1. Girls need to alter their wardrobes because their clothes are distracting for boys.

If you haven’t read the ThinkProgress piece, you should check it out, because the authors are absolutely right about the ways in which school dress codes normalize slut-shaming and police women’s bodies in a way that is fundamentally harmful.  The authors of the post argue that these dress codes are ultimately based on the idea that men cannot control themselves when distracted by women’s bodies, and for this reason women should have to cover up.  It conforms to the idea that women’s bodies need to be policed and controlled for the benefit of men-~-and unlike with rape culture, they can’t even couch this in terms of self-defense or prudence.  It really is just a matter of bodies being “distracting”.

I actually think the analysis needs to be taken a step further.  These dress codes set up a system by which female students are directly punished for what they wear and how they present their bodies.  In particular, for being at all sexual.  This is, first of all, a double standard, as these rules do not apply to men.  Second, this normalizes the idea that women can and should be punished for the ways in which they are dressed.  It says that it is totally acceptable for society to regulate the ways in which women present themselves, while not holding men to parallel standards.  

2. Boys will be boys…

This is potentially the worst lesson we teach in high school.  Why?  Because it reinforces the idea that hypermasculinity is normal, and because it says that men should not be held accountable for their actions, simply because they are men.  When we let men slide on things when they are young, we fail to teach them the personal responsibility that we need them to have internalized by the time they reach adulthood.

I’ll talk about the impact on women in the second, but let’s just consider for a moment the impact this has on male students.  Plenty of young men in high school are bullied by other male students, often because they don’t conform to these norms of hypermasculinity.  Hypermasculinity shuns homosexuality, academia, and affiliation with the arts~-~which is why every movie about high school ever has a nerd or a marching band student getting beaten up by the football team.  These are men who are getting hurt by the cult of hypermasculinity promoted by patriarchy, and the perpetrators of this kind of abuse are written off with “boys will be boys”.  Even when they are punished, the use of this excuse allows people to fail to internalize that there is truly a problem.  The reality is, we need to stop making excuses and start holding people accountable.

3. …and girls should just deal with it.

Here’s where I’ll speak briefly about the impact on girls.  I’ve actually already done a post on this, but I think it’s worth revisiting.  ”Boys will be boys” tends to extend to everything from teasing in the hallways to excuses for a guy picking on a girl because “he likes her” to writing off young men sexually pressuring young women into things they may not want or may not be ready for.  The normalization of this sets women up to accept abuse later in life, whether its with a romantic/sexual partner or if it’s sexual harassment at work.  Parents and educators alike need to stop writing off male harassment of women as “boys being boys” and starting treating it as harassment.  Now.  Thank you.

4. Certain statuses mean the rules don’t apply, or don’t apply in quite the same ways.

I think this issue probably got blown wide open with Steubenville, but it’s worth mentioning again.  Schools have a tendency for cracking down on certain students and going easier on other students.  First, students who are written off as “problem students” tend to get harsher punishments than the so-called “good students”, even for the same offenses.  This may make sense if you buy that repeat offenders need harsher punishments because the initial punishment obviously wasn’t enough deterrent, but the fact is, it still makes these students feel more disenfranchised.  Second, certain groups-~-especially student athletes-~-tend to get preferential treatment, especially if the school has a good sports program.  This sends the wrong message, and Steubenville highlighted all of the reasons why this is a harmful message to allow students to internalize.  But even more, this makes it very difficult for students who are harassed or harmed by students in these categories to report problems-~-again, we saw this with the backlash against the victim in the Steubenville case, and it needs to change.

5. There is no good way to report a problem, and you cannot handle it yourself.

Speaking of reporting, I’ll leave you with this problem.  When a student reports bullying or harassment, they risk social backlash, especially if the student they are reporting is popular.  Because any attempt to retaliate on one’s own is subject to punishment by the school, this is also not an option.  My high school’s rule was that if you were hit-~-if you were beaten up-~-you were not allowed to hit back, because you would ALSO be suspended.  You had to wait, and tell the vice principal.  I can tell you right now, if someone were hitting me, I’d be shoving them away from me, and to heck with the suspension, but the reality is, this leaves many students with no good means of recourse.

Sometimes reporting problems in HS feels like this.

Now take that problem and use it to focus on the issue of sexual harassment.  When sexual harassment occurs in high schools, a girl has to hope that a) the school will take her seriously if she reports, which they may well not, because “boys will be boys” and “he probably just likes her”, and b) that the school will then do something, and c) that there won’t be substantial backlash, which there may well be, especially if she dresses in a way that could be seen as “provocative”, because then she was “leading him on” or “just asking for it”.

