Go check out: "A Day in the life of..A Rape Crisis Advocate"

I can't believe I haven't posted anything about this series yet!
Go check it out, it's great.

Although in all fairness, I'm a little biased since the project is kind of mine..

I'm not a rape crisis advocate, but several of my co-workers @ the NYC Alliance Against Sexual Assault are either currently volunteering in one of these programs or past participants. We thought it would be a really need opportunity for advocates from around the city to share their experiences.

So we sent out a few requests and then picked 6 advocates.
The Alliance blog is featuring their posts--1 advocate a week for 6 weeks.
It's also a contest, and the 2 advocates whose posts garner the most comments will win prizes.

The posts are really really interesting, as are the comments left by family, friends and blog readers.

People have been coming forward to share personal stories, or simply share how much they appreciate the work of these women (I'm sure there are also male advocates..ours just happen to be female).

Go visit!

Vets and guns: dv implications?

I recently saw an article on Mother Jones and felt the need to comment.

Apparently Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.) think that gun laws in this country are too restrictive. He thinks that certain veterans in particular are unfairly denied access to guns, and his "Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act" is necessary to protect their rights.

I wouldn't usually comment on a gun rights issue, but this one is really troubling. There's a pretty good reason that some veterans cannot purchase guns: they have been found to be 'adjudicated as a mental defective.' This means that they have severe enough psychiatric problems that the army believes it necessary to put them on what amounts to a special list.

I really don't understand why Senator Burr thinks that providing these veterans with guns is a good idea. Especially since we already know some terribly disturbing things about military personnel and violence.

For one thing, domestic violence in the military is on the rise. Recent estimates suggest that domestic violence in the military rose from 18.6 per 1000 in 1990 to 25.6 per 1000 in recent years. With the rising number of soldiers serving multiple tours in Afghanistan, Iraq and other combat zones it's likely that this number will continue to rise.

The has also been serious concern about the rising rates of PTSD and other mental health disorders in returning soldiers. Modern warfare practices have also led to an increase in the number of soldier suffering from traumatic brain injuries.

Do we really think it is a good idea to put more weapons into the hands of veterans who are already more likely than the average person to engage in spousal abuse? If the army finds it necessary to provide a special label indicating a certain level of emotional distress, I think it's pretty fair to withhold the right to own a gun. Not only would relaxing this rule put domestic partners and family members in danger, it could also impact suicide rates. We know that veterans are already far more likely to die of suicide than non-veterans in the general population, with firearms the most common method being used.

I think Senator Burr should be spending his time writing bills that would provide better mental health services to our veterans.

Instead of providing them with easier access to guns, he should be focusing on how to protect families from domestic violence and veterans from committing suicide.

Faith in legislative process restored just a tiny bit...but none other than AL FRANKEN (?!)

I just received an email with the news that Senator Al Franken's amendment to the defense appropriations bill for 2010 was passed.

His amendment basically ensures that defense contractors can not force their employees into arbitration or prevent them from seeking justice (via the courts) if their claim includes: sexual assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress as well as Title VII civil
rights claims. If they do not change their employment policies and contracts, they risk losing funding from the US gov't.

Senator Franken's amendment was inspired by the experience of Jamie Lee Jones, "a 19-yr-old employee of defense contractor KBR (formerly a Halliburton subsidiary) stationed in Iraq who was gang raped by her co-workers and imprisoned in a shipping container when she tried to report the crime. Her father and U.S. Rep. Ted Poe (R-Tex.), worked together to
secure her safe return to the United States, but once she was home, she
learned a fine-print clause in her KBR contract banned her from taking her
case to court, instead forcing her into an "arbitration" process that would
be run by KBR itself. Just today, Halliburton filed a petition for a
rehearing en banc in the 5th Circuit Court, which means that Jamie's fight
is far from over."

Although it is incredibly sad that Jamie was effectively re-victimized by KBR's clause, it's really encouraging that Al Franken has stepped in to prevent this from occurring again. I never thought that I'd be so excited by anything at all related to Al Franken...but I am truly encouraged by this positive change for sexual violence victims.

