On Rape: A Particular, Historical Dogwhistle

In 1905, America was 40 years post-slavery and Jim Crow–a system of unequal everything, from train seats to schools to jobs, and which was held in place by brutal violence–was well-ensconced. Lynching threatened African Americans for damn near everything they did, and Reconstruction–the period post-Civil War that initially held such promise for freed people–came under sharp fire by southern whites as a time of tyranny and lawlessness. That year, Thomas Dixon published The Clansman, a book that gave many white southerners exactly the image it wanted of itself: the South, it said, had been a romantic, chivalrous place destroyed by Reconstruction. Reconstruction, it continued, led to an epidemic of sexual violence by black men against white women, an epidemic the KKK fearlessly righted by lynching those men. The Clansman was a dogwhistle–though purely fiction, it justified racist brutality both in the past and going forward. Yesterday we heard that dogwhistle again as The Man in the High Office (what I’m calling our president now) doubled down on a campaign claim that immigrants coming to America from and through Mexico are rapists–implicitly, of white women, and needing to be stopped. Continue reading On Rape: A Particular, Historical Dogwhistle

Please follow and like us:

The House Hates Women and their Pesky Bodies: the AHCA

Warning: Many, many swears

Yesterday was a long day for a whole host of reasons, least of which was the passing in the house of that bullshit bill they claim is about “healthcare.” I know it’ll likely die a swift death in the senate, but that it was passed at all—many people evidently not bothering to read it, but the general facts of which were easy enough to find—reaffirms the bullshit contained in the executive order we talked about on Tuesday. Women are second-class citizens in this country. (as are disabled people, seniors who are not wealthy, people with asthma, you know, most of us).

No War on Women?

Many people presented the bill yesterday as preserving the preexisting conditions rules that the ACA created. What they left out—and what became popular knowledge in the last couple of days—was that the MacArthur amendment to the original AHCA bill stated preexisting conditions can now be charged ENORMOUS surcharges and states can refuse to cover them. There’s also a sneaky provision in there that suggests insurance companies can get rid of out of pocket maximums. This combination guarantees that the rate of bankruptcies for healthcare reasons will skyrocket, once again, if this bill becomes law.

What are particularly galling are the conditions on the list of those considered preexisting.

For example, pregnancy. C-sections.

Let’s break this down. The people who passed this bill are the same people who go on about the horribleness of abortion rights, so at this point they are all about fetus preservation but not actual birth circumstances. They want to gut welfare, generally speaking, but want to cause women who have children to be gutted by their insurance plans. How can we raise kids—which costs serious money—if birthing them is a preexisting condition that costs a serious fortune on an annual insurance basis? The surcharge for pregnancy is $17000! We cannot afford to have kids, we cannot afford to not have kids. There is so much wrong with this situation, including that such conditions carry on ad infinitum–get insurance 30 years after having kid, that pregnancy is still a preexisting condition.

Next, a c-section—the modus operandi of many maternity wards—itself comes with a surcharge. Preferred by—ready?—insurance companies because it is allegedly less risky (which is generally nonsense, since it comes with all the complications of surgery), it is now also WORTH MORE TO THE INSURANCE COMPANIES when women have them. These bastards. These sick fuckers.

Let’s not forget that pregnancy is hardly a “condition” like cancer—it’s the basic ability we have to continue the HUMAN FUCKING RACE. Most women have children. This bill tells women to suck it, for being women.

But Wait, There’s More

But we’re just getting started, aren’t we? Because also on this list of pre-existing conditions are RAPE and DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

This makes me so angry I can hardly type. Being abused is not a FUCKING CONDITION. It is not a lifestyle choice, like, say, smoking, that leaves you with terrible health outcomes. Making rape and domestic abuse preexisting conditions continues to victimize the victims of that violence, and will—quelle surprise—disproportionately harm women. What the changes mean, in practice, is that women will report rape and domestic violence less often, because they cannot afford the premiums for doing so. And the abusers, then, walk free.

Given that our current president joked about his abuse of women, WE SHOULD NOT BE SURPRISED BY THIS PROVISION. Our president is a chronic sexual assaulter, and now women may be compelled—LITERALLY—to pay for his abuse, or say nothing of it and save their hard-earned cash.

Know what’s not on the list? Prostate cancer. Erectile dysfunction. Color me shocked.

But hey, these guys seem really well-informed, so I guess we shouldn’t criticize.

Here are some sources:

http://nymag.com/thecut/2017/05/under-new-healthcare-bill-rape-is-a-pre-existing-condition.html?mid=twitter_nymag

https://twitter.com/lnlinder/status/855620193615323137/photo/1

http://www.cbpp.org/research/health/amendment-to-house-aca-repeal-bill-guts-protections-for-people-with-pre-existing

 

Please follow and like us:

Bret Stephens, Shame of the NYT

Oh, New York Times, you’re killing me.

Mid-April the long-esteemed Gray Lady hired Bret Stephens to join its staff of opinion writers. Stephens hailed from the Wall Street Journal and his hiring served as an addition to the Times’s conservative lineup, featuring don’t-even-get-me-started-on-him David Brooks and “I flew with kids, which is worse than being beaten on a plane” Ross Douthat. Given the Times’s coverage of the Clinton email debacle and their unwillingness to condemn 45’s pro-fascist leanings during the campaign last year, I’ve all but bailed on the Times’s coverage of nearly anything. The addition of Stephens feels like the last nail in that particular coffin.

Bret Stephens, in his Twitter photo

To wit, check out Stephens’s interview with Jeff Stein at Vox. Here, let me paste for you:

Jeff Stein

You wrote one column for the Wall Street Journal about the imaginary enemies of the liberal mind, and one of the ones you named was the “campus rape epidemic” —

Bret Stephens

Focus on the word “epidemic.”

Jeff Stein

You wrote, “If modern campuses were really zones of mass predation — Congo on the quad — why would intelligent young women even think of attending a coeducational school?”

My question to you is: Isn’t it necessary for women to attend these coeducational schools for their economic and educational advancement? Isn’t it possible that’s why they’d be there even if there’s a higher risk of sexual assault?

Bret Stephens

Of course it is.

But if sexual assault rates in, let’s say, east Congo were about 20 percent, most people wouldn’t travel to those places. Because that is in fact — or, that would be, in fact, the risk of being violently sexually assaulted.

I am not for one second denying the reality of campus rape, or sexual assault, or behavior of the sort you saw from that swimmer at Stanford — that’s inexcusable and should be punished.

I’m taking issue with the claim that there is an epidemic based on statistics that, when looked at carefully, seem to have a very slim basis in reality. So what you’re transforming is horrendous, deplorable incidents into an epidemic — and that’s not altogether supported by reliable data….

they should go to institutions of higher learning. But I guess my point is this: The statistic that one in five women is sexually assaulted on college campuses is a highly dubious statistic.

If it were a true statistic, it would probably create a very different environment. My sister went to Mount Holyoke. I don’t think single-sex education has been thriving in recent years, but there would be more of a movement to single-sex education if in fact this epidemic were as epidemic as that statistic suggests.

(Jeff Stein, “The NYT’s new columnist defends his views on Arabs, Black Lives Matter, campus rape,” Vox, http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/26/15413718/bret-stephens-new-york-times)

Wow. Just. Wow. There’s so much to unpack.

Here’s Stephens’s theory, in a nutshell: Women mustn’t be raped/assaulted on co-ed campuses as often as they’re saying they’re being raped/assaulted, because if they were, why would women go to co-ed campuses? (full disclosure: I went to Mount Holyoke).

The logical underpinnings of his theory are that:

  1. Women are liars. Women lying about rape is a dogwhistle, disproven over and over and over again. With very few exceptions, women do not lie about assault because even mentioning being assault starts a sequence of scrutinization usually accompanied by cross-allegations, violence, and verbal/emotional abuse by peers. But women lie, evidently, so as to create this false statistic.
  2. Everyone knows this statistic is false, which is why women continue to attend co-ed institutions. This approach, of course, lacks consideration of the trends in education which suggest most women, despite the numbers that Stephens thinks would encourage them, do not want to attend a single-sex school. It lacks any understanding of the gendered nature of secondary ed, the ways that women are taught from a young age to see each other as competition rather than support. I live in a state with an enormous flagship university with a huge sexual assault problem. I see women flock there. There are days I don’t get it, but I at least try to understand the multiple components at play. Further, big state schools are often less expensive for residents than private schools (Mount Holyoke wasn’t cheap). And additionally, Stephens seems to imply here he sees little reason why a woman might chose, for example, Stanford, despite its known history of protecting rapists. Maybe because it has programs Smith doesn’t? It’s in California? It’s none of Stephens’s goddamn business? Oh, ok.
  3. Relatedly, in his construction of co-ed campuses, Stephens is clearly imagining them, whether he realizes it or not, as male spaces. His logic goes like this: if he’s wrong about the statistic—if it’s as bad as we know it is—then these spaces SHOULD be all-male, because women shouldn’t go there. Let that roll around your noggin a bit. He’s not suggesting that if this statistic were true (it is) that the campus cultures should change—he’s sure as hell not touching the issue of rape culture here because I suspect he doesn’t believe it’s a thing—women should avoid those cultures.

That’s some old-boy network shit right there.

And don’t even get me started on his metaphor of the Congo. It’s so laden with implicit undercurrents of campus-rape-as-race-problem, that someone smarter than I should take it apart.

In short, shame on you, New York Times.

Please follow and like us: