Misogyny and Sexism in the News

[Kobi]

I have seen a sixteen-year-old boy weeping in distress after getting a girl’s pube stuck in his teeth, I hear he was unshaven.

I have seen boys showing each other porn on their iPhones on the train home from school, in bars and whilst strolling along the Champs-Elyséés.

I have had a boy ask me to text him screenshots of porn films because he was on a wifi-free family holiday.

One boy turned to kiss his date in the cinema but not before romantically whispering ‘don’t struggle’.

One friend drunkenly walked off into a park in the early hours of the morning and when a male friend brought her back without ‘trying anything’, he was heralded as being ‘soo nice!’ rather than ‘soo normal!’.

I have friends whose boyfriends have posted naked pictures of them all over the Internet.

I have heard consent described as ‘de-romanticizing’.

I have had a shockingly sober boy say to me ‘Why can’t I just slap my dick on your arse? Doesn’t cost you anything!’.

This just scratches the surface of my store of depressing anecdotes; the most violent of which I won’t go into out of respect for the girls involved.

2014 is not a good year to be a teenage girl. The last of the 90’s kids are growing up and we are starting to see the effects of being raised with the Internet.

For generations before us, hormonal teenage boys looking for sexy images of women had limited options; they could brave the embarrassment of going to the counter and buying Playboy, they could look through their sister’s Cosmo or they could use their imagination.

Porn today has rid itself of the embarrassment-factor by embracing the anonymity of the World Wide Web; Playboy isn’t really considered to be porn anymore, the real stuff lives in your phone, on your laptop, your tablet; it is available anywhere, anytime at the touch of a button.

In fact this very website receives a steady stream of hits that result from someone googling some combination of ‘housekeeping porn’ + ‘sex’, ‘lesbian’ and/or ‘rape’.

As you read this, somewhere there is an eleven-year-old boy curiously typing ‘porn’ into Google, probably hoping to see some big boobies. Fast forward a couple of years and he is masturbating to a video of a crying woman who is being tied down, simultaneously penetrated by three men, spanked, and being called a whore. Young boys are being de-sensitized to violence and the more they consume, the more abusive, the more graphic the porn has to be to excite them.

The most popular type of porn is called ‘Gonzo’ which is essentially wall-to-wall abusive sex. There is no foreplay or romance; it is literally hardcore sex from the first to the last frame. The sex is almost always violent; spanking, gagging, anal fisting and choking are commonplace. A very popular image is a close-up of the woman’s face with tears streaming down caused by her being choked whilst performing oral sex, directors like to make this obvious by making her wear lots of mascara; for dramatic effect.

There is no way that this could not have a profound effect on the consumer’s psyche specifically on their attitude towards women. Most boys make no secret of the fact that they watch and enjoy such porn, watching it in groups in the presence of girls or brashly and explicitly describing their fantasies.

Girls know boys watch porn and girls know what porn stars are; they are hairless, they have hourglass figures and they never say no. And so a massive amount of pressure is placed on girls to live up to this. Shaving pubic hair is painful and unsanitary (it leaves hundreds of minute cuts which increases the risk of STDs). And yet girls as young as 11 are doing it.

The porn industry is the primary source of sex ed for the boys who will grow up to be the decision-makers, thinkers, writers, husbands and fathers of tomorrow. A brief overview of what they are being taught/brainwashed to believe;

1.
That it is their birthright as males to have sex with whichever female they want when they want regardless of consent or age.

2.
That the only way to have good sex and the only way to be masculine is to be aggressive, forceful and violent

3.
That they must always be in control and always want to be in control

4.
That their pleasure comes first and foremost


It hardly needs stating what kind of pressures and expectations this puts on girls and women. They have to be living breathing sex dolls and they have to love it. The porn industry is women abuse.

http://www.bad-housekeeping.com/2014...nd-gonzo-porn/

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



Very sad. And we wonder why there is a rape culture and rape mentality?

[Kobi]

The bride wears white, is handed from man to man – and then loses a major part of her identity. Why do Australian women still put up with these patriachal customs – and how come I feel too embarrassed to ask them?

It has become my Muriel moment. I find myself standing in the back pews of church watching a dear female friend led down the aisle on her father’s arm, blubbering uncontrollably through my MaxFactor. But these are not tears of joy, of nostalgia, or even envy. These are tears of despair. Of confusion.

Another comrade has fallen. Another secular, strong-minded, sexually-liberated, independent Gen-Xer is giving up her name to a man before God in an alabaster scene straight out of Bride to Be magazine and all I can think is, “all John Howard’s dreams have come true”. And why? Oh, because he wanted me to.

This week, the European Court of Human Rights overturned an archaic Italian law which prevented children from adopting their mother’s surname, deeming the rule "patriarchal", "discriminatory" and a "difference of treatment between men and women". And yet, faced with a range of choices, it seems that Australian women are overwhelmingly volunteering to maintain this patronymic practice, choosing their husband’s name not only for their children, but for themselves.

A 2013 survey found that around 82% of married Australian women still assume their husband’s surname, while around 90% of children are registered in their father’s names. Taken alongside other stock wedding practices, from white frocks to paternal giveaways, these figures reflect the resilience of patriarchal customs in marriage between Australian men and women; a consent to inequality which is baffling.

