I just wanted to let everyone know that I’m going to be guest-blogging at Alas, a blog throughout the month of May. Of course, I’ll be cross-posting back here too.

I usually like Dan Savage, but he has the tendency to say really stupid offensive things about a) the female body and how disgusting cunnilingus/vaginas/etc are and b) bisexuality. From this week’s column:

Very few bisexual women wind up “sharing their lives” with other women; like most bisexuals, male and female, you are in—or were in—a stable, loving, committed, opposite-sex relationship. And, hey, there’s nothing wrong with that. I’m a fan of stable, loving, committed, opposite-sex relationships. Really. And I no longer believe that most bisexuals wind up in them because you’re all liars and cheats, or that you’re all dying to access societal perks reserved for heterosexuals, or that you’re all cowards and it’s hard out here for a homo. I think most bisexuals wind up in heterosexual relationships because most bisexuals are mostly hetero. You may be physically attracted to both sexes, but most of you can only fall in love with an opposite-sex partner.

Yes, yes—there are some bi guys out there with guys and bi girls with girls. But they are the exceptions to the rule, and there’s nothing bi-phobic about calling attention to their rarity. And before angry bisexuals start pounding away at their keyboards, consider this: My current position on bisexuals winding up with opposite-sex partners (you’re mostly straight) is a hell of a lot more charitable than my previous position (you’re cowards, liars, cheats, etc.).

First of all, this has almost nothing to do with the letter he’s answering.

Second, yes, Dan, this is extraordinarily biphobic. You are denying the validity of the bisexual identity. Just because you’re not as incredibly ignorant as you were once upon a time doesn’t mean this attitude is acceptable.

Okay, let’s look at some facts:

1. Anywhere from 1-10% of the population is homosexual. (Depending on the study you trust.)

2. This makes finding an opposite-sex partner much easier than finding a same-sex partner if you are attracted to both. It’s a matter of population proportion.

3. Many homosexual people such as yourself tend to be prejudiced about dating bisexuals. As a matter of fact, you have given advice to monosexual people NOT to date bisexuals for a variety of bigoted and ignorant reasons in the past. (Your proposed solution, that bisexuals only date other bisexuals, would be wonderful for some of us if that were a practical attitude to take given the relatively small number of bisexuals in society.)

4. Given that it is statistically easier to find a heterosexual partner and that many homosexuals are distrustful of bisexuals and don’t wish to date them, I think it makes sense that many bisexual people end up with opposite sex partners.

5. I’m not straight. I’m not even “mostly” straight. (And what is that distinction, anyway? All I can think of is The Princess Bride. “He’s mostly dead, not ALL dead. Mostly dead is still partly alive.”) I’m a big huge dyke who happens to occasionally meet people of the male persuasion with whom the idea of romantic involvement doesn’t strike me as unpleasant. That said, I never seem to meet any nice lesbians so I guess I’m stuck. Maybe if I move to Boulder, huh?

I don’t care if this attitude is a slight improvement over the things you’ve previously written. And I don’t think it’s whining to point out that, as far as non-monosexual orientations go (because bisexual, straight, and gay aren’t the only options), you’re an ignorant asshole.

That is all.

I find it bizarre that so many people apparently think that makeup (that is, specifically, the conscious decision not to wear it) is not a feminist issue.

Okay. I am not attacking anybody here. I do not care what you do with yourself, that is your business. You are allowed to dress and act however you like and I will not try to stop you. I may, however, question why you feel the need to conform to popular images of ideal beauty and ideal femininity, if in fact you do. I am not saying that you are doing anything wrong, per se, but I do believe the pressures which make you want to achieve the popular beauty ideal are wrong. Largely, I couldn’t really give a shit what you want to do with your body or how you rationalize it if you can extend to me the same courtesy.

But when [American, can't speak for anyone else] feminists insist that the standards of insecurity which are shoved down every woman’s throat every single day don’t exist, I get irritated. When feminists insist that there is no pressure forcing women to wear makeup, shave, wear skirts or high heels or bras, etc., I get pissed off. When feminists who do conform to what just happens to be fashionable take it as a personal affront that I insist on my right to not give in, I get angry.

Whenever the issue is brought up, some people will get defensive and feel the need to explain exactly why they do whatever the thing is which is the subject at hand. “I prefer the feel of smooth, hairless skin.” “I see wearing makeup as artistic expression.” (However, I do accept the fact that bras are comfortable for some people and uncomfortable for others so I’m not bringing that one in here.) Fine. Explain your reasons, but understand that in many cases, you are diverting the subject at hand, namely: that’s great if it works for you, but can’t you support those of us who can’t or don’t want to conform? After all, that was the whole point why we brought it up.

I don’t believe it is possible to freely choose to wear makeup, wear high heels, shave, etc., etc., in society as it stands today. I do not think this free choice exists. It would be great if it did and then everyone could express themselves visually however they cared to and no one would judge them as “filthy”, “disgusting”, “not taking care of herself” or a “dyke”. How wonderful that would be. But things aren’t that way.

Don’t you ever wonder WHY wearing makeup “makes you feel pretty”? WHY you “prefer the feel of smooth skin” or why not shaving makes you feel “grungy” or whatever else? WHY you feel “exposed” if you don’t wear certain undergarments if you really don’t have to for medical or comfort-related reasons? WHY short women “need” to wear heels for the extra height?

You probably won’t like the answers, but don’t worry, really: it’s not a reflection on you. Internalizing the standards pushed on you isn’t your fault and doesn’t make you a bad person, but you still ought to acknowledge the reasons why.

As an example, let’s go down my personal “beauty standard conformity checklist”. I don’t like makeup. Bras are uncomfortable. Heels kill my feet and I can’t walk in them. Two of the three here are strictly comfort-related issues, which makes it pretty easy for me to just say no.

But then…my dirty little secret: I have been known to shave. Not all the time because I have thick hair and sensitive skin so it takes forever and causes irritation or ingrown hairs. My skin would be healthier if I never did it. But I do anyway. It’s hell on my legs.

Why do I do it, then?

I could say it’s because I think skirts or swimsuits look bad with hairy legs. But why do I think that? Because I’ve internalized the message that it’s wrong and bad and I can’t seem to get over it even though I know that a) it’s bad for me personally because of my sensitive skin and b) if people can’t deal with it that’s their weird hangup that has nothing to do with me.

I acknowledge that this is an issue I have trouble with. I acknowledge that it’s hard to actually resist every aspect of the reigning standard. I don’t think it’s hypocritical to oppose something in theory, something little like wearing makeup or shaving, and then do it anyway because of the social pressure. I just think it sucks that anyone feels the need to do it at all if they’d rather not.

If there is a woman on this Earth who is truly free of all pressure to conform to her society’s standards, and she happens to choose to follow them anyway for reasons of personal expression and empowerment, good for her.

I don’t think she exists. I’m idealistic, yes, but not that idealistic.

These things are a feminist issue. I don’t think anyone is obligated to NOT conform if they happen to like looking/acting/being a certain way simply in order to make a statement of feminist solidarity, no. Of course not. That not solving the problem, it’s an opposite extreme. It’s imposing an anti-standard. That’s certainly not a solution and certainly not what I’m advocating. Do whatever makes you feel most comfortable, even if the reason for comfort is knowing you won’t be harassed or you’ll have it easier.

But until women actually are free from the pressure to dress and groom themselves a certain way, I’m not going to believe that most people simply “happen” to agree with the prevailing standard of their own entirely free will with no influence from the culture around them. To think that seems unspeakably naive.

I’m relieved to learn that Colorado has good legal protection for breastfeeding mothers. A mother here can do it anywhere “she has a right to be”, meaning not only public places, but stores, restaurants, work, etc. Good for Colorado.

If you live in the US and want to know what the laws are where you live, check this page out.

So I found a link to Reluctant Lactivist via Alas today. Again this stupid thing about breasts and people’s stupid related hang-ups. But anyway, the story is basically thus:

On April 4th I sat down on a bench at the Gateway Fred Meyer to nurse my two-month-old son. It was about five o’clock on a busy Tuesday afternoon. The last place I wanted to be nursing was in that spot as it was noisy and distracting, but at the time, I couldn’t think of better place to attend to my baby’s needs. I also had my rather flighty three-year-old daughter with me, so wandering around the store to find a quieter spot would’ve left me instead chasing a toddler while carrying a bawling baby. Anyway, I’ve always made a point of nursing in public as part of my personal breastfeeding promotion campaign. So, I sat there, struggling to get my crying son to nurse while keeping an eye on my toddler in a busy store. Like many women living in a culture that has so thoroughly sexualized them, baring my breasts in public is not something I relish. At the same time, attending to my baby’s needs is more important to me that maintaining my modesty. So, I do my best to keep myself covered and assume that people will be polite enough not to stare. It’s not easy, though, to be discreet when nursing an upset two-month-old.

After nursing for five minutes or so, my son seemed comfortable enough for us to start shopping. As I reached into my bag to get my sling, Troy Hardig, Gateway Store Director, approached me. He had a weird look on his face and as I was trying to figure out why he was apporaching me when he opens with, “Oh, good. You’re getting a blanket.” He told me there had been complaints about my nursing, not that he minded, but that some people were offended. I was so stunned I couldn’t think of what to say, except to remind him that Oregon law protects a mother’s right to nurse in public. I felt absolutely humiliated. His comments left me feeling like I’d been doing something lewd. Unbelievably, when I spoke with Todd Heinle, Fred Meyers East Portland/SW Wash Operations Supervisor, a couple days later about the incident, he supported the store manager’s claim that I should have been more “discreet” and that three people had complained. I’m outraged that Fred Meyer’s corporate policy supports legitimizing the complaints of those offended by mothers who nurse in public, rather than the legally protected right of mothers who are trying to take care of their children. How can the offended sensibilities of even a dozen customers trump the legitimate needs of a baby?

I think she’s doing well for herself, getting the story out there on the news and all. Read more of her blog if you want to know more details. Good for her. I think this woman is totally awesome.

It’s the comments ignorant people are making about this that I want to talk about. People’s attitudes on breastfeeding pretty much enrage me. I’m not a mother but I want to be at some point and when I do have babies, of course I plan to breastfeed them (barring any unforeseen circumstances, since there are the occasional babies that won’t or can’t breastfeed).
Read the rest of this entry »

Bush on immigration:

President Bush, rebutting lawmakers advocating a law-and-order approach to immigration, said Monday that those who are calling for massive deportation of the estimated 11 million foreigners living illegally in the United States are not being realistic.

“Massive deportation of the people here is not going to work,” Bush said as a Congress divided over immigration returned from a two-week recess. “It’s just not going to work.”

…it is so bizarre to agree with him on something. (Although I know he’s only pandering to the corporations which benefit from cheap migrant labor, but when corporate interests happen to be the voice of logic…creepy.)

But it’s NOT realistic, and it WON’T solve the problem.

I’ll say it again: the issue most people are upset about are that Americans can’t compete with Mexicans for jobs, because the migrant workers aren’t able to organize to demand better wages and are willing to settle for basically nothing. The problem isn’t the desperate people looking for work: it’s corporate exploitation. Target the actual people responsible. Enforce the laws already on the books criminalizing the hiring of illegal workers. That’ll be much more effective in preventing people from coming than just deporting people.

I think no new legislation is even necessary. We already have all the laws we need on the books, don’t we? The problem is they aren’t being enforced because politicians will say one thing and do another (big surprise) — the people they supposedly “represent” demand stricter immigration laws, so they’ll give lip service to it…but the laws we already have aren’t being enforced because the people who fund both major parties prefer it that way.

Blogging against heteronormativity!

From Wikipedia:

Heteronormativity is a term used in the discussion of sexual behavior, gender, and society, primarily within the fields of queer theory and gender theory. It is used to describe (and frequently to criticize) the manner in which many social institutions and social policies are seen to reinforce certain beliefs.

These include the belief that human beings fall into two distinct and complementary categories, male and female; that sexual and marital relations are normal only when between two people of different genders; and that each gender has certain natural roles in life. Thus, physical sex, gender identity, and gender roles should in any given person align to either all-male or all-female norms, and heterosexuality is considered to be the only normal sexual orientation. The norms this term describes or criticizes might be overt, covert, or implied. Those who identify and criticize heteronormativity say that it distorts discourse by stigmatizing alternative concepts of both sexuality and gender and makes certain types of self-expression more difficult.

I have an anecdote to share: my ten-year-old brother, sweet, perceptive child that he is, one day remarked as we were watching commercials on TV, “Why do they only show straight couples?” (Sort of like the time he asked why human beings are called “man” and “mankind” since we’re not just made of men — yes, my siblings are pretty awesome.)

“That’s called heterocentrism,” I replied. “Being straight is all you see because it’s what everyone is assumed to be.”

“That’s stupid,” he said.

I agree.

Another anecdote: in my fiction, several of my central characters in my ongoing projects are queer. I don’t know how many times I’ve had parents/older authority figures/whoever ask me why “all my stories are gay”.

My stories aren’t all gay. Some of my stories don’t have any queer characters at all, some only have a few. The ones in which queer characters are the main ones are of course going to have a greater emphasis on and representation of queers — because we tend to like to make friends with at least some others who share our concerns and experiences. I think I overall have a 50-50 split in my representation of straight vs. gay characters. Perhaps not even that; my trans characters in my novel are technically straight girls, GLBT or not.

People ask me why I’m into slash and why I “choose to write gay love stories”.

Why do straight people choose to write about straight characters?

Everything I read is about straight people. I have been known to be subject to the occasional bout of heterosexual attraction; I think male/female couples are perfectly good writing material. (Even better than straight ones, though, are queer male/female couples. Just because you’re in a “straight” partnership doesn’t mean the individuals participating aren’t queer. Bi and pansexuals do exist. Sometimes, pretty fucking rarely unless they’re in the closet, homosexuals date people of the opposite sex, even — though I think lesbians seem to be more flexible on this point. Heteronormative assumptions strike again!)

Science fiction isn’t queer enough. It’s probably more queer than a lot of other genres barring stuff specifically aimed at a queer market. Speculative fiction that isn’t just science-based tends to be slightly more fabulous…but, still…

I write what I want to read. No one else is going to, so I should, right?

But it’s not “normal”. It’s not the “default”. Writing a book about a gay man suddenly makes me “weird”.

Why?

I am one of those people with the ability to read gay subtext into absolutely anything. (If queer media were prevalent enough, to be fair, I’d probably read straight subtext into that, too.) Half the movies I watch end up with me proclaiming how I think a character is gay or has a thing for another character of the same sex. I’ve read whole books secretly hoping a same-sex couple hooks up in the end, conveniently trying to ignore or downplay any heterosexual entanglements of which I am not fond. I played Kingdom Hearts and its sequel because of my desperate belief that Sora and Riku were meant to be with each other even though the love triangle actually involves their mutual crushes on the girl character, whom I despise (or, well, I did until the end of KH2, but that’s another story) and try to pretend doesn’t exist.

If the possibility isn’t explicitly precluded by the plot, or if I don’t like the male/female couples in a story, I’ll read gay subtext into everything I see. No one except maybe my sister and my friend Megan can really spot the covert homosexuality in just about anything the way that I can.

People think I’m nuts.

Perhaps, perhaps not, but I’ll tell you what this means, what it says about me — it’s a coping strategy. It’s my way of coping with the fact that most of the mainstream movies I watch don’t include people like me or my friends, except as a sexless footnote or a freakish joke. I do watch a lot of queer film and read a lot of queer lit, but not always, not exclusively — how could I, and why? It’s just so frustrating to know that, in most mainstream media, I’m either an abnormal anomaly or my existence isn’t even considered as a possibility. I think that has been getting better, but it’s still pretty bad.

The media’s probably the place where I feel most represented, as a matter of fact, because there are movies that at least acknowledge that gay people exist (in however clumsy or offensive a fashion). It’s the day to day experience of life that exasperates me. Unless I’m in the company of other queers, most people seem to be utterly ignorant about even the possibility of homosexuality, and if they think it exists, they just have to tell me their bizarre, totally offensive, and utterly flawed theories about it. They don’t even acknowledge people who aren’t monosexual.

And these theories on why people become gay? They are flawed because they conform to heteronormative theories of personality because, of course, most straight people can’t think outside of that box — which is understandable (hell, I don’t understand straight people, I can’t think in the heteronormative box), but annoying as all hell. For example:

Lesbians become what they are because they either have been abused by men or can’t find a man who wants them or are in some other way embittered. They just need to find the right one.

Weird oedipal shit about men being raised by women so they identify with the feminine gender role, not having proper masculine role models, or vice versa with queer women, blah blah blah, I’m sure you all know it.

Or, one that I’ve heard which is especially offensive because it acknowledges the validity of the trans and intersex experiences at the expense of the rest of us: that homosexuals are really just physically or mentally the opposite gender they think they are and once they realize that they can become perfectly happy heterosexual members of society. (The woman my dad is seeing explained this theory to him, which she believes, along with the conviction that bisexuality isn’t real; he told her never to say anything like that in my presence, ever, and then tried to explain to her why that’s totally wrong. Sigh. But at least my family members are cool.)

So I guess all I’m trying to say is, I’m not abnormal or unnatural, I’m just me, and I do exist. I kind of like to construct a world around me which reflects that, through my writing, my art, and through my interpretations or critiques of what other people have to say. Apparently, many straight people in my life can’t understand why I do this.

It’s their loss, I suppose. They’re the ones limited by that worldview, and unless I buy into it or let them upset me (too much), it doesn’t have to affect me.

But — ARGH! It’s so frustrating to be treated like a freak or have my experiences invalidated. How many guys hit on a girl even more after learning she identifies as lesbian because to them that means she’s into hot bisexual threesomes? How totally offensive is that?

And why does it matter? If I don’t allow people to safely assume I’m straight, and neither to put me in a narrow box of whatever they believe the alternative is, THEY. FLIP. OUT.

It’s terrifying to them. It’s a personal affront!

Whatever.

I’d rather be queer.

Where I live, race and immigration issues seem much more pressing than anything else at the moment. So I apologize for my lack of things strictly related to feminism, because this is more immediately important to me.

I have been talking to people at work and apparently, Colorado police are randomly checking people on the highway near Denver to make sure they have proper documentation, etc. If they aren’t citizens or legal immigrants they’re being arrested. (I can’t find a news article to verify this, since supposedly the local media doesn’t want to talk about it. But since I know several different people who witnessed this I assume it’s in some way true.) Add this to the fact that the federal government has taken an interest in holding legally accountable the companies which hire undocumented workers, and all I can do is wonder why, if this is such a pressing issue, law enforcement has waited so long to actually do anything about it. I suspect pressure from the companies who benefit from cheap labor has kept the government complacent on the issue.

What’s going to happen to these people who have been arrested in Colorado? Allegedly, they’ll be held at the expense of the federal government until the state can convince it to ship them back over the border. Their property will be seized and auctioned off. They’ll be charged for forging documents and whatever else, and subject to harsher punishments if they come back — ever. They may no longer have a legal avenue to try to immigrate, either. And that’s harsh, but it isn’t my biggest worry. What concerns me most here is that they might not be given access to lawyers, etc., because the police see the issue as: they are not US citizens and not protected by the Bill of Rights. I think this is wrong. I also think it’s important to make it easier for these people to come to the US legally, or to work with the people who are already here rather than simply send them away.

I’m ambivalent even as I’m getting flashes of fascism. While this approach to make sure people are legally in the US may seem draconian and kind of scary, I understand the point and I think, all other concerns aside, that this is a perfectly rational legal approach. (Rational does not mean humane. Rational does not mean morally justifiable. Rational does not mean right.) I don’t think it will actually do anything to solve the problem, but I certainly think enforcing the law and just sending illegal immigrants home is preferable to the “Minuteman” approach where it’s somehow acceptable to shoot random people on sight to protect the purity of our Aryan nation or something. I think any attempt to resolve this issue through law enforcement is really the way to go — and to hear about it being handled from that perspective rather than the alternative is, sadly, a relief. From a legal perspective, I understand why the government doesn’t want undocumented people just wandering around, especially with fears of terrorism. (Is this attitude justified? I don’t know; I think it’s complicated. But I understand the argument.)

The legal issues surrounding illegal immigration which really concern me are thus:

Identity theft and fraud. When people are forced to immigrate without the proper legal channels some of them end up forging IDs and stealing social security numbers in order to work. Identity theft is a huge issue right now, and this makes it even worse. Some of these people are illegally buying houses and cars using other people’s information and while, yes, they’re certainly entitled to and require these things, they can’t do so at the expense of other people. I think this needs to be treated just as it would be if the people committing the crime were US citizens. Obviously, it needs to be addressed. There are already laws for this. We should enforce those instead of making more useless xenophobic legislation that doesn’t deal with the real issues.

