Misogyny and Sexism in the News

[Happy_Go_Lucky]

A “men’s rights” organization has objected to a pair of free self-defense classes for women in Glendale, California, violate the equal protection clause of the Fourth Amendment, the Glendale News-Press reported on Thursday.

The classes, which have been organized by the city’s Commission on the State of Women, will be offered on April 9 and 16 at local facilities as part of Sexual Assault Awareness Month.

But National Coalition for Men President Harry Crouch stated in a March 13 letter (PDF) to commission chairperson Denise Miller, City Attorney Michael J. García and the course instructor complained that men were being excluded from the sessions
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/2...en-are-sexist/

Posted sans comment. Running out of spit.....

[Kobi]

[Kobi]

CNN) -- I really am speechless, which makes it that much harder to write this column. After everything I've seen covering modern parenting over the past several years, I kind of feel like nothing can really surprise me anymore.

Oh how wrong I was, because when I heard what Boomer Esiason said, the former football star and now CBS NFL analyst and radio host, I thought he had to be joking.

Did he really suggest that New York Mets second baseman Daniel Murphy should have encouraged his wife to have a C-section, which is major surgery, so that he wouldn't have to miss Opening Day?

Murphy's wife went into labor, so he flew to be with her, missing the season's first two games. Major League Baseball allows a player to miss up to three games for paternity leave.

During a conversation on his radio show with co-host Craig Carton, Esiason, a father of two, said he would never have done what Murphy did.

"Quite frankly, I would have said C-section before the season starts," said Esiason. "I need to be at Opening Day. I'm sorry. This is what makes our money. This is how we're going to live our life. This is going to give my child every opportunity to be a success in life. I'll be able to afford any college I want to send my kid to because I'm a baseball player."

What about family, Esiason? What about not scheduling a major surgery that takes up to four weeks or longer to recover from (I should know; I had two unplanned C-sections!) just to avoid missing the first two games of a 160-plus game season?

For his part, Murphy, whose wife ended up having a C-section, is shrugging off any criticism of his decision.

"That's the choice of parents that they get to make," said Murphy. "That's the greatness of it. You discuss it with your spouse, and you find out what you think works best for your family."

Not surprisingly, outrage in social media to Esiason's remarks was pointed solidly in one direction.

"There are so many reasons this is so wrong," said a mother on my Facebook page, who had three C-sections, none of them by choice.

"He has no idea what in the world he is talking about," she added. "(A C-section) is no walk in the park for mom or dad, whether you are a baseball player or not, whether you are in the off season or not."

Another woman, also on Facebook, cited what she called "the lack of sensitivity and sophistication" around these issues of gender and reproduction. "I also think (despite what he says), if it were (his) wife, he would not feel the same way."

Don't show me the money, said Sue Scheff, a parenting advocate and author, on Facebook, criticizing Esiason for suggesting that money should be more important than family. "Games happen a lot. How often is the birth of your child?" she asked.

"Easy for him to say, he'll never have to have one," said a man, who did not want to be identified, referring to a C-section.

Esiason made his comments during an exchange with his co-host, who thought Murphy should have gotten back to work once the baby was born instead of taking an additional day of paternity leave. (Another WFAN radio host, Mike Francesa, also took issue with Murphy being out for two games.)

In Esiason's defense, his first comments when the subject came up were that Murphy had "legal rights to be there if he wants to be there."

As a football player, he's also coming from the mindset of his sport and how key players haven't traditionally missed one of the season's games for a birth, noted @heymatt on Twitter. In fact, Baltimore Ravens quarterback Joe Flacco's wife gave birth one hour before game time in September, and Flacco played that game against the Cleveland Browns.

But what got under people's skin, more than anything, was the idea of suggesting that a wife have major surgery to accommodate her husband's sports schedule.

"Major surgery should only be used when medically advised, not for convenience," said @elia_eltringham, also on Twitter.

C-sections may be scheduled because of the estimated size of the child and the age of the mother, or if a mother had a prior C-section, doctors say. Some women have chosen to have them because of fears of incontinence after a vaginal birth.

Nearly a third of births are currently done by C-section, which is a significant jump from the 20% of deliveries resulting in C-sections in 1996, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Dr. Lillian Schapiro of Atlanta said she has seen a movement away from scheduled C-sections in her practice.

"I would say a few years ago, there was more of a trend to have scheduled C-sections, and now there is much more a move back to allowing nature to run its course, and people wanting to have a more natural experience," said Schapiro, an ob/gyn doctor affiliated with Piedmont Hospital in Atlanta.

Dr. Lynn Friedman, an ob/gyn with Mount Sinai Hospital in New York and one of my doctors during my pregnancies, said her practice also hasn't seen a rise in elective C-sections.

"A purely elective (C-section) ... someone who just says 'I don't want to labor,' I mean, that's not that common, and that's really still very much discouraged," said Friedman.

"For someone to say 'my career is something that would make my wife schedule a section' ... I think in the 21st century ... that's really still a very sexist thing to say, and I think a ball team should understand that their player should be with his wife. I mean, I just think that's grotesque."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/04/living...rebar_facebook

[Kobi]

Boomer Esiason "Apologizes" For Comments On Murphy’s Paternity Leave

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) – WFAN co-host Boomer Esiason says he’s reached out to the New York Mets and is “truly sorry” for “insensitive comments” made earlier this week regarding second baseman Daniel Murphy’s paternity leave.

“I just want to say again on this radio show that in no way, shape or form was I advocating anything for anybody to do. I was not telling women what to do with their bodies. I would never do that. That’s their decision, that’s their life and they know their bodies better than I do. And the other thing, too, that I really felt bad about is that Daniel Murphy and Tori Murphy were dragged into a conversation, and their whole life was exposed. And it shouldn’t have been.

“And that is my fault. That is my fault for uttering the word ‘C-section’ on this radio station. And it all of a sudden put their lives under a spotlight, and for that I truly apologize. I tried to reach out to Daniel yesterday through intermediaries over there at the New York Mets, and to his credit, he answered all of his questions yesterday. I’m sorry that he had to go through that. No man should have to go through that. And certainly Daniel Murphy, who we both admire much as a baseball player as anybody else — and all I can say is that I truly, truly, feel terrible about what I put them through. So for that I certainly apologize.

“I spoke with (Mets public relations chief) Jay Horwitz yesterday and was texting back and forth with (COO/co-owner) Jeff Wilpon, and I think Daniel — I can’t speak for Daniel — I think he wants to put everything behind him, he wants to try to play baseball, he wants to try to become a dad, he wants to try to do all the right things in life, and he has every right to do that. And again, like I said, I apologize for putting him and his wife in the midst of a public discussion that I basically started by uttering insensitive comments that came off very insensitive. And for that I apologize, and that’s really all I can do.

“The other thing I do want to say is that my friends — our friends — over at the March of Dimes also reached out to me yesterday. And I immediately called them back and talked to them, and they kind of re-educated me on their mission statement. And you and I (co-host Craig Carton) have been a part of the March of Dimes luncheon for many years, and I go back all the way to 1994 with them, and they were very gracious in re-educating me and making me understand what their mission statement was. And I agree wholeheartedly in their mission statement.

“I can only hope that people understand that my comment — my flippant comment — wasn’t made in any way, shape or form to insult anybody. But obviously it did. And for that I am truly sorry.”

