all day with no lunch break. That was what it took to do that job.

Executives are elites.  Very few people can perform at their level.  Fewer choose to do it because depending on the industry, your quality of life sucks even if you’re making a lot of money.  There is no 3 month maternity leave for many executives even if their company provides it and supports it.  But if you’re someone like Mayer, you can handle that with the resources you have available.  As a feminist community, I don’t think we should be judging Mayer’s lack of maternity leave.  We should be talking about the average woman’s shoddy maternity leave.

I don’t think having a small percentage of women executives or members of congress is enough to change the culture of American corporate or political organizations.  It’s not fair to look at Mayer and her revoking her company’s telework policy (or her lack of maternity leave), and claim that female executives behave just like male executives.  It’s like putting a few drops of food coloring into a few gallons of water and expecting it to change color.  We need a critical mass, a tipping point to change culture.  Otherwise, the argument sounds similar to Rush Limbaugh lamenting about how he just doesn’t understand why Hispanics lean Democrat despite the Republicans having Marc Rubio.

As the “token” women executive, Mayer and Sandberg are expected to represent and speak for and to all women.  Generally, if someone is a “representative” to a certain population than there probably isn’t enough of them to show a sincere investment.  Too much of this criticism directed toward Mayer and Sandberg seems unwarranted.

Has this tired discussion about whether women having families and high level careers switched from being about gender to being about class?  Successful women like Mayer and Sandberg are getting labeled as out of touch elites, privileged rich girls, lucky girls who are too full of themselves to see how lucky they really are.   Maybe they are.  However, we seem to be leaning towards this approach towards super successful women, with the exception of Sonia Sotomayer as of late, where their merit is discredited because they have some privilege.

We shouldn’t act like the only reason Mayer and Sandberg are successful just because they are rich or white or grew up middle class.  First of all, we don’t treat men executives this way.  Second of all, plenty of people grow up with that privilege and don’t become executives of major tech companies.  Yes, having those attribute is a privilege and yes, most of the time that makes someone’s life easier and more successful.   And yes, we should identify privilege in the course of discussion.  But are we judging executive women too harshly for having it?

Reading Maureen Dowd’s hypocritical caricature of Sandberg for being self-entitled while giving other women advice reminded me of Phyllis Schlafly’s successful national speaking career where she told women their place was in the home, not having a career.  Really Ms. Dowd? Could you not, perhaps, see just a little bit of yourself in what you wrote?

Have you ever been in a conversation where someone mentions anything that isn’t related to a scarcity of food/water/shelter/democracy and someone responds “Oh, first world problems” in a sarcastic tone and the conversation shuts down because there’s really not a great response to that?  That’s what I feel is going on when we talk about successful women.  When people freaked out about poor women not being able to “lean in” to their careers, did anyone stop to consider that maybe Sandberg wasn’t speaking to that group of women? And that it’s ok if she was only targeting her advice to middle/upper class career women?

Feminism needs to belong to everyone, those who have made it and those who are still working on making it.  Depending on country, race, social status, wealth etc. feminism is going to look different for different groups of women.  I feel like we are losing that perspective, that inclusiveness.  Are women, especially college educated women who have some privilege, not identifying with feminism because it only seems relatable to women who are struggling or belong to women who lack privilege?  By misinterpreting collective action as meaning what works for one woman must work for all women, are we are losing relevancy in a lot of women’s lives?

I want feminism to stay relevant.  I also want more female executives.

Photo credit: jdlasica via photopin cc.

Everyone seems to be following the Gen. David Petraeus affair in I-can’t-tear-myself-away fashion.  But are we getting caught up with what is appearing to be a run of the mill affair that got over-hyped and sensationalized?  And are we such a prude nation that in our eager attempt to punish adulterers we are A-OK about losing an important public official over an affair in the year 2012?

Maybe I’ve read too many Dan Savage columns about straight people needing to relax their infidelity standards, or maybe I’m really tired of the slut-shaming and the invasion of privacy that seems to go way too far in cases like these.  I’m not trying to excuse anyone’s bad behavior or poor judgment.  It’s an unusual day when I agree with Katie Roiphe on something.