Then there’s the issue of tax fraud — which some companies who knowingly hire undocumented workers are committing. (I don’t know that this is the majority of cases, but it does happen. More information and some numbers at The Tax Foundation Blog.) I believe that everyone deserves the work, has the right to work, but I understand why the government would not be pleased with this. Again, if the government cares about this issue, the law should to be enforced. For some reason, all of the sudden, that’s happening. Great. Law enforcement gets around to doing its job. I hear that the executives of these companies are being taken to court, which is good. I think that’s where the responsibility lies, not with the workers, but with upper management. Corporate corruption is an issue which extends even beyond this, but this is one part of it.

I think any excuse the government gives on why it needs to be able to constantly track everyone in the US at all times is total bull — so there goes any legal argument about strict documentation. But these others are, I think, legitimate concerns from a practical standpoint. These are also concerns which are not limited to immigrants — these are legal issues which need to be dealt with anyway, but sometimes the circumstances which make people desperate to enter this country also make them desperate enough to commit related crimes. These are the only legal issues which I can think of which are actually a justifiable concern instead of simply stereotyping or being blatantly xenophobic.

Of course, it’s technically illegal for them to be here and technically illegal to hire them, those who cry, “BUT THEY BROKE THE LAW!” are quick to remind us. Sometimes laws are good. Some laws protect our safety or property. Just because something is illegal doesn’t mean by default that it’s good or bad. Laws are in themselves meaningless. So, yes, it’s breaking the law. Unless there’s other laws being broken which are more serious crimes I don’t understand why this law should be such a big deal.

The problem is that…well, the people making the legislation to deal with the issue aren’t thinking about it this way. They’re appealing instead to xenophobic nationalism. More than that, these are people who casually talk about murder and massive human rights violations as if they’re perfectly acceptable.

Entering the country illegally is a crime, but it is not a death sentence.

Should people be executed trespassing? Would anyone suggest that as an appropriate punishment for someone born in this country?

People should not be allowed to die in the desert. They should not be gunned down at the border. I can’t believe that some politicians approve of these ideas as if they’re good ones. (Well, I actually can believe it, and that’s where I despair.)

They shouldn’t be employed for below minimum wage slave labor, either.

We need to look at the real issues: why are people so desperate that they’re willing to risk death to get here, with only shitty jobs and a whole lot of resentment from the locals as their reward? This isn’t a decision anyone makes lightly. These people are desperate, and what they find here may help a little, but it doesn’t really improve that.

I think the only way to solve this, actually fix the problems at the root of the matter, is to allow more people to immigrate through the proper legal channels. How much would the US economy improve if we allowed more people to enter the country legally in order to work at safe, decently-paying jobs? What the employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers are doing is bad for everyone concerned. It’s bad for the US economy, the US government, and the Mexican workers.

But it’s so much easier to be reactionary. It’s so much easier to appeal to nationalism or racial prejudice than to actually look at these people as people and try to understand why they’re doing what they’re doing, and plan accordingly. It’s going to happen anyway, and if we make it impossible, people will still die trying. What can we do to make it safe, economically beneficial, and legal?

Read the rest of this entry »

Blogging to raise awareness about sexual violence.

If you’re not angry you’re not paying attention.

How many of you know someone who’s been the victim of sexual violence? How many of you know someone who’s been raped?

How many of you think you don’t know anyone who’s a survivor? I’ll bet you do. I’ll bet you don’t even know it.

People always seem surprised that I can be so passionate, so angry. I’ve never been raped, right? So why should I care? The statement is baffling, the sentiment downright insulting. Why shouldn’t I care? I’m angry that people live in poverty and starve to death even though I do not. I’m angry about a lot of things I have never personally experienced and hope to keep that way. What kind of person can simply not care when others are in pain simply because it does not affect them personally? (Don’t answer that. I’m not asking because I don’t know. I’d really rather not think about it.)

If you’re not angry you probably just don’t realize why you should be.

I have friends who have been raped, you know. Too many. I know girls raped by strange men in dark alleys, by their friends, by their fathers. Some of these women are my family. I know a man who was sexually abused by his mother throughout his childhood.

Mostly the blame sits on them, not their rapists.

How does a six-year-old girl “ask for it”? What sort of sick mind says a girl systematically abused for years by her father “led him on” or “made him do it”? That may horrify any thinking compassionate person, but that’s what this girl’s family said when she told my sister and my dad called the police. They lied and said they talked to the police, who wouldn’t investigate, so that she’d drop it. When we did contact law enforcement, suddenly, she was the bad one, she’d “broken up the family” and it was all her fault.

Why would a fourteen-year-old lie about being raped at night outside her home? Oh, right, to get attention. Making it all up so that she can be the center of attention, when…it’s so very obvious there’s something wrong. Her mother wonders why she’s suicidal, self-destructive, depressed? Oh, right, that’s for attention too. There couldn’t be a real problem there, now could there?

These are only some of the stories I know, and some of them I’m merely aware of.

It’s not that people I know have been hurt that makes me angry. It’s just that gives it a face. That makes it even more important. I was angry before, but knowing what’s happened to people I care about makes it worse.

How can anyone not care about violence? How can anyone think that the only reason to care is if one is a bitter victim? Must I know someone who’s been murdered to think that killing someone is horrible?

If you’re not angry you probably don’t realize just how pervasive sexual violence is in the world, or how little is being done to prevent and punish it.

Open the paper on any given day; you’ll see a story about rape or child pornography or human trafficking or sexual slavery or something. It’s everywhere. And no one ever talks about the real problem: that sexual violence is wrong. That seems obvious, tautological — so obvious, in fact, that it’s totally ignored and obvious no longer.

Instead the discussion shifts to what people should do to avoid it, when…no one should have to go out of their way to avoid what other people shouldn’t be doing. Idealistic, perhaps, but, legally, true. That’s why we have laws. Certainly, if someone is walking alone in a dangerous part of town and gets mugged, perhaps they had a lapse in judgment — but it’s not their fault, it was the fault of the person who took advantage of that and did something that was wrong. Our hypothetical victim here is not the one who broke the law, and the person who did ought to be punished whether or not the victim put themselves into a position of weakness.

I have a confession to make: I did this too, when my ex reported that she was sexually assaulted. I thought she had put herself into a dangerous situation which she should have been smart enough to avoid, and to some extent I still feel that way, but… it’s not her fault that he committed a crime. That doesn’t excuse what he did to her. I don’t care if she was high or if she should have been smarter than to be in a room alone with some creepy older guy, or if I was a little pissed that she didn’t listen when I told her not to do stupid shit because she’d get hurt; he shouldn’t have touched her. No one can ever be held responsible for the violent acts perpetrated by others, no matter what they did or didn’t do, “should” or “should not” have done. There are circumstances under which, perhaps, sexual violence could have been prevented, but it’s not the victim’s fault if it happened. It is never less wrong if the victim’s foresight and actions weren’t perfect or didn’t fit into some flawless formula. Questioning the thought process or actions of the victim only leads to shifting responsibility from where it actually belongs: the one who committed the crime.

Why aren’t more people angry? How can people honestly not be angry about the fact that sexually violent acts happen, every minute of every day, all over the world?

Why isn’t everybody outraged?

I know the answers to these questions, of course, and a critique of rape culture and the idea of women as a sex class will have to wait for another day. But I think that most people aren’t so malicious as those answers would imply. I think most people really…don’t notice, don’t see the problem, don’t understand why rape is wrong and what it does to people. It’s a crime so horrific that people want to pretend it doesn’t happen.

I said before if you’re not angry you’re not paying attention, and sometimes…it’s not that people are willfully ignoring things. It’s that they honestly don’t know. There’s such a stigma against the victims of sex crimes that many people never engage in honest dialogue about the subject. People repeat what they’re told without ever thinking about it.

So we need to talk. We need to repeat what people still haven’t heard, again and again until victim’s voices can be heard and not judged.

Are you listening?

Are you learning?

Are you paying attention?

Are you angry yet?

(Warning: rhetorical questions ahead!)

How can one honestly and not at all disingenuously say, “color doesn’t matter; we’re all just people” in the same breath as they then proceed to make a horribly racist statement or three?

Do people honestly not think about what they’re saying…like, ever? Do these people even listen to their own blatant hypocrisy as they proceed to spew privilege everywhere?

I mean, damn, obviously you do think race matters — namely, that you’re entitled to all kinds of special benefits that other people aren’t because you’re white. Don’t pretend you feel otherwise. Racism is only bad when its side-effects or attempts to eradicate it negatively impact you, huh? Otherwise the benefits you get are clearly only because of your naturally superior personality…