Call for submissions: sexual violence survivor stories/poetry/artwork etc

From the Souls Speak Out “About” page:

Soulspeakout.org was born out of the need for a safe space for survivors to tell their stories. Our original intent was to start a zine to distribute at local women’s shelters and support centers. However, this site has the potential to reach many more. We hope that you are able to use it as a safe space to reach out to other survivors or just have your voice heard.

This space is designed to be a healing, empowering and inspiring space for survivors of all ages, genders, sexualities, abilities, nationalities, cultural and social identities.

Feel free to contact us at any time as you explore and make this space your own.

Best wishes to Elisha, Maria, and Stefana as they build this safe space.  They’ve already made a strong start with their Resources page, so check them out and maybe submit your survivor story, if you feel it would help you or others to have it shared.

Feminists Have Free Speech Too: Action Alert I

I’ve labelled this post as (I) because my spidey-sense tells me that this will become a series.

Here you go: [link]. Tell this cartoonist what you think of jokes about his comic’s protagonist drooling about raping disabled homeless women because “it’s hard to keep your legs closed if you don’t have any”. Hey, having no doors to put locks on makes her an easy victim as well!

The cartoonist thinks sarcasm justifies all (edited to add – so complaining to the editor about approving the cartoon for publication is probably the most effective avenue).

H/T via email.

FAQ: if women like sex just as much as men do, then why is rape so bad? It’s just rougher sex, right?

AKA: Women like it, really! They say they don’t, but they do!

A: I’m not joking, some people still do use this argument. Even if most of them are just trolls looking to stir up outrage, this trope is still out there needing some debunking.

Potential PTSD Trigger Warning

OK, let’s go through this step by step:

• Imagine your favourite dessert. You know, the one you almost always end up ordering at a restaurant even though you’ve had it heaps of times before. That one dessert of which you always want second or even third servings. The one you ask friends and family to make for your birthday.
• Really imagine it. The taste of it. The feel of it on your lips and tongue and sliding down your throat. The lingering aftertaste. How much you’ll enjoy it the next time you have a chance to eat some.
• Imagine the surroundings. Are you alone, savouring it all to yourself? Are you with friends, all enjoying sharing this delectable dessert? Are you in a lovely cafe or restaurant, enjoying the ambience and the service, and the accompanying coffee or liqueur?
• Imagine how many servings you are going to have this time. Will you eat it fast or slow? Will you eat it all, or take some home with you for later?
• NOW imagine someone forcing you to eat your favourite dessert. It’s not a joke. You can’t get away. They are too strong for you, and they are kneeling across your chest and pinning your arms. Maybe they have threatened you with a weapon to get you to this place, or perhaps tricked you with an offer of your favourite dessert and then overpowered you once they got you alone.
• Imagine that they are not just offering you your favourite dessert in any way that you can control how you bite it, chew it and swallow it. This person is shoving your favourite dessert down your throat. With a stick.

Feminism Friday: two posts from Jill at Feministe on rape myths vs statistics

Both of these were written in response to an op-ed in the LA Times by Heather MacDonald.

Post 1: It’s Only A Myth If You Believe That Those Sluts Were Asking For It

This op/ed is one of the most ridiculous I’ve read in a long, long time (and that’s pretty impressive). Heather MacDonald argues that high rates of sexual assault on campus don’t exist because women don’t always define their experiences as rape; she then goes on to say that women who say they were raped are lying sluts who exaggerate the truth and were probably asking for it.

Jill’s evisceration of this op-ed is a joy to read, and then she gets on to the larger feminist points:

At first glance, it seems strange that MacDonald would simultaneously attack what she thinks is a hyped campus rape crisis and sex education on campuses. But it’s quite deliberate, and very telling. Anti-rape activism and sex-positive sexual health education are two sides to the same coin: They both challenge the dominant narrative that women’s bodies aren’t our own; they insist that sex is about consent and enjoyment, not violence and harm; and they attack a power structure that sees women as victims and men as predators. Anti-rape activists and sex-positive educators insist that men are not animals. Instead, men are rational human beings fully capable of listening to their partners and understanding that sex isn’t about pushing someone to do something they don’t want to; plenty of men are able to grasp the idea that sex should be entered into joyfully and enthusiastically by both partners, and that an absence of “no” isn’t enough — “yes” should be the baseline requirement.

Obviously, moving from the traditional “consent” standard of non-dissent to a new standard of affirmative assent still won’t end rape altogether:

Feed the FAQ: “rape apologist” definitions, clarifications and links

I’d like to get some wider input into this one.

The suggestion was made that we need a specific FAQ, and I think we do. This was my first take in comments answering that suggestion:

FAQ: But don’t all these DNA exonerations mean that women lie about being raped?

A: No, what it means is that some prosecutors in the past proceeded to court solely on the basis of identifications without corroborating physical evidence, mostly in cases of stranger-rape, and that they convinced the juries in those cases that the identification was valid, when later evidence shows that the identification was mistaken. New procedures whereby DNA exclusion takes place in the investigative phase mean that such convictions will be far fewer in the future, especially as prosecutors, judges and juries have become more aware of the prevalence of wrongful convictions in the prosecution of all crimes and are more guarded against the possibility.

The most common cause of wrongful convictions is eyewitness misidentification.

Gross, Jacob, Matheson, Montgomery and Patel, Exonerations in the United States 1989 through 2003, published 2004: p18, Section V Part 1: Rapes and Murders: Mistakes versus Lies (pdf)

In nearly all DNA exonerations there is NO evidence that the victims lied about being raped, just that later evidence has shown that the man originally convicted was not actually the perpetrator of the rape. Exonerations on evidence other than DNA in the USA account for only 14/120 rape exonerations in the period 1989-2003, 13 of those complaining witnesses were determined to have lied. (In the same time period regarding 199 murder exonerations, 43 eyewitnesses were found to have lied, 5 police officers to have committed perjury, 24 forensic scientists to have committed perjury, 94 civilian witnesses claiming knowledge of the crime were found to have lied, and 17 actual murderers lied to secure the defendant’s conviction.)

High rates of exoneration cases tend to cluster around particular prosecutors, and thus should not be extrapolated to apply generally.

Soundbites

A few links to posts addressing particular points of feminist theory and activism, tied together by the fact that they included memorable soundbite rebuttals:

Jill (Feministe):

Deni’s argument is that prostitutes can’t be raped because they sell sex — which is kind of like saying that merchants can’t be robbed because they sell goods.

Richie (Crimitism) on women’s alleged power over men via dressing provocatively etc:

you can’t simultaneously be in control and be victimised as a result of the exact same thing.

Entangled (commenting at Shapely Prose):

I find it shameful that people expect genetically heavier people (or people who have had a change in metabolism due to illness, medication, or past cycles of starvation and plenty) to exist in a state of semi-starvation for their entire lives just to reach someone else’s judgment of what they should look like.