Invisible Girls book review & debate on RH reality check

RH Reality check recently posted a really great book review of Dr. Patti Feureisen’s revised second edition of “Invisible Girls: The Truth About Sexual Abuse.” Since I don’t want to repeat the review word for word, I highly recommend you check out the post by Brittany Shoot.
What I will say is that the post is interesting not only due to the subject matter –sexual violence and the more subtle sexual abuse that occurs in so many contexts–but also the reaction to the review. Some of the comments at the bottom of the page are downright virulent. One reader in particular seems to feel that books that expose sexual violence as pervasive and damaging to young girls and women are simply an offshoot of ’whiny feminism.’

Another commenter on the post wrote a rather convoluted attack on comprehensive sexual education. His post included this paragraph:
“Honestly, if these stats are true (and not just another case of gross exaggeration re: sexual abuse appearing on this site) I really need to reconsider my support of comprehensive sex ed for young people. It’s no wonder parents want to lock up their girls..The message of education in hopes of healthy sexual teen relationships strikes me as absurd in light of these stats. With comprehensive sex ed aren’t you just giving girls a false sense of security and setting them up for abuse?”

While I’m not sure I understand how he has linked comprehensive sexual education with an increased risk of sexual abuse and/or assault, this is exactly the kind of situation that I find both frustrating and frightening. In my mind, accurate and comprehensive sexual education should equip both young men and women with the knowledge and power to make informed sexual decisions. Preventing sexual abuse and assault should be a component of this education, but is really a much larger cultural/societal issue. We should not confuse teaching healthy sexuality to teens with reshaping our cultural norms as they relate to sexual violence and the position of women.

I’m going to register @ RH Reality check so that I can comment that effect at the bottom of the article. Allowing confused people to connect these issues makes it more difficult to clearly advocate for the continuation of comprehensive sexual education and the ending of sexual abuse and violence.

I hope you will do the same and take some time to comment here, @ RH reality check, or at the Alliance blog (where I cross-posted)!

Whoa...world collide! Newsweek article about Perez Hilton & domestic violence (?!)

For a long time I thought Perez Hilton was the same person as Paris Hilton.
I think that was probably the whole point, as Perez’s real name is Mario something or other.

At some point I figured out the difference and started perusing the sit.
I even admit that I occasionally (ok, daily) still peruse Perez.
It’s shallow and I probably need help, but I enjoy my daily dose of pop culture.

While he writes mean things about a lot of celebrities, Perez seems to really hate Fergie. I think she’s OK mostly because she managed to look reasonably scared in her small role in the remake of Poseidon..but that’s neither here nor there.

Perez is pretty vicious when he writes about her, and frequently refers to some sort of peeing incident that occurred several years ago (?) while she was performing with the Black Eyed Peas.

Apparently he had the misfortune to run into Fergie’s manager sometime recently..and emerged from the encounter with enough bruises/injuries to warrant a call to police.

None of this is would normally be worth blogging about, except that Newsweek blogger Kate Dailey wrote a really interesting article comparing this situation to relationship/domestic violence situations.

Seems like a stretch. Perez Hilton getting beat up=domestic violence?
But the article makes a really interesting point.

Namely, that violence is simply not an acceptable reaction.

While women are often blamed for ‘provoking’ their partner or for being complicit in the abuse, we do not pay nearly enough attention to the people (usually their male partners) who believe that hitting, kicking, or physically attacking someone is a justifiable response to frustration, anger or any other reactive emotion.

Dailey writes:
“Many victims of violence—and especially domestic violence—will tell you that the slaps, punches, and shoves perpetrated upon them didn't happen when they were just sitting their minding their own business. It came during some sort of disagreement. Maybe she snapped at him out of frustration. Maybe she hit on a particularly sore subject. These are all things that happen during the course of an argument—we're never at our best when tempers are inflamed. But that doesn't make it right, ever, to take the fight from cutting remarks to physical violence.”

The Perez connection?
Sure he’s kind of smarmy, and says mean things about a lot of celebrities.
Dailey points out that his claim to fame is publishing gossip and photoshopping pictures of genitalia onto photos.

Sounds pretty provoking if it happens to be your outfit he’s making fun of in a very public forum, or your picture that has a penis superimposed rather graphically near your face.
But ultimately, being annoying, or graphic or provoking does not make a violent reaction acceptable.


So really, a rather creative example and a very important message..

And I feel much better now that Perez has been used to send a legit message about intimate partner violence.