Teaspoons and buckets (and Robin Williams!)

Tonight's SVU was grand! Robin Williams is one of my favorite actors and did anyone else notice Frenchie from Grease as a nurse? Well, no spoilers, but the episode is psychologically enthralling and Mr. Williams proves his acting power once again.
As for class yesterday, talking with Ms. O'Mara from CARDV was interesting, but I really found myself feeling down about the world after talking with her. I truly admire that she is able to do this day in and day out. Even more than that, what she said about the abused women being so scared when the come into the shelter, and only six weeks later helping the new women to adjust to post-abuse life was utterly amazing! A human being really can withstand a lot, but that doesn't mean that anyone should have to go through the ordeal of domestic abuse.
I have been following the Austrian abuse/kidnapping case since it was revealed Sunday, and it is getting more disturbing by the hour. Can you imagine being locked away your whole life (as the 19 granddaughter of the abuser was) and then suddenly emerging into a media frenzy? I often have the same level of incredulity regarding the perps on Law and Order. For example, the episode we watched over the weekend, with the "Is this how you like it?" serial rapist, made me wonder how someone can become so mentally disconnected from what society considers normal and acceptable behavior. What does that to people? I realize that this particular serial rapist was just wired wrong, but there are far too many abusers and molesters for all to be mentally mismatched. What in society makes fathers who hide their daughters and have seven kids with her, or makes a man feel the best way to claim power is to rape a woman? How can society do this? Even more of a conundrum is the fact that this is the same society that saves victims of abuse and advocates for tougher rape legislation. The world is a big place with some dark corners, but I believe there are far more sunny parts than shadows.
At the beginning of this post I said that I was impressed by the ability of Ms. O'Mara to continue in her work. Although her longevity is amazing I think I sort of understand why she stays. The other women she works with keep her on track, and the women she helps instill the hope for humanity that one needs in such a job. Each abuse case probably breaks her heart, but every time a woman takes back power, stands up for herself, or decides to finally leave has to feel like a victory. It is draining the ocean with a teaspoon, but at least it is progress. I hope to have my own teaspoon in the future, but maybe by then society will have given groups like CARDV the support and agency to begin scooping buckets out of this sea of injustice. Who knows, perhaps one day that ocean will be an evaporated memory!

April 28th and tonight's SVU

I was really impressed with our guest speaker yesterday. It was fascinating to hear what she had to say about victims, advocates and perpetrators. It also was interesting to hear about CARDV and her experience working there. It seems like it would be a great opportunity to be a part of that organization (they have volunteers!!). I also really appreciated the information she gave us about sexual violence and domestic violence. I am doing my paper on domestic violence and it helped to hear from someone who is directly involved with victim advocation and support.
This episode also dealt with a lot of issues that we have seen in previous episodes about rape. For example, the victim's past was brought forward as a way to discredit her (the first episode we watched it was the victim's reputation for being a flirt and this episode it was the victim's past drug habit). One thing that I noticed wasn't brought up too much was the sort of group mentality that the three younger boys had where the three were keeping quiet or were ganging up on each other to prevent one from telling the truth. That whole idea probably could have been an episode in itself (I think there is an SVU or a regular Law and Order episode(s) that have the group mentality theme). I also thought it was interesting that they added in how the victim's colleagues felt about the victim. They said "She deserved it" or that she got what was coming to her. This is also a similar thread that was in the previous rape episode we saw. Come to think of it, this is a pretty common theme in any rape episode of a crime drama I have watched. It always starts out with how we can blame the victim for being victimized. Whether it was because she was dressed "slutty," that she had been drinking, she had a drug habit, she was where she wasn't supposed to be, etc. It's never, "Let's consider what the MAN was doing?" or "Why was the MAN there?" or "Why did the MAN rape this woman?"
Tonight's SVU looks really really good. It has Robin Williams as a guest star and I think it also supposed to be like the 200th episode of SVU. So tune in tonight!! :)

Last Class + Violence Against Women

Hello lovely ladies!
First off, I just wanted to comment on Andrea's last post. While I am unsure if there actually is a full-fledged text book out there on the issue of how to spot an abuser and what to do in order to get help (although it would be wonderful if there was)... Here is a web-site that list the warning signs or "red-flags" of an abuser. Keep in mind these are just "red-flags" to watch out for but in the end if you gut tells you one is enough to make you want to leave the relationship, the LEAVE!
http://www.mvwcs.com/redflag.html

And on the issue of getting help you can always contact CARDV (center against rape and domestic violence).

The sad truth is the information is out there but it does not get the attention it deserves and many women go through life not knowing about these facts that can save them in the long run.

With all that said, about the last episode I was very pleased with the fact that the abusive husband was portrayed as the "nice guy" that had everyone fooled. Abusers come in all shapes and sizes so it is so important to watch out for the warning signs of an abuser because you truly can not judge a book by its cover in this instance. I also like how the episode showed the local police being of no help to Jill or Kim (the victims) and how each woman had to remove herself from the abusive relationship on her own (Jill running away w/ Tommy to create a new life and Kim enlisting the help of other women to get away). The episode did a great job at highlighting all the complexities that come along with an abusive relationship. -Jennifer

This gets personal!