Across the country, women are getting married later and older, with more cohabiting and bearing children beforehand. We are more inclined to be university-educated, professional, property-owners. We overwhelmingly support same-sex relationships and profess a belief in the need for greater gender equality. And yet, when it comes to our weddings, most of us still appear happy to insert politically-correct clauses about the right to same-sex marriage into our ceremonies, then proceed to throw out our lifelong identities, retrofit the trappings of virginity and be handed from man to man.

It's depressing not to recognise half your Facebook friends list because their names have changed overnight. They have been cast off for the happy tags of "Mrs X", as if to proclaim “forget who I was before – I am now loved, wanted and owned by a MAN!”

So why do I feel unable to ask why? It is testament to both the strength of these norms and current weakness of feminist debate in Australia that even amongst our closest friends it feels taboo to discuss frankly customs which many of us find exclusive, offensive or regressive.

It is not that I don’t celebrate the union of loved ones. I don't think my female peers have dropped their principles or their IQs, and I don't regard their husbands as anything other than enlightened gender-egalitarians. But for all symbolic purposes, it seems that supposed allies in the struggle for female equality are drifting back half a century on a sea of Tiffany.

The choice to marry is deeply personal. But when publicly performed, it becomes a statement of implied social values and virtues. And when we are asked to participate in this ritual, to bear witness and to endorse it even in the face of our disagreement, the least we can ask for is an explanation.

When (another) Australian Prime Minister is doing his best to roll back women’s rights, to peddle exclusive family values and remove women from power and public life in exchange for an antediluvian scene where “an enormous number of women simply [do] housework”, the need for this justification is all the greater. When feminism seems increasingly to have become a dirty word, every battle counts - the symbolic ones no less.

As some in same-sex relationships seek to enter, and thereby alter, the inherently prejudicial institution of marriage, it is possible that greater scope will open to challenge and reshape its gendered norms. But in the meantime, the take-home message of marriage in Australia seems still to be very much "man and wife". So when myself and my fellow naysayers do finally pluck-up the courage to spit the figurative penis-straw and ask why we are continuing to swallow it whole, I will expect a damn good answer.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...inism-weddings

[Gemme]

Teacher Sentenced to Just 30 Days in Jail for Rape

This is for the rape of the girl in Montana who commited suicide and from the judge who said she 'appeared older than her chronological age' and that, at 14, she had just as much control of the situation as the rapist.

First, blaming and shaming the victim and now an absolutely pathetic sentence. Disgusting.

[silkepus]

Originally Posted by Gemme

Teacher Sentenced to Just 30 Days in Jail for Rape

This is for the rape of the girl in Montana who commited suicide and from the judge who said she 'appeared older than her chronological age' and that, at 14, she had just as much control of the situation as the rapist.

First, blaming and shaming the victim and now an absolutely pathetic sentence. Disgusting.

Thats vile! Its as if the life og young girls mean nothing to the law. Also who cares if a girl acts older than her age. Young girls learn early on how to imitate women she is still a child. And even if a child says yes its the adults job to say no. And if she appeared older how in the world can that be her fault? I looked older than my age at fourteen too. You cant controle how old you look. Urgh. I want to smash things. He should get life and so should the f%@! judge!

[Gemme]

Passenger Tells a Female Pilot Flying is No Place for a Woman

There is a whole list of people you're smart not to tick off: a state trooper who pulled you over. A surgeon just before your operation. Your boss when asking for a raise. Oh, and the aircraft pilot you're trusting your life with while traveling.

But that's what a WestJet passenger in Canada did on a routine flight from Calgary to Victoria, British Columbia. Someone by the name of David left a note claiming that a pilot's chair was "no place for a woman" and left it for Captain Carey Smith Steacy, a commercial airline pilot with 17 years of experience, according to CTV News. Addressed to the captain and WestJet, the note, a photo of which is available online at Imgur, scrawled with many misspellings and grammatical errors on a small napkin, read that the "cockpit of airlier is no place for a woman" and that "being a mother is the most honor." The note went on to say that there was a shortage of mothers, not pilots.

At the end of the note was a reference to a Biblical verse from Proverbs, according to the site KingJamesBibleOnline.org: My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments. (It is little known that the Old Testament held a specific prohibition against women flying commercial aircraft.)

The front of the note ended with the thought, "I wish WestJet could tell me a fair lady is at the helm so I can book another flight!"

Metro had an image of the reverse side in which David wrote, "In the end this is all mere vanity," added "not impressed," and signed it "respectfully in love."
“"I just couldn't believe there are still people in this country that think like that," the pilot told Metro. "It just shocked me."

Steacy, who already is a mother, posted an image of the note on her Facebook page and added a response to the passenger, according to the Metro report. She first corrected him on terminology -- it's a flight deck and not a cockpit -- and then "I respectfully disagree with your opinion" and that "there are no places that are not for ladies anymore."

Reportedly, the passenger was asking the flight attendants whether Steacy had enough flight hours to safely handle the craft.

Steacy also wrote that David was "more than welcome to deplane when you heard I was a 'fair lady.'"

In a statement to Metro, WestJet said that it takes "enormous pride in the professionalism, skills and expertise of our pilots and this note is very disappointing."

[Kobi]

Massachusetts’ highest court has ruled that a man accused of secretly snapping photos up a woman’s skirt on an MBTA train did not break the law.