He added: “Again, I just want to reiterate one more time that if I in any way, shape or form insulted anybody, that was not my intention. My flippant remark was insensitive. I’ll leave it at that. And again, I feel terrible for the Murphy family, because what should be the greatest time in their life turned out to be somewhat of a firestorm that I personally put them into. And for that hopefully they can find forgiveness in their heart.”

“My deep apologies to both Daniel and Tori Murphy for creating an intrusion into a very sacred and personal moment in their lives, and that’s the birth of their son, Noah. Daniel is the Mets’ second baseman, whose brief paternity leave led to a flippant and insensitive remark that I sincerely regret.

(In the) meantime, I’m very grateful to my many friends over at the March of Dimes who graciously reached out and re-educated me that if a pregnancy is healthy, it is medically beneficial to let the labor begin on its own rather than to schedule a C-section for convenience. In fact, babies born just a few weeks early have double the risk of death compared to babies born after 39 full weeks of pregnancy. As their promotional campaign says, ‘Healthy babies are worth the wait.’ And as I proud father, I couldn’t agree more.”

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/04/...ternity-leave/

[Happy_Go_Lucky]

Maxim model Paulina Gretzky doesn't play professional golf but she is engaged to PGA tour star Dustin Johnson and has two famous parents, hockey great Wayne Gretzky and actress Janet Jones Gretzky.

That apparently was enough for Golf Digest to put her on its cover. It was also enough to irk players on the LPGA Tour, the New York Times reports.

"We don’t get respect for being the golfers that we are," two-time major winner Stacy Lewis said, according to the paper. "Obviously, Golf Digest is trying to sell magazines. But at the same time you’d like to see a little respect for the women’s game."

Seven-time major winner Juli Inkster seemed to feel the same way. "It’s frustrating because it’s Golf Digest; it’s not Sports Illustrated’s swimsuit issue. I think they should maybe recognize some of the great women golfers that we have," she said, according to the Times



So, WTF is it Golf Digest? Christina Kim, a REAL LPGA player doesn't fit your image?


Golf Digest, last I saw, you are a GOLF magazine, not Maxim, not Playboy. There are real, life women golfers whom you could choose to be on the cover. How fucking unsurprising this is to me. BOO!

Note: I, Happy_Go_Lucky played competetive golf as well as taught for many years. When I played, as well as the awesome other female players, the LAST thing we were concerned about is how fuckable we could make ourselves for the dudes.

[Happy_Go_Lucky]

Dear Golf Digest. Did you consider these LPGA members to be on the cover?









These women REALLY are golfers.....Damn!

[DapperButch]

Happy-Go-Lucky. There is no link to an article I can see. Maybe this is just your commentary?

As an aside to everyone, it is hard to find links to the articles posted unless you put them at the top of your post. Also, I think that all posts should have links, even just photos. Used to be standard here.

Just my two cents.

[Kobi]

The Navy has reassigned a former commander of the Blue Angels, its acrobatic fighter squadron, and is investigating allegations that the elite team of pilots was a hotbed of hazing, sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination, documents show.

The Navy announced Friday that it had relieved Capt. Gregory McWherter, a two-time commander of the Blue Angels, of duty for alleged misconduct. At the time, the Navy did not describe the nature of the accusations or provide other details except to say that the case remained under investigation.

But an internal military document that a Navy official inadvertently e-mailed to a Washington Post editor states that a former member of the Blue Angels filed a complaint last month accusing McWherter of promoting a hostile work environment and tolerating sexual harassment. The complaint described an atmosphere rife with sexually explicit speech, the open display of pornography and jokes about sexual orientation.

The Navy officer is the latest in a string of senior military commanders to come under investigation for sexual misconduct or other misbehavior. Congress and the White House have grown especially frustrated at the Pentagon’s struggles to police sex crimes and harassment in the ranks.

The Navy appeared to move swiftly after the former Blue Angels member filed the complaint March 24 with the Navy inspector general. The complaint alleged that McWherter encouraged or allowed sexual harassment and lewd activity to occur when he commanded the Blue Angels during two stints between 2008 and 2012.

McWherter did not respond to e-mails seeking comment. Late Wednesday, in response to a request for comment, the Navy confirmed the circumstances that led to the probe. The Navy also released a statement from Vice Adm. David H. Buss, the commander of Naval Air Forces, who said, “We remain fully committed to accountability, transparency, and protecting the integrity of ongoing investigations.”

According to McWherter’s biography, which the Navy has removed from a public Web site, he is an alumnus of the Citadel and graduated from the Navy’s famous “Top Gun” fighter pilot school in 1995.

The Blue Angels are a flight demonstration team that performs daring maneuvers at air shows and before large crowds at other public events. It is a major honor for pilots selected to join; the Navy treats the squadron as a valuable recruitment tool and a vivid symbol of its aviation firepower.

The commander of the unit is chosen by a panel of admirals and serves as the Blue Angels’ lead pilot.

Although the investigation has not been completed, Navy officials decided that the preliminary findings warranted taking action. McWherter was fired from his new job as executive officer of Naval Base Coronado near San Diego. He has been temporarily reassigned to other duties.

Summaries of the complaint and investigation are contained in a five-page internal document, labeled “official use only,” that was drafted by Navy public affairs officers in anticipation of media coverage.

The document included talking points and prepared quotes attributed to Navy admirals, expressing concern about the gravity of the case. The material was being assembled in the event that further details of the investigation became public.

McWherter was a commander highly regarded by many in the Navy. He was brought back to lead the Blue Angels for a second stint in 2011 after the unit was temporarily grounded that year for performing a dangerous barrel roll too close to the ground during a show in Lynchburg, Va.

Upon leaving the team in November 2012, he told the Pensacola (Fla.) News Journal that he had no regrets.

“If being with the Blue Angels was the last time I fly a Navy plane, that’s a pretty good way to go out,” he said.

In the face of several ethics scandals over the past 18 months, the Pentagon has repeatedly pledged to hold commanders accountable for their actions. At the same time, however, the military has tried to suppress details about many embarrassing episodes.

For example, the Army announced in June, without elaboration, that it had suspended its top general in Japan for allegedly mishandling a sexual assault case. On Tuesday, after obtaining a copy of the investigative report under the Freedom of Information Act, The Post disclosed that the general was given a plum job at the Pentagon even though he had violated regulations by failing to refer the sexual assault complaint to criminal investigators.

In January, after obtaining another batch of investigative documents, The Post reported that the Pentagon had disciplined three other generals for personal misconduct.

One was found guilty of assaulting his mistress. A second joked in e-mails that he sexually gratified himself after meeting a member of Congress whom he described as “smoking hot.” The third kept a bottle of vodka in his desk and was investigated for having an affair, according to the documents.

At the same time, it appears that some military leaders have become highly sensitive to the issue and are quick to launch investigations at any hint of sexual impropriety or ethical misbehavior in the ranks.

In February, the Army announced it had suspended a brigade commander at Fort Carson, Colo., and in a highly unusual move, would not allow him to deploy with his soldiers to Afghanistan. Again, Army officials did not divulge what had prompted the decision.

A copy of the investigative report in that case, however, shows that the commander was suspended after three female soldiers alleged that he had made insensitive comments during a meeting to discuss sexual assault policies.

The commander, Col. Brian Pearl, was later cleared of wrongdoing and allowed to join his troops in Afghanistan. A copy of the investigative report was first obtained and published Tuesday by the Gazette newspaper of Colorado Springs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...washingtonpost

[Gemme]

Montana Teacher Re-Sentenced for Rape of 14 Year Old


Teacher Rape Case

By MATTHEW BROWN

BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) -- A former high school teacher who served one month in prison after being convicted of raping a 14-year-old student faces more time behind bars after the Montana Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that his original sentence was too short.

Justices in a unanimous ruling ordered the case of Stacey Dean Rambold assigned to a new judge for re-sentencing.

The decision means Rambold must serve a minimum of two years in prison under state sentencing laws, Yellowstone County Attorney Scott Twito said.

The high court cited, in part, the inflammatory comments of the sentencing judge, District Judge G. Todd Baugh, who drew wide condemnation for suggesting that the victim shared some responsibility for her rape.

Baugh said during Rambold's sentencing in August that the teenager was "probably as much in control of the situation as the defendant." He later apologized.

Rambold was released after fulfilling the original sentence last fall and is expected to remain free pending his reappearance in state District Court.

The defendant was a 47-year-old business teacher at Billings Senior High School at the time of the 2007 rape. The victim, one of his students, killed herself while Rambold was awaiting trial.

Rambold's sentence had been appealed by the state Department of Justice.

Attorney General Tim Fox said the Supreme Court's decision had "rebuffed attempts to place blame on a child victim of this horrible crime."

Under state law, children younger than 16 cannot consent to sexual intercourse.

Rambold's attorneys insisted in court filings that the original sentence was appropriate, and cited a "lynch mob" mentality following a huge public outcry over the case.

Like Baugh, they suggested the girl bore some responsibility and referenced videotaped interviews with her before she committed suicide. Those interviews remain under seal by the court.

Rambold attorney Jay Lansing was traveling and not immediately available, his office said.

The family of victim Cherice Moralez issued a statement through attorney Shane Colton saying the court's decision had restored their faith in the judicial system. The statement urged the family's supporters to continue working together to keep children safe from sexual predators.

During last year's sentencing hearing, prosecutors sought a 20-year prison term for Rambold with 10 years suspended.

But Baugh followed Lansing's recommendations and handed down a sentence of 15 years with all but 31 days suspended and a one-day credit for time served. Rambold was required to register as a sex offender upon his release and to remain on probation through 2028.

After a public outcry, Baugh acknowledged the sentence violated state law and attempted retroactively to revise it but was blocked when the state filed its appeal.

The Supreme Court decision did not specify what sentence would be more appropriate. That means Rambold potentially could face even more time in prison.

County Attorney Twito said he would consult with attorneys in his office and the victim's family before deciding how much prison time prosecutors will seek.

The case will likely be assigned to a new judge sometime next week, Baugh said Wednesday. He said he was not surprised by the court's decision.

The judge sparked outrage when he commented that Moralez appeared "older than her chronological age."

Her 2010 suicide took away the prosecution's main witness and resulted in a deferred-prosecution agreement that required Rambold to attend a sex-offender treatment program.

When he was booted from that program - for not disclosing a sexual relationship with an adult woman and having an unauthorized visit with the children of his relatives - the prosecution on the rape charge was revived.

During August's sentencing, the judge appeared sympathetic to the defendant, fueling a barrage of complaints against him from advocacy groups and private citizens. It also led to a formal complaint against Baugh from the Montana Judicial Standards Commission that's now pending with the state Supreme Court.

Justices said they intend to deal with Baugh separately. But their sharp criticism of the judge's actions signals that some sort of punishment is likely.

"Judge Baugh's statements reflected an improper basis for his decision and cast serious doubt on the appearance of justice," Justice Michael Wheat wrote. "There is no basis in the law for the court's distinction between the victim's `chronological age' and the court's perception of her maturity."

Baugh, 72, was first elected in 1984. He has said he deserves a public reprimand or censure for undermining the credibility of the judiciary and plans to retire when his six-year term expires at the end of the year.

He was unsure when the Supreme Court would act on the complaint against him.

"I expect at some point to appear before them, but don't know when," he said.

The leader of a women's group that filed one of the complaints against Baugh said Wednesday's high court decision gave advocates only part of what they want.

"The other part of the victory will be when something is done about Baugh," said Marian Bradley, president of the Montana chapter of the National Organization for Women.

[Kobi]

Two weeks ago more than 230 Nigerian girls were kidnapped from their school by a local terrorist group, and as the search wears on, the Guardian reports, families are starting to lose hope.

As Smart News wrote earlier, the perpetrators are assumed to be part of a group of militants that calls itself Boko Haram, a terrorist organization tied to Al Qaeda. The group's name translates to “western education is sin.” Boko Haram has been on a campaign against schools around Nigeria, though the group's targets also include markets, churches, mosques and other public places.

It's been 14 days since the girls went missing and no progress has been made on tracking their whereabouts, either by the military or by groups of machete-wielding parents searching through the countryside. The search for the kidnapped girls also has been muddled by misinformation. In the immediate wake of the kidnapping, says BuzzFeed reporter Jina Moore, the Nigerian military claimed to have found and freed the girls and captured one of the terrorists involved—a claim that was proven wrong and ultimately retracted. And, according to a report by Voice of America, the Boko Haram terrorists are threatening to kill the girls if the search operations aren't called off.

Northeastern Nigeria has been in a state of emergency for a year, writes the Guardian. The school from which the 234 girls (from 15 to 18 years old) were kidnapped was the only one still open in the region. The girls had been called back to class to sit an exam.



Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-...GF4T3mgbw3p.99
-------------------------------------



Kidnapped Nigerian schoolgirls taken as brides by militants, relatives told
Relatives say they have been told of mass weddings involving insurgents and some of the girls abducted two weeks ago



For two weeks, retired teacher Samson Dawah prayed for news of his niece Saratu, who was among more than 230 schoolgirls snatched by Boko Haram militants in the north-eastern Nigerian village of Chibok. Then on Monday the agonising silence was broken.

When Dawah called together his extended family members to give an update, he asked that the most elderly not attend, fearing they would not be able to cope with what he had to say. "We have heard from members of the forest community where they took the girls. They said there had been mass marriages and the girls are being shared out as wives among the Boko Haram militants," Dawah told his relatives.

Saratu's father fainted; he has since been in hospital. The women of the family have barely eaten. "My wife keeps asking me, why isn't the government deploying every means to find our children," Dawah said. The marriage reports have not been confirmed officially, and rely on eyewitnesses.

The 14 April abduction of the girls – students aged between 16 and 18 who were sitting a physics paper at their school, one of a handful in troubled Borno state that had opened specially for final exams – shocked a nation inured to violence during a five year-insurgency.

Desperate parents launched their own rescue attempts in the 60,000 sq km Sambisa forest where the girls were being held. Security sources told the Guardian that at least three rescue attempts had been scuppered.

This week, former prime minister Gordon Brown, the United Nations' special adviser on girls' education, will visit Nigeria to launch a campaign to raise funds and awareness of the schoolgirls' plight. "We cannot stop terrorism overnight but we can make sure that its perpetrators are aware that murdering and abducting schoolchildren is a heinous crime that the international authorities are determined to punish," he said.