Well I have to comment on a personal level...

I often relate things (well pretty much everything) to my personal life and struggles I have overcome. Who doesn't right? If we are a classroom of seven including professor Shaw, that means at least one of us has been or will be abused. SAD and DEPRESSING to think about, but very realistic.

This episode was disturbing on many levels. Mainly for me it was the sociopathic traits of the father/husband/creep/dickhead...whatever we want to call him. Although I have not been physically abused or raped, I have gone through a horrible messy thing of emotional abuse. I don't even call it a relationship anymore- it definitely was not. The father of my second daughter came into my life as the "perfect man" and we were together and falling in "love" blah blah blah. EVERYONE including me thought he was amazing! But slowly, he started isolating me from my friends and then my family. He was manipulative and a liar to say the least. He was in many ways similar to the man on this show. He was very possessive about his things - about me and even our baby when I was pregnant. Did I mention he was extremely attractive too??? I had no clue what was happening to me, until he straight up left me when I was 6 months pregnant. Since then, he has shown me many psychotic characteristics and it is still hard to convince people of his true nature. I have to tell myself sometimes that I am not the crazy one!

Well going back to the show...I think the topic of domestic violence is a great message to send to viewers. Obviously, it can impact people on many levels as we have all exhibited.

The two women police officers made a comment about domestic abusers being so similar as if they are reading out of a text book, well I am wondering...can the women have a text book too? Like how to avoid this type of man, how to get help, etc????? Apparently we need it at an early age because by the time we get to college and take a women's studies class it may be too late!

Thanks for letting me share and sorry if you know too much about me now!
Andrea

april 21st class

The episode that we watched had that factor where you just want to jump into the tv and punch the bad guy! Seriously, that lady's husband was such a slimy sleez ball creep and he had everyone fooled into thinking he was some great dad/husband. That is the sickest part is that while this woman was being abused and tormented there really would not have been anyone that believed her cause everyone was under that guy's spell...... and could they have cast a cuter kid! I loved the end when he says "you killed Jill" i was like YAY!!! i actually did not remember the details of that episode it had been awhile since I had seen it so that was fun to see "an oldie but a goodie"

Also, that episode brings up a good point on the "whose justice" issue when the domestic violence shelter was not able to help the woman and her kid escape because the kid was not her biological child.... just want to scream BUT HE'S A VICTIM TOO!! its hard because i would think that a shelter like that would want to protect the victims (mainly women and children) but then they can't help too much, like in this instance, without violating some law.... things like that sort of seem like a slap in the face to protecting victims because its saying "we will help, but only if... (insert series of ridiculous criteria)"

the guest speakers were really interesting, like always :) it was interesting to hear about their experiences in the police department and it also got me thinking that some (woman) design student needs to create a line of clothing for women police officers and, probably firefighters (because I don't imagine women fire fighters have it much better in so far as having properly fitting/tailored clothing)....so that's a business idea someone needs to jump on... because it's ridiculous that women police officers (and sheriffs) don't have properly made clothing because they are women!

21st

This was a particularly heart-wrenching episode we watched in class (especially when you make the little boy so cute). It really made me think about how many children something like this has happened to. This reminded me a lot of a mock-trial I did my senior year in my College U.S. Government class involving a woman who had killed her husband (yes, an extremely different outcome than the episode had) and the defense was claiming Battered Woman Syndrome was the reason for it. I feel that when you see men like this, or hear about men like this, BWS is not a far-fetched idea. I would be extremely scared if I were to find myself involved in a situation involving abuse. Yes, its easy to say that it would be easy to just get up and leave, but even if you are able to, how safe are you? The episode we watched before class was also a disturbing one. The main man involved was just sick, and because of him, his wife had become a fairly sick person as well. It was really difficult to know how to feel about the wife, because I almost want to be angry with her, but then again, I feel awful for her as well, and can not imagine going through what she did, what a scary scary man to find your self stuck with.

These episodes, as well as our discussions with the guest speakers, made me think about how scary it really is down there. I’m always making sure when I go out or am with my guy friends in a new situation or somewhere I don’t know many people that I stay close to them, that I don’t walk by myself, especially when its dark (they don’t even let me do that). Yes, this seems like a safe plan, but its odd that these people I trust, are statistically, the most likely to hurt me. It really is a scary world for women out there, and its extremely unfortunate that we all must feel a fairly constant need to protect ourselves. Safety just shouldn’t be something difficult to come by.

A question for everyone!

Hi everybody!!

I was wondering if anyone has a Season Two of Law and Order SVU. The episode I am using for my paper is from the second season and DVD World doesn't have that season! Yikes!

If you do have it, if I could borrow it that would be fantastic! And in return I will make you a baked good of your choice (be it cookies, brownies, banana bread, scones, cupcakes or cake! I can make anything!)

