A robot model walked the runway in a fashion show in Japan. Apparently the standards for women's bodies are now so unrealistic that mere humans cannot meet them.
A full 87% of employer-based insurance policies cover abortion.
Veronica reviews a book on the history of the earliest female astronauts.
Why class matters in the Gates arrest.
In response to an article on women commandos protesting in Iran, Faith questions the need to make every story relate back to U.S. politics and policy.
Sarah at the Bitch Blog asks, "How Could $3 Million for Postpartum Research Hurt Women?"
What's the best way to respond to rape jokes?
Author Justine Larbalestier writes about how, despite the fact that the protagonist of her book is described as "black with nappy hair which she wears natural and short," the publisher insisted on putting a white woman on the cover.
This year at Comic Con, EA encouraged attendees to grope its "booth babes" -- promising attendees dinner with the "babes" if they took and published a photo of themselves sexually harassing the women. The F Word has more, as does PharaohKatt on the community blog.
This is just so sad and infuriating: An 8-year-old Liberian girl was shunned by her family after being raped by four older boys (who are also Liberian refugees) who lured her into a shed by promising her gum. Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf said of the girls' family, "They should help that child who has been traumatized." And of the boys, "They have to pay the penalty, but we also want to make sure that they are counseled ... that they will have an opportunity to change and become useful citizens, not only in the United States but when they return home." Renee has more.
The 2010 Olympics in Vancouver will have a house for LGBT athletes: "an inclusive hangout and social space for gay and nongay athletes."
A Hungarian company is holding a beauty pageant specifically for women who have had plastic surgery.
Jessica Hopper chats about The Girls Guide to Rocking.
On marketing Asian women to appeal to antifeminist men.
Daisy ruminates on Jewish masculinity.
Harassed on the street? Tweet the offending catcall to @catcalled.
How the world sees America differently in the Obama era. But, as Jesse Taylor points out, it should by no means be understood as a post-racial ear.
The fight to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell goes grassroots.
Tracey at Unapologetically Female notes a gendered-product trend from her childhood: Gameboy, Talkman, Walkman, Discman... (via)
Support Tami's Run for Congo Women!
What have you been reading/writing this week? Leave your links in comments!
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Weekly Feminist Reader.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15156
Yes, thats why the Japanese sent a robot down the catwalk, because the standards are above what a mere mortal can meet *rollseyes*.
I agree with your sarcasm. The Japanese put a robot down a catwalk because the Japanese are very into tech and robots. There was nothing mentioned in that article about how the thinness of the robot. It even mentioned the robot was 5'2", and at least in America you have to be at least 5'7" to be a model. 5'2" is not unrealistic at all. That was not about unrealistic body types, that was about the uber-coolness of robots. Come on, Feministing. I mean, I detest fashion as much as the next feminist girl, but let's be realistic here.
I agree with both of you that the robot likely was used because robots are cool rather than because of unrealistic beauty standards, but can we please please please stop saying "the Japanese" did this and "the Japanese" are like that? This sort of phrasing contributes to the incorrect impression that Japan is a monolithic society.
And here we go again with complaining about little things with no malice behind them... Sigh.
That doesn't, however, make them any less marginalizing to the people being spoken about.
Why the hell can't people admit they may have made a mistake out of lack of knowledge and just freakin' apologize around here? Have we really gotten so stubborn with each other to the point of just saying "but that's sooooo unimportant"?
complaining about little things with no malice behind them... Sigh
If I had a dime for every time that line has been used to try and muzzle a feminist, I wouldn't need a job.
I second this statement.
So, I'm uneducated and have a "lack of knowledge" because I don't agree about some robots? Has Feministing really sunk this low? To say "the Japanese" is not to say "I think every Japanese person is exactly the same and a stereotype", and you have to know that. Just the same as putting a robot down the catwalk is not to say no human can meet fashion expectations...
And as far as I can tell from Japanese pop culture, robots and tech ARE popular there... But I'm just a stupid white American, right?
So how about saying "Japanese culture" instead of "the Japanese"? After all, we don't say "the Americans are obsessed with religion", we say "American culture is obsessed with religion.
Just because something is said with no malice behind it does not mean it's not offensive. A lot of sexist and racist shit is said without any malice behind it.
When someone criticizes your words they are not necessarily criticizing you as a person or saying you're uneducated. There's a big difference between attacking you and having an issue with what you said.
No, you have a lack of knowledge in regards to the marginalizing language you used. You can have whatever opinion about Japan and robots you want. It was an objection to the way its said, not necessarily the thought behind it.
In other words, what Rachel_in_WY said.
Hey, let's not imply that the average "feminist girl" hates fashion. I wouldn't want to give new readers the wrong impression on the second post.
Yes, let's just pick apart and analyze every little thing I've said to find the hidden -isms behind them. Ugh!
You poor little victim. It truly is all about you sweetie.
win.
I'm sorry, but I really resent the automatic assumption that feminism and fashion are not compatible.
I have taught Sociology, race relations, feminism, social problems for nearly 13 years and I am convinced even now we are all living next door to Archie Bunkers, the newspapers really are written at a 9th grade level and the majority of Americans are uninformed and the more one tries to inform them the more irate the situation becomes. Whenever I teach a class of 35 to 65 students I find I must be teaching to very conservative parents who assure me that racism and sexism and classism are over, people can get anywhere in life if they work hard enough and if they dont it is because they are not motivated. Whenever even the Feminism word is hinted at chaos ensues from a surprising variety of students including, of course, white males, and there is a profound lack of support from faculty and administration. Several students told me I reminded them of the teacher in Mona Lisa Smile and after I saw it how I could not have agreed more. If you have not seen this movie DO. Even now when it comes to Womyn we still have to talk speak softly and nicely so men will listen. I find it an interesting paradox that we have to take our clothes off to get a man's attention but when we do neither do we that sought after attention but neither do we have their ear.
The boys who raped the Liberian girl---"counsel them so they can be useful citizens" Yeah right. The only "useful" thing a rapist can do is kill itself so the rest of us don't have to be around a rapist.
Don't you think saying something like "The only "useful" thing a rapist can do is kill itself so the rest of us don't have to be around a rapist" is counterproductive? What they did was horrible, but that's still no excuse to wish suicide upon them. Despite their despicable actions, they are humans and it's obvious that they need some sort of therapy. However, I do agree that they shouldn't be let out into the public.
We're talking about children here and I think that changes things, but in general... Yeah I wish rapists would kill themselves, or at least get run over by a freight train.
just hope you feel that way about male and female rapists
Well since I said rapists and not "male rapists" or "female rapists" the only logical conclusion would be that I did indeed mean both.
Why in the world would you assume that Ayla doesn't? Are you just poking around looking for inconsistent behavior that you can call out?
i didnt say the previous poster referred solely to males. i said i hope she doesn't. if i assumed her blood lust was simply directed at males, i would have said "you are only asking these boys to be harmed because they are boys."
but let's not pretend this site has not been silent about the rapes by women
Semantic gymnastics. If I said "gee, I hope that you are posting here in good faith and aren't actually some MRA douche," wouldn't you assume that I was calling you an MRA douche?* Rhetoric can easily be used to imply insulting things about someone, and that is certainly how your statement came across. If that was genuinely not your intent, then I apologize for misreading you, but I would also advise you to be more careful about with your phrasing in order to avoid such misunderstandings in the future.
*Disclaimer: this is illustrative only; I am not actually calling you an MRA douche.
actually i wouldnt assume that but i can see how one of your ilk would
One... of my... ilk?
I just don't even know what to say. I think maybe you're trying to be insulting, but I can't be sure.
Anyway, I'm revising my previous assumption - I no longer think that you were deliberately trying to infer that Ayla was dismissing female-on-male rape. I think instead that you're just really unskilled at this communicating via internet thing.
Lurk moar.
Not counterproductive at all. Probably very productive for the safety of the human race in general from rapists. I don't subscribe to any hippie bullshit notions that rapists "have good inside them" or whatever snake oil you're selling here.
Once someone rapes I no longer see them as human. I never thought on a FEMINIST blog I'd meet hand wringers sticking up for rapists. Are you sure you're in the right place?
And by the way, I also mean male and female rapists, for the trolls that are pretending not to get that. So don't even try it.
For one thing, yes, I am in the right place. There's no need to be rude and question my beliefs. From the amount of people that liked my post, it seems like I'm not the only feminist who believes what I do.
Secondly, wishing death upon someone is almost as bad and unhuman as what the criminals themselves did. If anyone, the victim themself has a right to kill the attacker in self defense. Just like with any other type of violent criminal, they should be put away out of the public, but not killed. I don't believe in the death penalty and I don't make exceptions.
Ooh, bringing up how many people agree with your post. Didn't realize feminism was now a high school popularity contest.
If you think harboring a deathwish against rapists is "as bad and inhuman" as what actual rapists do, then you have a very fascinating sense of priorities.
I personally got my fill of them, and I stand by my belief that the world would be a better place if all rapists were dead.
The point of me bringing up the fact that other feminists agree with me was not to make the debate about popularity, but making the point that my opinions being different from what you believe doesn't make me less of a feminist.
I think this whole debate is over semantics and perspectives. What I'm trying to say, is that the STATE shouldn't kill rapists, while you're just wishing them dead. I too wish there weren't rapists in this world, and you seem to feel the same way, but just have a different way of saying it.
"There's no need to be rude and question my beliefs." - no offense but you were the one who was telling Rustyspoons that they were basically stupid for believing that rapists should die. What gives you a right to question someone's opinion but never be questioned on yours? Isn't that an attempt to manipulate them out of having a differing opinion from yours?
I didn't mean for it to seem as if I thought they were stupid for their beliefs, and if it did, then I apologize. My point was that they shouldn't accuse me of not being a feminist simply because my opinion differs from theirs.
I love how human beings kill off innocent animals all the time, just because they "taste good" but somehow it's immoral to wish a rapist dead. I ask - what harm has that cow caused? What harm has that chicken caused? Not only do humans eat animals but most of the animals they eat are herbivores - the most peaceful kind of animals.
Either way - I certainly won't judge you for that opinion. I don't think human beings nold any more importance than other animals. People who think humans are more important than other animals support patriarchy.
"People who think humans are more important than other animals support patriarchy."
So, when a tiger kills its prey, it means the tiger thinks itself more important than the now dead animal?
Our bodies require meat to survive. We are omnivores. I do not eat chicken because I think chickens are totally lame and less than me, I eat them because my body needs those nutrients. I'm not knocking anyone choice to be a vegetarian at all, and I know it is perfectly possible to live a healthy live without eating meat, but to say that it is somehow unnatural or even cruel to eat what our bodies require is just silly, and to say that eating them translates into thinking we are "better" than them is just plain stupid.
This is a great example of a red-herring. Whatever we might feel about the value of rapists as people and whether or not they should be killed off, arguments about how we value animals simply doesn't impact this. Some people value people more than animals, and others don't. This has little to do with rape and the death penalty, and proves no point in the (rather disturbing) current argument.
I'm not sure what vegetarianism has to do with this, but ok. I just am not gonna be told to be a nice girl and not show my anger, hatred, and very honest deathwish for all rapists. Honestly though a lot about the penal system is flawed, I can't honestly say I'd have a problem with the state doing it either, it would be kind of hypocritical for me to say "I want them dead, but not if the state does it.". (Is there any state that currently institutes the death penalty for rape anyway? I'm pretty sure it's reserved for murder.)
This is one of the few issues I don't agree with the left viewpoint on, I think.
That's exactly my point. Vegetarianism has nothing to do with this, and is a red herring argument that's entirely irrelevant but is being treated as if it proves some sort of point about rape and capital punishment. It doesn't.
As to your feelings about rapists...I haven't engaged with you on that topic because my sense is that your feelings are very immediate and raw on this topic right now, and I approach it from a more theoretical perspective (although I have my own personal experience with it as well). So I don't think we'd be doing the same thing if we did engage on this topic. I don't view any humans as disposable, so obviously I'm not going to agree with you on this. I also don't think that the view that all rapists ought to be disposed of is necessarily a feminist stance. I think that as long as you're living in a rape culture, people committing rapes is exactly what you ought to expect. Nobody develops or acts in a vacuum.
But talk of this requires a sort of critical distance that takes time and healing to acheive, and I certainly am not in the business of demanding that anyone be a nice girl. I'm also not one to set some sort of timetable for healing and moving on, and I get that sometimes you just need a safe space to vent and work through your thoughts. I take it that this is one of those spaces for you, and I respect that.
(posting on behalf of RMJ from Deeply Problematic)
This week, at Deeply Problematic:
Obama uses tradition to justify dismissing abortion: reacting to President Obama's rhetoric on abortion rights
Trichotillomania: cures, shame, localization, management: thoughts about my hair-pulling compulsion (trigger warning).
Responding to criticism of my construction of motherhood in last week's post on the controversial Ms. cover.
Babies are cars: adventures in gendered advertising
Pregnancy, my greatest fear: on why exactly I'm so scared of getting pregnant, and how that helps to frame my feminism
Sharing some of my favorite bands from Floydfest, a music festival in SW VA.
hey can i get in my soapbox right now? I had an issues were a boy in my class made a rape joke. I told him it wasn't funny, that's wen it got ugly and two other douchebags got in the band wagon making more rape jokes and making fun of me for not liking rape jokes.
I wished I said, "wait till something bad happens to you or your friend, then come for me for help."
I'm glad in college right know, and i found this website. Hopefully I'm stronger to speak out, our encourage others to speak out. Thanks guys
Is there something inherently wrong with rape jokes? People joke about all kinds of terrible things: rape, murder, assault and battery, slavery, the holocaust, celebrity deaths, child molestation -you name it. That's because cruelty is one of the cornerstones of humor.
Is there something inherently wrong with rape jokes?
Yes. There is.
Some things just aren't funny. It's one thing to make jokes about stereotypes (I'm blond myself) but I fail to see how harming children, women, slavery etc are funny. Children are beaten, killed, sexually abused every day. Women are beated, killed, raped every single day. People are enslaved everyday. I just don't see how that could even be SORTA funny.
Maybe you don't find cruelty humor funny, but that's your personal taste. I thought it was hilarious at the end of Animal House when the subtitles read:
No, it's not just about personal taste. It's about how we as a society value people, and which bodies we think ought to be protected. So women and prisoners are constructed as less-than in our culture, and as one of the privileged non-women and non-prisoners you can take their mistreatment lightly and laugh at it. Fine. But don't mistake it as a function of personal taste. It's a function of privilege.
The New York Times has a cover story today, "An Abortion Battle Fought to the Death," that gives a pretty thorough history of Dr. George Tiller's life and death. (Sorry, but I can't figure out to post the link. It's in today's paper-- Sunday, July 26th-- and also posted at nytimes.com.)
I don't think the robot model has anything to do with unrealistic expectations of the female body. They make robots for everything in Japan! Japan is renowned for its employ of robotics in every field. I think this is a bit reaching really, to say robots are brought in to meet standards of beauty.
Regarding Author Justine Larbalestier's cover, boing boing had also covered that news and one of the commenters had pointed to the article where the publisher (I think) was saying that the protagonist is a compulsive liar, so what's to say she hadn't lied about her appearance. Another case of reaching, I personally thought. Maybe I shoudl take the cover as a parallel of the title: Liar.
I agree! I am getting more and more frustrated with some of the content on Feministing - getting on a soap box about things with no malice behind them. One may say "they may not think there is malice behind it, but it's all subconscious, etc.", and while I agree with that in some instances, I think there are just some things we don't need to be complaining about, this robot for instance. It's complaining about little things like that that cause a lot of people not to take feminists and feminism seriously.
Funny thing is, PeTA is constantly slammed for overreacting to animal abuse in the littlest, unlikeliest of circumstances, but feministing slams PeTA (albeit for their sexist advertisements) and still gets up and complains about completely innocent things that have no -isms behind them.
There was a time when nigger jokes and comments were said by many people with no malice behind them. Did they do any damage or cause any pain? Absolutely.
Most jokes about how women are so ditzy/incompetent/naggy/sucky drivers/overemotional/whatever are made with no malice behind them. Do they cause any damage? Absolutely.
Many stereotypes about gays/women/trans people/poc/disabled people are invoked with no malice intended by the speaker. Does this mitigate the damage done to the groups in question. Not one fucking bit.
It's time for people to stop whining about what their intentions were and start paying attention to the real world consequences of their words and actions. Grow up already. If your words or actions harm anyone then they're not acceptable. End of story.
when were nigger jokes deemed to have no malice behind them? and what is inherently sexist about the robot?
There's nothing inherently sexist about a robot. Perhaps you're replying to the wrong person?
There was a time when nigger jokes and expressions were so common, and the ideas behind them so widely accepted, that many people didn't see them as malicious or harmful. It was just an expression of reality in their view. My grandma used to refer to Brazil nuts as "nigger toes." Did she use the term malicioualsy? No. Was it harmful to speak that way? Abso-fucking-lutely.
I get what you're saying and agree with it, but I also think there's a really substantial difference between racist/sexist jokes and robots on a runway. While the point made above is simply "there was no malice intended in the use of robots to display fashion," I think the underlying idea being expressed is "there is no sexism in the use of robots to display fashion."
That is perhaps an arguable point, but in any case I don't think that what is being argued is that intent or malice are prerequisites for something to worth taking offense at, but rather that in this particular case there genuinely isn't anything to take offense at.
We're not communicating here. Jennifer says that everyone's ganging up on her for using the phrase "the Japanese" when there was no malice meant by it on her part. (see earlier comments) I understand that she didn't mean to speak as if Japanese culture is monolithic and all Japanese people are the same, etc. But my point is, using phrases with harmful implications is still problematic, even if your intentions were not malicious. And the proper response when someone points this out is not to get all dfensive and whiny and claim that everyone is insulting you and make the entire thread all about you. The proper response is to say "I didn't mean it that way, and didn't think about what my phrasing implied, but I'm sorry that it did," and then move the fuck on.
Sure, I get all that. But the comment that you responded to here is no longer addressing the issue of harmful phrasing - it's talking about robots and whether or not their use on the runway is A) sexist; and B) worth being offended by.
Maybe you meant to reply to one of the other parts of this thread? (Not being snide there - this thread is pretty much a mess.)
I took this comment of hers:
I am getting more and more frustrated with some of the content on Feministing - getting on a soap box about things with no malice behind them.
to refer to how over-sensitive we're all being about how people phrase things. I assume that since it's about the fourth time she's brought this back up in this thread. I might be wrong. But I haven't seen anyone up on a soap-box arguing that the robots harm women in some way, so I'm not sure who she's referring to if she is in fact talking about our response to the robots. Sounds to me like she's still obsessing over those of us who just can't get off our soap-boxes when it comes to examining and owning the implications of your words.
Yes, the people that made that robot and put it down the runway are really damaging society. There are always going to be people that find meaningless things offensive. Perhaps I find the color red offensive! Does that mean people have to constantly apologize to me for wearing red? The people that made that robot and their supporters don't have to apologize to people who misunderstood the robot and are overreacting to it. If someone needs to "grow up already" here, it's you, honey...
Honey? Really? On a feminist website?
You know, I'm nearly sure this is a case of e-bullying now. It's perfectly okay for you all en mass to attack me, throw personal insults at me, and I'm not allowed to respond or say "honey". Fine, you win, I'll sulk off like you all apparently want me to so you can feel a sense of achievement of getting rid of the commenter who isn't in your clique. If you wanna whine about what happens on a feminist website, I really expected something other than this e-bullying rampage.
I'm not e-bullying you; if you look a few comments up, you'll see that I spoke in support of your case to Rachel_in_WY.
I am calling into question your word choice, which, in addition to being deliberately condescending, is also infantilizing and, IMO, inappropriate for this venue.
As far as the earlier conversation regarding blanket statements about Japan vs. Japanese culture, I agree that what you said wasn't a big deal. You have, however, been a little defensive and dismissive, and I think that that attitude is what is causing some commenters to come down on you.
I never intended to bully, harass or maligne you. If I'm come off that way -- which I certainly hope I haven't -- then I apologize as it was not my intention.
As a sort of twisted ironic example, the type of thing above is all people want you to do when you make a phrase which was construed offensively. If you may have made a mistake, but not necessarily one that you entirely understand, apologize for the mistake, try to re-explain your reasoning in case it got lost in the phrasing and see what happens.
I have to do this a lot because I don't edit when I comment. Though, I have had some very meaningful exchanges with simple starting with my simple apology and re-explanation.
It opens way more doors than closes them with "OMG NOT MY FREAKING POINT PEOPLE!!!!1!1" screaming.
Please. Nobody wants you to take your toys and go home. But really listening to the critiques of others and either responsing constructively or apologizing and moving on are the appropriate responses here. Flouncing around, and claiming that we're all picking on you, and being incapable of distinguishing between a critique of your words and a personal insult, and making the thread all about you, is not a particularly constructive way to respond.
And I have been a bit irritable and condescending in some of my comments, for which I apologize.
Wow. Who said the robot was inherently offensive? It's your words that are offensive, and you may remain in denial of that all you want. If you want to know why so many people have either boycotted or given up on Feministing it's because of commenters like you. Being sensitive and clued into your own privilege and invested in social justice is hard work, and it's easy to make mistakes along the way. We often say things that are damaging to others without realizing it or meaning to hurt anyone. And that's OK, we're human. But a willingness to listen and to apologize when you've mistepped is a basic requirement in working to bring about any social change, feminist or not. I don't know where you got the whole "robots are damaging society" thing, but it's a pretty cute little strawman. Nobody here was making that argument. Instead, they were offering a critique of your words, which you chose to interpret as a personal attack. If that's the way you choose to ressnd, then fine. But please don't go around representing your immaturity and narcissism to anyone else as Feminism. It's embarrassing to those of us who are sincerely invested in social justice.
Okay, let's use the hypothetical you mentioned. Say that the color red was indeed very offensive to me personally. Maybe it's a trigger reminding me of my sexual assault, or maybe in my religious/cultural tradition red signifies, I dunno, something blasphemous. If you and I were new acquaintances and I explained to you why the color red bothered me, I would hope that you'd offer some understanding (even if you didn't agree) and try to avoid wearing that color around me in the future. On the other hand, if you either A) continued to wear red around me, knowing that it was offensive to me, or B) argued with me and told me I was being too sensitive, I would just think you were kind of a jerk.
While the statistic on private coverage for abortions sounds encouraging, exactly what does "medically necessary or appropriate abortions" mean? It probably does not mean "on demand."
You're right - it means "if you have a note from your GP saying the procedure is mdically necessary" rather than "on demand." In other words, abortion isn't really covered by most insurance providers.
Although it has been said million of times before this time when I ask Why Doesn't Laura Ingraham get it? it relates to health care.
Lots of other stuff but one readers may want to see is Four ways to decrease your BPA exposure Really important to women in particular if the research is even half right.
Keep up the good work!
Kate from After cancer, now what?
Over at Natalie Does New York:
I chimed in on the Florida man who got fired because he married a porn star.
I pondered a somewhat disturbing trend I've noticed on Craigslist.
I LOVED your blog, Natalie. Never read it before. Interesting and fun posts. Always happy to see a young feminist sex worker speaking up on the blogosphere. :)
I wrote a thank you to Biore for their new line of "in between" skin products.
http://sothisis20something.blogspot.com/
FML FAIl.
http://mzbitca.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/another-fml-fail-squared/
See, I never know what to do. Rape jokes make me deeply uncomfortable, both for the obvious reasons and because I have a physical gut reaction to any kind of unpleasantness in conversation. But for various reasons, most people tend to dislike me or think I'm creepy anyway. It'd be risky for anyone to speak up, but for me it'd be more so.
And what's with the commenter who said "Why do WOMEN always feel like they need to be liked?" First of all, it's not just women; second of all, there are few things worse than being disliked. It's painful. Why wouldn't someone want to be liked?
You can always try to confront it while directing the attention away from yourself, so it doesn't become all about the humorless feminist in the room. Saying something like "Ha ha, rape is so damn FUNNY!" and then immediately continuing the conversation that was occuring before the rape joke works pretty well sometimes.
8 year old blamed for how own gang rape: Looking at way coverage of this terrible incident ignores the victim blaming that happens in the US thus constructing Liberia as uniquely sexist.
Black Hair In Advertising: Looking at how Black women are shamed for using hair extensions though it is not a beauty treatment unique to us.
When Sexy Isn't simple: Looking at how some bodies come to be understood as sexually attractive.
The Problem With Marriage Is Black People: Looking at how Black women are encouraged to ignore sexism in their personal relationships.
However, people who perpetrate violence are often victims of previous violence. If we are unwilling to show compassion to perpetrators then we are not looking at the complete picture.
Not to mention that these are children who were no doubt reproducing what they see all around them...
I agree with Jennifer and Insomniac above on the Japanese robot model.
One has to be very careful not to take things culturally out of context. Advanced robotics is a major source of pride for Japan and in situations like this is treated as "sugoi" (wow, amazing), than a 'let replace humans'.
And the article linked (as well as several others I found in ENGLISH), made a big deal about 'issues' that in Japanese articles were non-existent. The Japanese articles I came across focused on the technology (how coordinated the robot is, does it move realistically, what does it day about the advancement of robotics in Japan, etc).
The one thing I found continuously discussed in both Japanese and English articles was the robot's size (5'2" and 95 lbs). English articles focused on it being 'unrealistically light' while Japanese ones on how the reduction of the robots weight was a great advancement because it made it easier to transport.
Thank you! I am glad someone agrees, as I was attacked for being white and saying something about Japanese culture. Be careful about mentioning Japan's pride in robotics, someone might complain you are marginalizing the Japanese! *sarcasm*
I think the commenter reacting to your first comment was talking about your use of the words "the Japanese" instead of "Japan". I know it's kind of finicky, but you wouldn't say "the Americans (or the English, or the Canadians) are very into technology". Well you might, but i reckon it would sound strange. You'd be more likely to say "America is into technology"; not all Americans are into it, but as a nation that's a fair generalisation to make.
Sorry if I've totally misinterpreted what the initial reply was about.
Well I just take issue with people who want to start arguments over very minuscule things like the difference between saying "the Japanese" and "Japan". I have a feeling the person who had a hissy fit at me before would have also had a fit about saying "Japan".
Either way is linguistically correct though not always technically correct. I used ' Japanese' in reference to the language of the articles I was reading and 'Japan' to represent the culture because using 'Japanese' to write about both in the same article can get confusing. Technically though, 'Japan' is a country/group of islands and 'Japanese' is a language and culture. The Japanese culture is where the pride in robotics comes from, not the country itself.
And most people I know outside the US refer to us (those in America) as 'the Americans', those in England as 'the English', those in Australia as 'the Australians (or Aussies)'. It is more common to refer to culture than country.
(FYI, just for funnies, I have a friend visiting right now from Japan, and she is in tears laughing at this whole tirade, lol)
The debate wasn't about whether or not it was linguistically correct. I think most of us get the linguistic point. The question is whether or not describing people as a monolothic group is appropriate, particularly in instances where characterizing a group as monolothic and different from other groups has been the basis for oppression and marginalization.
I am doubting everyone on here assumes that because one speaks generally about a group that the person speaking is referring to everyone in that cultural group.
In terms of oppression though, I see your concern but it was the western stereotype of itself (replacing women = misogyny) that started this whole discussion, not the western stereotype of the Japanese culture.
(friend is dying to comment)
::Moriko-san:: But Nihon is an insular, monolithic group!!
I am doubting everyone on here assumes that because one speaks generally about a group that the person speaking is referring to everyone in that cultural group.
Still not my point. A different commenter (not me) was the first to raise the objection, and others concurred. My point is just that in general speaking of groups in a way that's conducive to monolithic thinking is problematic in a world that has a history of carving out groups for the purposes of hierarchy-building. It's a general point, and your friend's take on it doesn't mitigate the concern at all. Many individual women also don't object to general statements about how women are irrational and hormonal and overemotional. Why would they? They've been socialized in a culture that takes these things to be self-evident, and no doubt they've internalized this view of women as factual. But those of us who are concerned about equality and marginalization still have a reason to object to talk about "the women," just like we object to talk about "the gays" and "the blacks."
Also, no one knew you were white.
Nobody attacked you, and it had nothing to do with your being white, which isn't clear from your words or your username. Once again: you can criticize a person's words without attacking the person. Your words were criticized, and you chose to interpret it as a personal attack, which is a tad bit immature and narcissistic.
Funny, you claim these things aren't personal attacks, yet you call me immature, narcissistic, and in another post, tell me I need to grow up. Those are personal attacks and no sane person would think otherwise. Does insulting people over teh internets make you feel good about yourself?
Your response is immature and narcissistic. See? I was referring to your ACTIONS. I did not say that YOU are immature and narcissistic, although at this point you've pretty much established that.
I wrote 49 poems in 24 hours for Blogathon, and before that I wrote the following:
Autism Speaks Fucks Up Again (yet another offensive ad)
Being the Logical Alien: Mr. Spock and Me
Flash Fiction Review: Movement by Kathy Conde
Okay, so maybe the robot model doesn't have the average human figure, but I'd rather see her than a human. After all, then there's no comparing; I don't look at her and say "damn, why is she so skinny/long legged/clear skinned? what am I doing wrong that I don't look like her?" I say "holy crap, that is the coolest looking robot I've ever seen!" and I'm not failing to be pretty enough. I mean, everyone knows that models are airbrushed and whatever, but it's easier to not compare with a robot than a human.
Echoing EKSwitaj, can we stop with the "the Japanese" thing? It's cooled down, but it still seems to come up a lot every time Japan is brought up here (or on Jezebel, and presumably on other sites). There are ways to talk about cultural differences without reducing one culture or another to a monolithic hive mind. Taisa Marie's description of the articles they read was a good example.
Also, that thing about the "booth babes" at Comic Con is disgusting. Seriously, I'm a big fangirl and would have loved to go, but yeesh. Ew. Are they trying to scare women out of their "no girls allowed" nerd club, or something? Seriously, I go to cons and have generally felt safe there, but then again, I've never worked one and I'm not particularly attractive, so who knows? I'd like to continue going to cons and not feeling unsafe.
I wonder what they'd do if a woman submitted a photo of an "act of lust"?
Probably ask for another one.
Good point.
(Also, hello fellow troper?)
Speaking of EA, I can only seem to find articles about how EA is "hosting" its GLAAD panel (nice dose of hypocrisy there), but none that actually talk about the content of the panel. It happened a week ago, right?
The only problem with your qualm with referring to "the Japanese" is that ... Japan IS basically a monolithic hive mind. It's not an Orwellian thought police kind of thing, but in Japan, people are VERY uncomfortable expressing their own opinions, especially if those are controversial opinions or different from the norm. It's not that everyone thinks the same way about everything, but most are uncomfortable claiming to think differently.
Also, if you ever study another culture on an academic level, I hope you won't be too aghast at the generalizations in those classes. I spent a lot of time studying both Japanese and American society, and there are trends you can pick out of those cultures which apply to a vast majority of people. It is not helpful when studying another culture to just shrug and go, "Everyone is different." There are observable and identifiable trends in thinking and behavior in different cultures. It's not racism to realize this. It's not racism to make generalizations about observable behaviors that apply to large swaths of the population of a country.
Actually, in academics, there has been a big push to move away from monolithic language. You can make generalizations without implying that every singe person in that culture or group is identical. Over the last three years (in my experience, on several different campuses) there has been a lot of talk about this as well as a shift in the language used.
And beyond that, there's a history here that makes this a sensitive topic. In order to impose a stereotype or justify a certain type of treatment on one groups of people you have to first identify them as a monolithic group that's somehow different from other groups. This is why talk of "the blacks" and "the gays" and "the women" has become so offensive to so many people. The motivation behind grouping people like this is so often negative, and conceptualizing groups in this way has been used as a tool of oppression so consistently, that it just seems like the kind of thing we shouls move away from if we're invested in social justice.
Perhaps the problem is not the academics who discuss people in a society as a whole, but the people who want to find racism in every comment people make. Perhaps people aren't always implying "everyone is the same", perhaps people are just sometime irrational in their interpretations. And I really do not agree with the idea that because of past racism when discussing groups, that we are never allowed to discuss groups ever again, or else we are racist. Yeah, it can be a sensitive topic, but that doesn't mean everyone who discusses that topic is racist. Perhaps people have become OVERLY sensitive.
Sure, but the thing is, at the end of the day it doesn't matter what your intention was. It matters what the consequences of your words and their implications are. To talk about "the Japanes" or "the blacks" or "the gays" as a group is to imply that they are all alike and that there are significant facts about them such that they merit certain treatment and fulfill stereotypes. That's harmful and not terrifically feminist.
Thank you for knowing my intent when I referenced "the Japanese". No matter how many nonconformists want to claim otherwise, people do tend to fit into groups. I have more hope about this website now. You have brightened my day. :)
It's been a slow week, but I read a great article about theology and gender, that seemed to lay the framework for a trans-inclusive theology by saying that the exploration and discovery of gender identity is a way of knowing God. I'd love feedback!
-Meg
Female Impersonator: Bechdel Test Roundup.
The American Prospect's TAPPED blog: The Elephant in the Common Ground Room.
Also from TAP's Tapped: The White Stuff. An older (July 2008) but nonetheless well-written and provocative article by Feministing's own Samhita Mukhopadhyay.
O filthy grandeur!: LOL you're a feminist!
AfterEllen.com: JD Samson on MEN, Music, and Sia. LOVE HER. A few genderqueer-hating comments in the thread though. Gross.
From Bitch blogs this week...
A Hairy Situation for Women's Aid, nude hypocrisy in feminism
Six Questions for Jessica Hopper on Girls' Guide to Rocking, she's just released her first book, The Girls' Guide to Rocking
Actress Spotlight: Jean Seberg, beauty and political turmoil
Is this Feminism at Work?, the new Miss England is a black female athlete
Sprite Ad is Overblown, pornified ad arouses suspicion
And from us...
The Price of Pleasure: Pornography, Sexuality, and Relationships: As the face of feminism becomes more of a collage than one iconic portrait, as the proverbial intersection of race, class, gender, ability, sexuality, religion, and other forms of identity receives more thoughtful traffic, documentary films such as The Price of Pleasure emerge. This film boasts a unique approach to exploring the contentious world of pornography.
Silver Metal Cuff: I don't do dangly bracelets. Perhaps it's the residual punk rock girl of my youth who influences the aesthetics of what I wear around my wrists, but I just can't bring myself to get down with chains and charms and all of that froo-froo stuff when it comes to arm adornment. For me, it's cuffs, bangles, or bust.
Afro-Punk Festival - Brooklyn Academy of Music (BAM): Brooklyn, NY (7/3-7/12/2009): Afro-Punk is a movement that gives “a voice to thousands of multi-cultural kids fiercely identifying with a lifestyle path-less-traveled,” particularly those who are into indie, punk, and hardcore music. The film is an insightful look at a topic that I had never really considered: what it is like to be an African American who is involved in a scene that is overwhelmingly White.
As an avid gamer I can assure you all most nerds/geeks/gamers hat EA with a passion well before this incident. They treat their employees terribly, release shoddy & unfinished products, and are really terrible with customer service. I could go on, but I won't bore you all with the details.
Perhaps this incident can be used as a "final straw" to get a grassroots anti-EA movement going. Sure, plenty of guys will react with sexist comments to this incident, but many male gamers are mature enough to have well-set boundaries when it comes to this sort of thing.
I know the immediate reaction was a lot of people Tweeting to @danteteam with #EAFail as well as the required #lust and giving them a piece of their minds. It makes me proud to be a gamer to see so many people recognise how wrong their contest was.
Of course, there are also the usual victim-blaming trolls who find the whole thing hilarious, and who think the only people upset are "humourless feminazis". They make me sad for humanity.
As for an anti-EA group... Hmmm... It does make me sad to see them do this after the recent "Let's combat homophobia!" talks, but they shouldn't get a free pass.
I'm a gamer as well, and from what I've seen recently, though EA was widely hated for a long time, it seems like they've gotten better lately, funding more independent games, not being huge douchebags constantly, hosting the GLAAD panel, etc. In fact, I've seen much of the hatred switching over to Activision. Eeeww Activision.
That being said, this only made EA's actions at comic con all the more horribly disappointing. The idea of that "contest" was absolutely disgusting, and their apology pathetic and insincere. I expected better from them.
Huh. Looking over the tweets at @catcalled. I notice a lot of them are like, "Looked like shit today, was catcalled. Why do people catcall more when I look like shit than when I'm dressed up?"
My gut reaction is this: catcalling, just like rape, is about power and not about sex. When you're in your nasty gym clothes with greasy hair and coffee stains down your shirt, you're probably a easier looking target than when you're wearing fancy, expensive attire. Nice clothes are societal armor.
I just have to pipe up about the "marketing Asian women to antifeminist women" thing - I'm a long-term reader and writer of China-related stuff on the internet, and believe me, those ads have plagued me for years whereever I've roamed.
Frankly, the ad itself disgusts me enough without the context, literally packaging the same five or six women for foreign consumption with their measurements on the label. But they are Google ads, and Google has, in its infinite wisdom, happened to place the ad in a context where it no doubt will greet men with funny ideas about women. But it really is just the work of Google's omnipotent arm and not of actual, sentient misogynists.
However sex dolls and other means to replace women keep being a problem and a reason feminism stalls. You have a number of men and a number of women looking for a partner. A number of men gets sex exclusively through other means and in the future there will be more ways for a man to get sex.
Now you have more women seeking than men. The men will be all like, okay, who is a feminist, hands up. Okay you are out. Who is a size 20 ? You are out. Who wants a modern relationship etc..
Maybe it is time for a fairniss of relationship act or something to prevent men who are unable to deal with modern times to flee them instead of facing modern women and to prevent desirable men from getting into a situation of power, where they can weed out and breed out everything that has been achieved.
What, are you high? I don't think anybody here is worried about having to compete with sex dolls for a man's attention. I know plenty of men who I wish would find themselves a sex doll and leave us organics alone.
I think it's sad that some women are so insecure that they applaud ROBOTS for modeling clothes. Fashion models are NOT silent automatons, and, well, now they are. Great.
Actually, silent automatons is exactly what the fashion industry makes of the fashion models. So replacing them with ROBOTS means that you can look at it and concentrate on the clothes without acknowledging a person wearing it.
Also, what do you mean by women being so insecure that they applaud robots? Are you seriously suggesting that the fashion industry has a healthy standard of beauty and attractiveness? Are you actually arguing that "some women" ought not feel insecure because the mass media keeps telling them that unless they look like Klum or Moss, they are unworthy of a "happy ending"? Please explain your comment.
I'm sorry my comment sounded judgmental and mean, in rereading it I realized that. I hope this is a good explanation.
I'm saying that I cannot believe how quick some commenters are to applaud the use of robots in fashion shows as a great alternative to tall, skinny women. Models are real humans with personalities and lives and opinions whose job is to wear clothing. Models give the clothes this personality and attitude, and that's what ultimately sells them, whether on the runway or in a magazine. That's how models are chosen. It's not just about being the prettiest girl with the most perfect body, and models certainly are not lifeless or silent, as a quick perusal of any high fashion magazine will show you. Models are chosen for a specific attitude or persona, and even though they walk down the runway staring straight ahead wearing clothing, no robot will ever replace a human. I think feminism has given fashion such a bad name that many feminists view it as this monolith of oppressive beauty myths with no complexities or real women involved. To me, taking the models out of fashion is a step in the wrong direction.
As for the insecurity comment, it just seemed to me from the comments that people are affronted because they have to view attractive, skinny women at all. I am not saying that women ought not to feel insecure because of the images they see, but that applauding the use of robots because they remove the necessity of using real women is... misguided. And while I am not suggesting that the fashion industry has a healthy standard of beauty and attractiveness, I would like to point out that there is nothing inherently wrong with the fashion industry's preference for skinny and attractive women. It's a preference.
Of course, this response is INCREDIBLY subjective. Ridiculously subjective, even. I understand that many people look in a fashion magazine and see the exact same woman in every picture. I have been an avid fashion follower for years, and many people only see a few articles on a major news site or pick up an Allure every now and then. I also slighty consider Linda Scott's *Fresh Lipstick: Redressing Fashion and Feminism* to be the bible, and have researched the theoretical underpinnings of fashion as a series of signs. So that's my position.
Okay, I get what you mean now, and I'm sorry if I came across too aggressive.
I just like robotics and technology, you know? That the field in this news article is modeling is incidental to my excitement. I was excited when AIBO was unveiled, I found the robot newscaster creepy but a move towards interesting technology and I adored Ghost in the Shell.
I think one problem here could be that the proportion of robots made to look like women vs men. Is it a matter of mechanics, because female bodies are supposed to be smaller and hence lighter or is ti a more deep-seated sociological reason?
It makes sense to think about the people who work as models and how they need more skills than just looking pretty and walking well. When I see European models walk the runway, they are more or less expressionless. I think American and South American models show exuberance on the ramp, but that's a product of the character of fashion industry in difft geographic zones. However, I forgot to take into account photoshoots and such which require quite a bit of talent, granted.
A feminist can never be too aggressive :)
The robot newscaster was... bizarre. It always excites me, however, when fashion mixes with technology.
It is telling that more robots look like female bodies (at least the ones I have seen) than male bodies, since male bodies are the default in all other branches of medicine and science. I wonder if robotics (which I assume is a male-dominated discipline, barf) is influenced by what the creators would want for their own robot. It's like, if a man is illustrating a medical dictionary, he'll do the default male, but if it's a robot he's going to interact with, then it makes sense that he would want to create an ideal female. That's the problem, I suppose, with making robots. How do we gender robots, without being sexist? A female robot is not inherently sexist, but no one would notice its gender if it were male.
It's true that European models are seen as more stoic, more mysterious, especially Eastern European models, while Americans and South Americans are the "bombshells." Which is problematic, I suppose, to cast entire populations of women in a certain light, since American women are thought of as "skanky," and South American women are thought of as "fiery," and European women are "icy."
I would like to respond to the article about confronting rape jokes. I posted this as a comment on the website where the article was written, but wanted to share it here as well.
Use Honesty, Use Information, and a Caution about research
It's important for us all to find ways that we can speak out against rape jokes and rape myths that we encounter in our daily lives. To do it well and effectively takes practice and thoughtfulness, and I always appreciate spaces that allow people to find better methods; however, I have to say that I don't see any of the methods you mention as appropriate responses. Would it be so difficult to avoid using further jokes and verbal violence by simply starting a conversation about why rape jokes are inappropriate and offensive? You could state the fact that 1 in 4 women will experience rape or attempted rape in their lifetime and that it's likely that someone in the office or someone close to them is a survivor. Rape jokes hurt survivors. They should also be offensive to anyone who cares about women. Telling rape jokes creates a hostile environment for women, and when someone tells one, you could ask them if that's really what they think about women and how they should be treated.
The more honest conversations we can have, ones that avoid using further violence and jokes, the closer we come to creating a world in which rape jokes don't exist.
As a side note, I would like to caution you against using the work of John. D. Foubert in regards to sexual violence prevention education. I find his work to be problematic for a variety of reasons. First of all, he evaluates programs that he created himself, which makes him a biased evaluator. Additionally, he has a substantial financial stake in those programs, which also contributes to his bias. This is unacceptable and unethical in terms of the code of conduct that good researchers follow.
More importantly, Foubert's assertion that men are more likely to intervene in situations of sexual assault and more likely to empathize with survivors of rape after viewing a video about a male-on-male rape relies solely on homophobic attitudes of men. This method is effective insofar as it perpetuates ideas that sex between men is disgusting and unwanted. Those who truly care about sexual violence prevention understand that homophobia (along with other prejudices and violence like racism, sexism, ageism, etc) is part of a system of oppression that perpetuates the prevalence of rape and rape jokes in society. If we are really invested in ending rape jokes and speaking out against them, then we must also work against racist, homophobic, and classist jokes and attitudes as well. John C. Foubert's method misses this point completely and therefore will not create sustainable change in our work to end violence against women.
If you are looking for more reliable sources of research for future articles, I would recommend using something from the National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women at http://www.vawnet.org/ They have a lot of useful and reliable information that is useful for all of us who want to take steps, small or large, towards ending violence.
I can't say I'm too interested in guys who are "capitulating" to feminism or "modern relationships" because they need sex, but don't have a sex doll handy. Is that actually the game we're playing here? If so, my vibrator's starting to look awfully nice.
Seriously, though, you're framing this in a way that assumes that people's happiness depends on everyone being paired into male/female couples. I disagree with this framing. People should be in relationships because they enjoy each other's company. Sex is something you (can) do in a relationship because it feels good and elicits strong emotional bonds. If the pleasure of a woman's company is not what (most) men want, then I don't see how banning sex dolls is going to change that fact.
Admitedly, it's sad (and bad for society as a whole) if people are avoiding intimate relationships. If that's really what a majority of men are doing (which is iffy, IMO, but I'll run with it) then the problem goes much deeper than easily available sex.
(BTW, I'm not "pro-sex doll" - I just regard them as more of a symptom than a cause.)
Oops - meant this as a reply to "proudfeminist"
“Save Our Children” Revisited: Lithuania Enacts Homophobic Censorship Law
July's Global Feminist Profile on Dr. Shershah Syed from Pakistan
Delta Responds to Charges of Fat Phobia
Art Alert! Gay Icons at the National Portrait Family
Comments heated up on a post on oppression, masculinity, power, the male gaze, street harassment, and slavery
Rethink Afghanistan - Liberation of Women
Tip for responding to rape jokes:
I have a friend who I have noticed has a very effective technique for diffusing and redirecting offensive humor. Whenever somebody makes a joke that is sexist, racist, or homophobic, he'll immediately say, "That... wasn't necessary."
Without fail, the person will either backpedal and apologize, or change the subject. I have never seen that technique provoke an argument, although I'm sure it could. By saying it in a way that is more commentary than confrontation, my friend manages to voice public disapproval without snaring himself in a debate. It helps that as soon as he says that, he makes an opening for a few other people to chime in "yeah" and all of the sudden you have group censure of the rape joke.
However, if somebody did want to lock horns about it, I think it sets the stage very well. You want to argue about whether rape jokes are necessary, not about whether they're funny. In my experience, arguing about whether offensive humor is funny or not is a complete waste of time. Your problem isn't that the person failed to be funny; your problem is that they succeeded in being an asshole.
These are the traps I see in confronting rape jokes:
- person says you have no sense of humor
- person says you are trying to silence them or be PC police
- person gets to look like a martyr who is being attacked by a grumpy feminist.
I like the "that wasn't necessary" line because it helps you sidestep all three of those.
- you're not saying it wasn't funny.
- you're not saying they're not allowed to make rape jokes.
- you're forcing them to "start it" if they want an argument.
What it all boils down to anyways is whether offensive humor is really worth it if it hurts people. The answer is no, not usually.You can make a joke that doesn't hurt anybody, so by choosing to be hurtful when it isn't necessary you are being willfully malicious.
re: plastic surgery contest
"She said the idea first came up about 10 years ago, but back then the pageant could not take place for lack of what she called "sufficient material."
"In those days, there weren't that many beautiful girls who have had plastic surgery , but now we can almost say (the idea to have such a contest) is quite natural," Bodis said."
ROFLOL Oh the irony!!
CDiggs03,
I respect the fact that you find my work problematic. I also agree with you that vawnet is a terrific source of sexual assault programming ideas. However, I disagree with how you have characterized the programs I have created and I wonder if you are familiar with the most recent versions of them. The earliest versions of my work in the 90s, I admit, was problematic. There have been many changes to the videos used, the scripts of my programs, and to my own understanding of many issues in the movement to end sexual violence since then.
Indeed I have evaluated my work and published over a dozen articles evaluating The Men's Program. In my view it is important that people evaluate educational programs to see the degree to which they are effective, or not. Many of my evaluation studies are qualitative, which is a paradigm in which personal knowledge and perspective on a phenomena is highly valued instead of the rigidity of the separation found in the quantitative paradigm. Even so, the studies I have done that are quantitative have been subjected to rigorous peer review and then published in scholarly journals.
I'm not sure if you have published a book before, but one of the things about doing so is that you learn that the book publishing business much like the record industry -- the money goes to the publishers not the authors or artists. I earn 10% on each copy sold of my book, the publisher gets 90%. If you want to call that a substantial financial stake in my programs you can. Though I do not like to discuss it, I donate much more money to charities that work to end violence against women than I make off my book.
My impression is that you don't fully grasp all of the intricacies of how my current program is set up or the results of it; if you did, I don't think you would state that men are more likely to intervene after seeing the video in our program, that it is homophobic, etc. The Men's Program now has an additional section on bystander intervention that it did not have up until a couple years ago, which is why research now shows it to be effective in getting men to intervene as bystanders -- an article accepted this week in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence supports that assertion. The video my nonprofit re-shot depicts presumably heterosexual men committing rape of a police officer and goes to great lengths to attenuate homophobia, not perpetuate it. As for rape jokes, a study I published in Violence Against Women showed that 75% of men who see The Men's Program report that they either have stopped telling rape jokes or interrupt them as a result of having seen the program.
You assert that my work won't create a sustainable change in the work to end violence against women. I respect your right to maintain that point of view. My point of view is centered in the results of the research I have conducted, including Foubert, Newberry & Tatum, 2007 from the NASPA Journal. It showed that men who see The Men's Program report committing fewer acts of sexual assault than men who do not see the program. This was the first study in the research literature showing a behavioral difference in sexual assault when comparing program results of an experimental and control group in a longitudinal study. I call that sustainable, and I know that my commitment to ending men's violence against women is unending.
Sincerly,
John D. Foubert, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of College Student Development
Anderson, Farris, & Halligan Professor of Educational Studies
Oklahoma State University