Reports of the mass marriage came from a group that meets at dawn each day not far from the charred remains of the school. The ragtag gathering of fathers, uncles, cousins and nephews pool money for fuel before venturing unarmed into the thick forest, or into border towns that the militants have terrorised for months.

On Sunday, the searchers were told that the students had been divided into at least three groups, according to farmers and villagers who had seen truckloads of girls moving around the area. One farmer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the insurgents had paid leaders dowries and fired celebratory gunshots for several minutes after conducting mass wedding ceremonies on Saturday and Sunday.

"It's unbearable. Our wives have grown bitter and cry all day. The abduction of our children and the news of them being married off is like hearing of the return of the slave trade," said Yakubu Ubalala, whose 17- and 18-year-old daughters Kulu and Maimuna are among the disappeared.

The parents are planning a mass rally on Saturday to lobby the government for official updates rather than having to rely on reports from local people.

Nigeria's armed forces face an uphill battle against the insurgents, who operate in small, mobile units and are drawn from communities that spill across the country's porous desert borders. Near daily aerial bombardments have been halted as ground troops have poured into the forest in search of the girls.

"We are trying, but our efforts are being countered in a way that it is very clear they are being tipped off about our movements. Any time we make a plan to rescue [the girls] we have been ambushed," said an artillery soldier among a rescue team announced by presidential decree over the weekend. In one clash, he said, 15 soldiers were killed by the insurgents.

"We know where these girls are being held in the forest, but every day we go in and come out disappointed. Definitely somebody high up in the chain of command is leaking up information to these people," said the soldier, whom the Guardian was able to reach three times during shift breaks. Nigeria's president, Goodluck Jonathan, said in 2012 that Boko Haram had secret backers among government and security officials.

Another soldier deployed to Borno state said: "In my 13 years of service, I have never been in terrain this big and tough. There is desert and there is forest – you cannot imagine how difficult both of them are."

He said there had been intelligence reports of the militants moving groups of girls to Marte – a known training camp – and to the Gwoza hills, a range of caves and valleys spanning the border with Cameroon.

The kidnappings have sparked debate on whether foreign intervention could help stabilise Nigeria. Officials have long ruled out such a move.

Nelson Uwaga, a representative at an official conference set up by presidential decree to discuss national unity as Nigeria celebrates a century of nationhood, said: "If countries can help us by way of arming our people through modern surveillance equipment, for defence and all that, it will be most welcome. [But] what the Boko Haram is doing is not a formal kind of fight but a guerrilla kind of fight, and it is only the local people that will tell you how to fight it."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...arriage-claims

[Kobi]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Reported sexual assaults in the U.S. military jumped 50 percent last year, the Pentagon said on Thursday, and officials welcomed the spike as a sign that a high-level crackdown has made victims more confident their attackers will be prosecuted.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the jump in reported sexual assaults to 5,061 in the 2013 fiscal year from 3,374 the previous year, was "unprecedented."

He announced six new directives to expand the fight, including an alcohol policy review and an effort to encourage reporting by male victims. Men are thought to represent about half of the victims of military sexual assault but made up only 14 percent of the reports that were investigated.

"We believe victims are growing more confident in our system," Hagel told a Pentagon news conference. "Because these crimes are underreported, we took steps to increase reporting and that's what we're seeing."

Despite increased focus on the issue over the past year, the military has continued to face embarrassing incidents in which officers have been accused of tolerating sexual misconduct and even encouraging it, rather than fighting the problem.

Critics said the Pentagon's numbers on increased reporting demonstrated little improvement in the proportion of cases going to trial or the percentage of convictions.

A total 484 cases went to trial in the 2013 fiscal year that ended on September 30 and 370 people were convicted of an offense, the report said. That compared with 302 trials the previous year and 238 convictions.

"You can't tell me that only one in 10 cases are worthy of going to trial. That's like saying 90 percent of those who come forward are lying," Representative Jackie Speier, a California Democrat, told Reuters in an interview.

Speier and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a New York Democrat, have led a push to remove prosecution of sex crimes from the military chain of command and put it in the hands of specialized prosecutors. The effort was narrowly defeated earlier this year, but Thursday's report revived calls for its consideration.

"Today's report is deeply troubling and shows the scourge of sexual assaults has not been brought under control and our current military justice system remains broken," Gillibrand said in a statement.

Other lawmakers saw progress. Senator Claire McCaskill, who worked on legislation to develop a more forceful military response to the problem, said the increased reporting was encouraging.

"We know that the majority of survivors, both military and civilian, choose not to report their assaults," the Missouri Democrat, a former sex crimes prosecutor, said in a statement. "This data suggests that the number of brave men and women in uniform choosing to pursue justice is increasing."

Sexual assault is vastly underreported, and a separate military survey conducted in 2012 concluded there were some 26,000 sex crimes in the military that year, from rape to abusive sexual contact.

The survey is conducted every two years, so there was no survey with the annual report this year to use as a basis for projecting total sex crimes in the services.

The figures last year provoked outrage and led to a broad effort across the military to crack down on sex crimes and sexual misbehavior. But despite the push, a number of high-profile officers are being investigated for their actions.

The Navy said last week it was investigating allegations of misconduct by Captain Gregory McWherter, the former commander of the Blue Angels precision flight squadron. He was accused of allowing and sometimes encouraging "lewd speech, inappropriate comments, and sexually explicit humor," the Navy said.

Major General Michael Harrison also was recently disciplined for failing to take appropriate action in response to sexual assault allegations while commander of U.S. Army forces in Japan. He had been suspended from the post last June when the allegations were made.

Army General Martin Dempsey, the highest-ranking military officer, told defense bloggers earlier this month that the department had a limited window of opportunity to demonstrate it could deal with the sexual assault problem.

"If it occurs that after a period of very intense and renewed emphasis on this that we can't solve it, I'm not going to fight it being taken away from us," the military's press service quoted him as saying.

http://news.yahoo.com/pentagon-due-a...111510864.html

[Kobi]

The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) released today a list of the higher education institutions under investigation for possible violations of federal law over the handling of sexual violence and harassment complaints.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in all education programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance. In the past, Department officials confirmed individual Title IX investigations at institutions, but today's list is the first comprehensive look at which campuses are under review by OCR for possible violations of the law's requirements around sexual violence.

"We are making this list available in an effort to bring more transparency to our enforcement work and to foster better public awareness of civil rights," Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Catherine E. Lhamon said. "We hope this increased transparency will spur community dialogue about this important issue. I also want to make it clear that a college or university's appearance on this list and being the subject of a Title IX investigation in no way indicates at this stage that the college or university is violating or has violated the law."

As with all OCR investigations, the primary goal of a Title IX investigation is to ensure that the campus is in compliance with federal law, which demands that students are not denied the ability to participate fully in educational and other opportunities due to sex.

The Department will not disclose any case-specific facts or details about the institutions under investigation. The list includes investigations opened because of complaints received by OCR and those initiated by OCR as compliance reviews. When an investigation concludes, the Department will disclose, upon request, whether OCR has entered into a resolution agreement to address compliance concerns at a particular campus or found insufficient evidence of a Title IX violation there.

The list of institutions under investigation for Title IX sexual violence issues will be updated regularly and made available to the public upon request by contacting OCR or to media by contacting the Press Office at press@ed.gov.

Releasing this list advances a key goal of President Obama's White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault to bring more transparency to the federal government's enforcement activities around this issue. The Obama administration is committed to putting an end to sexual violence—particularly on college campuses. That's why the President established the Task Force earlier this year with a mandate to strengthen federal enforcement efforts and provide schools with additional tools to combat sexual assault on their campuses.

As part of that work, the Education Department released updated guidance earlier this week describing the responsibilities of colleges, universities and schools receiving federal funds to address sexual violence and other forms of sex discrimination under Title IX. The guidelines provide greater clarity about the requirements of the law around sexual violence—as requested by institutions and students.

All colleges, and universities and K-12 schools receiving federal funds must comply with Title IX. Schools that violate the law and refuse to address the problems identified by OCR can lose federal funding or be referred to the U.S. Department of Justice for further action.

Under federal law, sexual violence refers to physical sexual acts perpetrated against a person's will or where a person is incapable of giving consent -- including rape, sexual assault, sexual battery, sexual abuse and sexual coercion.

OCR's mission is to ensure equal access to education and promote educational excellence throughout the nation through the vigorous enforcement of civil rights. OCR is responsible for enforcing federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination by educational institutions on the basis of disability, race, color, national origin, sex, and age, as well as the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act of 2001.

http://www.ed.gov/news/press-release...s-open-title-i

------------------------------------


The list of institutions being investigated can be found at the end of the article. Follow the link Dapper

[Kobi]

By the end of Sexual Assault Awareness Month, two key questions were on the table for those who not only are aware of rape but would like to end men’s violence against women.

First, do we live in a rape culture, or is rape perpetrated by a relatively small number of predatory men?

Second, is rape a clearly definable crime, or are there gray areas in sexual encounters that defy easy categorization as either consensual or non-consensual?

If those seem to be tricky, or trick, questions, don’t worry. There’s an easy answer to both: patriarchy (more on that shortly).

This year’s Sexual Assault Awareness Month in April was full of the usual stories about men’s violence, especially on university campuses. From football-obsessed state schools to elite private campuses, the reality of rape and rape culture was reported by journalists and critiqued by victim-survivors.

But April also included an unexpected debate within the anti-violence movement about the appropriate boundaries of the discussion about rape and rape culture.

“In the last few years, there has been an unfortunate trend towards blaming ‘rape culture’ for the extensive problem of sexual violence on campuses,” wrote the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, or RAINN, in a letter offering recommendations to the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (see the government’s final report). “While it is helpful to point out the systemic barriers to addressing the problem, it is important to not lose sight of a simple fact: Rape is caused not by cultural factors but by the conscious decisions, of a small percentage of the community, to commit a violent crime.”

RAINN expressed concern that emphasizing rape culture makes “it harder to stop sexual violence, since it removes the focus from the individual at fault, and seemingly mitigates personal responsibility for his or her own actions.”

Feminists pushed back, pointing out that it shouldn’t be difficult to hold accountable the individuals who commit acts legally defined as rape, while we also discuss how prosecuting rapists is made difficult by those who blame victims and make excuses for men’s violence, all of which is related to the way our culture routinely glorifies other types of men’s violence (war, sports and action movies) and routinely presents objectified female bodies to men for sexual pleasure (pornography, Hollywood movies and strip clubs).

Meanwhile, conservative commentators picked up on all this, using it as a club to condemn the always-demonizable feminists for their allegedly unfair treatment of men and allegedly crazy critique of masculinity.

I’m a man who doesn’t believe feminists are unfair or crazy. In fact, I believe the only sensible way to understand these issues is through a feminist critique of — you guessed it — patriarchy.

Rape and rape-like behavior

Before wading into the reasons we need feminism, let’s consider a hypothetical:

A young man and woman are on a first date. The man decides early in the evening that he would like to have sexual intercourse and makes his attraction to her clear in conversation. He does not intend to force her to have sex, but he is assertive in a way that she interprets to mean that he “won’t take no for an answer.” The woman does not want to have sex, but she is uncertain of how he will react if she rejects his advance. Alone in his apartment — in a setting in which his physical strength means she likely could not prevent him from raping her — she offers to perform oral sex, hoping that will satisfy him and allow her to get home without a direct confrontation that could become too intense, even violent. She does not tell him what she is thinking, out of fear of how he may react. The man accepts the offer of oral sex, and the evening ends without conflict.

If that sex happened — and it’s an experience that women have described (see Flirting with Danger by Lynn Phillips and the companion film) — should we describe the encounter as consensual sex or rape? In legal terms, this clearly is not rape. So, it’s consensual sex. No problem, right?

Consider some other potentially relevant factors: If a year before that situation, the woman had been raped while on a date, would that change our assessment? If she had been sexually assaulted as a child and still, years later, goes into a survival mode when triggered? If this were a college campus and the man was a well-known athlete, and she feared the system would protect him?

By legal standards, this still clearly is not rape. But by human standards, this doesn’t feel like fully consensual sex. Maybe we should recognize that both those assessments are reasonable. In short, rape is a definable crime that happens in a rape culture — once again, both things are true.

What is patriarchy and why does it matter?

Patriarchy is a term rarely heard in mainstream conversation, especially since the backlash against feminism took off in the 1980s. So, let’s start with the late feminist historian Gerda Lerner’s definition of patriarchy as “the manifestation and institutionalization of male dominance over women and children in the family and the extension of male dominance over women in the society in general.” Patriarchy implies, she continued, “that men hold power in all the important institutions of society and that women are deprived of access to such power. It does not imply that women are either totally powerless or totally deprived of rights, influence and resources.”

Feminism challenges acts of male dominance and analyzes the underlying patriarchal ideology that tries to make that dominance seem inevitable and immutable. Second-wave radical feminists in the second half of the 20th century identified men’s violence against women — rape, child sexual assault, domestic violence and various forms of harassment — as a key method of patriarchal control and made a compelling argument that sexual assault cannot be understood outside of an analysis of patriarchy’s ideology.

Some of those feminists argued that “rape is about power not sex,” but other feminists went deeper, pointing out that when women describe the range of their sexual experiences it becomes clear there is no bright-line distinction between rape and not-rape, but instead a continuum of sexual intrusion into women’s lives by men. Yes, men who rape seek a sense of power, but men also use their power to get sex from women, sometimes under conditions that are not legally defined as rape but involve varying levels of control and coercion.

So, the focus shouldn’t be reduced to a relatively small number of men who engage in behavior we can easily label as rape. Those men pose a serious problem and we should be diligent in prosecuting them. But that prosecution can go on — and, in fact, will be aided by — recognizing the larger context in which men are trained to seek control and pursue conquest in order to feel like a man, and how that control is routinely sexualized.

Patriarchal sex

If this seems far-fetched, think about the ways men in all-male spaces often talk about sex, such as asking each other, “Did you get any?” From that perspective, sex is the acquisition of pleasure from a woman, something one takes from a woman, and men talk openly among themselves about strategies to enhance the likelihood of “getting some” even in the face of resistance from women.

This doesn’t mean that all men are rapists, that all heterosexual sex is rape or that egalitarian relationships between men and women are impossible. It does mean, however, that rape is about power and sex, about the way men are trained to understand ourselves and to see women.