But I just don’t buy the argument of an affair possibly causing a national security risk.  Paula Broadwell served in the reserves after being active-duty Army, and had her own security clearance.  She was embedded with Petraeus’ staff in Afghanistan, and spent a lot of time interviewing a lot of people.  I doubt the affair added any access to information than the incredible level of access she already had.  If we are concerned about national security risks, maybe we should be looking at the practice of embedding journalists (scholarly or not) in high-level military environments.  Or ensuring that volunteers (socialite or not) have appropriate tasks, oversight, and access to high-level people.

When affairs become public it makes some people feel better about themselves, some more appreciative of their relationships, some thankful for their anonymity, and some relieved to see that that wealthy, beautiful and/or successful people also have similar doubts, insecurities, loneliness, and extremely poor judgment when in love just like everyone else.   Lots of normal everyday people cheat on their partners, and even more people have work crushes or flirtations with random people in their lives, or sometimes wonder what it would be like to be with someone else.  So let’s simmer down on making all these public people’s private lives news, because it’s common place.

There are bigger issues that we should be looking at instead of making puns and writing racy headlines about the distracting ‘sexy’ part of this incident.  For example:

• The frequency of sexual assault in the military.  An affair between two consenting adults is generating more anger and concern about military leadership’s morality and ability to lead than an unbelievable amount of sexual violence.  This is a serious disconnect.
• The concern for privacy in our electronic communications.  Everyone at this point has written a few emails they would not want to be public – or at least a few Google searches.
• The FBI investigated something that was probably not worth investigating due to personal interests, and then weirdly reached out to Congress members.  Was there a breach of ethics or information in this case?
• The impact of war on service members, veterans, and their families is not getting the attention it deserves.
• Media coverage using the same tired virgin/whore dichotomy.

To me the bigger concern is how the media coverage of this story is re-playing the same virgin/whore dichotomy about the women involved, and slut-shaming away through anonymous sources about trivial actions that apparently make someone a harlot.  The fact that Petraeus is being alternatively portrayed as an extraordinary man who had a big lapse in judgment is sexist in that women, regardless of their status, do not get that consideration.  This characterization of women as non-complex, good or evil, in this cartoon fashion is damaging.

I am relieved that for the most part Holly Petraeus is not being portrayed as “humiliated” or as a victim as though the behavior of her husband is her responsibility or embarrassment.  She’s being described as “furious” which while it may or may not be true, I think is a step-up.  Although I did just see a slide show that described her as a “scorned wife” ….sigh.  Shame on you CNN.

Photo credit hectorir via the Creative Commons License.

First, Adrian Chen identified Reddit’s notorious Violentacrez, the man behind the infamous Jailbait Reddit and a bunch more misogynist ones.  And then Anonymous released the name and information of the man allegedly responsible for the harassment that pushed Amanda Todd to commit suicide.

If you haven’t seen Amanda’s Youtube video, it’s heartbreaking, especially since Amanda recently committed suicide.  After flashing on a webcam when she was in middle school, a man harassed, harassed and blackmailed her – including sending naked photos to her friends and family and put them on Facebook.

I feel sick over what happened to Amanda, and all the other women and girls who have had something similar happen to them.  Reading the comments of all the coverage these two stories, I am relieved to see the vast majority of the people damning this type of predatory behavior.  But even on Jezebel, there are still some victim blaming comments.  And that makes me want to throw-up.

My stalker ex-boyfriend did something similar to me, although thankfully there were never any pictures.  The sense of violation I felt knowing that my friends and family had been sent repeated communications about me of a sexual nature and smearing my character was almost unbearable.  Having lived through that, I can’t imagine how much worse it would have been if he had taped or photographed me without my knowledge.

People have made the usual complaints about the need to protect internet anonymity and vigilante justice and argued that what Chen and Anonymous did isn’t right.  However, as so many others have pointed out, it’s hard to feel sorry for someone like Michael Brutsch losing their privacy when they made a habit from taking it away from others and using it to humiliate them.

I don’t believe that  Brutsch’s situation is comparable to the hypothetical outing of a small town closeted gay couple or a random employee getting fired for politics that are contrary to those of their employer who have their identities exposed.  Violentacrez was a well-known, infamous, and controversial moderator on one of the most popular internet sites, and I think what Chen did falls along the lines of investigative journalism on someone newsworthy. To me, the bullying accusations against Chen aren’t accurate.

I also don’t feel sorry for Brutsch losing his job.  When an employer Googles your name and naked pictures or a website designed to smear you shows up – you’re not going to get hired, and that’s what happens to women who wind up on any number of creep-ass sites. It’s nearly impossible to get any recourse.  Victims often face more exposure taking someone to court.  I took my stalker to court and won, but the process was so grueling, expensive and at times humiliating… that I completely understand why people choose not to.

I am hoping that the outing of some of the notorious trolls like Brutsch serves as a kind of class-action lawsuit for the internet masses.  It’s not going to stop every jerk from taking creep shots or posting revenge pictures of an ex, but I do think it causes at least a reasonable amount of fear of repercussions that some people aren’t going to do it.  And at the very least, a small barrier is better than none.

The internet is real life – I’m really tired of seeing “IRL” everywhere.  This idea that there is a big wall of separation between online and non-online life isn’t true anymore.  The consequences of people’s behavior online happen in real life.  People generally are who they are. The man accused of harassing Amanda was just in court for a sexual crime against a minor.  Haven’t we seen enough examples of predatory behavior online leading to someone getting hurt later on?

There have been some comments about how we need to address sexual shaming, and that if there wasn’t the degree of shame around bodies and sexuality people would not be committing suicide over things like this.  But I don’t buy that it’s all about shame – it’s also about privacy, the ability to control your own image, and the vulnerability that comes with constantly being attacked in a public forum.  Having embarrassing photos show up online could be taken of anyone in the course of their every day life – taking a shower at the gym, riding unconscious in an ambulance, wearing a skirt, or using a public bathroom.

I don’t believe that allowing victims of stalking, intimidation or harassment some level of recourse will affect all other internet users to the point no one will have any privacy.  I just don’t.  After the Rutgers sentencing, I hope that legislation gets passed that makes it easier for victims to get information about their attackers for obvious cases of stalking, blackmail and intimidation or making it easier to sue or for the police to press charges. It should not be so easy for someone to ruin someone else’s life.

As the election cycle ramps up, issues like poverty and socio-economic inequality are getting a little more (but not enough) coverage in the news cycle.   The state of the economy and ability to make a living is important – and the current status of the average American worker … isn’t great right now.   And along with articles about not getting paid sick days, or that average job wages in America are dismally low, I’ve noticed a bunch of articles cropping up about vacation time and flexible work schedules.   I can’t help but think these issues are related.

There’s no doubt that it’s tough being underemployed or underpaid.  From Barbara Ehrenreich’s classic book Nickel and Dimed to Joseph Stiglitz’s newer The Price of Inequality and just about every health care debate, the lower and middle class are getting squeezed.  As a generalization, things are generally getting somewhat harder overall to live the American dream.

Still, I was kind of taken back by the negative reaction to articles about people actually taking their vacation time or the work-life balance desires of millennials.  With all the controversy Ann-Marie Slaughter’s article in the Atlantic whipped up, the one thing most people seemed to agree upon was that we do need workplace practices that are  more flexible, whether to accommodate for families, chronic illness, or passion for hobbies or part-time jobs.

From unpaid sick days to unpaid maternity leave to rigid schedules, the business world could be a little kinder to the realities of living.  For those of us who have paid sick days, try this experiment: Take your take home pay, divide by 10 to get your per pay per day, and then figure out what your financial status this month would be if you got the flu, missed 3 days of work, and didn’t get paid.   I’d be in a tough spot.  And maternity leave … well that’s a whole another series of posts.

It’s obvious that we have somewhat speeded up the world, increased our ability to communicate, and compressed geographic barriers thanks to technology.  No real arguments there.   How we do work has changed dramatically over the last few decades.

So why is the idea of telework or compressed schedules or even taking a vacation met with an accusation of being a slacker?   In a tougher global economy, why do ideas that reduce turnover and overhead get met with such hostility?  People may not work if they are not if the office, but there are plenty of people who go to work and don’t do very much too.  If a business can’t tell what or when someone is producing, there are some bigger problems that need to be sorted out.

And if a company can’t pay someone more, why not make it more comfortable or give people more control over their work or environment?  I would take a significant pay cut to work from home on my own schedule, but I wouldn’t make that switch if I lost my healthcare coverage.   Other people might do the opposite.  Employers should be figuring out what they can offer to employees, and finding people who want what they are offering.  I think this is one way to reduce costs and be competitive.

