Saturday, March 13, 2010

Sportswriters: Don’t Let The Facts Get in the Way of Your Victim Blaming

If you were to get all of your news from the sports sections of newspapers and blogs, you’d be forgiven for thinking that sexual assault and rape are merely examples of naughty boys making risky decisions that could jeopardize their careers and cost them sponsorships.  Now the last time I checked, the ability to throw a football or dunk a basketball doesn’t give a person carte blanche to perpetrate.  But maybe I missed the memo.

Last week, a 20-year-old woman accused Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, who’s 28, of sexually assaulting her in the bathroom of a college bar in Milledgeville, GA.  The national sports media overwhelmingly has responded to this allegation--the second such leveled against Roethlisberger in less than a year--with one question: How can Big Ben, as they affectionately refer to him, overcome this latest hiccup?

I’d like to guide you quickly through the irresponsible reportage of this event and, in doing so, demonstrate how unapologetic if subtle victim blaming is among American sportswriters.  The gold standard for journalistic integrity, this is not.

Lester Munson of ESPN queries, “Can Garland and his team of expert investigators put together enough evidence to show that the accuser was lying and confabulating when she told them that Roethlisberger attacked her?” It not enough for Munson to imply that the unnamed victim might be lying.  No, the writer further states that she also could be confabulating, suggesting a psychological disorder that implicitly undermines her credibility and sheds light on Munson’s overriding loyalty to either the sport or the athlete.  It’s important to note that, in the same article, Munson follows this loaded question by offering a strategy to beat the accusation, going so far as to to question the accuser’s sobriety before even mentioning the fact that, in July, another woman sued Roethlisberger for raping her in 2008.  (The civil case surrounding the alleged rape is ongoing.)

Michael Silver, a blogger for Yahoo! Sports, titled a recent post, “Give Big Ben Benefit of the Doubt.” After chastising “the morality police [for] rushing to judgement,” Silver goes on to minimize past examples of Roethlisberger’s questionable choices as regular-guy behavior.  “If going to a bar with your boys and cavorting with attractive women is inherently stupid,” Silver begins, “Then there are a lot of idiots happily getting for the weekend all over the free world right now… Shockingly, many of the NFL players you root for on Sundays are likely to end up chilling in the VIP area of a hotspot full of suggestively dressed women hours later.” My question for Silver is this: If you want to say that girls who dress slutty are asking for it, then just say it.  But don’t try to minimize what might have happened as misunderstood flirting.  There’s no grey area between sexual assault and spitting game, Mike.

Over at NFL FanHouse, an online site for all things football, a blog post titled “Roethlisberger ‘Is at Least Guilty of Stupidity’” by writer Terrence Moore calls Roethlisberger “dumb” and questions how he could “possibly put himself in a position to face another allegation of sexual assault within two years.” The phrasing of the question sets up the rest of Moore’s argument, positioning Roethlisberger as a victim of his own fortunate circumstance, a target for greedy women looking to cash in.  Never does the writer acknowledge that two allegations leveled within the same year might mean that the Steelers hero could be a perpetrator.  Not once.  He just name calls, tossing around “stupid,” “reckless” and “silly” in the manner of a friend riding his buddy who defaults his student loan and then wonders why banks won’t approve his mortgage application.

In Pittsburgh, Ron Cook of the Post-Gazette echoes the “poor judgement” chorus.  Cook goes deeper (or shallower, depending on your view) in his analysis of Roethlisberger’s situation, unintentionally calling into play socialized gender roles.  Silver paints Roethlisberger as a target, one who needs constantly to be on top of his surroundings, and states, “There’s always the change of running into a guy who, bolstered by alcohol, is willing to challenge his toughness.  There’s also the chance of meeting a woman who is looking to capitalize financially on his fame.” So to sum up Silver’s point: Men fight, women scheme, and therefore poor Big Ben shouldn’t mix with the plebeians.  Cook continues to comment on the shame this situation has brought to the Great and Mighty Steelers, as well as on the potential career backlash Roethlisberger could face.  But never, as seems to be the custom with many sportswriters, does Cook offer any empathy for the potential victim.