Thanks!
Anna

April 21st's class

Wow. Yesterday was a great class! The episode was really fascinating to watch and the guest speakers were really interesting as well. I was especially interested because we talked a lot about my topic: domestic abuse. This episode was not the one I was going to use for my analysis, but it was a helpful to see. It was interesting to see the portrayal of the battering husband. It really demonstrated how a batterer can be anyone. It can be the suave, handsome, community leader and it can be the down and out, poor, working class man. And I also liked how Professor Shaw pointed out that domestic violence crosses every social boundary, it's not limited to one set population of people, which is what we typically think. I wonder what this episode would have looked like if it had been the wife that had killed the husband. One of the points I am researching for my paper is the "Battered Woman Syndrome" and how that defense works in court. It has been really interesting to read case studies about how this syndrome affects battered women and how it can be used in court to justify the killing of a batterer.
I thought this episode was very similar to a book I read called "Black and Blue" by Anna Quindlan. It is a story about an abused wife who after many years of abuse, becomes connected with someone from the underground domestic violence "railroad" and is finally able to escape her husband.
This episode also touched on the "who's justice" question. This was evident when the Domestic Violence shelter could not allow Jill to take her son with her without being accessories to kidnapping. The woman said "Our hands are tied." That always seems to be the case where the law has a way of not helping the victim. It was neat to hear the two guest speakers share their experiences confronting domestic violence. What I thought was interesting is the drastic changes in laws that Oregon has seen. Michelle (I think) was explaining that before these new laws, if the woman decided that she didn't want to press charges against her abuser, then the police couldn't do anything and had to leave. Now with the new law, the police must arrest someone if there is evidence of domestic violence. I think this is a very progressive move. They also mentioned that on the other hand, if a woman fights back and both the abuser and the victim are hurt, they arrest both of them. And that the law gets very complicated when there are different relationships or if children are involved. But I am glad that the law has become more strict about domestic violence and that the issue is becoming a public health concern. As Prof. Shaw said, 1 in 4 women will experience domestic violence. Hopefully we can change that!

Law enforcement does have a female face

The speakers that we have had the last two weeks have been amazing! I see why people become police officers now; there is a certain rush and excitement about it (even if 85% of the time your are driving a beat of doing paperwork.) They were pioneers in their field, and we owe them much for being so brave. The stigma and discrimination they must have faced is staggering! It inspires me to achieve to lead the way for other women as well (although I'm still not quite sold on law enforcement as a career.) Furthermore, with the first female police officer in the nation, Diana Simpson being the first female elected sheriff, and having current female police chiefs, who knew that Oregon was so progressive when it comes to the field of law enforcement?
Our conversation today about women being better communicators and negotiators struck me as a little worrisome. By saying this are we perpetuating stereotypes and normalized roles of women as nurturers and listeners? When can one admit natural differences between men and women and when are we simply accepting the systems of oppression that are embedded in society? It is a thin line to walk, yet I assume that is why we study Women's Studies.
As for today's episode, I was struck by the lack of resources available to women in abusive relationships. The wives shown today were truly slaves in their upper-class households. Domestic violence shows no discrimination based on class or race, and is absolutely horrible. While these women are fulfilling society's accepted role of females as housewives, they are also being denied social contacts and economic ties that would help them to escape when trapped in cycles of abuse. Also, the law did not seem to be leaning in their favor. This brings up our constant theme of "justice for who?" It seemed that the constitutional rights of the father were more protected than the human rights of his wives and son. This can't be right, yet there is no easy way to get around this conundrum without setting the justice system up for another dilemma in a different situation. It is impossible to predict all ways that a law may be applied, which is why we judge on a case by case basis, yet it still does not always come out fairly.
The best moment of today's episode is when Tommy tells his father that he is a murderer. It is so empowering for the viewer, and great to see another victim being vindicated for the wrongs done to them. This is a common thread in Law and Order and something I really appreciate. I guess that it makes up for the distressing Catch-22s that go hand in hand with the uplifting moments of the show. Knowing how the episodes run, I'm sure we'll see more of both in the future.

The "isms"

After reading the other posts about our recent episode, I see a pattern of oppressive behaviors overlapping. I agree with everyone else's comments on Van Buren and the difficulties she faces in the police force. What I see here is the intersection of sexism and racism, which have both been pointed out previously. What bothers me is that the episode addresses these systems of oppression, but does nothing to correct them.

I say that because the viewer does not see actions taken against the characters making the racist or sexist comments. I forgot the man's name in the beginning of the episode (the one who made the gyno-american comment), but where is the justice for Van Buren and all women in regards to sexism??? Why doesn't he get fired?! Of course, the same thing happened with the racist comments as well...they were looked down upon, but nothing really happened as a result to them.

So although we LOVE Law and Order, it is one way we can see it perpetuating the "isms" we face everyday. The issues are brought to our attention, but then fade away as more "important" parts of the story are revealed.