I have a friend who recently started a family, and she chose to work for a boutique firm in her field because she was able to work out of her home.  She could work for a bigger firm and get a bigger check, but saving time on the commute is partly what makes her childcare affordable.   Quality of life is a big part of how people make decisions.  My friend is getting a better work-life balance, and the employer is getting a more experienced hire than usual at that pay range.

Recently a study claimed that many seniors die with less than $10,000 in assets – basically close to broke.  So we might as well take our vacation.  The interesting thing to look at will be if the millennials continue to implement these changes as they take over management positions from the baby boomers.

Photo Credit rankun76 via the Creative Commons License.

A lot has been written about Savannah Dietrich, the 17 year old girl who almost faced jail time for tweeting the names of her rapists.  After her story went viral, the prosecutor decided not to file charges against Dietrich for violating a judge’s order to stay quiet about her case.  Guilt was well proven – both boys had plead guilty, and had taken pictures of themselves assaulting Dietrich which they then showed to others.  But in a stunning twist of ironic cruelty, the court system awarded a high level of privacy to the rapists who had not only violated Dietrich but then publicized it afterward.

While Dietrich’s initial action of tweeting their names appears to come from a place of hurt, anger, and frustration, her later interview showed a determined young woman who wants to right some of the unfairness that can happen to survivors when they go through the legal system.  Reactions to Dietrich have taken a wide range of viewpoints, and I want to give some props to some of what has been said already.

Jessica Valenti, on re-directing shame towards the perpetrators rather than the survivors, on The Nation.

Amanda Hess, on the ability for survivors to become the “the editor of her own story” and changing the way we talk about sexual assault in America, on Slate.

Zerlina, on how reducing isolation can help other heal, on Feministing.

And my favorite, Cara from the Curvature, who criticized some of the non-profits and spokespeople who said Dietrich should have asked the court to vacate the order instead of circumventing it.  The author discusses how problems with how sexual assaults are reported and handled in the criminal justice system stem from patriarchy, and we should be forcing those institutions to change rather than survivors to comply.

I loved Dietrich’s defiance and her anger.  Women are still criticized or dismissed for coming off angry, but sometimes we need that explosion to break through.  Whether the judge’s gag order was constitutional or not, Dietrich did what so many other women, myself included, wanted to do while going through the legal system – say Fuck You.  And get some attention and generate energy for change while saying it.

Dietrich in my mind did two new things in public that could change the way we discuss sexual assault.  She claimed her right not to be raped, drinking be damned, loud and proud.  She has that right.  We all do.  But so many women still place blame on themselves.  She is young and unapologetic.  We need that.

And she went nuclear with her anger.  No polite, practiced statement talking about our communal social ills.  Instead, Dietrich gave a raw, angry counter attack on the privacy of the two jerks that took hers away.  We need some of that in feminism.  SlutWalk had some of that energy too, but the message was not something everyone could get behind.  A brave woman taking a stand against an unfair court ruling is righteous anger, and I haven’t read anything that dismisses the legitimacy of her actions – just whether or not it was legal.

I am disappointed that I can’t find the attackers’ names after 15 minutes of searching.  Despite supporting Dietrich, many media sources are still not naming the attackers, probably because they are minors.  I sincerely hope one of the big papers that has the money to get sued does it.  That said, the boys on the bus taunting Karen Klein got a far more public shaming than these two boys ever will and that doesn’t seem fair.   To be shamed in their own community doesn’t seem to be enough, since they were bragging about what they did in the first place.

The legal system is only set up to protect perfect victims (from old patriarchal fairy tales), and even then the system often falls short.  Going through court proceedings or reporting an assault can be a form of brutal hazing.  Survivors feel powerless to challenge the system, especially when they’re trying to win.  Dietrich gave a shot across the bow. With a cannon.  And I hope other women start doing the same.

Image credit A1Social.

This past week, we celebrated World Population Day.  It’s not news to anyone that the world’s population keeps getting larger while the world stays the same size and gets a little dirtier.  Population growth is an issue that needs to be carefully addressed in the future, as the world continues to fight poverty, disease, and resource shortages.   Access to family planning and reproductive health services is a necessity not only to responsibly address population growth, but to achieve quality of life for the people who are already here on earth.

