An Effective Way to Prevent Sexual Assault

I recently came across this list after a friend posted it to Facebook. Great tips here.

Sexual Assault Prevention Tips Guaranteed to Work!

1. Don’t put drugs in people’s drinks in order to control their behavior.

2. When you see someone walking by themselves, leave them alone!

3. If you pull over to help someone with car problems, remember not to assault them!

4. NEVER open an unlocked door or window uninvited.

5. If you are in an elevator and someone else gets in, DON’T ASSAULT THEM!

6. Remember, people go to laundry to do their laundry, do not attempt to molest someone who is alone in a laundry room.

7. USE THE BUDDY SYSTEM! If you are not able to stop yourself from assaulting people, ask a friend to stay with you while you are in public.

8. Always be honest with people! Don’t pretend to be a caring friend in order to gain the trust of someone you want to assault. Consider telling them you plan to assault them. If you don’t communicate your intentions, the other person may take that as a sign that you do not plan to rape them.

9. Don’t forget: you can’t have sex with someone unless they are awake!

10. Carry a whistle! If you are worried you might assault someone “on accident” you can hand it to the person you are with, so they can blow it if you do.

And, ALWAYS REMEMBER: if you didn’t ask permission and then respect the answer the first time, you are committing a crime- no matter how “into it” others appear to be.

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

 Rape is constructed as a "woman's problem" and are told that they are able to prevent rape by taking certain precautions or acting or dressing a certain way. The truth is, women are more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted by someone they know, someone they trust. It is not a problem we can fix by telling women how to avoid it, because it is not just a "woman's problem". To sum it up, I love this list.

  *Edit*

Another list I love is Denim Day's list of reasons people excuse rape (and excuse not reporting it). You can find the list here.

An interesting snippet: See a pattern emerging here? No, me neither. We excuse rape if she's a "bad girl." We excuse rape if she's a "good wife." We excuse rape if her clothes are too difficult to remove. We excuse rape if her clothes are too easy to remove. We excuse rape if he's a man. We excuse rape if the victim is serving time. We excuse rape if the victim is serving our country. In short, we excuse rape. And Denim Day's 12 excuses are hardly an exhaustive list: Off the top of my head, I'd also add "She was transgender" and "We must protect the reputation of the Catholic Church." I imagine a list of all the sexual assault scenarios that are never discounted, disbelieved, or brushed under the rug would be much, much shorter.

Again, ssoooo true. I think I'd be interesting in bringing Denim day to my campus next year, I will have to ponder this. The fact that other people are taking these initiatives at least gives me hope after the situation concerning a Texas cheerleader.

Ps: Yes, my stumbleupon keeps bringing up articles about rape and society's horrible way of addressing it. I think it's trying to make me depressed now, because it used to give me cute pictures of baby elephants.

Vermont's Universal Healthcare

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Not to spam my blog with Rachel Maddow, but I encourage you to watch this video because it gives you a look into why Vermont is trying to pass Universal Healthcare.

I am a libertarian, though I have expressed doubts from time to time. I'm also a humanitarian. The reason I'm a libertarian is because I believe in personal liberty, freedom, rights, and equality. Yes, the ability to run a private business with minimal government intervention is included in that. But healthcare makes it a much more complex situation. Shouldn't universal healthcare not impact my legitimacy as a true libertarian? I want equality and freedom: couldn't that include equality in treatment, not based on your social class or economic standing? And couldn't that include freedom from being denied healthcare because you don't have health insurance? health insurance is taking over healthcare, and that's not promoting a free market at all. I want to protect people from government intrusion, yes, but that doesn't mean I think corporations should have the ability or right to dictate people's lives and health.

Take the movie John Q as an example: his son was unable to receive a heart transplant even though it would save his life. True, they didn't kick him out onto the streets, but he was going to die nonetheless. How can we accept living in a society where this is acceptable? I do not have healthcare right now, I won't for quite a few months until my mother gets another job. Sure, I might not be left to die.. but they'll refuse to fix a broken arm? Should I be left to try to make my own cast? If I get a fever I won't go to the hospital because I know that they'll turn me away, or I'll know I can't afford it. So I could just stay home, and end up dying from a fever. I could still be alive if I just had health insurance or more money or if I didn't have to pay for school on top of it. So, on one hand, how can you say health insurance is not a right? Yes, it's a "service", but it directly dies too people's lives. Their right to live in general, their right to live an acceptable life. Just as it's a state interest to keep orphans off the street, shouldn't it be a state interest to keep people from dying of curable diseases in their homes? (or on the streets as well, to be fair). This isn't even unprecedented, to see adequate healthcare as a right, it's qualified as a right under international law. I'm not saying I think Vermont's approach is the best option, I just am curious about how it will play out. I'm still not entirely convinced that whatever method they're proposing (specifics are not clear) will provide the best standards of care. I know publicly run nursing homes have many drawbacks, but then again so do private ones. But I don't think that's what this bill will do, private hospitals won't be taken over, patients' bills will just be covered.

I have yet to see a libertarian alternative that would offer universal healthcare. I think people's health shouldn't be negotiable with money, it's their health. While in most cases a free market approach is best, I just cannot see how it would ensure everyone receives adequate healthcare. And our current approach to health care builds up these health insurance companies, which rip people off. If it truly was free market, it would be between doctors and patients.. but the insurance companies get in the way and raise costs for patients and often refuse to cover procedures. I hate insurance companies. I hate how they are employer based, and I hate how people end up untreated and undiagnosed with illnesses because they don't have health insurance or their health insurance won't cover it. I hate how the cost of healthcare is rising so dramatically. People's lives are hanging in the balance.

If an alternative is offered, I'd gladly consider it. In the meantime, I hope Vermont's bill passes so I can at least see how it goes. If I lived there I would support it as well, even if it directly impacts me no matter the outcome. Because the alternative is me hoping I don't get sick or injured the next few months.

Exactly What I've Been Thinking

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Compulsory Heterosexuality and Compulsory Sexual Orientation in General.

 I'm currently working on a narrative/identity paper for one of my classes. The class revolves around feminist, critical race, and queer theories. So I picked queer theories to revolve my paper around, with a little feminist theory thrown in there. Instead of just copying and pasting the second paragraph, which I think is the most important, I'll sort of paraphrase it and explain it in a different way. This will make it less jargony, less reliant on quotes from the readings I used, and more understandable to someone who hasn't studied these topics already.

The second paragraph comes in after I explain how I lack a proper "sexual orientation" label. Although I am thinking of going by pansexual, but in general I'm still not entirely sure what my feelings are and what I want from relationships. Not that it matters at this point anyways, haha. But what really struck me was this idea that heterosexuality is socially constructed. Under patriarchy, heterosexuality has been constructed as the dominant "identity". It's historically been used to tie women to men all their lives, to take their sexuality from them (their freedom to chose who they want to be with, romantically or sexually, etc) and to force it on them (arranged marriages, rape, pressured into non-arranged marriages, etc). So, heterosexuality has become the dominant "identity". Even people who are completely accepting of LGB(P)(A) people believe it's the dominant identity, most people are heterosexual. Or are they really? Hasn't heterosexuality as a norm been passed down through generations? So how do we know that it truly is the norm outside of a patriarchal, heterosexist society? We don't. To expand on this, the very measurement of "sexual orientation" has been constructed as the primary way to distinguish which gender someone is predisposed to fall in love with or chose to be with. But sexual orientation truly is only about sexual attraction, not romantic attraction or emotional attraction. Though many people have chosen to use it to describe all of them, there are still people who end up being "panromantic heterosexual". Isn't our view of how important sexual attraction is socially constructed and cultural? After all, romantic attraction can develop into sexual attraction as well, the panromantic heterosexual may easily end up sexually attracted to the same-sex romantic partner they chose. How would that person's identity predict that?

But really what I found most important is this idea that since heterosexuality as a dominant identity has been socially constructed, then the subsequent other identities are also constructed. Do we need these terms? If we didn't  have patriarchy and heterosexism, and if people didn't assume people were heterosexual, would we have to distinguish people into groups? Could people just be people? Could I just continue with my life, not having to think about what my sexual orientation is as if it defines me? But for now I can't not think about it, because right now I have to communicate with people about such things or they assume I'm straight. If I inform them that I am not straight then they assume I'm bisexual. If I tell them I am not bisexual, then I'm gay. But I'm not gay (for right now) so what does that leave them with? Sure, I can say I'm pansexual, but am I really? Or did I just decide to use it as a label, which really says nothing more about me than the fact I may be sexually attracted to men and to women, and to androgynous people and transgender/transsexual people as well. Maybe. I think it's more likely to say that I'm "other, non-straight" as if it's important to know. It says nothing else, really. Maybe instead of picking a label I should ask other people why they are living their lives by the label  they chose. Yes, "chose".

A Paradox

 I found this while stumbling today and thought I would share it:

[A man condemned to be hanged] was sentenced on Saturday. "The hanging will take place at noon," said the judge to the prisoner, "on one of the seven days of next week. But you will not know which day it is until you are so informed on the morning of the day of the hanging."
The judge was known to be a man who always kept his word. The prisoner, accompanied by his lawyer, went back to his cell. As soon as the two men were alone, the lawyer broke into a grin. "Don't you see?" he exclaimed. "The judge's sentence cannot possibly be carried out."
"I don't see," said the prisoner.

"Let me explain. They obviously can't hang you next Saturday. Saturday is the last day of the week. On Friday afternoon you would still be alive and you would know with absolute certainty that the hanging would be on Saturday. You would know this before you were told so on Saturday morning. That would violate the judge's decree."
"True," said the prisoner.
"Saturday, then is positively ruled out," continued the lawyer. "This leaves Friday as the last day they can hang you. But they can't hang you on Friday because by Thursday only two days would remain: Friday and Saturday. Since Saturday is not a possible day, the hanging would have to be on Friday. Your knowledge of that fact would violate the judge's decree again. So Friday is out. This leaves Thursday as the last possible day. But Thursday is out because if you're alive Wednesday afternoon, you'll know that Thursday is to be the day."
"I get it," said the prisoner, who was beginning to feel much better. "In exactly the same way I can rule out Wednesday, Tuesday and Monday. That leaves only tomorrow. But they can't hang me tomorrow because I know it today!"
... He is convinced, by what appears to be unimpeachable logic, that he cannot be hanged without contradicting the conditions specified in his sentence. Then on Thursday morning, to his great surprise, the hangman arrives. Clearly he did not expect him. What is more surprising, the judge's decree is now seen to be perfectly correctly. The sentence can be carried out exactly as stated.

Appointed Dictators and the Poor

Watch this video from the Rachel Maddow Show:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

There are two separate problems I'd like to address separately, beginning with Catherine Ferguson. I'm not going to lie, I teared up when I saw the video of the girls being arrested. This is one of the only schools in the country that gives a care at all if you're poor and have to support a child all while trying to graduate from High School. That school is giving them a future. But Robert Bobb is threatening to take it away to make budget cuts? That is disgusting. Of all the schools that could have been singled out to be demolished, it had to be that one. They have a future ahead of them that may be destroyed if they do not have that school. But the state of Michigan, its governor, and Robert Bobb do not care. If they want Detroit to improve as a city, destroying one of the few schools that help poor young mothers get an education is not going to do that. It not only has a 90% graduation rate, but a 90% graduation rate for teenagers with children. It's not a dysfunctional school, it is working.
The second issue is about Benton Harbor, which also was assigned a.. I don't even know the proper title, overseer?.. to replace the city's elected officials. This one decided that it was best to sell the city's public beach park to a private business to develop a golf course. A very expensive golf course, that probably nobody in the city of Benton Harbor can afford. You may so, oh well, it can provide more jobs, boost business. But you have to ask what businesses will move in, if any. It won't be a business that is developed by a citizen of Benton Harbor, it will be a chain business with a financial sector somewhere else, maybe even out of the state. So these businesses will only take money out of Benton Harbor while hiring citizens for minimum wage. This decision isn't being made for the interest of the people of Benton Harbor at all. And this seems to be a common problem with Imminent Domain, though I recognize this is different. But in both cases, the land that is meant to be for the public good is privatized. The government removes residential areas and then sells it to private business, stating that its for the common good because it will provide jobs and increase revenue for the city. But in the meantime the poor people are evicted from their homes. Homes that will be demolished to build a mall. Yet, without it urban development may be extremely difficult, and it does bring in revenue and does benefit the city. But it benefits  people disproportionately. Rich people will not be removed from their homes, only poor areas where the houses can be paid off for cheap. Houses that are often rented or under mortgage still, and even if the government pays market value people may still end up on the streets unable to afford new housing.

Iowa Under Attack Again

Last fall election Iowa voters decided to fire three of its Supreme Court Justices over the "controversial" ruling that legalized gay marriage in this state. If that wasn't enough, now the Iowa House is trying to impeach the rest of the Justices. They claim that they violated the separation of powers by legislating from the bench, a common criticism for judges who rule that the government has no right to get  involved in people's private lives.

According to the article, most Iowas are opposed to this idea. Which I find hard to believe given that Iowa voters practically did the same thing last fall. I suppose I have nothing else to add, besides I really dislike Iowa's House, but am very grateful for the Iowa Senate.