Let me repeat: The majority of men do not rape. But consider these other categories:

Men who do not rape but would be willing to rape if they were sure they would not be punished.
Men who do not rape but will not intervene when another man rapes.
Men who do not rape but buy sex with women who have been, or likely will be, raped in the context of being prostituted.
Men who do not rape but will watch films of women in situations that depict rape or rape-like acts.
Men who do not rape but find the idea of rape sexually arousing.
Men who do not rape but whose sexual arousal depends on feeling dominant and having power over a woman.
Men who do not rape but routinely masturbate to pornography in which women are presented as objectified bodies whose primary, or only, function is to provide sexual pleasure for men.

Those men are not rapists. But is that fact — that the men in these categories are not, in legal terms, guilty of rape — comforting? Are we advancing the cause of ending men’s violence against women by focusing only on the acts legally defined as rape?

Rape is rape, and rape culture is rape culture

Jody Raphael’s book Rape is Rape: How Denial, Distortion, and Victim Blaming Are Fueling a Hidden Acquaintance Rape Crisis points out that if we use “a conservative definition of rape about which there can be no argument” — rape as an act of “forcible penetration” — the research establishes that between 10.6 percent and 16.1 percent of American women have been raped. That means somewhere between 12 million and 18 million women in this country today live as rape victim-survivors, if we use a narrow definition of the crime.

Because no human activity takes place in an ideological vacuum — the ideas in our heads affect the way we behave — it’s hard to make sense of those numbers without the concept of rape culture. A rape culture doesn’t command men to rape, but it does make rape inviting, and it reduces the likelihood rapists will be identified, arrested, prosecuted, convicted and punished. It’s hard to imagine any meaningful efforts to reduce, and someday eliminate, rape without talking openly and honestly about these matters. But RAINN argues that such denial is exactly the path we should take.

Why should we fear talking about the socialization process by which boys and men are trained to see themselves as powerful over women and to see women as sexual objects? Why should we fear asking critical questions about all-male spaces, such as athletic teams and fraternities, where these attitudes might be reinforced? Could it be a fear that the problem of sexual assault is so deeply entwined in our taken-for-granted assumptions about gender that any serious response to the problem of rape requires us to all get more radical, to take radical feminism seriously?

This does not mean all men are rapists, that all male athletes are rapists, or that all fraternity members are rapists. It does mean that if we want to stop sexual violence, we have to confront patriarchy. If we decide we aren’t going to talk about patriarchy, then let’s stop pretending we are going to stop sexual violence and recognize that, at best, all we can do is manage the problem. If we can’t talk about patriarchy, then let’s admit that we are giving up on the idea of gender justice and goal of a world without rape.

It’s easy to understand why people don’t like this formulation of the problem, given that anything beyond a tepid liberal, postmodern feminism is out of fashion these days and radical feminist analyses of male dominance are rarely part of polite conversation. Sometimes people concede the value of such an analysis, but justify the silence about it by claiming, “People can’t handle it.” When someone makes that claim, I assume what they mean is “I can’t handle it myself,” that it’s too much, too painful to deal with.

That’s not hard to understand, because to confront the reality of rape and rape culture is to realize that vigorous prosecution of the small number of men who rape doesn’t solve the larger problem.

If anyone still doubts that rape culture exists and is relevant, how else would we explain the Yale University fraternity members who marched on campus while shouting sexist chants, including “No means yes, yes means anal,” as part of a 2010 pledge event?

Everyone recognizes the mocking reference to the anti-rape message, “No means no,” which expresses women’s demand that men listen to them. These Yale men reject that. The second part of their chant — “Yes means anal” — states that women who agree to sex are implicitly agreeing to anything a man wants, including anal penetration. This will make sense to anyone who is aware of the prevalence of anal penetration in today’s pornography marketed to heterosexual men. In those pornographic scenes, women sometimes beg for that penetration and other times are forced into it, but the message is the same: Men’s pleasure is central.

In this one chant, these men of Yale — one of the most elite universities in the United States, which produces some of the country’s most powerful business and political leaders, including five presidents — clearly express a patriarchal view of gender and sex. Their chant is an endorsement of rape and an expression of rape culture.

Is a feminist critique of rape and rape culture a threat to me as a man? I was socialized in a patriarchal culture to believe that whatever feminists had planned, I should be afraid of it. But what I have learned from radical feminists is that quite the opposite is true — feminism is a gift to men. Such critique does not undermine my humanity, but instead gives me a chance to embrace it.

http://wagingnonviolence.org/feature...em-patriarchy/

[Gemme]

Originally Posted by Gemme

Montana Teacher Re-Sentenced for Rape of 14 Year Old


Teacher Rape Case

By MATTHEW BROWN

BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) -- A former high school teacher who served one month in prison after being convicted of raping a 14-year-old student faces more time behind bars after the Montana Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that his original sentence was too short.

Justices in a unanimous ruling ordered the case of Stacey Dean Rambold assigned to a new judge for re-sentencing.

The decision means Rambold must serve a minimum of two years in prison under state sentencing laws, Yellowstone County Attorney Scott Twito said.

The high court cited, in part, the inflammatory comments of the sentencing judge, District Judge G. Todd Baugh, who drew wide condemnation for suggesting that the victim shared some responsibility for her rape.

Baugh said during Rambold's sentencing in August that the teenager was "probably as much in control of the situation as the defendant." He later apologized.

Rambold was released after fulfilling the original sentence last fall and is expected to remain free pending his reappearance in state District Court.

The defendant was a 47-year-old business teacher at Billings Senior High School at the time of the 2007 rape. The victim, one of his students, killed herself while Rambold was awaiting trial.

Rambold's sentence had been appealed by the state Department of Justice.

Attorney General Tim Fox said the Supreme Court's decision had "rebuffed attempts to place blame on a child victim of this horrible crime."

Under state law, children younger than 16 cannot consent to sexual intercourse.

Rambold's attorneys insisted in court filings that the original sentence was appropriate, and cited a "lynch mob" mentality following a huge public outcry over the case.

Like Baugh, they suggested the girl bore some responsibility and referenced videotaped interviews with her before she committed suicide. Those interviews remain under seal by the court.

Rambold attorney Jay Lansing was traveling and not immediately available, his office said.

The family of victim Cherice Moralez issued a statement through attorney Shane Colton saying the court's decision had restored their faith in the judicial system. The statement urged the family's supporters to continue working together to keep children safe from sexual predators.

During last year's sentencing hearing, prosecutors sought a 20-year prison term for Rambold with 10 years suspended.

But Baugh followed Lansing's recommendations and handed down a sentence of 15 years with all but 31 days suspended and a one-day credit for time served. Rambold was required to register as a sex offender upon his release and to remain on probation through 2028.

After a public outcry, Baugh acknowledged the sentence violated state law and attempted retroactively to revise it but was blocked when the state filed its appeal.

The Supreme Court decision did not specify what sentence would be more appropriate. That means Rambold potentially could face even more time in prison.

County Attorney Twito said he would consult with attorneys in his office and the victim's family before deciding how much prison time prosecutors will seek.

The case will likely be assigned to a new judge sometime next week, Baugh said Wednesday. He said he was not surprised by the court's decision.

The judge sparked outrage when he commented that Moralez appeared "older than her chronological age."

Her 2010 suicide took away the prosecution's main witness and resulted in a deferred-prosecution agreement that required Rambold to attend a sex-offender treatment program.

When he was booted from that program - for not disclosing a sexual relationship with an adult woman and having an unauthorized visit with the children of his relatives - the prosecution on the rape charge was revived.