In this way, we embed and internalize the rhetoric and mentality behind victim blaming, slut shaming, and rape culture, and teach girls from an early age that if something goes wrong, it is their fault, and they are not going to be helped.  These are not acceptable lessons to be promoting in our schools, and it’s time to start re-examining what it is that kids are getting from their education-~-because more than algebra, more than European history, these are the lessons that stay with us for life, and these are the lessons that shape our society.  It’s time to ask if this is really what we want to be teaching.

When I heard that the FDA was prepared to lower the age restriction on Plan B from 17 to 15, I got excited-~-until I remembered that the FDA has tried this before, and failed.  In November/December 2011, the FDA announced a plan to remove the age restriction, and women’s health advocates were hugely optimistic.  But the Department of Health and Human Services blocked the change, keeping the age restriction in place.  This past week, however, the FDA announced that they were ready to lower the age limit, and the Obama administration announced that they were “comfortable” with said change.  Here’s hoping the change really sticks this time.

The change in policy is based on scientific evidence that shows that the morning after pill, or Plan B, is safe for women younger that 17.  Girls under 17 can actually already access Plan B, but only if they have a prescription; as previously discussed on this blog, young women are unlikely to feel comfortable going to their parents and announcing that they need to see a doctor about Plan B, as it is essentially an admission that the girl has had unprotected sex, news most parents are unlikely to take well.  Since it’s not medically necessary to have the decision reviewed by doctors, it makes sense to make Plan B made available over the counter.

15 is still an arbitrary age restriction.  Girls who are 14, or 13, or 12, who are sexually active may still need access to this medication, who are likely to feel uncomfortable having this conversation with their parents.  15 is a victory, but it’s not a complete victory.  There’s more to do in terms of making it so young women are able to access reproductive healthcare.

A big part of the controversy over Plan B is the lack of understanding of what this medication does.  To be very clear: Plan B is emergency contraception.  It must be taken within a couple of days of unprotected sex in order to be effective.  Plan B does not terminate pregnancies and is not an abortifacent; its only purpose is to prevent a pregnancy from occurring.  Because people sometimes refer to it as the “abortion pill”-~-even though it’s not-~-it often gets more backlash than is truly warranted.

That aside, politics is of course rearing its ugly head in the conversation over lowering the age restriction.  Conservatives seem concerned that this will lead to 15 and 16-year-olds having rampant unprotected sex.  This is an unwarranted claim: people are going to have sex regardless of whether or not they have access to Plan B.  This isn’t going to lead to more sexually active teenagers; it is just going to lead to fewer pregnant teenagers, which can only be a good thing.  For whatever reason, though, the age-old “if you don’t talk about teens having sex, they won’t have sex” rhetoric still seems to hold, despite mounting evidence that this approach is not working, and this debate has been thrust back into the spotlight by the proposed changes to the Plan B regulations.

This was a debate that was highlighted last year when New York City’s health clinics started issuing Plan B to minors, causing outrage.  Despite the criticisms, however, the program appears to be successful: falling rates of teen pregnancy across the city and increased access to comprehensive healthcare for students are major victories for this initiative.  But what the New York City program included was something that America badly needs: conversations on how to come up with an acceptable Plan A so you don’t need to keep falling back on Plan B, and an acceptance of the fact that teens are having sex, and this is a reality that we need to engage with.

This is a broader debate about teens, sexuality, and sexual health, and America needs to start having real conversations about how to address the real problems they are facing.  If abstinence-only isn’t working, then it is time to look at what options we can offer teens to help them have safe sex and make positive decisions about their sexual and reproductive health.  The time for these conversations is now-~-we can’t keep putting it off so we can debate about the morality of letting a 16-year-old prevent pregnancy.

I understand the concerns about teens having sex.  Teen pregnancy is a legitimate problem, and the 15-24 age bracket accounts for 50% of new STI infections every year.  If I were a parent, this would be terrifying to me.  But pretending that teens aren’t having sex, or trying to simply stop them from doing so, is not halting the spread of these problems.

Making Plan B available for younger girls is an important step in helping them prevent pregnancy, but we need a much broader debate on why young women should have access to other forms of contraception, so that they can have a legitimate Plan A.  We need a much bigger dialogue about consent and female sexual empowerment, so that girls are able to say no when they mean no, and can make good decisions when they choose to say yes.  We need to teach people how to correctly use condoms so that they can be effective, and make sure teens feel that they can get tested if they may be at risk.  Most of all, we need to lift that taboos on discussing sex and sexual health that make it impossible to really deal with the issues.

The personal may be political, but it is also very personal.  It’s time for people to be able to make the right decisions for themselves, and I for one am glad to see our government moving towards allowing young women to do just that.  My point is simply this: it’s not enough.  It’s not enough to let girls clean up the mess after they’ve gotten into it.  It’s not enough to tell them not to have sex.  It’s not enough to say “use a condom” if people still feel they can’t just buy them, or they’re worried their parents will find said condoms and there will be repercussions.  We don’t just need to change our policies, we need to change our rhetoric, and we need to change it now.

