Winter Blogging Break

Hi everyone! The fall Ramapo semester is coming to a close, which means finals week for the WC employees....whomp. This also means that we will be taking a break from blogging so we can study for them...again, whomp.

Look for new blogs from new staff members starting at the end of January!

Have a good winter break and happy holidays!

"Date-rape drink spiking 'an urban legend'" ...a response to the Telegraph's idiotic theory about date rape drugs.

When reading Feministing today, I stumbled across a blog post that got me really heated. Being a college student and a female, I am well aware of the common misconception of sexual assaults. Most people, the majority of them being men, have this notion that if a woman has had too much to drink and is sexually assaulted, it is her fault and as a result, was not really sexually assaulted. This is a belief that angers me to the core on so many levels and the Telegraph's recent article entitled "Date-rape drink spiking 'an urban legend'" did a phenomenal job of reinforcing this idiotic notion. Being a survivor of sexual assault, especially under the circumstances at hand, I am fully confident to say that what happened to me when I had too much to drink was not my fault! Nor is it ever the fault of the victim, regardless of the situation.

The article goes into detail about how many people are in "active denial" if they think that consuming too much alcohol does not impair their ability and can leave them "incoherent and incapacitated." I will venture to argue this statement in two different ways. First of all, those who drink alcohol are almost always aware of the risks involved in drinking too much...namely, becoming "incoherent and incapacitated." Therefore, I would not say that anyone is in denial of this fact. Also, I feel that in a way the writers of this article is beating around the bush at something else...not that people (women) are in denial of the effects of alcohol, but rather that if they are sexually assaulted it was their own fault. This article also talks about how because of how much our society emphasizes the effects/risks of date-rape drugs, that people often fail to consider other risky situations that could lead to sexual assault, such as "being drunk, taking drugs, or walking alone at night." Wow, talk about victim-blaming at its finest. It's quite amusing to see how skewed this writer's vision of sexual assault is. Those three "important factors in sexual assault" all put the victim at fault for what could happen to them. Not once do they mention that it is, in fact, the perpetrator who is responsible.

Perhaps the most infuriating parts of the article is this: "Among young people, drink spiking stories have attractive features that could 'help explain' their disproportionate loss of control after drinking alcohol." Disproportionate loss of control? I pose this situation to the writers of this article...So let's say, for example, that a man is heavily intoxicated and becomes involved in a verbal argument with another male. The other male, without any threat of physical violence from his counterpart, punches the intoxicated male in the face. Who would you blame in this situation? The man who, although he was drunk, did not instigate or provoke any physical altercation? Or the man who was responsible for hitting someone? If you think about it in the scope in which they think about sexual assault cases involving alcohol, the man who was punched for no good reason is at fault. Doesn't make much sense now, does it?

The article also argues, as one of their key points, that "there is no evidence of widespread use of hypnotics in sexual assault, let alone Rohypnol, despite many attempts to prove the contrary." While this may be true based on the lack of statistics, who are they to argue that just because the statistical evidence is lacking that it does not happen? Simply by looking at some of the street names for Rohypnol and GHB (another commonly utilized hypnotic drug), one can note that although the number of sexual assaults that are reported were as a direct result of the victim being drugged, the inference is that these drugs are utilized as agents in such a situation. For example, Easy Lay, the Forget Pill, and Grievous Bodily Harm are all slang terms that imply that the use of these drugs will result in some sort of harm to the person taking it.

Enough of my ranting. I hope you can see the ways in which this article does what should never...I repeat, NEVER...be done in instances of sexual assault: blame the victim. I don't care where you are, who you are with, how much you have consumed of whatever it is that you have consumed...if you are sexually assaulted, it you are never to blame. And, regardless of what this article says (for those of you who, after reading it, still believe their claims that date-rape drugs are an urban legend) they do still exist and they are still a risk. The necessary precautions should always be taken in social situations where alcohol is involved.

Take care of yourself and look out for others.

<3

Manic Music Monday: Holiday Edition

So everyone here at the Women's Center knows this about me.... I hate Christmas/Holiday music. Yes, I am the actual living version of the Grinch. Popular secular Christmas music, to me, falls in two categories: the sickeningly sweet and sappy or the depressing 'I'm having a terrible holiday because the love of my life broke up with me, or I'm broke, or insert reason for holiday failure' tunes. 

This is just my opinion, you are more than welcome to disagree. (In fact, please do, it will make my staff happy) However, I feel that Christmas lovers and haters alike can agree on one point: That song "Baby It's Cold Outside" has lyrics that make me cringe.

Let's analyze shall we? The premise of the song is a woman who wants to leave a man's house, but he is trying to convince her not to. Some gems featured in this song include:

"The neighbors might think - Baby, it's bad out there
Say, what's in this drink - No cabs to be had out there"

"I ought to say no, no, no, sir - Mind if I move closer

At least I'm gonna say that I tried - What's the sense in hurting my pride?"

"I simply must go - Baby, it's cold outside

The answer is no - Ooh darling, it's cold outside"

Hey, Christmas song man, no means no, I don't give a crap about how cold it is. This song perpetuates rape culture ideals... that "no" is really just a way of saying "convince me to say yes". When I say no to something, it's because I want to, and when I am guilted or coerced into saying yes, it's not a real 'yes'. And when it comes to sex, that is NEVER okay.

The only consent that counts is true, enthusiastic consent. So to the Baby It's Cold Outside man, I don't care that it's cold, I have gloves. So leave me alone

Updates on Marriage Equality

There's been a lot of new developments regarding marriage equality across the country this week. We at the Women's Center would just like to sum up all of these changes and expel any rumors or misconceptions.

Tuesday December 1st, the city council of Washington DC voted 11 to 2 to support a bill which would provide marriage licences to same-sex couples within Washington DC. This is indeed a momentous step towards equality and a great victory, although it is not final by any means. The same bill must be voted on again for a "second reading" and even then it must pass through a 30 day Congressional review period. But of course, this is an exciting first step and definitely something to celebrate.

Unfortunately, this week also includes a very disheartening loss in regards to NY state Marriage Equality. Today, December 2nd, the NY state senate defeated a bill for marriage equality on a 38 to 24 vote. Not a single republican representative voted for the bill, and the democrats only had a slight majority in the Senate. This is indeed very upsetting for not only the queer community, but all individuals who are for civil and human rights and equality. Same sex couples in New York will have to wait an entire year before the bill could be voted on again.

Changes to Mammography Guidelines?

The following link is an article on the American Cancer Society’s website concerning the recent statement by the USPSTF changing the guidelines for when and how often women should get mammograms:

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/MED/content/MED_2_1x_American_Cancer_Society_Responds_to_Changes_to_USPSTF_Mammography_Guidelines.asp

Interesting. I think this line is particularly important, “The American Cancer Society continues to recommend annual screening using mammography and clinical breast examination for all women beginning at age 40”.

Personally, I’ll listen to them, but will insurance companies? I understand that screening at 40 is more expensive, I understand it increases health care costs, and I understand there are margins of error. But I also know early detection is paramount in fighting and curing breast cancer. But more importantly, I know this decision will greatly impact women’s lives and limit our choice. This will effect our mothers, sisters, daughters…every woman in our lives.

In my opinion, and the American Cancer Society’s opinion, the guidelines should not change