So-called Peeping Tom laws protect people from being photographed in dressing rooms and bathrooms when nude or partially nude, but the way the law is written, it does not protect clothed people in public areas, the court said. The SJC ruling went on to suggest that the act in this case should be illegal, noting other states including New York and Florida have explicit laws criminalizing public upskirting.

Under the law, the state has to prove five criteria:

That the defendant willfully photographed, videotaped, or electronically surveilled; the subject was another person who was nude or partially nude; the defendant did so with the intent to secretly conduct or hide his photographing activity; the defendant conducted such activity when the other person was in a place and circumstance where the person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in not being “so photographed”; and the defendant did so without the other person’s knowledge or consent.

The SJC decision says a woman on the MBTA “wearing a skirt, dress, or the like covering these parts of her body is not a person who is ‘partially nude,’ no matter what is or is not underneath the skirt by way of underwear or other clothing.”

Prosecutors argued that a person has a right to privacy beneath his or her own clothes. But justices ruled that because the alleged incident occurred on a public trolley, there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy. They noted that while the prosecution’s “proposition is eminently reasonable,” the current writing of the law that Robertson was charged under does not cover that particular circumstance.

“Because the MBTA is a public transit system operating in a public place and uses cameras, the two alleged victims here were not in a place and circumstance where they reasonably would or could have had an expectation of privacy,” a draft of the ruling stated.

Prosecutors said after the ruling that they planed to take the matter to the Legislature and request a re-write to the current state law.

“Every person, male or female, has a right to privacy beneath his or her own clothing,” Suffolk County District Attorney Dan Conley said. “If the the statute as written doesn’t protect that privacy, then I’m urging the Legislature to act rapidly and adjust it so it does.”

The ruling of the Supreme Judicial Court is contrary to the spirit of the current law,” DeLeo said. “The House will begin work on updating our statutes to conform with today’s technology immediately.”

Senate President Therese Murray says she is “stunned and disappointed” and the Senate “will act swiftly.”

Women riding the MBTA say they are outraged by the decision.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/03/0...not-illegal/2/

[Kobi]

Tens of thousands of Americans are pressuring Dartmouth College to strengthen its sexual assault policies, citing the fact that a student was sexually assaulted on campus after her name appeared in a “rape guide” published on a student-run website.

Nearly 50,000 people have signed onto a petition spearheaded by the women’s advocacy group UltraViolet asking the prestigious school to “take action immediately to curb the sexual assault crisis” on campus.

“Student groups have asked the school to list expulsion as the punishment for rape in the student handbook and to block access to the ‘rape guide’ website on campus. But school authorities haven’t taken any of these recommendations seriously,” UltraViolet’s petition notes. “Usually, stories like this get little attention from the news media. But if all of us speak up, Dartmouth won’t be able to hide.”

Dartmouth is currently under federal investigation for potential violations of Title IX, the federal gender equity law that requires universities to ensure a safe learning environment for students. A group of Dartmouth students and alumni have also filed a Clery Act complaint alleging that administrators have failed to accurately report incidences of sexual violence and hazing on campus.

More recently, the college made national headlines after an anonymous individual posted a “rape guide” on the student site Bored at Baker, which is not technically affiliated with the college but which requires a Dartmouth email address to participate. The post gave explicit instructions for how to find and rape a particular female student — tips like “just casually drink with her now and then,” “prove you’re not a dangerous person,” and “she’s easily persuaded; keep on going.” The subject, who was referred to as a “whore,” was identified by name. At the end of February, just weeks after the post was first published on Bored at Baker, the female student said she was raped at a fraternity party at Dartmouth.

And this isn’t the first time that Bored at Baker has been the subject of controversy. Last spring, Dartmouth canceled classes after several students received rape and death threats on the student site. Those students were targeted on Bored at Baker because they interrupted a campus event to protest their administration’s lackluster response to incidences of rape, racism, and homophobia. Afterward, they told ThinkProgress that Dartmouth officials chose to punish them for creating a disruption rather than working to crack down on rapists.

Karin Roland, the campaign director for UltraViolet, told ThinkProgress that the situation at Dartmouth has reached a boiling point — and it’s now possible to harness that frustration to push for real policy reform.

“Dartmouth has had a problem with rape and sexual assault for decades. They have a long history with this issue, and student groups on campus are finally fed up and are leading the charge,” Roland said. “With the help of an online network of members at Ultraviolet to capture the grassroots outrage, we can really make change on this right now.”

This isn’t the first time that UltraViolet has used its online network to leverage change in this area. The group has been working with student activists to combat rape culture for the past year, supporting campus-led efforts to reform the way the U.S. Department of Education handles Title IX enforcement. When President Obama decided to convene a task force on sexual violence on college campuses, UltraViolet gathered stories and suggestions from their members, particularly sexual assault survivors, to help inform that work.

These issues certainly aren’t new, but the power to organize online is giving a louder voice to feminist activists who want to hold public officials accountable for their actions.

“Women are really fed up with rape being excused. I think that’s true on campuses, I think that’s true in our justice system, I think that’s true at the high school level, and I think that’s just becoming true across the country. The ability to connect over online networks has really empowered women to stand up and do something,” Roland pointed out. “If you look at everything from the reaction to Todd Akin’s legitimate rape comment, to Steubenville, to Dartmouth, you can see that women aren’t putting up with it anymore.”

Dartmouth has refuted UltraViolet’s allegations that the administration doesn’t take rape seriously, maintaining that the college has worked to increase the support and prevention resources for issues of sexual assault.