This is a concept that social scientists across a spectrum of fields agree upon, so I’m not opening the floor here for people to start arguing that gender is innate.  We define gender as the socially derived expectations, norms, and roles mapped onto a category of individuals based on sex category; we define sex category as one’s biological assignment based on sexual reproductive role.  It’s worth noting that some societies have a third gender that is not necessarily mapped onto the biological male/female binary, and also worth noting that there are intersexed people who fall outside that biological binary as well.  For the purposes of this post, I am mostly discussing gender in its most commonly-used context, as a socially constructed ideal mapped onto biological males and females.

I hope everyone’s with me so far.

Now, a reader who has been commenting on a different post brought up the question of how one can recognize gender as a social construct and still identify as male or female.  This post is kind of a response to that question (though said reader has been highly antagonistic towards us so I hope ze sees this because I’m not posting the link).  (Yes, I used ze, I’m not assuming gender here.  I’ll get to that in a second.)

Here’s the thing we need to realize: ALL elements of identity are socially constructed.  Identity markers are categories created for the purposes of social organization–everything from what we define as family, to gender, to race or ethnicity…these are social constructs, but they still play a role in defining how we see ourselves.  So if you define yourself in any way, you necessarily buy into some form of social construct.  Psychology tells us that humans defer to categorization in order to understand relationships and qualities-~-the brain works off hierarchies so that recognizing one or two things about a given subject can trigger other thoughts so that conclusions can be drawn without details being needed.  All of these social categories are a general result of this need for social organization.

Rejecting a gender category is actually a very difficult process, given the way our society works.  This brings us to a concept in gender I have probably under-covered on this blog: gender identity vs gender expression.  Gender identity refers to how we see ourselves, but gender expression refers to what we show others.  Society “reads” gender on us, and does so in such a way that if we CAN be put into a category, it will put us into that category.  Cis gendered people’s sex category, gender identity, and gender expression all match, but trans gendered people have a gender identity opposite that assigned to their sex category, and the process of transforming is a change in gender expression such that society will read the correct gender.  Gender non-conforming folk have a gender identity outside the gender binary, which means that gender expression becomes interesting to negotiate, and neither of these necessarily match sex category.

My point here is that gender, while not “innate”, is still fairly ubiquitous in our society.  It is in fact one of the earliest labels we assign to a person, from the moment the doctor announces “it’s a boy” or “it’s a girl”, and is one of the most basic dividing categories in human history.

The important thing here is that we can buy into a label or a category without it necessarily having to be innate.  Just for example, think about the idea of participating in a religion: religious identity isn’t innate, but it is an important part of many people’s lives.  It comes to influence their values, their lifestyles, etc., but it’s not something inherent to them.  You’re Catholic because you practice Catholicism, nothing more, but that doesn’t make a Catholic identity insignificant.

Similarly, we can buy into a gender identity and accept a gendered label while still recognizing that it is a socially derived category.  In

Disney’s “Mulan” is an easy example of a struggle with gender identity and gendered expectations

fact, because society is organized into labeled categories, it makes sense that people attempt to find the labels which most adequately fit their understandings of themselves.  The problem comes when individuals are forced to remain in categories they feel do not adequately fit them, and in response, society has created alternative labels-~-for example, “genderqueer” or “gender non-conforming”. These are more amorphous categories, created out of a more recent understanding that if gender is truly socially constructed and not innate, then this artificial binary may not capture everyone.

The problem doesn’t come from people accepting labels or buying into identities: it comes from these categories being ranked and ordered, and from groups imposing particular expectations and rules on other groups on the basis of these identities.  Feminism doesn’t necessarily reject the idea of gender, but it does reject the idea that one gender category should be and is prioritized over the other(s).  It rejects the idea that society can impose limits and double-standards on women simply because they are women.  The problem also comes when people make particular presumptions that everyone within a category is the same; while this is in line with my previous argument about categories and hierarchical information storage, the reality is that there are different ways in which people access their gender identity or sexuality, different ways in which a person can be feminine or identify as female, and all of those should be acceptable.  It is when society tells us that our identities are wrong, or that our identities are punishable, that these categories become a harm.

All of that said, at the end of the day, all of us buy into categories that have expectations and assumptions attached to them.  If you haven’t read my post “On Being Cisgendered” (which is about gender non-conformance and accepting gender identity), take a look.  All of us carry with us ways in which we define ourselves, which are socially constructed.  We understand ourselves in relation to the rest of society.  And there’s actually nothing innately wrong with that, either.

First and foremost, studies have shown that individuals who subscribe to “just say no” are more likely to have an unwanted pregnancy. Why?  Because when they do say yes, they’re unprepared to deal with it-~-they aren’t on birth control, they may not have a condom or know how to use one correctly.  They never took those preparatory steps, because they weren’t planning on saying anything but no.  This is a problem, because it means that teens are sent into the world ill-equipped to make responsible decisions.

You already knew that, most likely, but I figured I’d say it just in case.  The SECOND reason why “just say know” can’t work is the one I want to talk about today, and it deals with female sexual agency.  The following is an excerpt from my own research, as presented in Whose Fault is it Anyway? The Framing of Teen Pregnancy in the United States in Public Discourse and Popular Media (2012):

As sex is currently discussed in the United States, taboos on female sexuality create a “good girl” paradigm wherein “good girls are still supposed to ‘just say no’” (Tolman 1999:133).  This, too, represents a structural issue wherein female sexuality is simultaneously frowned upon and commodified such that young women are unable to identify with their own sexual agency; Fine (1988) argues that adolescent female sexuality is framed in terms of danger, victimization, and individual morality such that girls are not meant to be able to positively identify with sexual experience.  By making the principal sources of conversation about sex and sexuality more sex-positive, young women can be empowered to make choices, and therefore make healthier choices, regarding their sexual behavior. Additionally, sex-positive sex education has the potential to address other issues, such as what constitutes consent and how to build healthy relationships.  These issues are fundamental to reducing problems such as unwanted sexual contact, which is has also been linked to adolescent pregnancy, as well as a lack of dialogue between partners that is fundamental to the development of healthy sexual relationships.

The agency issue speaks to a greater problem with the underlying assumptions in behavioral interventions—that is, behavioral interventions presume that subjects can be made to select “healthier” options.  This premise comes from the theory of reasoned action, which postulates that behavioral intentions, which function as antecedents to behavior, are informed by salient information or beliefs (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980), and thus if one can provide salient information in favor of a particular option or alter beliefs regarding health behaviors, one can influence an individual’s intentions such that they will pursue healthier behaviors.  This theory has manifested itself in behavioral interventions such as pushes for condom usage and the practice of sex education, especially abstinence-only sex education.  These interventions necessarily try to change either the body of information available or the attitudes associated with sex in order to guide adolescents towards less risky behaviors, primarily abstinence or at least the use of protection such as condoms or birth control.

Unfortunately, this approach rests on the assumption that individuals are able to carry out these behaviors, or that they feel able to carry out these behaviors.  The theory of planned behavior includes perception of behavioral control in the analysis of individuals’ decision-making processes (Azjen 1985).  An individual’s perception of his or her own ability to successfully pursue any given option influences the likelihood of said individual to try pursuing said option.  For example, if a young woman feels she can successfully communicate with her boyfriend about using a condom, she is more likely to do, but if she perceives the likelihood of success of such an endeavor to be low, she is unlikely to insist that he use a condom.  Similarly, if a young woman does not feel that she can successfully undertake contraceptive measures she is less likely to pursue them.  This is part of the reason for the knowledge/behavior gap often seen in sexual and reproductive health: individuals know about protection, but due to other barriers feel unable to implement the measures that they are aware of.  Moreover, if young women do not feel that they have the right or the ability to refuse sex if their partners desire it, even campaigns such as “just say no” are unlikely to succeed.  This is one of the reasons that alterations to current interventions—for example, making sex education more sex-positive to empower young women to access their sexual agency—are necessary in order to increase the perceived ability of individuals to engage in safer sex practices.

I know, that was a lot of sociology in a very small space, and not everyone reading this blog is a sociologist.  But I think we can all understand the issue here: if young women don’t feel they have a right to say no to their boyfriends if their boyfriends want sex, or if young women don’t feel that they can expect success if they ask their boyfriends to use a condom, then these programs are going to fail.  Young women need to feel that they have a SAY in what happens to them sexually, and that they have a RIGHT to make decisions about their own bodies and their own sexual experiences, if we want to promote safe sex or even just abstinence.

“Just Say No” isn’t working, but if we even want it to have a shot, then we need to start empowering young girls to SAY no when they mean no, instead of just saying yes because they think they have to.

BOOKS

1. The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan

Why: Because it’s a classic.  This book kick-started the modern feminist movement, and it’s hard to know where you’re going until you know where you come from, especially with evolving social ideologies like feminism.  Understanding feminism’s roots also contextualizes critiques of feminism and can be valuable in understanding the construction of the movement.

2. Feminism is for Everybody by bell hooks

Why: It’s an accessible introduction to popular feminist theory, that begins to introduce the ideas of one of the most well-known intersectional feminist thinkers.  hooks critically approaches a range of issues faced by feminists today, including well-known ones like reproductive rights and work opportunities, to under-discussed ones related to the intersections of race, class and gender.

3. Full Frontal Feminism by Jessica Valenti

Why: Full Frontal Feminism gives an introduction to feminism in a way that is applicable and accessible to young people today.  It focuses on issues that are a reminder as to why feminism is still relevant, at a time when people are trying to claim that feminism is dead.  In addition, Valenti is a popular voice in modern mainstream feminism, and worth getting familiar with.

If you’re interested in sexual/reproductive rights…

4. The Means of Reproduction by Michelle Goldberg

Why: Goldberg does a phenomenal job of covering the issue of reproductive rights, from the birth control movement to the issue of abortion to the subject of female genital mutilation.  She does so in an incredibly fact-based, journalistic way, and approaches the issues from various angles to provide a good historical background to contextualize modern debates on the issues.

If you’re interested in pop culture…

5. Cinderella Ate My Daughter by Peggy Orenstein

Why: first, I’m biased, because this is the book that drew me into feminism.  Second, it’s well-written, and addresses issues related to the production of femininity and female sexuality that are incredible relevant today.  She does so both from a journalistic perspective as well as a parent’s perspective, making the book more relatable and an enjoyable read.

6. Gaga Feminism by J. Jack Halberstam

Why: this book provides a way to analyze different pieces of pop culture through a feminist lens.  It also incorporates an analysis of gender identity and queer identities within the context of pop culture.  The examples it uses are relevant and well-explained as well.

BLOGS

1. Finally, a Feminism 101

Why: this blog is DESIGNED to be an access point for people who are not as familiar with feminism.  Its goal is to dispel myths and provide an introduction to feminist ideas and the feminist movement.  If you’re just getting into feminism, it can be a really good starting point before you get sucked into some of the other blogs.

2. Feministing

Why: This blog is also meant to make feminism accessible, and explains things in common-sense ways while discussing modern issues that are fairly well covered.

If you’re interested in feminism from an international perspective:

3. Gender Across Borders

Why: Women’s issues transcend geopolitical borders.  Understanding the ways in which feminism has been globalized and the ways in which women’s issues differ around the world can be useful.  It is worth recognizing, however, that the blog is written from a predominantly western feminist perspective, so don’t take it as a window into, say, Arab feminism.  It is, however, a good introduction to women’s issues outside the US.

Every so often, the Women in Politics Institute at American University releases a study confirming what we already know: there are a lack of women in Washington, DC.  Though 2012 saw more women elected to Congress than ever before, they still hold less than 20% of seats in the legislature, despite making up just over 50% of the population.  Women are currently absent from all four top cabinet positions, and in fact hold only 2 cabinet positions at the moment, and one of those is only an acting secretary.  There are a couple more women in cabinet-level positions, but not many.  Add to that a small number of female governors, and you’re starting to get a pattern.  On top of that, women are pushed out of fields like international security and policy-making in the government, academia, and think tanks.

(Tell me again that we don’t need feminism?)

There are a lot of things that make it difficult for women to succeed in politics.  One is in fact the current lack of women in politics, because the lack of role models indicates that the field remains unfriendly to women.  This is a problem not unlike the problems we see with STEM fields.  Another problem is the dual pressure to care for children and pursue a career, which can be a turn-off for women.

But one of the other barriers has to do with how we discuss female politicians.  It is an unfortunate phenomena, but it is worth pointing out that female politicians are discussed in particular gendered terms, and discussed in ways male politicians are not; this discourse helps to perpetuate the either gendered stereotypes that harm female candidates or makes them seem less serious than their male counterparts, and it’s the main problem I want to discuss today.

Let’s take it back to an interview that took place a little while back, shall we?

Interviewer: Okay. Which designers do you prefer?

Hillary Clinton: What designers of clothes?

Interviewer: Yes.

Hillary Clinton: Would you ever ask a man that question?

Interviewer: Probably not. Probably not.

I bring this up because I think it is fantastic that Hillary Clinton called this reporter on this problem.  Women who work in politics are asked about things that have nothing to do with their political aspirations, stances, or resume.  They are never just politicians-~-they are women, and as such, they are discussed in these highly feminized terms, and the media tends to focus excessively on appearance and whether or not they come across as sufficiently “feminine”.

This has been floating through the media and the internet because of a recent debate over the acceptability of commenting on female politicians’ appearances.  But now there seems to be a sub-debate over whether or not it is acceptable for the media to analyze female politicians’ hair and clothes, and the focus for the moment is on Hillary Clinton (which is probably why it caught my attention to begin with).

I actually think Amanda Hess deals with this fantastically in her article in Slate Magazine.  Hess points out the litany of ways in which reporters have fixated on how female politicians dress, do their hair, and handle their makeup, while missing real issues at play.  She focuses on Maureen Dowd’s writings on Clinton, as hers is the most recent addition to this, but highlights Dowd’s history of over-analyzing appearance and reducing female leaders and role models more generally to their gender and their looks.  She also rightfully points out that male politicians have a pretty uniform dress code-~-pants suit and tie-~-while women’s fashion has been and likely always will be somewhat more complicated to navigate.  Men’s business attire was established at a time when women weren’t a part of business, so that now even mundane decisions like wearing pants or wearing a color are seen as a statement.

While Hess does a good job of contextualizing the fashion debate, I think that the analysis needs to go a step further.  When Americans, directed by the American media, focus on things like clothes, they lose sight of more important things, like issues.  The media necessarily perpetuates a gendered discourse about female politicians while treating male politicians as gender-neutral.  The clothing debate just serves as a clear window into this problem, because men’s fashion is taken for granted, and treated as a non-subject, while women’s is not, but this actually extends to other problems.

When the media picked on Sarah Palin because her daughter was pregnant and tried to frame her as a bad mother, they presented her in gendered terms in an attempt to discredit her on the basis of something irrelevant to her political capabilities.  When the media attacked Hillary Clinton for staying with her husband despite his scandals, they projected a popularly conceived idea of acceptable behavior onto a woman’s individual choices.  We talk more about Michelle Obama’s closet and bangs than we do about her public health initiatives.  Nancy Pelosi is frequently discussed in gendered terms as well.  Across the board, female candidates’ families are more likely to be brought up than those of their male counterparts, and women are more likely to be attacked for things disconnected to the issues.

The result is a discourse that frames female candidates as less serious, less worthy of consideration, less legitimate as choices for public office.  Questions like “what are your favorite designers” shift the focus from pressing matters of national concern, and reporters analyzing Hillary Clinton’s hair could be evaluating her actual chances of winning the Democratic primary or what kinds of fundraising she’s engaging in, which are far better indicators of a decision regarding candidacy for president.

My point?  The way we talk about women in politics is keeping women out of politics, which means that if we want to answer the question “how do we get women into Washington”, we need to start asking REAL questions about women candidates, their stances on the issues, and what they want to achieve-~-not why they cut their hair.

If the answer wasn’t “within the last six months”, it is time to get yourself tested.  If the answer wasn’t “since I started seeing my most recent sexual partner”, it may be time to get yourself tested.  Not sure if you’re at risk?  Planned Parenthood has a handy quiz to help assess if you’re likely to be at risk for STIs and if you need to get tested, and it’s worth taking a look.

Why am I bringing this up?  Because April is National STI Awareness Month.  I know what you’re thinking, we know what STIs are, we all got to hear about them from our tenth grade health teachers.  I wish that sex ed were doing enough for STI awareness-~-but of course, it isn’t.  Let’s take a look at some facts and stats, shall we?

• 15-24-year-olds make up 25% of sexually active individuals, but account for almost 50% of all new STI infections
• The CDC estimates that there are about 20 MILLION new STI infections each year
• Many STIs don’t have visible symptoms, and a large number of infected individuals don’t know their status
• 1 in 2 young people will get an STI by age 25
• Women are disproportionately impacted by STIs, due in large part to biological factors

(Most of those statistics came from the CDC and Planned Parenthood)

Those are some pretty incredible stats.  One in TWO?  20 million new infections per year?  STIs are a major public health concern in the United States, and around the world, and we aren’t talking about them nearly enough.  Having another STI increases an individual’s risk of HIV infection.  And you can’t tell if an individual has an STI just by looking at them-~-you may not even know if YOU have an STI.  The only way to know is to get yourself tested.

There are a couple more things you should know about STIs.  First, the most common STIs are chlamydia and gonnorhea-~-and they can be cured.  Syphilis can also be treated/cured.  This means that a positive STI diagnosis doesn’t have to have a permanent impact on  your life.  There is no cure for HIV or herpes, but both conditions can be managed to reduce the likelihood of transmission and manage symptoms.  The only way to make a decision about your health in order to give you the best outcome, however, is to know your status.

This is not true.

I just want to take a second to talk about barriers to testing.  Money should not be one of them.  You can use this website to search for a free or low-cost clinic in your area if you are in need of testing services.  That said, there is stigma surrounding testing for STIs.  People often think that getting tested means they have done something wrong, that they are tainted, that there is something dirty about them. This is not true.  STIs can impact anyone, regardless of whether they are gay, straight, etc.; you can get an infection even if you’ve been faithful to your partner; you can get an infection even if you have only had one partner.  It can often be uncomfortable to talk to a partner about getting tested together, but experts in the field recommend this if it is possible, because it’s important for both partners to know if there is a problem.

A related problem has to do with condom usage.  I’ve talked multiple times on this blog about issues surrounding condom usage and how important they are.  A couple of things: 1) condoms are not perfect, but they are the only method we have for preventing STI transmission, 2) female condoms are, statistically speaking, just as effective as male condoms for preventing STI transmission and can be a good option if this is a problem, and 3) if you are dealing with issues related to sexual health and people aren’t using condoms, don’t assume it is because of stupidity; women are often made to feel like they don’t have a right to ask a man to use a condom, and there may be other reasons why a couple may choose not to use a condom.

At the end of the day, how you conduct yourself sexually is your choice.  But you can make the best decisions when you have the most information.  Get tested.  Give yourself a chance to make the best healthcare decisions for yourself and for your relationships.  For more resources, please visit this website, or go to www.plannedparenthood.org.

When we get to the end of April, I hope EVERYONE can say they have done something.  If it’s big, if it’s small, it doesn’t matter.  I’m asking you, what have you done?

I’m not asking you to sign up to become a rape crisis counselor (although if you live in DC and you want to do this, DCRCC is recruiting!).  I’m not asking you to take off your shirt and march in a SlutWalk.  I’m asking you to open your eyes.  We are saturated with rape culture every day.  This month, we are trying to make people wake up and see what is happening around them, to see how big a problem this is, and to try to change it.

Call people out on rape jokes.  I’m begging you: do this.  Call people out on slut shaming.  Don’t let people get away with saying victims deserved it.  Talk to the people you love about what consent means.  Go to an event.  Share  a survivor’s story.  Do something, do anything, to help break the silence about sexual assault.

This month, I will be participating in my university’s Take Back the Night march.  I’ll also be attending a screening of The Invisible War and participating in other events on my campus.  And I’ll be here, of course, blogging.  I’ll be participating in town halls and community forums on sexual assault.  And I will 100% be taking questions, both here and on the Tumblr site, about sexual assault.

This is the thing I need people to realize: I am going to use statistics, but they won’t be 100% accurate.  They’ll be the generally accepted statistics, and I’ll try to provide sources, but recognize that rape and sexual assault are among the most under-reported crimes in the United States, and indeed in the world. We are not sure exactly how many people have been impacted by the crime of sexual assault.  The statistics we use are approximations.

They’re terrifying approximations.

Here’s one that isn’t, though, and it’s the one I’ll start this month with, because I want you to remember it, when people tell you that rape culture doesn’t exist or that rape isn’t really that prevalent.  70% of college males will admit to committing rape in anonymous surveys where the word rape is not used but the act of rape is described.  Most colleges treat rape as an infraction, rather than as a violent crime.

How many victims are never going to see justice because of this?

Open your eyes.  We are living in a culture that permits and even promotes sexual conquest at the expense of sexual safety, a culture that prioritizes the rights of perpetrators over the rights of victims.  I said this in my last post, but our culture needs to change.

I can say that all I want, and you can like this post, but at the end of the day, it’s going to take more.  So I’ll ask you again, what are you going to do?  How are you planning to fight rape culture this month?

Because the time is now.  It’s April, ladies, gentlemen and those who identify otherwise.  Brace yourselves.

I have to be honest: it’s exhausting talking about rape and rape culture.  But you know what I’m really tired of?  LIVING with rape culture.

Steubenville was a shock to so many people because it was so violent, so graphic, and so clearly rape.  It was a shock to so many people because both the victim and the perpetrators were young.  And it was a shock to people when there was backlash against the victim and in response to the conviction, because this case was so appalling.

I was sad to realize that I wasn’t shocked.  I was disgusted, yes.  People tweeted and posted on the internet that the victim deserved it because she was drunk, that she was asking for it, that it was her fault.  People sympathized with the rapists, saying that this destroyed their lives and they didn’t deserve this.

The victim in the Steubenville case did not deserve to be raped.  No one EVER deserves to be raped.  And the perpetrators deserved their conviction.  They deserved more than two years in prison.  Because while that sentence may mess up their lives, their victim has been physically and psychologically traumatized, and her life has been damaged as well.  The difference is that they made a conscious choice to rape, which is a felony.  All she was guilty of was going to a party and having a drink.  And if you’re reading this and thinking about posting in the comments that underage drinking is illegal, don’t do it: underage drinking is a misdemeanor, and it does not justify the fact that this girl was raped.  If you’re drunk when someone robs you, society doesn’t say that excuses the robber’s behavior.  It shouldn’t excuse the rapists’ behavior here either.