Van Buren and Sheriff Simpson

After reading the article "Factors Affecting the Internal and External Relationships of African American Policewomen within an Urban Police Department," it is no wonder the producers of Law & Oder treat the situation in the episode Compitence, regarding Lt. Anita Van Buren, as they do. Not only does Van Buren have to successfully maneuver the barriers all women in the police force face, but she also has those that come with the stigma of being an African American. Even though she is a ranking officer in the NY Police Dept. her accomplishments are "ignored" when she shoots and kills a young African American boy who also happens to have a mental disability and who along with another boy "attempted" to rob Van Buren while she was at the ATM. The situation to begin with is explosive due to the fragile relationship between the police and minority groups, especially African Americans. What's clear from the beginning is that those higher up in the Dept. are not interested in determining whether or not Van Buren was in the right for shooting the boy. Instead, they are more interested in appeasing the public anger over the situation. What needs to be asked is whether the Dept. would be so willing to sacrifice a white, male officer (or even a white, female or black, male officer) as decorated and accomplished as Van Buren as they were as willing to do so with her? Judging from the reading the answer is clearly no and Van Buren is well aware of this. Van Buren understands fully that her gender and race plays a significant role in how she is treated and viewed by her "peers" and by the public. Unfortunately, in the society we live in today things such as race and gender do count. That is why I was surprised at Sheriff Simpsons reluctance to accept this fact of life. While I understand and applaud her effort for attempting to separate her position as Sheriff from who she is (a white female) she can not deny that who she is does affect her position. It also affects other women as well because if Sheriff Simpson ever found herself in a compromising situation as Van Buren did then the first thought in the majority of people's minds would be: "See, women are not fit for such as position." When a woman is in a position of power, dominant society views her as representing all women. Although this is wrong, it is a fact of life. -Jennifer

Class Monday

I remember the first time I saw the episode we watched last class. I was so involved in the whole story and worried for VanBuren that I didn’t notice a lot of the stuff we talked about in class. I don’t know how many cops would be treated the way she was if they were male, but it is clear she was treated harsher simply due to the fact that she was female. The way she was spoken to was ridiculous and really off-putting. I believe the situation should have been taken seriously, but had she been male or white, it is likely that she would have been “innocent until proven guilty” instead of vice versa. It was really unfortunate, I felt, that she was asked about racism, as if she had something against the boys based on skin color alone. Just because she is successful does not take away the color of her skin, and the ways she likely identified with the boys and the whole family involved. It’s too bad that in our world there have been so many inequalities and less than lawful actions made by police officers that most minorities don’t believe cops represent safety, instead they fear them, and understandably so. I liked that in the end the mother of the boy who was killed cooperated with VanBuren and listened to what she had to say. It was obviously a terrible situation both were in, but I liked that although there was a lot of tension and a lot of non-communication, they were able to work for a good outcome (well, as good of one as you can get in this situation). Women too often are so against one another for no reason at all, it would not be surprising if the mother was never able to even respond to VanBuren.

This episode accompanied by the reading helped me think about a lot of topics regarding women in the police force that I hadn’t really considered before. I admit that I admire the women who do those jobs even more now. What Simpson shared with us was also great insight into what it was all like for women. I think it’s great that some of the men who opposed her quit. To me, it makes them look like jerks, and her job even easier to not have opposition within her own workplace. I really hope that she is able to step down when she chooses, as she said no women have really been able to do.

April 14th Episode/Class

I really liked this episode because it brought up the point that people still are not being judged on their abilities but rather on their race or gender (or in VanBuren's case, both). The episode showed how people from minority backgrounds end up having to "tread carefully" because any misstep can result in other people totally judging their abilities and reverting to the old "oh you only got this job because you're black/woman/asian/hispanic/older than others/have a disability.....

i enjoyed the speaker too, it was cool that when she was out campaigning she told people not to vote for her cause she's a woman but rather to vote for her cause she's the most qualified...

I was thinking that maybe Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I have a dream" speech needs to be updated to "I have a dream.... that [people] will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin or the contents of their pants, but by the content of their character"

hope that's not offensive.... it's not meant to be (my sister just said to me that it might be so hopefully no one takes it that way)... but seriously people just need to be judged on their abilities... its like VanBurnen said when she was on the stand "the last thing I was thinking about was the color of his skin"

Go Women! We are more than competant!

The episode we watched in class yesterday was great, not least because it was actually an episode I have never seen before. Anita Van Buren has long been one of my favorite characters on the show, mostly because she is a strong, confident woman who is making it in a man's world. From the readings we did last week and the conflicts faced by the Lieutenant on "Competence," I wonder if I could face the chauvinistic atmosphere that seems to surround the police forces of the US. The constant questioning of my ability, the fight to prove myself, and the lack of support might wear on me; however, the challenge of making my mark in a slightly hostile environment and helping the public might just be tempting enough to make me stick with it! Another aspect of Lieutenant Van Buren that I admire is her ability to juggle a family and husband and a demanding job. She is a modern superwoman!
Another TV character that had been successful at navigating the dangerous waters of career and family was Dr. Miranda Bailey. However, recent plot twists have revealed the possible deterioration of her marriage, which I think sends a negative message to those women who wish to work and raise families simultaneously. Although it is difficult, it is possible, which TV shows do not often portray. Anita Van Buren is carrying the torch for an industry that does not showcase many successful career moms.
A real life superwoman is definitely our speaker for the week, Sheriff Diana Simpson. While I am amazed at the coincidence of the 1921 female Sheriff Simpson (can you tell I'm a history major?), I am more amazed at the resilience and tenacity of our elected sheriff. She also has a family with a demanding schedule, and I was so intrigued by all the police jargon and culture that she brought to our attention. I only hope that someday she gets to design the comfortable female law enforcement gear, as well as work in a world that makes it acceptable to wear a flowery dress without having your professionalism questioned.