“It is important to note the anonymous author of the post on a privately hosted website referred to in the petition was identified and faces Dartmouth’s disciplinary process,” the school’s Assistant Vice President for Media Relations, Justin Anderson, said in a statement. “Further, we investigate every instance of sexual assault that is brought to our attention and offer multiple levels of support and resources to every survivor. Every day we work to make our community better and safer.”

That’s not good enough for the student activists on the ground who are driving UltraViolet’s activism.

“Survivors and students are speaking out on the ground, in addition to 500,000 UltraViolet members who have their backs,” Roland told ThinkProgress. “As Dartmouth has been dragging their feet to respond, more women have been assaulted. We’re still not seeing action, and we’re not going to stop speaking out until we do.”

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014...ure-petition/#

[Happy_Go_Lucky]

Skymark Airlines came under fire from the cabin crew’s labor union, which said the super-short skirt—with a distinctively swinging ‘60s look—barely covers wearers’ thighs.

“We’re concerned that the design of this uniform may cause problems,” including sexual harassment, the Japan Federation of Cabin Attendants said in a statement.

“The airline is saying the uniform is meant to attract more customers, but this shows the company is treating women like a commodity,” it added.

Comments posted on the union’s website said attendants would not be able to carry out their duties effectively owing to fears about leering stares or customers shooting pictures up their skirts with a mobile phone.

The airline, which disputes the union claims, plans to introduce the uniform as a temporary promotion for the launch of domestic routes its Airbus A330 planes in the spring.

The carrier could not be immediately reached on Tuesday.

But last week, Skymark president Shinichi Nishikubo told reporters: “We won’t impose the uniform on any of the cabin attendants who refuse to wear it.”

“It is disappointing that the outfit designed in part for the ad campaign is being seen in a distorted way,” he added.

© 2014 AFP


http://www.japantoday.com/category/n...ymark-airlines

[Happy_Go_Lucky]

http://www.dailydot.com/lol/naked-le...mom-blackmail/


As you can guess, dating apps require a certain amount of finesse. But while the nuances of app-based dating culture might be a little tricky to understand, one thing seems pretty clear: Don’t send someone a picture of your junk unless she explicitly asks for one.

One female Let’s Date user found a quick and easy solution to the unwanted dick-pic problem. Tumblr user aheartbeatchanged was chatting with a guy about the weather when this appeared:




“F**k no,” she replied. “I don't need to be disrespected by someone I don't even know."

“Relax,” he wrote back. “It’s only my c**k.”

Things escalated quickly, and, well... see for yourself:






At this point, the smartest thing would’ve been for Trevor to apologize and vanish forever. Especially since he’d just given someone a naked photo that could potentially be, you know, posted on Tumblr for 60,000 people to laugh at and reblog.






Oh yeah. She went there.

As of Sunday night, aheartbeatchanged hasn’t heard back from Trevor’s mom. What she has received is more than a hundred messages from Tumblr users, ranging from supportive to... more poorly worded insults: “If you had/get some good dick (which you obviously haven't/don't) you wouldn't be such a grammar nazi and prude.”

He and Trevor would probably make great friends.

Update: Let's Date writes to clarify that "while the users may have met on Let's Date, the inappropriate photo was not sent via Let's Date as the app's messaging platform does not allow users to send pictures to each other, they are only able to send text."

Photo via Guys With iPhones

[Allison W]

Originally Posted by Kobi

article about porn getting really creepy

Very sad. And we wonder why there is a rape culture and rape mentality?

Not gonna argue the porn industry isn't going into creepy-ass places, but it occurs to me that rape culture and rape mentality long predate easily available pornography. I'm actually sort of inclined to think that the present state of the porn industry is more of a symptom of the culture than a cause per se, though frankly, that's frightening enough.

[Kobi]

After losing all major statewide races to Democrats for the first time in 24 years, Republicans in Virginia are pushing to replace a moderate GOP congressman with a candidate so conservative that he doesn’t even believe that spousal rape should be a crime.

On Wednesday, Mother Jones pointed out that state Sen. Richard H. “Dick” Black, who is running to take over retiring Rep. Frank Wolf’s seat, had fought against making spousal rape a crime because the woman was “sleeping in the same bed, she’s in a nightie.”

Democrat Shawn Mitchell had uncovered the 2002 video of Black talking about spousal rape for an attack ad during the 2011 campaign for Virginia state Senate.


I do not know how you could validly get a conviction of a husband-wife rape, when they’re living together, sleeping in the same bed, she’s in a nightie and so forth,” Black says. “There’s not injuries, there’s no separation or anything.”

The ad notes that between 2002 and 2010, there were 800 reported incidents of spousal rape in Virginia.

In 2001, Black asserted that emergency contraception was “baby pesticide” and he recently compared the Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion to the Holocaust.

“When I hear discussions about this, I hear very mild comments about choice and reproductive rights and things of this sort,” Black said in a speech on the 2013 anniversary of the Roe v. Wade ruling. “But I recall back to the days of Nazi Germany, there was a place called Auschwitz. ”

“You know it’s quite easy — and from where we look back on history, we say, ‘Why didn’t the Germans do something? Why didn’t they rise up? Why didn’t they take action?’” he continued. “But they were helpless before their government just as we are helpless before our government.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/1...ing-a-nightie/

[Kobi]

Swedish judge has defended his acquittal of a rape suspect in much-criticized case in which it could not be proven the 27-year-old knowingly acted against the woman's wishes, despite her saying no.