The problem is, I’m not entirely convinced that people quite get what rape culture is.  I’m not sure the lesson is going to stick.  There’s been a lot of outrage on both sides, but while I think people recognize that rape culture exists and that it played a role in this case, I’m still not convinced they genuinely understand how many different ways it manifested itself, and how much our culture needs to change.

Rape culture is society telling a victim she deserved rape or asked for rape.

Rape culture is a community covering up a crime instead of confronting the perpetrators because it’s “less embarrassing”.

Rape culture is the judge in this case saying that the real problem was that the videos were taken and released through social media, as if social media is the real issue and not the fact that a girl was raped.

Rape culture is people sympathizing with the rapists, because this will ruin their futures and colleges won’t want them.

Rape culture is young people saying that they don’t understood how this girl could be raped if she wasn’t awake to say no.

Rape culture is victims being harassed and embarrassed for being raped.

Rape culture is people saying it’s time to remind our daughters not to drink, not to wear short skirts, and to always watch their backs.

We need to have different conversations about rape in this country, and we needed to start having them long before Steubenville made people sick to their stomachs and long before people started saying they were tired of hearing about rape culture.  I am SO GLAD that in recent years people have started talking about rape culture.  We can’t ignore it any longer!  We have to fight it.  Something has to give, and the time is now.

But I am still not sure that this is going to make enough of a difference.  Because people will get tired of talking about it.  People are going to blame the victim.  People are going to sympathize with the rapists.  And people are going to continue to lash out at those who point out the flaws in our current culture.

If we want this to make a difference, we need to take the rage about Steubenville and make a national conversation happen about what consent means and what rape truly is.  We need a national dialogue about teaching men not to rape, instead of teaching women not to get raped.  We need a serious talk about what it means to respect women and how big a deal rape truly is.  We need to be teaching bystander intervention and we need to be teaching that there is no excuse for rape.  The time is now.  ”Rape culture” is being tossed around like a volleyball and we can take the momentum that we got from this case and start making a difference, or we can get bogged down arguing with victim-blamers, slut-shamers and people who think that being a football player means you are above the law.

America, we can do so much better than we’ve done.  It would be great if we didn’t screw this up.

Well, the federal government stopped enforcing DOMA a few years ago, and this week, SCOTUS is going to rule on its constitutionality.  On top of that, they’re ALSO going to rule on the constitutionality of Prop 8, the law that was put to public vote in California that resulted in the banning of same-sex marriages within the state.  These two rulings will change the shape of the marriage equality debate in the United States, and I for one am waiting with my fingers crossed for some pro-equality decisions.

Today’s ruling is going to be about Prop 8, so let’s just do a little refresher on what’s going on here: the case is called Hollingsworth v Perry, and it was initiated by the American Foundation for Equal Rights on behalf of two same-sex couples in California.  They are arguing that Proposition 8 violates Due Process and the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, rendering it unconstitutional.

Tomorrow, the Court will be ruling on DOMA, which is an equally big deal.  The case is United States v Windsor, with Windsor being represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the United States being represented by a group called BLAG (which stands for the Bipartisan Legal Advocacy Group).  BLAG is led by House Republicans (so, not that bipartisan at all) and was put together to defend DOMA after the federal government ceased to do so in 2011.  Before the Court can even HEAR the case, they have to determine two things: 1) what is the standing of BLAG, given that it is not the federal government representing itself and 2) does the court even have the jurisdiction to hear the case, given that the federal government agrees with Windsor that the law is unconstitutional?  These are just some things to keep in mind if you’re following the case.

If you’re not all that familiar with DOMA, you can read my previous post about it here.  DOMA is problematic because it prevents legally married same-sex couples from accessing benefits at the federal level, including those related to military spouses, taxes, etc., and it prevents them from doing things like sponsoring their spouses for visas.  As with Hollingsworth v Perry, this case argues that DOMA violates the equal protection clause of the constitution.

If the court rules these laws unconstitutional, it will be a major win for advocates of marriage equality across the United States.  It will mean that all legally married couples in the US will be able to access the same rights and privileges at the federal level regardless of their gender composition.

But even more importantly, it potentially means that laws pertaining to sexual orientation will be elevated to the level of strict scrutiny, and for all my non-legal scholar readers, let me just clarify: strict scrutiny is the level at which we examine laws that pertain to race and to fundamental rights.  (We don’t evaluate gender at this level for whatever reason, and at present, we also don’t evaluate sexual orientation at this level-~-gender is evaluated at the level of intermediate scrutiny, and I believe sexual orientation is too, but don’t quote me on that).  This means that there is a greater threshold to prove compelling state interest in proving the legality of laws before the Court, and would make it easier to strike down laws that discriminate against the LGBTQ community in the future.

That said, for now, SCOTUS hasn’t released any decisions, and until they do, all we can do is watch, wait, and hope.