During August's sentencing, the judge appeared sympathetic to the defendant, fueling a barrage of complaints against him from advocacy groups and private citizens. It also led to a formal complaint against Baugh from the Montana Judicial Standards Commission that's now pending with the state Supreme Court.

Justices said they intend to deal with Baugh separately. But their sharp criticism of the judge's actions signals that some sort of punishment is likely.

"Judge Baugh's statements reflected an improper basis for his decision and cast serious doubt on the appearance of justice," Justice Michael Wheat wrote. "There is no basis in the law for the court's distinction between the victim's `chronological age' and the court's perception of her maturity."

Baugh, 72, was first elected in 1984. He has said he deserves a public reprimand or censure for undermining the credibility of the judiciary and plans to retire when his six-year term expires at the end of the year.

He was unsure when the Supreme Court would act on the complaint against him.

"I expect at some point to appear before them, but don't know when," he said.

The leader of a women's group that filed one of the complaints against Baugh said Wednesday's high court decision gave advocates only part of what they want.

"The other part of the victory will be when something is done about Baugh," said Marian Bradley, president of the Montana chapter of the National Organization for Women.

Judge to be Censored Over Rape Comments

HELENA, Mont. (AP) - The Montana Supreme Court on Tuesday will publicly reprimand a judge who gave a lenient sentence to a rapist after suggesting the 14-year-old victim shared some of the responsibility for the crime.

District Judge G. Todd Baugh, of Billings, is scheduled to appear before the court in Helena, where one of the justices will read a censure statement prepared in advance. Baugh will likely get an opportunity to address the court, and the censure will then go into the record, state Supreme Court clerk Ed Smith said Monday.

The censure is a public declaration by the high court that a judge is guilty of misconduct. The rarely used punishment was recommended by the state's Judicial Standards Commission, which investigated complaints into the comments Baugh made during Stacey Dean Rambold's sentencing last year.

"It's a process basically to publicly reprimand them for their conduct bringing dishonor on their position and the court's judicial system," Smith said.

The standards commission can impose or recommend to the Supreme Court a range of disciplinary actions if it finds merit in a misconduct complaint filed against a judge. They range from a private letter of admonishment to removal from office.

The Supreme Court accepted the commission's recommendation for Baugh's censure, but also added a 31-day suspension. Chief Justice Mike McGrath wrote in the order that Baugh had eroded confidence in the court system.

Baugh sent Rambold to prison for 30 days last year after he pleaded guilty to sexual intercourse without consent.

Rambold was a 47-year-old business teacher at Billings Senior High School at the time of the 2007 rape. The victim was one of his students. She committed suicide while the case was pending trial.

Baugh said during Rambold's sentencing in August that the teenager was "probably as much in control of the situation as the defendant" and that she "appeared older than her chronological age."

Under state law, children younger than 16 cannot consent to sexual intercourse.

After a public outcry, Baugh apologized for the comments and acknowledged the short prison sentence violated state law. He attempted to revise it retroactively but was blocked when the state filed its appeal.

The last Montana judge was censured by the Supreme Court was District Judge Jeffrey Langton, of Hamilton, in 2005. Langton had pleaded guilty to a drunken driving charge, then was placed on probation for violating the terms of his sentence.

Rambold has been free since last fall after serving the original sentence. After his release, Rambold registered as a sex offender and was to remain on probation through 2028.

Prosecutors appealed Baugh's sentence, and the Supreme Court in April ordered a new sentencing in the case by a different judge. District Judge Randal Spaulding, of Roundup, is scheduled to re-sentence Rambold on Sept. 26.

Baugh, who is the son of former Washington Redskins quarterback "Slingin'" Sammy Baugh, has said he plans to retire after three decades on the bench when his term expires in December.

[Gemme]

Campus Sexual Assault

[Kobi]

Girlguiding UK has revealed that sexism affects “most aspects” of the every day lives of young women.

The organisation’s “Equality For Girls” report surveyed more than 1,200 girls and young women aged 7 to 21, and have called their findings “a wake-up call” and “a disturbing insight into the state of equality for girls in the UK.”

The survey revealed that 87% of the 11 to 21-year-olds surveyed said they thought women were judged based on their appearance, and not their abilities.

Disturbingly, most of the 13-year-olds questioned said they had experienced sexual harassment.

Of the entire 13 to 21 age bracket, 28% had experienced unwanted touching and sexual attention, with 26% experiencing unwanted attention and stalking. A further 51% revealed they’d been objected to sexual jokes and taunts, and more than three-quarters said they found this behaviour threatening if they were by themselves.

54% of girls aged 11 to 21 have experienced online abuse.




Young girls are also already worrying about how sexism with affect the career path:

Girls believe that motherhood still disadvantages women in the workplace, and almost half of those aged 11 to 21 worry that having children will negatively affect their career (46%). A similar number think that employers at least to some extent prefer to employ men over women (43%). Half worry about the pay gap between men and women (50%), rising to 60% among 16- to 21-year-olds.

The levels of criticism female celebrities and women in the public eye in the media has also affected young women’s aspirations to be in similar positions one day. 43% say the way women are criticised for how they look on TV has put them off every wanting to be in a position where they’d appear on TV themselves.

66% of 11 to 21-year-olds think they’re aren’t enough women in leadership positions in the UK. However, many of the girls surveyed said that the lack of women in leadership positions made them more determined to succeed.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/catesevilla/...ir-daily-lives

[Kobi]

George Will is standing by his controversial Washington Post column, in which he stated that universities have turned sexual assault into "a coveted status that confers privileges," arguing that people on the internet just like being upset about things.

As Politico pointed out, during an interview with C-SPAN Friday, Will argued that the backlash has less to do with his argument than with the way the internet works now. "Today, for some reason ... indignation is the default position of certain people in civic discourse," he said. "They go from a standing start to fury in about 30 seconds."

Will went on to say that while it's great that the internet has "erased the barriers of entry to public discourse" he argues that now you don't have to be even remotely intelligent to criticize Washington Post columnists. "Among the barriers of entry that have been reduced, is you don't have to be able to read, write, or think," he said. "You can just come in and shout and call names and carry on."

The reaction to Will's column didn't consist of shouting and name calling so much as people calling for him to be fired. In his Post essay, Will argued against the "preponderance of evidence" standard for adjudicating sexual assault cases that is often used in university investigations (as opposed to the "beyond reasonable doubt" level of a criminal court), but in the process seemingly implied that the sexual assault epidemic isn't real. In fact, as he argued on C-SPAN, it's mainly kids getting in trouble with alcohol. "What's going to result is a lot of young men and young women are going to get in this sea of hormones and alcohol ... you're going to have charges of sexual assault," he said. That combined with the less rigorous legal process on campus means, "you're going to have young men disciplined, their lives often permanently and seriously blighted, don't get into law school, don't get into medical school, all the rest."

Will also responded to the four Senate Democrats who wrote him condemning his column, and claimed that he was more serious about sexual assault — or as he would say "sexual assault" — than Congress, because his definition of sexual assault doesn't include things like "improper touching." As he told CSPAN, "When remarks become sexual assault, improper touching … we begin to blur distinctions that are important to preserve if you believe as the senators purport to believe, that this is a serious matter." And yet, it's hard to imagine how his detractors could trivialize sexual assault more than a man who thinks of increased awareness of sexual assault as an obstacle for future male doctors and lawyers to overcome.




http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014...people/373172/

[Kobi]

“Saatchi Art does not believe in censorship unless the material is pornographic or incites racial hatred." So, it is ok to consider violence against women as art now? And,they will censor racial hatred but not misogyny? WTF.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paintings depicting the moment Charles Saatchi apparently throttled his former wife Nigella Lawson have emerged for sale, on his own art website.