"I knew the moment I took on this case that there would be an outcry if there was a not-guilty verdict," Lund district court judge Ralf G. Larsson wrote in an op-ed published on Tuesday on Sveriges Televison (SVT) debate website SVT Debatt.

Larsson underlined that if the suspect had not intended to rape the woman, he could not be convicted of rape.

"If the thought had not occurred to him, that she did not want to have sex with him, then he didn't have any intention to do what he did," the judge wrote.

"He should have been acquitted. That's how the rule of law works and that's how the rule of law should work if I'm going to be a part of the justice system."

He further elaborated that there were parts of the plaintiff's and the suspect's versions of events that testified to the man refraining from certain acts on the insistence of the woman.

"The woman had made very clear to the man at least six times that she did not want to do what he wanted to do," Larsson wrote. "For example, oral and anal sex came up, and at each such incident the man did not proceed with what he wanted to do."

Larsson went on to argue that no judge in Sweden should feel pressured by potential media fallout in difficult cases.

"If what is happening right now in mass and social media has the potential to scare less experienced judges, we're on a dangerous path," Larsson wrote.

The ruling has caused outrage among many Swedes, with protests planned for the weekend, most likely in Stockholm, the Skånska Dagbladet newspaper reports.

The alleged rape took place in the man's apartment after the two, who did not know each other previously, met at a restaurant. While both agree that the evening included consensual kissing, the two had different views about what happened when the man initiated intercourse.

"I expressed very clearly that I didn't want to, so there was no way he could misunderstand me," the woman told investigators. She explained, however, that the man became more aggressive as her protests increased, adding that he "seemed to like it".

The woman screamed so much and so loudly that she eventually lost her voice while the man continued. At one point, he covered her nose and mouth so she couldn't breathe and slapped her in the face, Metro reported.

While the woman told investigators she "expressed very clearly" that she didn't want to have sex, the man told the court that he was convinced the woman was into rough sex, saying he received "very clear signals" that she enjoyed what he was doing.

However, the court ruled it had not been proven that the 27-year-old had acted with intent to act against the woman's wishes, a ruling that left many observers seething.

"Hey! What do you think about putting together a 'Kärrtorp-massive' demo (peaceful), outside/near parliament say next week where we are in the thousands to demand better sex crimes legislation? Mutual consent Act NOW!" Swedish journalist Cissi Wallin wrote via Facebook.

According to critics, the Lund court ruling sets a dangerous precedent that allows the assailant the right to define rape.

http://www.thelocal.se/20140114/swed...-rape-aquitall

[Kobi]

If you were live-tweeting NBC’s broadcast of the Golden Globe Awards on Sunday, you saw it. You couldn’t miss it. Ronan Farrow, son of Mia Farrow and Woody Allen and commentator at MSNBC, tweeted: "Missed the Woody Allen tribute–did they put the part where a woman publicly confirmed he molested her at age 7 before or after Annie Hall?"

Farrow’s bald indictment of his estranged father has been retweeted more than 12,000 times. The reference is to his sister, Dylan, adopted daughter of Farrow and Allen, who asserted Allen molested her. A judge found the evidence of molestation inconclusive and Allen has always denied the charge.


Dylan Farrow’s alleged molestation was revealed after Farrow discovered naked photos of another of Farrow’s children, Soon-Yi Previn, then 18, in Allen’s possession. Allen, who is 35 years Previn’s senior, had been having a sexual relationship with Previn while in the relationship with Farrow.


Farrow and Allen had been partners for 12 years at the time Farrow discovered the naked photos of her daughter. Allen had been Previn’s stepfather since she was the same age as Dylan was when she was allegedly molested by Allen.


Previn, 43 and Allen, 78, have now been married for 22 years. They have no children.


The incest story was an ugly coda on what was otherwise a glitzy, boozy, fun-filled evening. Many others have commented on the Twittersphere about Ronan Farrow’s raw declaration and the story of Allen’s past has become the news–not the Cecil B. DeMille Lifetime Achievement Award he was given for his dozens of films.


As Oscar-winner Susan Sarandon noted the day after the Golden Globes on Twitter: "Couldn’t watch the tribute to #WoodyAllen last night after having read this"


The plethora of comments on Ronan Farrow’s tweet and Mia Farrow’s link to the Vanity Fair story Sarandon also tweeted were in stark contrast to the effusive tribute actress Diane Keaton gave as she accepted the award for Allen who never attends award ceremonies.


Keaton focused not just on Allen’s work as a director and screenwriter, but on Allen’s relationships with women in film, explaining, "It’s kind of hard for me to wrap my mind around the fact that 179 of the world’s most captivating actresses have appeared in Woody Allen’s films. And there’s a reason for this. And the reason is, they wanted to. They wanted to because Woody’s women can’t be compartmentalized. They struggle, they love, they fall apart, they dominate, they’re flawed. They are, in fact, the hallmark of Woody’s work. But what’s even more remarkable is absolutely nothing links these unforgettable characters from the fact that they came from the mind of Woody Allen."


I first wrote about Woody Allen’s problem with little girls back in 1992 for the Philadelphia Inquirer. My then-editor and I had discussed what lines had and had not been crossed, what was and was not "acceptable." We both agreed Allen’s films were brilliant (I still rank Manhattan as one of the top ten best American films), but I took a harder line on Allen and his "girl problem."


Allen’s relationship with Soon-Yi was incest. Mental health professionals and social workers backed me up. When your relationship to a child is one of parent, and you have sex with that child, it’s incest.


Woody Allen isn’t the first child predator to have been feted by Hollywood. There’s a long tradition of this, going back as far as silent pictures. Charlie Chaplin, the big screen’s biggest star of the Silent Era had four wives–aged 17, 15, 25 and 18 when he married them. When the Allen scandal first broke in 1992, Chaplin’s scandalous behavior was revived.


And then, of course, there was Roman Polanski, who was arrested for the rape of Samantha Geimer. Geimer was 13, Polanski, 43 at the time he was convicted. Rather than face jail time, Polanski fled the country and has lived in lavish exile from America ever since, continuing to make films and win awards. In 2009 he was put under house arrest in Switzerland, but attempts by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to have him extradited to the U.S. were unsuccessful and in 2010 the Swiss released him from house arrest. He remains on an Intepol list, however.


When extradition was being argued, actors and directors in Hollywood spoke out in support of Polanski, including out lesbian actress, director and producer, Jodie Foster, who starred in Polanski’s 2012 film, Carnage.
Woody Allen was among 100 filmmakers and actors who signed a petition for Polanski.


In an open letter, Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein was adamant as he demanded that "every U.S. filmmaker to lobby against any move to bring Polanski back to the U.S." Weinstein argued that "whatever you think of the so-called crime, Polanski has served his time."


Well, no. He served 42 days before he was freed on bond and fled the country. That’s hardly serving one’s time. Nor was it a "so-called" crime. Rape is real. Conversely, Geimer, whose memoir The Girl was published in Sept. 2013, has lived her entire life in the shadow of her rape by Polanski.


In recent years former child stars, Allison Arngrim of Little House on the Prairie and Corey Feldman, one of the biggest child stars of the 1980s, have talked about their experiences with pedophiles in Hollywood. Feldman, who also spoke for his late friend and fellow child star Corey Haim, has said abuse of child actors is "rampant" in Hollywood, but the industry turns a blind eye to it.


As it did Sunday night when it honored Allen with one of its most prestigious awards.


What do we do when famous men, including talented geniuses like Allen and Polanski, rape?
Excuses get made, certainly. Mia Farrow has been described as a jealous, vindictive woman when she really was simply a protective mother. Ronan Farrow’s remarks have been addressed in a somewhat more tempered fashion, but still blame his mother for poisoning his perception of Allen.


Yet there is Soon-Yi Previn: evidence. While she was not a blood relation to Allen when he began his affair with her when she was a teenager, he only knew her in one capacity: as his step-daughter. He had presumably bathed and dressed her when she was a young girl. He had most certainly seen her naked as his step-daughter as she and her siblings were in the house.


Neither Previn nor Allen has ever acknowledged when the affair began, but it likely began prior to her turning 18.


As for Polanski, no argument can be made that supports his acts, despite Weinstein’s (who has children of his own), Foster’s (also a mother), Allen’s and others’ impassioned pleas for clemency.


It also doesn’t matter what Polanski’s victim might say about forgiveness or it having been a long time ago or that the media has hurt her more than Polanski did. Rape is a crime and the transcripts are clear: Geimer was raped vaginally and anally and also orally. No one gets a free pass on rape.


If the guy down the street did it instead of a famous director, we wouldn’t even be discussing it. Whoopi Goldberg would not have said of that guy what she said of Polanski on The View after Polanski’s arrest in Switzerland.


"I know it wasn’t rape-rape. It was something else but I don’t believe it was rape-rape. He went to jail and when they let him out he was like, ‘You know what, this guy’s going to give me a hundred years in jail. I’m not staying.’ So that’s why he left."


Later in the same program Goldberg continued, "We’re a different kind of society [now], we see things differently. Would I want my 14-year-old having sex with somebody? Not necessarily, no."


Except the 13-year-old Geimer didn’t have consensual sex with the 43-year-old Polanski. The transcripts are clear on this point. Polanski gave her champagne and Quaaludes, put her in a hot tub and then raped her.
Yet there were Goldberg and Foster defending the rapist while also dismissing the victim.


And therein lies the problem for so many people. Our perspective is skewed by genius and celebrity. As comedian Chris Rock famously said on Oprah about the black community’s response to Michael Jackson’s alleged pedophilia, "We love Michael so much we let the first kid slide."


And also Chaplin, Polanski and Allen.


But some, like Mia and Ronan Farrow, are not as willing to dismiss the rape of children by adult men. Mia Farrow, whose humanitarian work with UNICEF and other organizations in places like Darfur, on behalf of children, is world-renowned, was named one of the most influential people in the world by Time magazine. She has four biological children and has adopted 11, many with special needs. She is a renowned champion for children’s rights.


In the Vanity Fair article from last October, Mia Farrow speaks candidly about the crimes she alleges Allen committed against her and her children. It’s harrowing detail from a woman whose best work on screen was all done with Allen. And in that same article Dylan Farrow speaks for the first time about the sexual abuse.

On CBS’s The Talk on Jan. 13, co-host Sharon Osbourne said Farrow’s family had suffered greatly because of Allen. But only a few minutes later she went on to excuse Polanski.


In 2012, my partner took me to dinner and a film on my birthday. We went to see the film version of the Tony Award-winning play God of Carnage by French playwright Yasmina Reza. I was a fan of her work and I was excited to see the film version, Carnage, starring Jodie Foster.


I didn’t realize until the end credits that the film had been directed by Polanski.


I wrote about how disconcerted I was in Curve (Living Our Politics, Brownworth, Victoria A.//Curve, May 2012, Vol. 22, Issue 4, p28) and how much I struggled with this issue of the art versus the acts of the artist.
I’m still struggling.


How do we–especially women and survivors of rape, incest and sexual assault–contextualize the work of genius rapists? Can we? Should we? While Chaplin was making some of the greatest films the world had known or would know, he was also having sex with girls. Not women, girls. Girls he had access to solely because he was a great film star and director.


Polanski had access to Geimer because he told her mother he was going to shoot photos of her for French Vogue. He wasn’t some creepy guy down the block, he was a Holocaust concentration camp survivor and one of the most acclaimed directors in the world. But two years prior to his being charged with the rape of Geimer, Polanski had an affair with Nastassja Kinski, during the filming of Tess. She was 15.


Michael Jackson built a pedophile’s paradise on the Neverland Ranch. What child wouldn’t want to be a guest there? What parent would deprive their under-privileged child that dream? How many children did he molest?
Allen had access to Dylan and Soon-Yi because they were the children of his partner, Farrow. But in Manhattan, the then-45-year-old Allen is in love with the then-17-year-old Mariel Hemingway’s character, a high school student. That’s just the plot, of course, but he dumps the adult woman played by Keaton for the pubescent Hemingway.


As he later would Farrow for her teenage daughter.


I would like to have clear-cut answers. But I never stopped listening to Michael Jackson and I’ve taught Chaplin for two decades in my film classes. Allen’s Manhattan and Polanski’s Chinatown will forever be on my top-ten list of greatest American films and Keaton’s right–Allen does indeed present fully realized female characters, like those in Hannah and Her Sisters. Polanski’s Repulsion is, I believe, one of the best films of the 1960s and possibly his own greatest film and a deeply compelling accounting of a woman’s sexual trauma.


When I look at the filmographies of these men, I don’t see the faces of their victims, I see the genius of their work.


That unsettles me. What if my own rapist were an artist of merit and had never been prosecuted for the assault that nearly killed me? What would I think of the work then? Conversely if all these other parents are able to distance themselves from these directors’ crimes against children, why can’t I?


And then there’s this: In 2004, when Polanski sued Vanity Fair for libel in a case unrelated to the Geimer rape, his prime witness was...Mia Farrow. He won the lawsuit.


It’s not just these men, these rapists and pedophiles, either. It’s their supporters. What of those who called for Polanski’s release and those who supported Allen’s award? Do we boycott their work as well? Foster is a lesbian icon yet her best friend is the anti-Semitic Mel Gibson and she said she would work with Polanski again. Numerous women signed that petition for Polanski. Actress Debra Winger was nearly in tears as she pleaded for Polanski. And even as she decries what happened in her own family, Farrow remains in touch with Polanski.
Would we feel differently if these men had served time in prison? Would there be a sense that the victim had received justice? Or would it be just as confusing as it is now?


Some argue that the art itself is recompense to the victims. Perhaps a film like Polanski’s The Pianist tells a story so profound about human suffering during the Holocaust that it makes a difference. And no doubt an attorney could argue that Polanski’s own internment in a concentration camp was penance enough for one lifetime–mitigating circumstances.


But doesn’t this all argue again that the guy down the street who rapes a child goes to jail while wealthy artists not only go free, but reap rewards for their work while never being held accountable for actual crimes? Living in Gstaad for the decades since he raped Geimer has not been the same as a jail sentence for Polanski. And just because Chaplin and Allen married their victims doesn’t make them any less victims.


I can appreciate the brilliance of films like Manhattan or Chinatown. What I can’t do is pretend their auteurs’ crimes don’t matter. Nor should the various academies. There would be some measure of accountability in not giving Oscars and Golden Globes to such men. A small gesture toward their victims, but a statement that those victims matter, irrespective of canon or genius. The only way to make the crimes stop is to stop rewarding their perpetrators. For now that seems to be the only recourse we still have.

http://www.shewired.com/opinion/2014...s-men-who-rape

[Kobi]

To Montanans, Missoula is a college town of about 68,000 with a laid-back, hippie vibe. But elsewhere, Missoula is also known as the "rape capital" of the country.

Between January 2008 and May 2012, Missoula police received more than 350 sexual-assault reports, including multiple cases of assault allegedly committed by University of Montana football players. The US Department of Justice found that city officials did not adequately handle all of these reports—going so far as to charge that police were using "sex-based stereotypes" to discriminate against women who reported rape. Last month, the Justice Department proposed an agreement that would require the Missoula County Attorney's office to make a number of changes. The DOJ recommended adding two or three new staff positions, including an advocate for victims; ramping up training for county supervisors and prosecutors; and collecting more data on sexual-assault cases, including feedback from victims. Last week, the county's chief prosecutor rejected the offer and told the feds to take a hike, insisting they have no authority to tell his office what to do.

"The DOJ is clearly overstepping in the investigation of my office," Missoula County Attorney Fred Van Valkenburg tells Mother Jones. "The Missoula Police Department and our office have done a very good job of handling sexual-assault allegations regardless of what national and local news accounts may indicate."