Kenya recently reduced restrictions on abortions, despite political pressure from the religious and right wing groups in the United States.   Approximately 30-40 percent of the maternal death rate in Kenya is estimated to be caused by unsafe abortions.   No matter what side of the abortion debate one sides with, there is no justice in women hemorrhaging to death from an unsafe abortion.   I want to acknowledge the Kenyan government for changing policy to support the outcomes they want to achieve, rather than being pushed off course by tradition or political pressure.

There is a landslide of research that has shown that family planning and birth control reduce the need for abortions.   Unfortunately, the Mexico City policy and Bush administration foreign aid policies reduced the amount of aid for family planning.  Desperate women do desperate things when there are no good options available to them.   Making abortion illegal will not deter women from trying home remedies or falling prey to the promises of back door or underground providers.  We know this.  We have seen this in our own past.

We Americans argue about abortion, and now, unbelievably, birth control, from a position of privilege.  Condoms are available in drug stores and gas stations.  There are numerous of credible websites with information about reproductive health options.   We have the luxury of debating hospital verse home birth because there is an option.  We can make a 911 call or a trip to the ER if something bad happens.

Other women in other countries do not have these options.  There are no drug stores or skilled birth attendants or 911 calls to make.  To get pregnant is a risky and dangerous endeavor.  If something goes wrong during pregnancy, birth or an unsafe abortion, there is a fair chance the woman and baby might die.  Around the world, women consistently give birth in circumstances that would not be acceptable in America.  We know this – we have watched from afar and reviewed statistics and read the United Nations Population Fund fact sheets.

And yet, here somehow in 2012 we are still arguing about family planning here and abroad.  Watching the fight over reproductive health this year, I feel the same way I did after watching the inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina: Disbelief that this really could be happening in America.  Despite all we know, we are still debating basic reproductive health options like birth control or the right to have an abortion due to a medical emergency.

I understand the lack luster political response to family planning and abortion needs in other countries.  It’s easy for politicians to pass policy on –isms and –ologies to get votes when we don’t have skin in the game.  But I don’t know how to explain the lack of concern in America by the general population about our reproductive health options.  Maybe we don’t believe that we can slide backwards enough to get upset.

But Mississippi’s last abortion clinic is fighting to keep its doors open.   Are we going to wait until the maternal death rate in Mississippi gets to an unacceptable rate before doing something to increase reproductive health services?  Desperate women do desperate things when there are no good options available to them.   We know this.  In so many horrible statistics that represent women’s lives ended and ruined, we know this.

Photo Credit AP Photo. 

The Atlantic has done it again – ignited a controversy with an article about women and the workplace.  Anne-Marie Slaughter’s piece “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All” is giving Hanna Rosin’s “The End of Men” a run for its is-feminism-bad-or-good-for-women-in-the-workplace money.

There has been a lot of conversation lately about women in the workplace, work/life balance, and a few flare ups from the mommy wars set.  My partner sent me an article about the rising stress level of women in their late 20’s and early 30’s (as a hint, maybe?) and I have written previously about burn-out in young women professionals.   This topic seems to be touching a nerve with a lot of people.

Slaughter was a former high level official at the Department of State who went back to teaching full time at Princeton to spend more time with her family.  Her experience left her feeling that holding an executive level profession in government and raising children were incompatible, unless as that tag line to the article reads, one is “superhuman, rich or self-employed.”

Slaughter writes in detail about the struggles of spending week days in Washington DC and weekends in Princeton, NJ with her family and having a job that has little vacation time or the inability to take time off.  Working class and poor families face these same struggles, often as parents hold down more than one job.  But what’s interesting about Slaughter is that she is a woman who has attained a level of professional success that very few people, men or women, ever accomplish.   She’s a certified wonk rock star.  It’s not the typical voice telling younger women “it’s impossible – even when you get to the top.”

As a woman who aspires to an executive leadership role, Slaughter’s words “I was increasingly aware that the feminist beliefs on which I had built my entire career were shifting under my feet” made my blood run cold.  But I have a hard time believing that feminism, or being a woman, is what’s causing these issues.   Stephanie Koontz wrote an excellent response titled Why is ‘Having it All’ Just a Women’s Issue? re-framing the issued as inadequate work policies that negatively impact all workers.  But I think women should stop thinking that “having it all” means doing it all.

Both Slaughter and Koontz offer great alternatives to current unnecessarily rigid work schedules and leave policies.  And both point out the penalties women workers face by men and women managers for appearing too focused on their children or from leaving the work force for periods of time.  But I think what’s missing from pieces like Slaughter’s is the conversation about why male executives don’t feel the same type of work or family pressures.   Maybe women should relax a little bit about the ridiculously high bar we have set for motherhood, or stop thinking every career choice we make is a political statement about the plight of the American woman.

I believe that a small percentage of jobs require tremendous time and energy, and that any person in that job along with their family will have to make some sacrifices.  I believe every person and every family has a limited amount of bandwidth.   I don’t believe in supermen or superwoman.  I wonder if Slaughter’s experience would have been different if her husband had stayed home full-time, or if she had moved her family to DC, or if she would have hired someone to help with her errands.  I wonder if she ever had a conversation with her husband and her children to discuss the support she would need from them to make their family run well.  Yes, I said ‘her children’ – teenagers are capable of contributing to their household.  I can’t buy that women, with the same level of support at home, can’t happily perform in high profile or high stress professions.

I support  flexible leave policies and work schedules.  I think we need family leave and health care reform so working parents are better able to balance their needs.  All workers would benefit from an overhaul of the American work culture that increased flexibility – whether to be a caregiver, work on a degree, do something part time that you love, maintain health insurance, save commute time, or whatever needs or wants are on their plate.  Employers gain an edge by having attractive retention and recruitment incentives – not to mention happier and often more productive workers.

But even if we gain those improvements and freshen up management practices, many executive level jobs are going to remain the same in terms of demands.  We will need to change our cultural assumptions about gender roles and our self-induced pressures about work and motherhood to make those positions attractive or possible for women.

We are in a tough place where we need to increase the number of women leaders at the same time we need to change current work practices in America to be more worker friendly.  But will we be able to do one without the other?

Photo Credit Jerry Bunkers via Creative Commons License.

This story made me want to throw up: A North Carolina police officer was recently demoted and is facing a lawsuit after two women accused him of stalking them.  Richard Jenkins III was the head of the domestic violence unit, and began stalking both women after they came to his unit seeking protection from abusive spouses.  Two other police officers backed-up the first woman’s story, and somehow the Irdell County police department thought it was appropriate to demote Jenkins but not fire him.

I don’t know what’s more disgusting.  On one hand, it sounds like two other police officers, who swore to serve and protect, witnessed a co-worker committing a crime against someone and didn’t report it or try to stop it.  And on the other hand, a police officer who was the head of the domestic violence unit committed a crime he should have been specifically trained to prevent and stop.   I use the word disgusting instead of shocking, because this is nothing new.  But seriously, how is this man not fired?  And why are charges not being filed against him?

In other law enforcement news this week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced the Department of Justice would be investigating the local and university police department in Missoula Montana.  Eighty rapes have been reported in approximately three years, and Holder stated there is a concern women may being discriminated against based on their gender and not receiving adequate police services.  The local prosecutor and chief of police have denied any wrong doing or mismanagement.  The prosecutor even went so far as to state that he had “no reason to believe anyone’s constitutional rights were violated.”  Ummm, what?  No reason… at all? To quote Jezebel’s Katie J.M. Baker “He deserves to be fired on that statement alone.”

It’s sad and a little tiring to keep reading about law enforcement committing crimes against women or not taking them seriously.  At this point it should be obvious to everyone, especially to law enforcement, that sexual assault is a predatory behavior targeted toward victims who are in a vulnerable state.   Even if rape is hard to prove in court, prosecutors should go for it.  Even without a conviction, forcing the alleged perpetrator to go through the system, get finger printed, spend money on a lawyer, and go through an interrogation sends a message.  It’s still nothing close to what victims go through.  But it’s better than nothing.

Photo Credit Yvan Agnesina via Creative Commons License

When I was stalked, I experienced first-hand the limits of the justice system and the burden that gets placed on victims.  In the last few decades, there have been numerous improvements in the way survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence are treated and the way the justice system prosecutes violence against women.   This week is National Crime Victims’ Rights Week, and the National Center for Victims of Crime has great resources and ways to get involved.

In feminist spaces, we spend a lot of time discussing how violence intersects with gender and the impact violence has on women.   I am quick to call someone out on a rape joke, to dissect and point out bias in reporting, and throw out statistics about violence against women if I see even a glimmer of a teachable moment.  However, I am still struggling with the extent to which I may be participating in and even encouraging a culture obsessed with violence once I remove the gender lens.

If you have 20 minutes, I would recommend reading  “A Grief Like No Other” by Eric Schlosser, an excellent non-fiction article about victim’s rights, America’s obsession with murders, and the impact of violence on victims’ loved ones.   The term “rape culture” is well-known to feminists, but the Shlosser’s use of “culture of murder” was new to me.  As I read, I recognized myself as both the victim of a crime and a voyeur of crime, which was very uncomfortable.   If I wouldn’t make a rape joke, why was it ok to watch shows that feature violence as a leisure activity?  I had never considered what I thought to be news, entertainment, or fascinating case study about crime to be exploitive or dulling sensitivity to something that causes other great pain.

I remember being in the domestic violence intake room filing for a protective order, and noticing that an episode of Criminal Minds was playing on the waiting room TV.  There was a woman running for her life and looking over her shoulder for her attacker.  I remember thinking that many real women have probably made that run and didn’t make it, which made me feel kind of sick.   It does not say much for the level of cultural sensitivity society displays towards victims of crime, when even in a domestic violence intake center normal TV programming includes shows that are based on murder.

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was first enacted in 1994, reauthorized in 2000, and is in the process of being reauthorized again this week.  New provisions extend protections to gays, lesbians, transgendered people, Native American women and immigrant women.  Some Senate Republicans are withholding their support for VAWA due to the new provisions, which I and others believe is wrong.   Everyone should be protected against sexual or domestic violence.   We should just be as serious about fighting violence against all other people.  VAWA should not be interpreted as special protections for women, but a mechanism for ensuring women (and everyone else) get the protection owed to them under the law.

A US Federal judge recently ruled that Twitter had to reveal the identity of the twitter user who recently threatened to rape Michele Bachmann with a machete.  Hallelujah!

While anonymity is both the best and worst part of the internet, that’s no excuse to let people commit crimes or threaten people.  As many women have experienced, being stalked and harassed can be terrifying, and sometimes that behavior escalates into physical violence.  Stalking, harassment, blackmail, and threats that happen online should be investigated.  No one should be afraid or wonder what if.  No person who engages in this type of behavior should feel protected from facing consequences.

The judge ruled that Michelle Bachmann’s status as a presidential candidate made it important for law enforcement to evaluate all threats against her safety.  I would argue that it’s more important for the average woman.  Public figures are going to attract some attention from crazy, angry, and weird people, and the majority of the time it will not ever amount to anything.   But if you’re not a public figure, and all of a sudden someone is threatening to hurt you, well, that’s personal.   That person has targeted you for personal reasons, and I would argue that makes them more likely to hurt you.

I was stalked and threatened online and through the mail by an anonymous person who went on to harass my friends and family.   Even though this person did not threaten violence, the sexual content of the text messages and letters, the escalating anger, and the prolonged period of harassment had everyone worried, police included, that this person was going to physically hurt me.  Thankfully, this person stopped after law enforcement got involved.  If you ever find yourself in this situation, please do not downplay this type of behavior because it’s happening online.

There are two types of people who threaten women anonymously online.  On the scarier side, there are people who fantasize about hurting women, but are afraid of getting caught in real life so they indulge themselves online.  On the other end are people who want to silence women by intimidating them out of the public sphere.

People say offensive things online all the time.  But when people start describing specific actions or plans or the intent of doing someone harm, it’s a threat and not a vulgarity.  People may think they have the right to threaten to rape or murder women online as part of their First Amendment right (they don’t).  But law enforcement does have the responsibility to investigate if there is a reasonable belief of someone being harmed.

Right now, there is little to no legal recourse for the average citizen and law enforcement often will not look into anonymous online attacks due to time and resources.  But I think making an example of a few people could curb this type of behavior through old fashioned public shaming.

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore via Creative Commons License.