This is a pretty horrific story. In 2007, a public school teacher, while at a party with other teachers from her school, had offensive graffiti drawn all over her body after she had passed out on the floor of the living room.
You can see the pictures here (scroll to the bottom), but warning, they are graphic, possibly triggering and definitely NSFW.According to the police report, Etheridge, Town, Piechotte and Woodworth stopped at Town's home on the way to McKinney's house, which is a short distance from the school. There, according to the report, they decided to smoke marijuana and Town produced and provided the drug for the three women, who went to the garage to smoke it. The teachers then continued on to McKinney's house.
Later that night, after more alcohol consumption by all involved, Piechotte crawled between a coffee table and a sofa in McKinney's living room. There she passed out.
According to the report, Town and Beebe decided it would be "funny" to draw on Piechotte's unconscious body. The two proceeded to draw penises on her legs, glasses on her face, write the word "balls" backwards on her forehead and write their names on her stomach. Much of the writing was sexual and crude. McKinney and his wife, as well as Etheridge and staff member Phil Rutkowski, watched the drawing. McKinney took pictures with his digital camera, and at least one person took pictures with a cell phone
Two additional things that are important to note: Piechotte is an out
lesbian and claims there was non-consensual sexual activity earlier in
the night.
The most upsetting part of this story is the lack of action taken against the teachers involved by either the public school system or the local authorities, despite the fact that Piechotte immediately went to the police the next day.
The article touches on the "legal gray area" of what folks are referring to as drunk shaming. It's probably not an uncommon occurrence, particularly in settings where binge drinking occurs. It's also not one our legal system (at least according to this account) seems to know how to handle.
I'm not sure how physical evidence like these really horrific
photos, taken by the people involved, of blatantly sexual things being
written all over her body--including her exposed upper thigh--is
difficult to prosecute. At the very least I would expect action from
the school system which employs these folks. There is clearly a lack of
consent when someone is passed out.
I think Piechotte actually said it best herself:
"While I am dismayed that both my employer and Michigan's legal system have failed to recognize the brutality of this incident by not taking any tangible action," she said. "It underscores the need to have meaningful dialogue about the underlying issues that enable a culture of bias and violence to exist, so that others will not suffer as I have."
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Teacher defiled with offensive graffiti while passed out.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16581
The marijuana use alone means all of them should be fired. And, yet, it would be ironic to fire the woman who was the target of this.
Calling this "shaming" is a misnomer, its simply crass, vulgar pranking. Its on the rise, and is hardly limited to women. I've seen much worse on the internet. Tea bagging passed out men and women is unfortunately not all that new.
...the only case I've heard that was prosecuted was one in which 2 guys used a permanent marker on a 3rd guy, the prosecutor citing the permanence as the reason for filing charges...Net-net I agree with the prosecutors (all of them); the legal system is a hammer. It can't, won't & shouldn't protect us from all of life's misfortunes. In a culture that celebrates binge drinking, pranking, and YouTube this is a cautionary tale for all of us to be very careful when we let loose, how much we let loose, and around whom we let loose. Unfortunately I know this from personal experience.
I agree. I am shocked any of them are still working in the school system.
I can see how the writing on her body can be seen as an attack on her (esp so close to her genitals). But I don't think was necessarily to "shame" her, but rather a bunch of drunk and high fools who need some serious help. I have seen many a pic like this on facebook of people passed out at parties. It's sad and embarrasing, but not new.
I agree. I am shocked any of them are still working in the school system.
I can see how the writing on her body can be seen as an attack on her (esp so close to her genitals). But I don't think was necessarily to "shame" her, but rather a bunch of drunk and high fools who need some serious help. I have seen many a pic like this on facebook of people passed out at parties. It's sad and embarrasing, but not new.
"The marijuana use alone means all of them should be fired"
Um... Why? Something in their personal lives like smoking should be punished by taking away their job, which they may be perfectly capable of fulfilling? I agree that there are certain lines that people should just be fired for crossing, but what the hell is so terrible about weed that it would warrant firing them?
For the malicious actions taken against this poor girl, though, I think it would be justified.
Um, you are aware that marijuana is illegal, right? And that part of the job description of being a teacher is being a role model. Which usually means, "Don't do anything illegal."
Smoking weed is illegal. If you can be fired for a positive drug test I don't see why you couldn't be fired for admitting to using an illegal drug.
Using that train of argument, a teacher could be fired for speeding. A parking ticket. Illegally downloading music. Watching bootlegged movies.
Maybe it's a difference in opinion on weed, but I don't see smoking as worse than those things. If you do, then there is no point for discussion.
You can have all the difference of opinion that you want, but smoking pot is still illegal.
What makes smoking pot different from illegally downloading music or getting a speeding ticket is that pot affects your job performance. Yea, you might not think it does, but it does. Hey, alcohol is illegal, right? But if you come to work drunk you're getting your ass fired. There's really no way to show that watching bootlegged movies affects your job performance - unless you're staying up late watching them, coming in to work late and falling asleep on the job.
You could argue that it was just that once that these teachers smoked pot, but you don't know that. If the superintendent believes them he/she has the perogative to simply take disciplinary action and then let it go. But the argument is that they "should" be fired. Whether their boss agrees is another matter.
But this person wasn't at work high. Obviously anyone who is at work and high should be fired, the same as with alcohol. But if someone drinks alcohol or consumes drugs outside of working hours, then unless their performance is impacted by this there should be no grounds for dismissal. There certainly wouldn't be in Canada, and I'm surprised that in the US who seem to value freedom and non-intervention by the state even more would be any different.
I agree with you, but a lot of places teachers have a "morality clause" of some kind, so a teacher can get fired for "inappropriate" personal behavior even if that behavior's not illegal, like if a female teacher takes cheesecake photos or moonlights as a burlesque dancer or something. A teacher got fired for participating in a bikini contest, for example. And America can be pretty puritan about the evils of marijuana.
Mmm, I’d have to disagree with you, sorry. It really depends on the school board, but for my district, I’d have to say that she would likely be fired. Likely the same anywhere else in BC or Alberta (I’m not too familiar with any other provinces, sorry). The first thing you learn as an education student is that you’re expected to be a role model 24/7, and although speeding might be an exaggeration, downloading illegal movies would certainly get you fired if you were caught (then again there’s the whole issue of how it was downloaded blahblahblah).
While you’re certainly allowed to drink, teachers here are strongly encouraged not to even go to bars (what if a child’s parent saw you drunk? You could get fired alone for that.) And while I’m certainly sure that some of my colleagues may participate in illegal activities, it is all about public image. I’ve heard of a recent case where a teacher was dismissed for simply having drunken pictures posted on his facebook page. Some child’s parent saw it, and well, you can imagine the end.
I think the problem here isn’t that these teachers were participating in illegal activities, but the whole issue of public image. It’s something that all teachers are aware of, and commit to when they enter the career.
Are you serious? Fighting for the decriminalization of marijuana is part of feminism you realize.
Also there is actually nothing illegal about being high - only possessing or selling. If you don't get caught with it, they can't charge you with anything.
If you get drunk off school hours it's totally fine, why would this be any different??? And where does it say part of being a teacher is being a role model OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL. No where that I know.
This is a personal autonomy issue which is central to feminism. In addition, anyone educated on the subject knows that it should not be illegal in the first place and that's it's illegality is based purely on racial profiling and pressure from the big pharmaceutical companies.
Looks like someone needs to do some serious research on the topic.
While I agree with the marijuana use not being truly just grounds for termination (though posting it on Facebook should get all knowing parties fired, that's unprofessional), I thought I should mention that laws vary from state to state, and some states would consider this illegal. More importantly, the school is definitely within their rights to fire any teacher who admitted to commiting an illegal act at their discretion, even if the teacher was not arrested or tried.
I'm not sure that most feminists would agree that decriminalising/legalising marijuana is central to feminism. But I can't speak for most feminists, just me. Also drug induced psychosis research is now relevant, if unpopular.
But it's also a bit of an inadvertent derail.
Being a teacher, being drunk, being high - none of these things should matter. People don't have a right to draw on an unconscious person.
People don't have a right to draw on an unconscious person.
But they aren't criminals if they do.
That's for the law to figure out I guess - it's all a matter of applying more general laws to specific situations. But nobody has to enshrine it explicitly in law that I shouldn't wear dirty knickers on my head crotch facing out to the supermarket for me to know that I shouldn't do it and I may get in trouble if I do.
Makes me think of prosecutions involving the chopping off of hair or shaving of eyebrows.
Fighting for the decriminalization of marijuana is part of feminism you realize.
If you smoke marijuana you are fueling the drug war in Mexico. If you do cocaine then you are fueling the drug wars in South America. If you do opiates you are fueling the drug wars from Afghanistan to Thailand.
And I mean actual fucking wars over the supply networks that lead to hundreds and thousands killed each year and disstabilizes whole countries.
The revenue go to killing police officers, politicians, judges, and the innocence that get caught in the way. Not to mention the other dealers.
"If you smoke marijuana you are fueling the drug war in Mexico."
Even if you grow it yourself? Really?
Uh-huh, but the consumption of marijuana is, currently, a criminal activity.
Teachers have a morality clause in their contract that allows for their firing in cases like this.
Guess what, teachers can't just get drunk off the job. It's not that simple.
The job of a teacher involves being subjected to the scrutiny that comes with being a role model. Therefore teachers ought be fired for participating in criminal activity if such activity comes to light.
The issue of decriminalizing marijuana, which I support, is irrelevant here. Whether or not marijuana should or should not be legal is irrelevant. It isn't legal.
I take issue with your tone as well, using such phrases as "anyone educated" and "I suggest you do serious research".
I would ask you to be less hostile and to understand that the job of a teacher is different than many other jobs. As someone working on an EDU degree I can say that I would expect to be fired if I ever admitted to smoking weed while employed as a teacher. So would most any other teacher. It's part of the job to be a role model, and that means not doing things that are illegal.
That doesn't mean giving up the fight for decriminalization, but it does mean not consuming what is currently an illegal drug.
Teachers are entitled to private lives along with the rest of us, but illegal behavior forfeits their employment as a teacher. This would be true of a wide variety of public employees, including cops, firefighters, and politicians...As overworked & underpaid as it is, teaching is still a public trust. Ideally they should be role models for kids, and so illegal behavior of any kind (misdemeanor or otherwise) can't be tolerated. I'm not coming at this from a morality perspective, just a strictly black & white legal/illegal perspective.
I'm sorry but I just don't understand the argument that a teacher doesn't have the same right to go to a party as someone in any other job.
If she got arrested for possession, then fine, she faces the legal consequences.
But it cannot be a legitimate feminist position that a poorly paid, overworked segment of our population (and predominately young women, by the way) should be expected to stand in as a moral pillar for the rest of us.
The disingenuous 'What about the KIDZ' argument disturbs me on a feminist site. If stockbrokers and bankers can do what they want on their spare time, without risk of being called out for betraying the trust of the community than teachers should be able to as well. We are not talking about an incident that occurred at work or in the presence of children.
This is a dangerous, antiquated, paternalistic notion that is derived from a time when teachers were unmarried women who drew the suspicion of the community for that status and were subject to moral policing.
It doesn't have to be right to be legal.
The problem is, now that this is out, this teacher has truly lost her ability to be a professional in the classroom. Her students WILL learn of it, and they WILL look down on her for it. They will mock her and think less of her (sadly, more for the mention of her being a lesbian than the actual issues, but the pot use too). It's part of the job-- you cannot maintain discipline in a classroom if your students look at you and think of Facebook photos with penises drawn on your thighs, and how you use pot.
So yes. That does mean that teachers need to limit their social lives; they need to make sure their social life is completely unknown to their students. And when they fail that, they will have to switch school districts or more to be an effective teacher again. The school is not interested in shaming teachers, they're interested in having effective teachers, and all of these people have, sadly, lost their ability to be effective now that their names are in the news and connected with drug use and/or juvenile behavior.
It's already big news in the town. However, she was already out as a lesbian to both the school and the community, so I don't think (or rather, I hope) that will be what she is mocked for. But I completely agree that she's probably going to have a tough time. Makes me wonder what policy has been put in place to handle student questions/concerns/mockery.
But I'm not arguing about what's legal - I'm arguing about what's right from a feminist standpoint.
I thought that was what this site was about - a feminist analysis of culture. Lots of laws, business policies etc. are non-feminist at best and anti-feminist at worst. So the fact that it is legal to dismiss a woman from her job for something does not mean that it is ethical from a feminist point of view.
'That's just the way things are' is an answer on par with 'get a sense of humor' when directed at feminist analysis of cultural norms.
So, NIR, you raise good points. This isn't about morality though, its about legality. A couple of years ago there was a FL teacher fired because she attended a swingers club one weekend. It became public knowledge when the police raided the joint, but the charges were dismissed because it was all legal, consensual behavior. The teacher was fired anyway. See, that's a case of enforcing Puritanism, and I disapprove of that.
Doing something that's illegal, well that's different. I actually support the legalization of pot but unless & until it becomes legal, its not ok for teachers to break it. Drug use of all kinds is a serious issue for kids, and teachers, least of all, should be perceived to be encouraging it.
I believe in standing against unjust laws, and marijuana laws in this country are completely unjust. If I weren't personally completely uninterested in smoking pot myself, I'd do so just for the civil disobedience of it all.
But it cannot be a legitimate feminist position that a poorly paid, overworked segment of our population (and predominately young women, by the way) should be expected to stand in as a moral pillar for the rest of us.
I think that everyone should be a role model, all the time.
And what you wrote seems a little sexist. Would you be less willing to let men have a little slack when it comes to being a moral pillar?
While I believe 100% that pot SHOULD be legal, having worked in the school system I think many school districts would have to fire these teachers based on their own policies. Right or wrong, most schools have very little tolerance for teachers who use illegal drugs.
i agree that marijuana should be legal for every citizen, but its not. and when i was in high school, i got kicked out for failing a drug test. how would it be fair to do that to the students, but not the teachers?
"The marijuana use alone means all of them should be fired"
Um... Why? Something in their personal lives like smoking should be punished by taking away their job, which they may be perfectly capable of fulfilling? I agree that there are certain lines that people should just be fired for crossing, but what the hell is so terrible about weed that it would warrant firing them?
For the malicious actions taken against this poor girl, though, I think it would be justified.
This comment has been deleted because it violates our comment policy.
my sentiments exactly
This comment has been deleted because it violates our comment policy.
Hmm...well, the writing on a drunk passed out person is really immature behavior, granted. A lot of guys I know in their early 20's (and older ones who never grew up) do this to each other all the time (and yes, they draw penis/balls and write sexual things cause they think it is funny). I think writing on a passed out person is immature and stupid and disrespectful and I can see how since it is touching somebody (though not in the genitals or breasts) without permission who is in a position of powerlessness that it is a much more mild form of the same type of behavior that in a more severe form would be groping, rape, etc. I can see how it would be more disturbing for a female to wake up and find writing on her than a male to because of the power imbalance between males and females that already exists, and knowing they touched her thighs has to be creepy, though to wake up after being passed out on the floor in a room of men I don't know and trust 100% would be scary to me regardless even if they hadn't written on me. In all honesty I really didn't find the pics that graphic though I see how they could be triggering to a vicim of sexual assualt, they are just of a passed out person who had high school level crude pictures drawn on her. However, the teacher also alleges she was given a date rape drug and raped. This is mentioned further down in the article and I can't believe that that is not what got the attention. There is a big difference in severity between drawing on someone who is passed out and drugging and raping somebody and then drawing on them. When taken in this context the drawing is a lot more sinister and instead of a crude prank without the emotional ramifications being fully thought out becomes part of sexual assault.
I'm pissed that the writing was sexual in nature ("I love balls", penises being drawn on her, ect), but I do think this was blown out of proportion.
That said, they should all be fired.
And of course, that she took legal action for these events is getting her grief at work, being transferred between schools, and put her up for review. I can't imagine that another school district would be willing to hire her if she was let go from her current district... Because teachers must live the lives of sainted nuns outside of the classroom. Why does our society allow victims to be victimized twice? *sigh*
Victim blaming won't be tolerated on this thread. Seriously.
You're all ignoring the fact that she is also claiming that there was non-consensual sexual activity involved in the evening.
And since when is the argument "this happens all the time" a legitimate reason to belittle someone's situation or down play it?
This is horrible if it happens to anyone, but we can't ignore the fact that she was a woman or a lesbian--it does matter.
I'm going to have to agree with you, Miriam, pretty much what I was feeling as I was reading those comments. Very weird on a feminist blog, that's for sure.
Perhaps they didn't read the entire article and just jumped on the commenting? The non-consensual sexual activity claim is definitely the MOST disturbing part of this whole ordeal, yet everyone wants to ignore that and focus on the weed, alcohol, and graffiti. That's the rape-culture we are in, isn't it? Self-denial rape culture, more like. Ignore the victim and focus on all the things she did wrong, and it will just go away. Instead of "well, she was wearing skanky clothes, so she deserved it", it's the she got drunk, or she used illegal drugs, or whatever other excuse, so she deserved it.
How sad.
People may have been confused because the title of the thread has absolutely no mention of non-consensual sexual activity but rather focuses on the drunk-shaming. Also that the block quote Miriam chose to highlight and the posting of the link to the photos might have made people believe this post was intended to focus on the drunken body-scrawl.
I read this as her claiming (rightfully or not) that the drunk writing was itself the non-consensual sexual activity because of the sexual nature of the writing/drawing (high art?). I guess if it was earlier in the night, this would be a reference to something else, but neither Miriam nor the article focused on this aspect of the case, and I think the commenters took their cues from that...
People may have been confused because the title of the thread has absolutely no mention of non-consensual sexual activity but rather focuses on the drunk-shaming. Also that the block quote Miriam chose to highlight and the posting of the link to the photos might have made people believe this post was intended to focus on the drunken body-scrawl.
I read this as her claiming (rightfully or not) that the drunk writing was itself the non-consensual sexual activity because of the sexual nature of the writing/drawing (high art?). I guess if it was earlier in the night, this would be a reference to something else, but neither Miriam nor the article focused on this aspect of the case, and I think the commenters took their cues from that...
Thank you, Miriam. I don't see why it matters that 20 year olds do this "all the time," these people were not 20, and a lot of stuff happens "all the time" that we don't like. Say...rape? Which this woman claims she was. What about cat-calling? Would we ever say cat-calling is blown "way out of proportion?" What if they called her a dyke? Would it be "blown way out of proportion" to be mad that had been called a dyke?
The fact that anyone felt they had the right to touch her in any matter beside moving her to a safe location or a bed after she was passed out is awful, PERIOD.
Perhaps because the article focused almost completely on the so-called drunk shaming, taking more than 15 paragraphs before mentioning the sexual assault, and then devoting only 3 sentences to it. Your coverage also mentioned the sexual assault only in passing.
I focused on the "drunk shaming" because that is the part of this incident that is indisputable from the photographic evidence.
The fact that she is also claiming there was sexual activity is important, but even without that I do think what happened to her is horrible, and at the very least should be considered sexual harassment.
I definitely think that if you wanted the focus to be on her as a victim of a potential sexual assault, rather than her as a dumb pothead who got pranked in an offensive way, you should have stressed the sexual assault. I had to go reread it to find the mention of that. Why did you make it such a minor aspect? Shouldn't that be prominent? Why is rape less important than juvenile doodling?
Of course, she should still be fired and given a good recommendation to find a job elsewhere, since there's no way any teacher in her situation will hold order in a classroom. The others should be arrested for violating her privacy and she should press charges about the rape. But that doesn't mean that her decision to get high won't mean she should be fired, and the fact that people don't have much sympathy for her for getting written on doesn't mean they wouldn't care if she was sexually assaulted, if that was made more obvious.
This comment has been deleted because it violates our comment policy.
They should all be fired, the "victim" included. Not because they are adults who got drunk or high. But because they did so, took pictures and posted them on the internet. Sorry but I don't want those idiots teaching my kids. That is a serious character and maturity problem.
The "victim", as you call her, was not one of the adults who "... took pictures and posted them on the internet", which seems to be your main grievance. Should she still be fired? I'm not clear on what exactly your advocating here. Why are you including the victim when she did not participate in the aspects of the situation that you take most issue with?
To add to that, anyone violating my bodily autonomy while I'm passed out deserves some punishment. I don't really care if it was "just a marker". That's such a lame cop out to the fact that someone purposfully touched me/drew on me/humiliated me without my consent and while I was not conscious.
Where in any world is that okay?
In a place where "Oh, but she shouldn't have gotten drunk if she didn't want this sort of thing to happen" is a valid excuse. In a place where a graphic, sexually explicit assault on a woman's body can be excused by saying "It was a PRANK, just a JOKE, doncha godda sensa HEW-MURR?"
We call that place "Patriarchy".
We call that place "rape culture".
I had never thought to call that place "Feministing".
This. Exactly. You said it better than I could have...
I must say, I don't understand all these phonetic spellings. What's the point behind them?
Rhetorical mockery. The idea is, apparently, that we highlight how untenable or inaccurate a particular position is by pretending that anyone who holds that position is incapable of properly expressing themselves. See "the menz" as a prevalent example.
It's an excellent and entertaining way of furthering feminist discourse, and we all should adopt it! Assuming of course, that you can bring yourself to overlook the fact that it reeks of elitism and privilege and strives to silence rather than engage.
N.B. Not aimed at Cactus Wren specifically, but rather intended as a general indictment of this trend.
B-) Actually, it's my personal (and regularly used) way of sardonically decrying the notion that if I find an unfunny thing unfunny, it's because *I* am lacking in humor.
Absolutely fair. =)
I have never commented on this site before, because most of the time everyone is saying what I'm thinking, but I'm really bothered by the way this story was posted here and in the news article. The news article doesn't mention the sexual assault allegations until almost the end of the article, and it seems almost like an afterthought (kind of like saying "oh yea, and she also may have been assaulted... but the real story is the penis drawings!"). It also seems like the post here did the same thing too. Isn't the lead-in the sexual assault claims? Shouldn't we be focusing on that? I know everyone on this site cares about this part of the story, but I feel like the focus on this thread has been more about the drawings and less on the possibility of an assault.
Honestly, I can't believe the level of victim-blaming that I'm seeing in this thread. "They" posted the pictures to the Internet? For specifically what values of "they"?
This WAS a sexual assault. Or perhaps "anon" sees no sexual intent in scrawling phalluses on the body of a woman? Specifically a lesbian woman?
Oh, but it was *her* fault. After all, she was drunk, right? How many more postings will pass before I see "And besides, she wanted it"?
I attended this high school (graduated a few years before these events) and had a class with one of the male teachers involved. I'm going to second what a few have said here about the unbelievable victim blaming on this thread. I expected it (sadly) from my fellow alums, but not here. No one has talked about, for instance, how maybe the other teachers shouldn't have gotten drunk and high to the point where they chose to graffiti the woman.
Plus, would these events have been all right had the woman been awake? Then is it okay for someone to lift up your shirt and touch your stomach? How about your upper thigh? So why on earth is it okay when she's passed out?
Also, if you read through the whole article and link to the OTHER article about issues at Haslett, the district is also dealing with an ethnic sensitivity issue after questionable comment in a slide show ("If you want this in another language, move to a country that speaks it.") and an anti-gay harassment issue at the middle school. To me this shows a larger pattern, and one that exists in the district, not just the high school.
Every single person who has advocated firing the woman, for use of pot or otherwise, has also advocated firing every single one of the guilty parties. I don't think anyone here doesn't think that the guilty parties should be held accountable for getting drunk and high and acting in such a juvenile manner, at minimum by firing them.
I think the issue is that first of all, the sexual assault is barely mentioned; when I reread it and noticed that, I of course sided more with her, and think she should be supported as much as possible, even if she does need to find a job in another district thanks to the publicity. Second of all, ignoring the sexual assault, the actual drawing is probably not illegal. I actually can't think of any law that covers this. Perhaps there should be one, but she was not physically injured and it alone does not meet the legal requirements of sexual assault. She has perhaps a civil suit about sexual harassment she could levy against the individuals, but that is it. The article and the post make it seem like she went to police purely over the writing, not for the sexual assault that occurred earlier, so people are responding to a woman who runs to the police over what should be a civil case about sexual harassment-- even if that is not what actually happened.
I didn't mean to imply that anyone had advocated only punishing the victim for the drugs. I was talking more about the comments here that imply she shouldn't have gotten high/drunk and passed out if she didn't want this to happen to her, because, for some reason, people seem to believe that gives others the right to graffiti her body.
As for legality, there isn't a specific law here, but it seems like it is (or should be, but that might be an entirely new issue) a grey area, at the very least. And even if there wasn't assault, it still seems to me that being touched in private areas such as the stomach and upper thigh, with a pen or with a hand, is still harassment and inappropriate. But I guess that interpretation is going to vary from person to person. Which, in my opinion, is one reason why they didn't get a criminal prosecution in the case.
Ditto. I don't understand why, according to some, it's not to okay to grope or rape a woman while she's passed out, but it's apparently okay to draw obscene stuff on her while she's passed out. Including a penis and the words "Enter here" with an arrow pointing up her thigh to her vagina. I think if most people saw graffiti like that on a poster on the subway they'd be offended. This was done on an actual woman.
And what's the argument here - oh, RAPE's not okay, but any other way people want to amuse themselves with your unconscious body is acceptable, because you were stupid to get that drunk? And lots of people got drawn on in college and in their opinion it's no big deal, so too bad if you don't like having your clothes pushed up and penises drawn on your body, you don't get to feel offended? And don't forget it's your fault for getting drunk and being stupid, and the punishment for drunkenness and stupidity is the loss of bodily autonomy?
"...maybe the other teachers shouldn't have gotten drunk and high to the point where they chose to graffiti the woman."
Seriously.
Feministing readers - are you SERIOUS?
I can see more clearly every day why readers are abandoning this site. The level of victim blaming and excusing this type of behavior is shocking to say the least. This type of behavior towards ANYONE is not excusable. It is VIOLENCE.
Sometimes I wonder why I read the comments here anymore.
I think it is high time something is done about the comments here. I know I'm not the first person to make this observation. The excuse is always "too much traffic." I am beyond disappointed. This used to be my favorite place to visit.
Unfortunately, it looks like we're all going to have to get used to this bullshit if we stick around.
Anti-feminist comments have outnumbered supportive, inclusive, safe comments on numerous threads of late.
I bemoaned this fact on a thread last weekend and was called, among other things, 'intolerant' for suggesting that such folks were trolls. They may be trolls, they may be folks who want to come debate with a feminist, they may be folks who just haven't read the 101 FAQs - I don't know, but they do make it hard for folks who come here for activism, support, to engage in feminist critiques of culture et al.
It must come as a shock that many feminists have different point of view on topics, especially one as gray as this.
That's not the point. This site supposedly has policies about victim-blaming, triggering comments, the safety of this as a feminist space etc.
I understand that feminism is not monolithic, I understand that many of us will disagree with each other. I really do, I, for example, often have very different opinions on posts involving the marketing a sex, sex work, pornography etc. from many posters. I don't accuse such people of being trolls and I haven't been called one either.
But surely, we can agree that a feminist site should be free from victim blaming. If not, I am perplexed about what a feminist space is.
The victim blaming in this thread seems to be coming from the fact that some people don't think a crime was committed, and thus, that there is no victim. Which is weird.
Absolutely. I feel that this space is not for me any longer. I feel as vulnerable here as I do going to read comments on these articles on mainstream news sites. This is not the way it should be. It is really spiraling out of control every day.
Absolutely. I feel that this space is not for me any longer. I feel as vulnerable here as I do going to read comments on these articles on mainstream news sites. This is not the way it should be. It is really spiraling out of control every day.
No one is blaming her for drinking or smoking pot with her coworkers. No one is saying that she legitimized, in any way, the drawing or the rape.
But being drawn on does not make one a victim. It's just a stupid, immature thing to do, but it isn't even an assault, legally, in most jurisdictions.
I do hold the others responsible for what they did. It was crude, cruel and immature, and if they raped her, throw the book at them. But the drawing thing? Not a valid complaint. Sorry. I don't blame her for it, but neither do I think she was victimized by it.
(And yes, the nature of the drawings and the frequency of their use in similar incidents is a factor in determining the subjective intent of the malfeasors.)
to Feministing -
Why would you link to the pictures? Seriously? Aren't we supposed to be on her side here and not further embarrassing the woman?
I'm wondering the same thing. There was NO REASON to post a link to tho epictures no one ever needs to ee another person being humiliated.
Exactly! It's a little too similar to the Rihanna-battered-face pictures, which I believe Feministing editors criticized! I feel that readers could still feel proper outrage on behalf of this woman without unnecessary (and perhaps invasive) physical proof.
The link to the pictures is the same exact link to the article. In order to read the article, one would be exposed to the pictures whether or not the second link with the disclaimer existed.
Fair enough, but the writer specifically pointed out that the link led to the photos and described where in the post to see them, which to me places too much importance on looking at them. And even still, the article could've been referenced without the link.
Wow.
I have to admit that I initially missed the dozen words on this post that mentioned that there was also non-consensual sexual activity that night. I also didn't click on the article because I didn't want to see the crude penises, if there were any.
My initial take-away from this article was that it reminded me a lot of Garden State ("It says BALLS on your forehead") and seemed like a lot of fury for not much sound. I thought it sounded terrible, but I just missed the big point.
The fact that there were allegations of sexual assault just changes the entire tenor of the post. I'm sorry I missed it at first and can see that maybe other commenters here did too.
Personally, I think it's idiotic to hold teachers to a higher level of standards than we hold parents......you know, the ones who are actually supposed to be raising the kids? A parent wouldn't lose custody of their kids just for being out with their friends getting drunk or high, or for being a stripper or porn star, or for getting a DUI (as long as the kids aren't with them at the time). why should someone who sees your kid in a classroom for an hour per day have to live up to higher moral expectations than you? You can act how you want when your kids aren't around and teachers should be able to do the same. There are certain crimes that make a defendant a danger to the public: being a convicted rapist or pedo for example. Getting drunk and high at a party doesn't fall into this category by a long shot.
Just wanted to add: the narcisism that motivates people to put this shit up on the internet is scarier than the partying itself.
Because they have to maintain order in the classroom.
Kids can be cruel, and dumb. If they know that their teacher gets drunk/high on the weekends, or had stuff written over their bodies, and it was posted on Facebook, they'll find a way to see the pictures, and then the teacher will lose all authority in the classroom. Teachers need to be above that for the students to respect them enough to learn from them.
It's rough, but it's something every teacher knows going into the education training-- your students are not mature enough to handle the idea of you breaking the law, or getting drunk, or having sex outside of marriage, or even something as tame as having a tattoo or belly-button ring. They will think less of your for it, and you will be unable to manage the classroom and unable to teach. We KNOW this going into it. We KNOW teaching means we need to hide any aspect of ourselves that might cause our students to lsoe respect for us.
Think of your time in high school. Would the average teenage boy pay attention to his work if he knew the teacher was a porn star? Would the average student respect a teacher who makes the same mistakes they do? Students at my school had enough trouble respecting teachers who had nose studs.
Like politicians and preachers, teachers accept when they are hired that they are going to sacrifice certain aspects of their freedom in favor of keeping up appearances. So yes, they are held to a higher standard. They agreed to that standard.
Well, I take issue with the people who just absolutely have to let all kids and parents know that Mrs Miller who teaches 5th grade math posed for Playboy when she was 18. They make sure everyone knows about something they think they want to protect people from. I do agree that posting things like this on the internet shows extremely poor judgment and if people want their business private they should leave it that way.
But i also wanted to point out that parents also agree to accept their responsibility for being good role models to their kids, yet they don't get 'fired' for getting rowdy when the kids aren't around.
About how people read this story:
It struck me that the headline says "teacher" rather than "young woman." The way that she is identified is obviously meant to affect the reader view of her. In a perfect world, we wouldn't care, but I think this is important.
Consider the following two headlines:
"Teacher defiled while passed out."
"Young woman defiled while passed out."
If the newspaper had chosen the second one, readers would have, unfortunately, been less sympathetic.
Now I understand that her occupation is relevant here -- I'm not disputing that. But the point is that it happened to a woman, not a teacher, right?
I hate how the identifying label applied to a victim is up to reporters and thus can be manipulated to skew reader empathy.
Another example of different headlines about the same story:
"Mother of three murdered in her home."
"Prostitute found dead in house."
------------------------------------
REGARDLESS -- I feel horrible for what happened to this woman.
Tara, yes, yes! Also - the woman in question described herself as feeling defiled, but should we collude with the idea that she *is* defiled? We can validate the feeling without colluding with the idea that she is irrevocably damaged.
Kind of plays into the idea of survivors of assault as ravaged/damaged goods/despoiled.
Actually, I don't think her profession is relevant at all. She was out partying with coworkers whom she thought she could trust. The fact that she happens to be a teacher is only relevant in the back story - it being the end of the school year and whatnot or whatever. But would it matter if she were a nurse? A soldier? What about a CEO or a stay-at-home mom?
Personally, I think identifying her as simply a teacher makes her less sympathetic. If you only read the headline there's no way of knowing if the teacher was male or female. It strikes me as influencing readers to be more sympathetic to refer to her as a woman, especially a young woman.
But don't most people still operate under the gender association of teacher = female? I think so.
And specifically, teacher = redeemable, honorable, Madonna-esque female.
It took a little while for me to get the images from college out of my head and put myself in her place.
I can see the victim-blaming and the complete ambivalence here... On one hand I'm compelled to agree with the idea that it's just "drunk college-level antics" but if I were her I'd feel completely violated. I'd be less upset about the marker and more upset about the touching (I mean, honestly if it were only on her face I'd probably pity her but I wouldn't angry about it)... I know I'd be pissed if someone started touching my stomach or my crotch when I was awake, let alone passed out.
The lack of respect for boundaries, the idea that there's nothing off limits, that everything is fair game, that's depressing and disgusting. They obviously didn't think of her as a thinking, feeling human being with feelings - and if they did, then they obviously didn't care.
The only difference between this and outright groping is a marker. And I'm pretty sure groping falls under "sexual assault"...
Yea, it's a college thing, and sometimes it's just "innocent" (stupid) drunk frat-fun, but that's typically guys doing it to each other, and typically primarily on the face, perhaps arms and legs if they were exposed. And it wasn't personal. This incident was personal, though. The things they wrote, knowing that she was a lesbian, were directly relevant to her sexuality. They weren't drawing pictures to leave her covered in embarassing marker lines. They were drawing a message - a malicious message. This isn't funny, this isn't "innocent". It's just mean. It's also a complete violation of trust, but that's a whole other issue.
I do wish, though, that more attention were paid to the sexual assault. There wasn't sufficient evidence? What kind of evidence do you need to prove that sex was not consensual?? His word vs hers. And let's not forget that she's an out lesbian. Thus it's no different than a straight guy being sexually assaulted by a gay guy.
I'll get off my soapbox now. After some thought I don't think the drawings and the sexual assault are separate incidents. Both show a disgusting lack of respect for her, her body and her boundaries.
I wasn't sure from the news report that it was one of the men with pens whom she said assaulted her in the bathroom. It could have been one of the women. Perhaps I missed something. Either way, not okay.
Ok, I read all the comments and among the blurry of people blaming/defending the woman and people complaining about both, I was trying to piece what I actually thought. Many of you, on both (multiple) sides of the case made good points and we all should definitely respect each others opinions (even if we do not feel respected by their comment). I think that would solve some of the commenting conflicts on this site. :D
Now on to commenting and not playing peacemaker, I personally am trying to conceive of the graffiti as something that - yes - was a product produced in a certain manner because of her sexuality and gender - but also something that "may" (hard to declare someone's motivations without actually being there/ or talking to them at least) have had nothign to do with either her sexuality or gender. What I mean is that the defilers were aware of both these facts, because I am assuming she was not hiding neither from them, and felt comfortable enough with them to smoke ( yay legalization) , get high, drink, and pass out.
Now the passing out part may have been the drugged part, i am still cloudy on the full case, but the before hand was for the most part consensual. Focusing just on the drawings, her sexuality/gender were used as motivation to write/draw specific pieces, but only insofar as anytime this or any joke for that matter is made, their identity is used as a launchpad for a joke. I have a more lax feeling towards the drawing ( not the rape allegation) since it is somehting ( childish as it may be) happens on occasion with no intention for discrimination and overt negativity. Not to say that there may have been these feelings and been the motivation for the drawings ( again - no way of knowing from just this article) but to jump to calling her a victim for being drawn on as a woman is making women perpetual victims and in a sense "different". I know that women are treated as different ( more unequal than different) in society, but I think we should not connect all male/female interactions as perpetual victim/victimizer relationships. I think we should stay critical just not utilize that role for all situations. ~~end rant.
This comment has been deleted because it violates our comment policy.
You do understand that this is victim blaming right?
So people who go out and get drunk after work can't be committed to their jobs? Gosh, I guess most of my friends must be uncommitted layabouts.
This is entirely about your notion of what should constitute decorous behavior.
Smoking pot is a crime. Its punishable by jail. Really, are those the people you want teaching your kids??? I don't want teachers conveying to kids that its alright to break laws, esp drug laws.
Most schools drug test athletes, or even any student involved in extra-curriculars but you want to hold the teachers to, wait for it, a lower standard??? Geez, kids can't even carry ibuprofen to most schools, but its ok for teachers to smoke pot?
This isn't about morality, its about legality. I actually support pot legalization, but until its legal I don't think role models should be smoking pot.
Smoking pot is a crime, but that doesn't mean people should be punished for it (if one supports legalization of pot). Before Lawrence v. Texas, should teachers have been fired for violating sodomy laws? It might have been legal to do so, but it is unjust to do so, because the laws criminalizing those behaviors are unjust. (Just like the drug test laws for athletes, etc.)
"At college, you are SUPPOSED to draw penises on people when they are asleep- its expected, sort of like a natural course of action."
This makes me sick to my stomach.
"At college, you are SUPPOSED to draw penises on people when they are asleep- its expected, sort of like a natural course of action."
I'm sorry, I hate it when people get hostile on these threads, but........
Are you frakking kidding me?
Sure, college seems to be a time for a lot of people when boundaries get fuzzy. But, no, violating someone else's bodily autonomy is NEVER "expected."
That "(fill in the blank) is ok because, hey, it's college!" attitude is responsible for more sexual assaults, more drop-outs, more all-around bad decisions than just about anything I can think of. If you honestly believe that, please re-evaluate.
If somebody who is a teacher chooses to occasionally drink or get high in their personal life and it is not interfering with their ability to do their job (they aren't coming into work hungover/high/drunk and are still getting their lesson plans done, etc) and they are not advertising the fact then I don't think they should be fired. I know a lot of school teachers and people in the social services who work with kids but who also like to go out to bars and drink (yes, enough to get intoxicated) or smoke a little pot in their home. They still perform well at their job. I do agree that the fact that these pictures were posted to the internet is a problem as teachers should not be advertising the fact that they do these things to their students by posting it on myspace, facebook, etc. However, the victim was not the one who posted this on the internet so while whoever posted this should be fired I don't believe the victim should be.
I've turned this post to approval only for comments, since threads about sexual assault seem to devolve into victim blaming.
I'll also be cleaning up the thread.
Sorry to those trying to have a real conversation here, and anyone victim blaming will be deleted.
Thank you Miriam.
Thank you. I appreciate it, but still wish it could be more preventitive somehow.
Yes, me too. I think we're going to start having all sexual assault thread approval only, and we're looking into bringing on someone to focus on comment moderation exclusively.
Legal grey area, ok, I get that. But I don't think that means absolutely nothing can be done. Surely some sort of charge that necessitates counseling or community service could have been brought.
I really don't think it's the schools job to discipline these teachers though until there is an actionable charge pressed against them. That line of logic might seem a good idea right now, but taking away the ability of teachers to have private lives in the name of "you're not a good role model" is a quick route to deciding that gay/socialist/dungeon going/non-christian teachers aren't "good role models" either.