In USA Today, writer Mike Lopresti spends a few paragraphs encouraging readers to consider Roethlisberger’s potential innocence and then offers the following caveat: “Before anyone rushes to judgment, here are three words to remember.  Duke lacrosse team.” Sure, Mike, the accuser in the Duke case proved to be a drug addict and potential arsonist.  But that doesn’t change the fact that some of the accused are, in fact, hate criminals.  And it doesn’t change the fact that false reports of rape occur at the same rate as false reports of any other crime.  Lopresti turns Roethlisberger into Johnny Depp, going on to call Roethlisberger a “swashbuckler” and “basically a decent guy” in the same article.  He finishes his love letter to Big Ben with the following bit of advice: “You’re a pretty lucky man.  Try not to blow it.” I’d like to add to that: “You’re a man.  Don’t be a rapist.”

Howard Kurtz, a known apologist for sexist statements, in the Washington Post comments only on Roethlisberger’s poor judgment and ponderously submits, “As a hugely successful football star, Roethlisberger must have women hanging on him all the time.  Why can’t he pursue his love life without getting sacked by these accusations?  Is this another Kobe situation?”

Ah yes, Kobe Bryant.  I wasn’t going to bring him up, but I’m glad you did, Howard.  In 2003, Bryant was accused of raping a woman in Colorado.  But the case never made it to trial, because his accuser, for her own reasons, decided she couldn’t testify.  The result was that Bryant issued the following statement: “Although this year has been incredibly difficult for me personally, I can only imagine the pain she has had to endure. I also want to apologize to her parents and family members, and to my family and friends and supporters… Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual… I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did.” Among the many problems with the outcome of this case--including the fact that Bryant remains one of the most celebrated athletes in his field while his potentially violent past has been relegated to a footnote on Wikipedia--is the fact that Bryant, a possible perpetrator, was able to use his national platform to promote the fallacy that rape and miscommunication are synonymous.

To be honest, I am not a fan of professional sports.  But I am a fan of accountability and a fair and free media.  In researching this post, I’ve grown really disheartened by the state of sports journalism in this country.  An eighth-grade vocabulary is not a very good mask for violent misogyny.  The writers to whom I’ve referred and countless others I couldn’t include in this post should be ashamed for allowing their own lack of talent to be co-opted by athletes who offer little to society other than the ability to throw a ball.

Tags:

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

She Wasn’t Asking For It

A recent study in England has kicked off a wave of examination of victim-blaming. The study has found that, of the thousand Londoners surveyed, more than half said “there were some circumstances when a rape victim should accept responsibility for an attack.” The study also found that women were more likely to victim-blame than men.

This surprised a lot of people. It didn’t surprise me.

Because you know what? When you’re talking about rape and sexual assault, people say the damnedest things. Women, in particular, say the damnedest things - and for many women, it’s a subconscious defense mechanism. Think about it.

“What was she wearing?”
“Why was she at the club/walking home/in that part of town?”
“Why did she dance with him if she wasn’t going to follow through?”

The people who ask these questions are asking them because they need to feel safe. Because if the rape survivor was wearing a short skirt, the questioner will be safe if she wears jeans. If the survivor was out alone, the questioner will be safe if she uses the buddy system.

This is, of course, not so, and this line of questioning can be very harmful to survivors. There is no one thing that makes you safe, that gives you a shield against sexual assault. But sexual assault is such a terrifying thing that it can be incredibly difficult to accept the fact that you *can’t* prevent it. The only way to keep from being raped is to never be in the presence of a rapist, and unfortunately, they don’t wear signs. (Wouldn’t it be great if they did? Or had forehead tattoos or big neon lights flashing over their heads?)

So there are people who, when hearing about a rape or sexual assault, instinctively dig and dig until they find something, anything, the survivor did “wrong”. Dr. Roxanne Agnew-Davies says, “[Female jurors] can look at the woman in the witness stand and decide she has done something ‘wrong’ such as flirting or having a drink with the defendant. She can therefore reassure herself that rape won’t happen to her as long as she does nothing similar.”