The couple divorced last year after Saatchi was seen with his hand around his wife’s neck as they sat outside Scott’s restaurant in Mayfair.

Seven images of the scene are currently for sale via the millionaire art collector’s website, for prices ranging from £150 to several thousand.

They appear on SaatchiArt.com, closely linked to his London gallery and mean the 71-year-old could benefit from any sales.

Mr Saatchi dismissed that ‘throttle’ art could be a new genre, as he said the works were a small proportion of those submitted by 40,000 artists who used the site.

He told the Mail on Sunday: “Would it have been a better story if I had censored artists whose work might be personally disobliging?”

Pete Jones, 52, has listed ‘Last Course’ on the site – a picture of Miss Lawson with hands on her throat painted on a bread board - for £17,600. Another picture, painted by Jane Kelly and called Art Collector Throttling a Cook has a price tag of £1,170.

Darren Udaiyan, 41, produced a Van Gogh style painting of the incident, which he uploaded to the site and is currently on sale for £5,870.

He told the newspaper: "It’s not really controversial. Saatchi is strangling Nigella but it’s also about him squeezing the art market.

"It works on many levels. It’s a comment on the art market and how people control it."

Mr Saatchi accepted a police caution for the incident after a photo was taken of the incident, leading to an acrimonious divorce.

Polly Neate, chief executive of Women’s Aid, said it was “extremely insensitive” to all victims of domestic violence for someone who had accepting a caution for assaulting their partner to earn commission from images of the incident.

Rebecca Wilson, chief curator at the online gallery, said: “Saatchi Art does not believe in censorship unless the material is pornographic or incites racial hatred."

Anyone can upload their work to Saatchi Art, and will received 70 per cent of the sale price with 30 per cent paid to the company for commission.

Pictures came be seen here. ****TriggerWarning****

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pict...i-website.html

[Kobi]

Many victims of sexual assault do not report these crimes to family, school officials or police, and a new report on the normalization of sexual violence among young girls and women offers several insights into why this is; it also functions as a pretty harrowing primer on rape culture and its consequences.

Researchers at Marquette University analyzed forensic interviews with 100 young people between the ages of 3 and 17, many of whom spoke candidly about their daily experiences of sexual violence and harassment.

According to sociologist Heather Hlavka, many of the young people she interviewed viewed these incidents as a normal part of life. One interview subject told researchers, “They grab you, touch your butt and try to, like, touch you in the front, and run away, but it’s okay, I mean … I never think it’s a big thing because they do it to everyone.”

According to a release on the report, there are several of the reasons why young women do not come forward about the abuse they experience, including a belief that men “can’t help it” and a fear of being labeled a “whore”:


~ Girls believe the myth that men can’t help it. The girls interviewed described men as unable to control their sexual desires, often framing men as the sexual aggressors and women as the gatekeepers of sexual activity. They perceived everyday harassment and abuse as normal male behavior, and as something to endure, ignore, or maneuver around.

~ Many of the girls said that they didn’t report the incident because they didn’t want to make a “big deal” of their experiences. They doubted if anything outside of forcible heterosexual intercourse counted as an offense or rape.

~ Lack of reporting may be linked to trust in authority figures. According to Hlavka, the girls seem to have internalized their position in a male-dominated, sexual context and likely assumed authority figures would also view them as “bad girls” who prompted the assault.

~ Hlavka found that girls don’t support other girls when they report sexual violence. The young women expressed fear that they would be labeled as a “whore” or “slut,” or accused of exaggeration or lying by both authority figures and their peers, decreasing their likelihood of reporting sexual abuse.

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/14/repo...ampaign=buffer

[Gemme]

Sexual Harassment at Comic-Con

SAN DIEGO (AP) - Amid the costumes and fantasy of this weekend's Comic-Con convention, a group of young women drew widespread attention to a very real issue - allegations of sexual harassment at the annual pop-culture festival.

Geeks for CONsent, founded by three women from Philadelphia, gathered nearly 2,600 signatures on an online petition supporting a formal anti-harassment policy at Comic-Con.

Conventioneers told Geeks for CONsent they had been groped, followed and unwillingly photographed during the four-day confab.

Meanwhile, what Geeks for CONsent and others regarded as blatant objectification continued on the convention floor. Scantily clad women were still used as decoration for some presentations, and costumed women were described as "vaguely slutty" by panel moderator Craig Ferguson. When Dwayne Johnson made a surprise appearance to promote "Hercules," 10 women in belly-baring outfits stood silently in front of the stage for no apparent reason.

Groping, cat-calling and other forms of sexual harassment are a larger social issue, not just a Comic-Con problem. And many comics and movies still portray women as damsels in distress. But Geeks for CONsent says things are amplified at the festival, where fantasy plays such a large role.

"It's a separate, more specific issue within the convention space," said Rochelle Keyhan, 29, director of Geeks for CONsent. "It's very much connected (to the larger problem) and it's the same phenomena, but manifesting a little more sexually vulgar in the comic space."

"Comic-Con has an explicit Code of Conduct that addresses harassing and offensive behavior," said Comic-Con International in a statement on Sunday to The Associated Press. "This Code of Conduct is made available online as well as on page two of the Events Guide that is given to each attendee."

Earlier, Comic-Con spokesman David Glanzer told the Los Angeles Times that "anyone being made to feel uncomfortable at our show is obviously a concern for us." He said additional security was in place this year, including an increased presence by San Diego Police.

Keyhan's focus on Comic-Con began with a movement launched in her hometown called HollabackPhilly, to help end public harassment against women and members of the LGBT community. She and her colleagues developed a comic book on the subject in hopes of engaging middle- and high-school students, which is what brought them to Comic-Con.

Costuming, or cosplay, is a big part of the popular convention, with male and female fans dressing as their favorite characters, regardless of gender. A man might wear a Wonder Woman outfit, and a woman could dress as Wolverine. Keyhan and her colleagues - all in costume - carried signs and passed out temporary tattoos during the convention that read, "Cosplay does not equal consent."

In addition to the existing Comic-Con's Code of Conduct, Geeks for CONsent wants the 45-year-old convention to adopt a clearly stated policy and says staff members should to be trained to handle sexual harassment complaints.

"It makes it feel safer for the person being harassed to report it and also for bystanders who witness (inappropriate behavior)," Keyhan said.

Toni Darling, a 24-year-old model who was dressed as Wonder Woman on Saturday, said the issue goes way beyond Comic-Con.

"I don't think it has anything to do with cosplay or anything to do with costumes," she said. "People who are the kind of people who are going to take a photo of you when you're not looking from behind are going to do that regardless, whether you're in costume or not."

Still, she'd like to see an advisory in the Comic-Con program against surreptitious photography, and a clearer statement from Geeks for CONsent. She found some fans were afraid to take photos, even when she was posing at a booth on the showroom floor.

"The kind of behavior that needs to be modified," she said, "is somebody taking a photo of you bent over while you're signing a print."