Tuesday's SVU

I'm going to do something a little different for this blog. I am going to write about about the commercials that I see during the episode.
Here is a little synopsis of all the commericals I saw:
Commercial set one: AT&T cell phone, Dodge Journey, French's Spicy Brown Mustard (This one was interesting. It had a "male" mustard bottle and a "female" hotdog and the "male" is talking about his day and says the "female" hot dog "never listens to him." The "female" is reading a woman's magazine and is imagining the "sexy" French's Spicy Brown Mustard running towards her.), Aleve (woman zoo keeper), Royal Carribean Cruises, iMac, and Powerball.
Commercial set two: OnStar (911 operator is a woman), Target, Remax.com, Sprint, Vive Shampoo, Pledge (It is a woman and is the one who has to be cleaning. The dust is her concern and it is something she has to worry about.), Pizza Hut and NBC promotional ad.
Commercial set three: Hyundai, "There's a reason why it's called the curse. Reverse the curse: Midol." Enough said about that one. Dove, NBC promotional commercials, local news commercials, Eugene Ballet, Toyota and Les Schwab Tires.
Commercial set four: iMac, Chilies, Aflac, Nissan, Capital One, Nikon, commercial for Tonight Show with Jay Leno and Late Night with Conan O'Brien, and ER.

There was a wide variety of commercials shown during this episode. They were directed towards both men and women. However, it was very gendered advertisements. There were ones about cars and computers and buying a home which all featured male actors and the ones about pain relief, clothes and housecleaning all featured women. It was pretty interesting to really look at how the commercials were set up and who they were targeting.

This episode was very disturbing. The focus of the episode was the sexual abuse that female inmates endure while in correctional facilities. The end of the episode was very graphic when the corrections officer was attempting to force Olivia to give him oral sex. It was very scary. The idea that this kind of activity is happening in prisons is absolutely revolting. The violence against woman and the degrading treatment of women in prisons is something we don't really hear about. This is the first time I think Law and Order has taken up this issue. Overall, it was a very unnerving episode but I think it would be great to analyze from a feminist perspective. Maybe we can discuss it in class?

Consent-April 7

Last year I took WS 270: Violence Against Women. As part of the class students had to do an activism project. For my project I gave a presentation to my sorority sisters on some of the key topics we'd discussed in class. One of the issues I felt was really important to cover dealt with sexual assault and the issue of consent to sex when alcohol is involved. Here are some of the statistics I used in the presentation to highlight the severity of the situation:

55% of female students and 75% of male students involved in acquaintance rape admit to having been drinking or using drugs when the incident occurred.

90% of all campus rapes occur when alcohol has been used by either the assailant or the victim.

As many as 70% of college students admit to having engaged in sexual activity primarily as a result of being under the influence of alcohol, or to having sex they wouldn't have had if they had been sober.
(Adapted from Facts on Tap, "Risky Relationships,")

Many people don't consider alcohol to be a date rape drug but IT IS!!! That's why I am glad this last episode focused on the issue of rape, alcohol and whether one can actually consent to sex while under the influence. It saddens me that men are often not held accountable for their sexual aggressions towards women under the influence since alcohol tends to create this gray area in regards to the issue of consent. I have always found it very hard to comprehend how any man could think that if a woman would not have sex with him while she is sober that it is ok to then make a pass at her when she is intoxicated. Sex under the influence never equals consensual sex (in my opinion) and yet it seems like society and the law, for the most part, have a difficult time coming to this obvious (in my opinion) conclusion. Unfortunately, this is why we women must to take precautionary steps in order to protect ourselves and each other when alcohol is involved in any situation that can place us at risk of being taken advantage of while under the influence. These steps can include things like employing the buddy system for trips to the bathroom and always leaving a party/social gathering with the same group you came with. It's always good to remember that you can still have a good time while being safe! :) -Jennifer

Rapist Tshirts cont...

In regards to Katie mentioning that rapists should wear t shirts I went about a quick google search (out of curiousity) and I found this. This is actually a t shirt that was sold online! I understand the playful humor and it is clever, but wow! What a way to minimize a person being raped into a trivial and comical event. I don't like it. :(

Consent

I really enjoyed this episode of Law and Order. Although I had seen it before, it had been quite along time ago, so I was not clear how it ended. Also when I had seen it before, I was much younger, so it didn't strike me so personally. The question of consent is such a sticky one, and can be a really frustrating topic, especially if you try to discuss it with the wrong guy. I have a friend who had hooked up (but not had sex) with a guy she knew a couple times, and they did not plan on being boyfriend and girlfriend, but would not be surprised if it happened again. Sex had never been attempted by either, and she was told he wanted to save intercourse for marriage, so felt like even if she was a little drunk, that boundary wouldn't be crossed, and she wouldn't do more than she wanted. Turns out their hook up repeated, and she said that he was on top of her and they were kissing, then before she knew what was happening, he was inside of her and it was done. He was a friend, and she didn't want to make a big deal of it, but she says whenever she sees the stickers that say "Drunk sex is not consensual sex" she is always reminded of that night, and the fact she'd never wanted it to be that far. In discussing it with one of her guy friends he was sympathetic, but also said how "It's too bad you had to learn the hard way, but I mean, you learned from it." That comment really bothers me, because yes, it is something to be learned from, but she is not the only one at fault by any means.
The double standard women deal with is frustrating. We are prudish if we don't party and drink and like guys, but if we do and something bad happens, we are the ones at fault, and its male-nature to go along with it. What is even more frustrating is the horizontal hostility in this episode and in all women. If a girl who liked the guy my friend had that experience with and found out about it, I bet none of us would be surprised if she said "serves her right" or anything along those lines. Issues of consent are all over the place and to counteract some of the abuses we need to team together instead of turning on one another.

April 7th Class Period

I was glad that we watched "consent" in class. This was an episode I was (am) planning to use in my research paper. I think that it presents a lot of great material about what rape is and does an accurate job of presenting a situation that a college student might find herself in. This episode highlights that you can't trust those you think you can (in this case the sorority sisters) and that, sadly, many will try to blame the victim of rape/sexual assault.

A lot of the blaming of the victim in this episode, I think, accurately represents what a victim any where might go though. The questions of how much she drank, what she was wearing, and if she was flirting were brought up.... but these don't matter. She was not able to consent to anything and so sexual act she engaged in, or was engaged forcefully in, was rape.

This episode leaves a bitter taste for me because the only people who were punished were the sorority sisters who concocted the date rape drug. At the end you kind of scream at the tv: how can the men not be punished in this?? They had sex with her while she was drunk/under the influence of GHB! Clearly, she was not in a state of mind where she could consent.

On to the speaker... I really enjoyed the speaker and thought she presented on a lot of good topics. I know most people were interested to hear about the challenges she faces in trying to be a mother and a prosecutor. She said that its not really possible to do both effectively and that when she was interviewing for jobs she and her friends were concerned about showing their engagement rings. This made me think of something closely related, people with disabilities, and the problems they face in the workplace. Someone with a visible disability is clearly disadvantaged and I want to remind everyone that you are only a car accident or a sports accident away from having a permanent disability. Also, there are "invisible" disabilities such as chronic diseases (like juvenile diabetes) which affect every part of a person's life and their needs are not always covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Also, any person can be affected by something like this at any time. I kind of just felt like saying, "Well having a family and choosing to stay at home is a CHOICE whereas a having a disability is not a choice and often there are far less protections and accommodations made for those people.

Anyways..... my thoughts on that is probably influenced by the fact that I have juvenile diabetes and that was not something I chose to "get" and it has made my entire life/career very different than a totally able bodied person.

In other news.... I got engaged this last weekend!

"Futility" and "Consent"

I thought both of these episodes really focused on exposing the flaws in the criminal justice system that end up helping the perpetrators rather than the victims. For example, Fred Savage's character was able to manipulate and maneuver around the law to get evidence thrown out or to discredit the victim. This does not serve the "justice" that we expect which is justice for the victim. This is similar to what we watched in "Consent," where the serial rapist (the frat guy who got the swimmer pregnant) only received expulsion rather than any criminal charges despite the fact that he had raped girls before. The flaw here is the gray area surrounding "consent." The jury found that the guys could not have known that the victim had been drugged (although it was clear that the victim was without inhibitions and very clearly incapable of consenting).
My problem is with the existence of this "gray area." If anyone is under any kind influence, be it drugs, alcohol or anything else, and is in no way capable of making a decision then they have lost the ability to consent. Furthermore, I really hated how the episode set up the victim to make it seem as if she "had it coming." I hate that statement with a fiery passion. No one "has it coming" or is "asking for it." The episode pointed out that the victim was a flirt and was giving one of the guys a lap dance. She was also drunk. It was not an invitation to be raped. I also was upset that the only person defending the victim was Olivia. Also, she was the only woman. None of the men stood up for her which is infuriating to say the least.
This episode also had a lot of degrading banter going on between the men. How the one frat guy (Hank?) said that the other was going to go "hit a home run" with the victim or how the bartender described the game the boys would play to see which drunk girl they could have sex with. That serves to further perpetuate the idea of sex as a game for men and the idea of women as prizes and as things to conquer or win.
I really enjoyed, on the other hand, talking with the Assistant District Attorney. I thought it was fascinating to hear about what it is like to argue for cases like we see on Law and Order. Moreover, it was interesting to hear about the difficulties facing women in the law and how hard it is to maintain a normal life (including a family) with this job.

Rapist t-shirts and an economic class conundrum

The episode we watched over the weekend really made me think about assumptions in our day-to-day lives. Although I knew that the perpetrator was dangerous, I was drawn in by the Fred Savage cute factor. How could such a kind-looking person be a rapist? This kind of thinking is biased and all the more disturbing because it is deep-seated and latent in our psyche. We would not consider this part of our assumptions regarding criminals except when confronted directly with difficuly situations like the episode, "Futility." There is no one "criminal" look, and not all criminals can be distinguished by looks. Although I wish that rapists wore convenient shirts that said "RAPIST!" so that they could be avoided, this is naive and unrealistic. Perceptions of people need to be constantly challenged so that accusations are not falsely made against anyone. No one should be persecuted for their looks, race, or any other distinguishing visual factor (or other, non-visual factors, like accent).
However, this is easily said and not so easily done. Many assumptions that are embedded deep within our minds were put there at a young age. That is why subjects like Ethnic and Women's Studies are so important; they help to identify and examine some of the stereotypes that exist in society and allow students to alter their behavior to more open and tolerant. If everyone would examine their inner assumptions and biases, then problems like racial profiling and the idea of a rapist as an dark, unknown assailant would dim. It would be easier to effectively fight crime, for the blinders of stereotypes would be removed from the process.
As the class goes on, the idea of "Whose justice?" is resonating deeply. By keeping this question at the forefronts of our minds we can more easily see the bias running rampant in America's society and justice system. So far, the barrier of class has really been underlined in the episodes we watched. As we discussed in class, the homeless man in the episode we watched in class yesterday was assumed to have done something wrong and was fair game for manipulation and bullying. However, if he had been wearing an Oxford shirt and Docker's, would the police have treated him in the same way? Also, in an episode I watched outside of class, a murderer was able to hire an entire cadre of lawyers to defend himself, whereas the poor have to depend on overstretched public defenders. Where is the equality in that sort of a system? It is something to ponder as we continue to view episodes in the future.

Talking Circles

Hi all! I found this website a few months ago and I have had it book marked on my computer since then. Please, if you have time, visit the site and let me know what you think! I absolutely LOVE the idea of this project. I would be very open to starting this in Corvallis or Salem (I live in Salem). But unfortunately I would not be able to dedicate the time right now. Do you think it would be hard to get response? Thanks for your thoughts...

http://www.teentalkingcircles.org/index.htm

P.S. Jean Kilbourne is the President :)

A Definite Beginning

This first episode of Law and Order established character plots, the general storyline for the plots and tied the new cast to the older one (with Abby Carmicheal making a short appearance.) Due to the premiere context of this episode, a lot of the script and actions seemed a little forced and full of inuendo. I agree with several of the other bloggers that this created some offensive moments, especially with regard to assumptions about sexual identity, victim blaming in sexual violence crimes, and the implied idea that female cops are not as mentally resilient as their male counterparts. Thankfully, most of these issues are toned down as the seasons progress, especially where Olivia is concerned. Later she takes on serial stalkers face-to-face and does not allow her personal life to interfere with any suspects, even when their crimes hit close to home.A small pet peeve that grated on me in this show were the quips from Detective Munch. I know that his character is supposed to be a little abrasive and full of dry humor, but it was a little over the top in this episode. He was honestly quite annoying! As with Olivia's character, Munch is toned down and even finds a heart later in the evolution of the show, especially with regard to the deaf doctor who he interacts with in later episodes.
I was quite struck in watching this episode with Dr. Shaw's question about who recieves justice in the Law and Order episodes. Although I don't feel that the show tries to favor the rich or any other population in its plotlines, it does strive to show the reality of the system, which is that different people recieve different levels of defense and treatment in trials. The system is very biased against the poor, in terms of bail and defense lawyers. A rich person can await trial at home while out on bail, as well as afford a cadre of the best lawyers possible. However, the poor are forced to stay in jail because they cannot afford to raise bail and are assigned public defenders who are often overworked, as many public employees are. There shouldn't be this discrepency in our justice system for the very reason that it is not justice at all. It is favoritism for the elite. Money should not act as a factor in the judicial process, which is sadly often the case often is (think of O.J. Simpson.) However, Law and Order does a good job in some epsiodes of stealing the smug smiles of the faces of those who thought they had bought there way out of a conviction when the jury returns a guilty verdict and a jail sentence is handed down. The system does work, but perhaps not as equally as we would like to think. Beyond class diferences, the judicial system also has bias as far as race, gender, and ethnicity are concerned, which is a little disquieting in a country that prides itself on equality for all. It is an ever-present demon that must be constantly faced by judicial professionals and concerned citizens.
This question of justice also spurred thought with this episode due to the idea that "we can't pick the vic," as Cragen says. The murder victim is truly a monster in his actions in the ethnic cleansing that occured in Kosovo in the nineties, yet he was also a family man who had a loving wife and child. The murderers, people we are supposed to think of as "bad," are businesswomen who endured terrible conditions and are trying to heal. Where is their justice? What is the role of international courts to bring those accused of war crimes to trial in a timely manner? Was the victim truly evil? Is anyone truly evil, or all-bad? These are rhetorical questions that lend theselves to philisophical discussions, but the role of women does appear in them. The rape victims go to jail for killing their rapists, which no one feels good about, but that is justice according to our system. Whereas I don't think that a murderer should get off free, I don't envy prosecuters the headaches they must get when grappling with these gray areas of our justice system.