The first question I listed above was “What was she wearing?”, and for good reason; it’s the single most-asked question. For the people who need to find fault in the victim, clothing is a major target. Was it a short skirt? No? tight jeans? This line of “reasoning” can keep going and going until the questioner finds something, anything, to pin it on. To make it the survivor’s fault.

Unsurprisingly, I have a few problems with this.

1. No one wants to be raped.
Really. Nobody. Ever. No matter where they are or what they’re wearing. I could go out dancing in a short skirt, and that doesn’t mean I’m “asking for it” any more than going out dancing in jeans and a t-shirt. All it means is that I really like those fishnets. I could walk home from my bus stop alone at 1am, and I’m not “asking for it” any more than if I walk home from my bus stop at 2pm. All it means is that I’ve got to get home, you know? Refusing to restrict your movements based on fear isn’t “asking for it”. It’s living your life.

2. Give the guys some credit.
The whole “short skirts lead to rape” argument is pretty insulting to men, too, when you think about it. It reduces them to brainless zombies who just cannot keep from raping attractive women. Really? Is that what we think of men? Because the guys I know are pretty smart. And while a short skirt may raise their pulse rate quite a bit, it’s not going to tip them over from reasonable men to “THAG MUST MOUNT WOMAN NOW.”

Because rape is a conscious decision. It’s not some autonomic function, some switch that just flipped in someone’s head that they have no control over. And that’s what’s at the core of all of this victim-blaming, beyond trying to find that magical way to be safe - victim-blaming is about giving the rapist a free pass. “He couldn’t help himself.”

Really. We hear this. “He couldn’t help himself.”

Do we let people use that excuse for murder? “Sorry, he got mad and just couldn’t help himself.” Burglary? “That house looked so nice, he just couldn’t help himself.”

Sounds preposterous, right?

Then why do we not question it when it gets applied to rape? Why are we so eager to hand out that rationale?

Here’s your mission for today, should you choose to accept it. Look at a recent article about a rape or sexual assault. See if there’s victim-blaming language in it. And reframe it so the blame goes to the rapist. None of this “she was wearing a short skirt at the club”. Let’s focus on “he kept giving her drinks until she was too intoxicated to fight him off”, on “she said no and he raped her.” (Note: I’ve uncharacteristically used a lot of he/she gendered language here, because of the context of the articles quoted, and “she was asking for it” is leveled more towards female survivors with male perpetrators. Obviously, people of all genders can be survivors or perpetrators.) And take that with you. When you see victim-blaming going on, online or in person, step up and say “Really? Do you actually think that person wanted to be raped - that anyone wants to be raped? Do you really think the rapist didn’t make a conscious choice? Do you really think a pair of tight jeans is enough to disable all higher brain function?”

Put the blame where it belongs.

And now you know not to victim-blame - but what *should* you do when someone you know tells you they were raped or sexually assaulted? BARCC has an excellent page of advice. And if your organization deals with survivors of sexual violence, we recommend our First Responders for Everyone training.

Tags: victim-blaming

Monday, March 08, 2010

Raise Money for the Walk

The Fifth Annual Walk for Change is just a couple of weeks away at this point, and it's time to start cracking open wallets and getting donations in to BARCC! We want to make this year's walk the biggest ever, with more walkers, more performers, and more sweet, sweet currency than any previous year. If anyone else is like me, though, asking people for money is a really hard thing to do. BARCC has some great tools on the walk site to help get people started with fundraising, especially in setting up First Giving pages. I wanted to supplement those resources with some more general tools for fundraising. Thankfully, I know people who pretty much professionally ask for money for a living. For those of you out there who are planning to walk with BARCC on the 11th of April, here are some good pointers from Robbie Samuels, Special Events Manager at GLAD, for fundraising (thanks Robbie!).