Missoula's rape problem rose to national attention when six members of the University of Montana football team, the Grizzlies, were accused of committing, attempting, or helping cover-up sexual assault between 2009 and 2012. In March 2012, facing scrutiny over how it was handling assault allegations leveled against athletes, the university fired its football coach and athletic director. In May 2012, Attorney General Eric Holder said he was launching a federal investigation into whether Missoula officials and the university were discriminating against female rape victims, noting he found the allegations "very disturbing."

In May 2013, the Justice Department released findings from its investigation, indicating officials in Missoula were indeed discriminating against female victims in sexual-assault cases. For example, according to the Justice Department's report, one Missoula detective allegedly told a woman who said she was vomiting during her sexual assault—she was allegedly raped by several people—that "she might have had a case if if she had been unconscious during the rape rather than merely incapacitated." In another case where a woman reported vaginal and anal rape, a detective reportedly asked her why she hadn't fought harder, saying, "Tell me the truth—is this something we want to go through with?" (Van Valkenburg says, "Both our office and the police are very much aware of what is necessary to legally prove that a woman who is incapacitated by alcohol and/or drugs did not consent to a sexual act. Local prosecutors fully understand these issues​.") The Justice Department also determined that the Missoula attorney's office provides "no information" to local police as to why it declines to prosecute sexual assault cases and police are "frustrated" with the "lack of follow-up and prosecution." (Missoula Police Captain Mike Coyler says, "As a general rule, I disagree with this.")

The month it released those findings, the Justice Department entered into agreements with the University of Montana and the Missoula Police Department to beef up resources to combat rape. (Lucy France, legal counsel for the university, says that she disagrees with the Justice Department's findings that the university discriminated against victims and botched investigations, but "we agreed to work to continue to improve our responses to reports.") Last month, the US Attorney for Montana proposed that the Missoula County Attorney's office enter a similar agreement to ensure that it responds to sexual assault without discrimination. In response, Van Valkenburg wrote in a January 9 letter that his office would commit to help the police department and the university meet their commitments—but he wouldn't make the Justice Department's recommended changes to his office.

"Missoula County Attorneys Office does not need to enter into an agreement with DOJ to protect victims of sexual assault, [we have] actively assisted victims for years," Van Valkenburg wrote, arguing that the two federal statutes that the Justice Department cites—one of which deals with gender discrimination—do not legally justify imposing changes on his office. The prosecutor is correct that the Justice Department can't force recommendations on the office, says Christopher Mallios, an attorney adviser for AEquitas, which receives funding from the Department of Justice to help local prosecutors better handle sexual-violence cases. But he adds, that if the Justice Department is able to prove civil rights violations in court, a judge could enforce them. Van Valkenburg says that his office is already meeting many of the Justice Department's demands, and even if he had the funding, he wouldn't add the three new staff members the feds want, because they'd represent "a duplication of services" provided by other city units. Van Valkenburg says if the Justice Department doesn't back off in the next two weeks, he will take the issue to federal court.

"I'm not aware of another case where a prosecutor said we would rather litigate and go to trial than make some changes," Mallios says. And other experts say the prosecutor's response is unusual: "No prosecutor wants to admit that they have shortcomings, especially on such a sensitive issue," says Sarah Deer, who worked for the Justice Department's Office on Violence Against Women in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. "But there is a culture in some offices that sexual assault is sort of overstated or victims tend to lie. That might be what's going on here—a culture of indifference."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...on-prosecution

[Kobi]

During a debate over an anti-abortion bill currently advancing in Congress, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) suggested that Republicans support restricting access to abortion because it will ultimately benefit the economy if women have more children. Goodlatte noted that carrying pregnancies to term “very much promotes job creation.”

Goodlatte made the comments while presiding over a committee mark-up of the “No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act,” or HR 7, on Wednesday afternoon. That legislation would dramatically restrict women’s access to affordable abortion care by imposing restrictions on insurance coverage and tax credits for the procedure. Goodlatte, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, advanced HR 7 by scheduling it for a full committee mark-up on Wednesday.

Explaining his support for the measure, Goodlatte made both a moral and an economic case for anti-choice laws. “I would suggest that it is very much the case that those of us in the majority support this legislation because it is the morally right thing to do but it is also very very true that having a growing population and having new children brought into the world is not harmful to job creation,” he said. “It very much promotes job creation for all the care and services and so on that need to be provided by a lot of people to raise children.”

In reality, denying women autonomy over their reproductive lives is not a wise economic policy. Without access to affordable family planning services, women are less likely to be able to finish their education, advance their career, or achieve financial independence. The low-income women who end up carrying unwanted pregnancies to term end up slipping deeper into poverty and struggling with long-term mental health issues. That ends up impacting the social safety net, putting a greater strain on the Medicaid program. In fact, the Guttmacher Institute estimates that every $1 invested into family planning programs yields more than $5 in savings for the U.S. government.

The Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee have expressed fierce opposition to HR 7. On Tuesday, the female committee members wrote a letter to Goodlatte criticizing him for deciding to advance the bill.

“As we urge Congress in 2014 to consider legislative action that would meaningfully address the economic insecurity currently facing millions of women and families, the Judiciary Committee’s first action to mark up legislation that would harm women’s access to reproductive health care is truly dispiriting,” they wrote. “We strongly oppose this sweeping anti-choice bill.”

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014...-job-creation/