First Day

Watching the first episode of SVU was definitely a different experience for me. I began watching the show well into it's first season and I agree with many of you that the shows content progressed drastically. What I appreciated the least about the first episode is how heavily it relied on the stereotypes and gender roles created and designated by society. Perhaps, the creators of the show felt this would be the quickest way to win and solidify an audience for the show. Unfortunately, U.S. society still maintains societal norms to the disadvantage of many U.S. citizens and residents.

One norm that the show definitely perpetuates is that of assumed heterosexuality and what the consequences are for those who challenge that norm. When detective Stabler, a heterosexual male, replies to the "Disco Queens" (a transgender male) sexual advances he states: "oh, I'd hurt you." The threat of violence in this instance was realistic I believe, yet unnecessary. T.V. shows have a lot of influence in our society and they should take great care to not play off of society's prejudices against those who are "different" from "everyone else." Even when playing to societal norms the show does a great disservice. Such as Olivia as the single, dedicated detective. Unlike Stabler who is both a detective and family man, Olivia has chosen her profession over motherhood thereby forfeiting, by society's standards, her ability to have a family as well.

Even with its faults I could still point out one of the shows attempt at social commentary. Like when Munch states: "What are you sheep? Will you believe anything?" Unfortunately, for the average viewer such an effort I feel would be lost amongst the gritty content and faced paced story line. Even in its first episode SVU has the makings of a sufficient vehicle for the social analysis of issues regarding sex crimes. Too bad it is television and even the best shows with the best intentions have one goal in the end, to stay on air. - Jennifer

Emotional Olivia

I like that both of the other posts talked about how Olivia was portrayed as emotional in this first episode. We all agree that this is not so much the case with current episodes. I wanted to reflect a little more about this concept.

What bothered me about Olivia's character being more emotional than the other characters was the implication that since she was emotional, she would not be allowed to perform her job. I understand that as a police detective, one must adhere to policies and procedures as well as keep a strict presence of professionalism, but why is it that they cannot express their emotions? It seemed to me that this was another play into the stereotypes of women and how the way women "normally" act is not valued, especially in this noticeably male dominant unit. Is being emotional equal to being feminine? Can only men be successful on the SVU team because they do not cry or expose a personal feelings towards a case? "No crying in baseball..." (or on this team in the NYPD). These are the impications of the characters' dialog and actions on this initial episode.

Also, it is odd to me that with sex crimes committed primarily against women, the show presumed that only men could "handle" this work. Really? Shouldn't we have more women involved because the crimes pertain to women? Or maybe this was a way for the writers to expose issues of violence against women by making Olivia overcome with emotion on the first episode. I could go both ways. But if the intention was to bring light to the fact that sex crimes are predominantly committed towards women, it is interesting that the writers had to create buy in from viewers about the oppressing stereotypes of women. It just made me mad to see how much masculinity was valued in this context as it is in so many others ways in our society. I am glad that we know further down the road how awesome Olivia's character becomes and how much respect she gains and demands from her coworkers and superiors in future episodes.

First Day of Class

The first episode was definitely a "first" episode. They tried a lot of different things to draw in the audience, the innuendos most notably-perhaps to garner a laugh in spite of the serious subject manner- but also the importance of family for Stabler, the emotional side through Olivia and so on. This episode was definitely not as violent as some of the newer ones, although this had plenty of violence. Often I can not watch this show because it gets to be too gruesome. However, it still has plenty of drama and intrigue and I find myself sitting down to watch it whenever I get the chance! I had never seen this episode so it was really interesting to find out the back-stories of some of the characters. This was something I had missed out on by not closely following the show.

I was a little peeved that they made a lot of suggestions about gays and transgendered people in a comical way. I was surprised they did this because I cannot remember ever really hearing or noticing those comments in recent episodes. I also noticed that they really had stereotyped the characters. This was probably done to give a broad overview of each individual and it seemed like each one was very concentrated. Olivia is emotional and empathetic, Stabler is the all around macho family man, etc. I'm glad they have added some more depth to these characters through the seasons!

First Episode "Payback"

I think that this first episode was meant to set the tone for the show and it did that well enough I think. It is very different than how the show is now, several seasons later, as I think the some of the characters have been changed/modified. Olivia in the first episode was more typecast as the "emotional woman" who thinks more with her heart (as exhibited by when Cragen told Stabler to make sure his partner (Olivia) knew that they don't get to pick the victim). The male characters were also stereotyped into the very "macho" tough-talking kind of roles. That has changed over time in the show, but I think that for this episode to set the tone for the show and hook viewers in, it did need to be not as "deep" and more stereotypical to get viewers to relate.

This episode, and bearing in mind that it is a television show, was meant to draw viewers in and give them something they could recognize (emotional woman, strong men, effeminate gay man) though these are all major stereotypes. However, I do believe that perhaps that was necessary for them to do in order to introduce viewers to the show.