Ten Tips for Making an Ask

1) Make your gift first. Make your gift before you ask someone else to give. Someone who has already donated to a cause has more credibility than someone who hasn't. It also indicates to your potential donors how important the cause is to you. If you are trying to recruit walkers, make sure you're registered to walk yourself!

2) Be positive, sincere and passionate about the cause. Show your potential donors how important the organization is to you! Upon greeting a potential prospect, be upbeat and passionate about the organization and its mission. BARCC's website has good stats and background, in case you want to brush up on its institutional mission.

3) State the need. After greeting your prospect, re-state the importance of the organization and how it makes a positive difference in the world.

4) Ask for a specific amount. It is critical to ask the prospect for a specific amount within a specific time-frame. For example, "I'm asking you to support the BARCC Walk with a donation of $50 this year - will you do that?" Ask, then be quiet and listen. Also, it helps to gauge ahead of time what you reasonably expect your donors to be able to give - $50 may be way too much for some people, but way too little for others.

5) Be quiet and confident. It is critical not to say anything after making your ask. The seconds that follow may be uncomfortable, so prepare for it. Eye contact and supportive facial gestures can indicate that you have confidence in your organization and cause.

6) Listen to the response. Really listen to what your potential donor says. This is where a lot of fundraisers trip up because they are nervous, and talk too much. Listen to the donor's response and determine if the they are going to give at the level requested, a lower level, or if they need to think about it.

7) Thank the prospect and respond. It is important to thank them sincerely for their time and consideration of an investment in your organization. Regardless of whether they donate or not, a sincere thank you is essential. Even if a potential donor can't give money to BARCC right now, they might still be interested in supporting us, and perhaps in the future they will be able to donate.

8) Create a sense of urgency and determine next steps. Ask the prospect when the appropriate time would be to follow up to find out if they would like to give, if they cannot give you an answer right away. It is important to relay a time frame upon which you are working. For example, "May I call you the end of next week to learn your answer?" Ending with a specific plan will help you follow-through more comfortably.

9) Respond in writing within 24 hours, once you hear a decision. This act will relay a sense of urgency and importance. It's also respectful - it shows your donors that they matter enough to you for you to take time to contact them. Again, building relationships is almost as important as the donation – treating potential donors with respect will make it easier to ask again in the future, regardless of whether they donate this time or not.

10) Follow up in the agreed upon time frame. Lastly, put the time to call the prospect on your calendar and make sure you follow through. Representing your organization in a professional manner is important. Make sure you do what you said you would do.

These tips are basic, but they can be a step in making fundraisers feel a little more confident about asking for cash. For anyone who is interested in getting a little more practical experience with this, Robbie and NOMAS-Boston (the pro-feminist men's group I work with) are hosting a free fundraising workshop on Friday, March 19th, at GLAD's offices in Downtown Crossing. Check out the event details on Facebook here

UPDATE: BARCC's awesome development team also does fundraising trainings for groups that want help putting together fundraising strategies or getting into the groove of asking for money. I am greatly chagrined that I did not mention this earlier. If you'd like to contact the Development team directly to put something together, email them at events at barcc dot org.

*A quick follow-up from last week - I wanted to thank everyone who had such kind words for the post about being an ally. I'm glad it resonated with some folks, but I definitely felt like there were some other, better writers out there who have tackled these issues well before I tried. So, for those who are interested in investigating this concept further, here's a cool link from Hugo Schwyzer, one of my favorite pro-feminist male bloggers, on the subject.

"The faux pro-feminist corollary is trying to prove to as many women as possible that you, their male feminist friend, are somehow different from all the other guys. The reward isn't sex or homosocial validation - the reward is being told that you've done what other men couldn't do, and that's earn trust. While hardly predatory, there's still something problematic about this kind of 'safe seduction' behavior - because it places the man's ego, rather than women's safety, front and center."

ALSO - if you want to actually TALK about being an ally in a supportive and awesome way, why not check out Socializing for Justice's discussion section on Allying, getting started in soon? Check their calendar for the official dates!

Tags: