Arnold Schwarzenegger, California's infamous governor, has found himself in the spotlight several times, whether under surveillance for alleged sexual assault, his recent divorce with his wife or his biological involvement in the birth of children that didn't belong to his wife.
Though Schwarzenegger's personal life scandal is "juicy" and newsworthy, the media attention it is receiving is reminiscent of scandals such as Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky-an event that happened over a decade ago.
How women are depicted and treated during these scandals, however, hasn't changed much at all. Schwarzenegger's affairs are being glorified and Schwarzenegger who E! Entertainment is now declaring the "Sperminator" is being pushed to a pedestal of masculine greatness witnessed throughout patriarchal history.
The player and the ladies man is an image of masculinity we have seen in the media again and again. Schwarzenegger's behavior is glorified because sleeping with a lot of women, whether they birth illegitimate children or not, is stereotyped as a masculine characteristic.
We begin to see spin-offs, feature stories and even an blog editorial like this one from the LA Times, who claimed that it wasn't Schwarzenegger's fault that was a "guy who had sex with the Guatemalan help" because men are supposed to sleep around, especially powerful men.
The article claims that we should be turning our attention to more important issues (which I agree) and not making fuss over the small issues because:
"In fact, men in general screw around. The nature of a male is to spread his seed. Certainly, that's not productive for men in a committed relationship, or those with children and families. But that's the absolute biological truth."
While I agree that the issue is being blown out of proportion, this kind of thinking is exactly the kind of thinking that glorifies Schwarzenegger's behavior and makes his treatment of women 'okay'.
Other Schwarzenegger News:
http://popwatch.ew.com/2011/05/19/arnold-schwarzenegger-maria-schriver/
http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/05/19/stan-lee-the-governator-unaffected-by-schwarzenegger-sex-scandals/
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
P is for Peace Corps
Peace Corps is an organization dedicated to social justice and activism around the world. However, after more and more female volunteers are speaking out about their experiences with sexual assault and a lack of support from Peace Corps administrators, it seems as if Peace Corps isn't all that great.
Stories of brutal sexual assault and violence are being taken to courts and media sources across the nation. Female volunteers who do work abroad are voicing their anger over the lack of support that Peace Corps offers women who have been raped/sexually abused while on the job.
The women's stories have sparked congressional hearings on this matter, one of which was held Wednesday by the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Huffington Post, who covered the meeting, quoted Jessica Smochek's personal experience with a gang rape in Bangladesh.
Smochek claimed that after the incident happened, Peace Corps medical officer took her cellphone, forbade her from calling other volunteers and speaking about the incident, didn't give her a proper medical examination and sent her back to the U.S, where she was ordered to claim that she was back to get her teeth worked on.
Smochek detailed her concerns with Peace Corps here:
"Shortly after I left, the country director -- who never attempted to contact me after I was raped -- called a meeting of several women in my former volunteer group and told them, without my permission, what had happened to me," she said. "Then, he told them that rape was a woman’s fault and that I had caused what happened to me by being out alone after 5:00 PM. As for the other women in the group, who had been very vocal about being constantly stalked and afraid, he threatened them with administrative separation."
This issue has gotten huge. The statements from the country director are both shocking and disturbing, but they also reflect an attitude that our society perpetuates.
Often women are blamed for rape because of the way they were acting and dressing. In court cases, it is almost the number one defense for a suspect of rape.
Why is this even a valid argument? No woman asks to be sexually assaulted, no matter how she dresses. For the Peace Corps, who I believe does generally good work, to encourage and utilize this vicious stereotype/excuse as a response to the assault of their female volunteers is absolutely unacceptable.
According to the director of the Peace Corps, Aaron Williams, there is going to be change brought to the organization.
Williams said, "We do not place Peace Corps volunteers in unsafe environments."
Obviously, though, they do. And obviously their response to the aftermath of placing volunteers in unsafe environments is less than "peaceful".
Why did it take the Peace Corps this long to realize that their response to rape and sexual assault was inappropriate and unacceptable?
According to Williams, he was surprised and "amazed" that this kind of response had been happening. But according to the victims, it isn't something new.
Our society's ideas about rape and sexual assault need to change. It's time that we stop blaming the victim for sexual assault and instead work on reducing the amount of rape that goes on.
Stories of brutal sexual assault and violence are being taken to courts and media sources across the nation. Female volunteers who do work abroad are voicing their anger over the lack of support that Peace Corps offers women who have been raped/sexually abused while on the job.
The women's stories have sparked congressional hearings on this matter, one of which was held Wednesday by the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Huffington Post, who covered the meeting, quoted Jessica Smochek's personal experience with a gang rape in Bangladesh.
Smochek claimed that after the incident happened, Peace Corps medical officer took her cellphone, forbade her from calling other volunteers and speaking about the incident, didn't give her a proper medical examination and sent her back to the U.S, where she was ordered to claim that she was back to get her teeth worked on.
Smochek detailed her concerns with Peace Corps here:
"Shortly after I left, the country director -- who never attempted to contact me after I was raped -- called a meeting of several women in my former volunteer group and told them, without my permission, what had happened to me," she said. "Then, he told them that rape was a woman’s fault and that I had caused what happened to me by being out alone after 5:00 PM. As for the other women in the group, who had been very vocal about being constantly stalked and afraid, he threatened them with administrative separation."
This issue has gotten huge. The statements from the country director are both shocking and disturbing, but they also reflect an attitude that our society perpetuates.
Often women are blamed for rape because of the way they were acting and dressing. In court cases, it is almost the number one defense for a suspect of rape.
Why is this even a valid argument? No woman asks to be sexually assaulted, no matter how she dresses. For the Peace Corps, who I believe does generally good work, to encourage and utilize this vicious stereotype/excuse as a response to the assault of their female volunteers is absolutely unacceptable.
According to the director of the Peace Corps, Aaron Williams, there is going to be change brought to the organization.
Williams said, "We do not place Peace Corps volunteers in unsafe environments."
Obviously, though, they do. And obviously their response to the aftermath of placing volunteers in unsafe environments is less than "peaceful".
Why did it take the Peace Corps this long to realize that their response to rape and sexual assault was inappropriate and unacceptable?
According to Williams, he was surprised and "amazed" that this kind of response had been happening. But according to the victims, it isn't something new.
Our society's ideas about rape and sexual assault need to change. It's time that we stop blaming the victim for sexual assault and instead work on reducing the amount of rape that goes on.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
O is for Osama Bin Laden
While America celebrates the death of Osama bin Laden, Amal Ahmed Abdul Fatah is healing from a leg wound she received when she defended her husband.
According to ABC News Fatah, bin Laden's youngest wife, jumped in front of bin Laden in order to protect him from the U.S. Navy SEALS as they fired their last shots. Taking a bullet in the leg, Fatah is now in custody, held by Pakistani officials who claim she is too injured to speak to the U.S.
Many Americans are celebrating the death of bin Laden. His actions on September 11th haven't been forgotten by any American. It's safe to assume that we'd be very hard pressed to find an American who mourned his death.
However bin Laden had a family, a considerably large family, who have to deal with his death and with the excitement and celebration that surrounds it.
Fatah, his youngest wife, made a desperate attempt to protect his life. Bin Laden and Fatah's daughter was there as he was shot to death. His family members witnessed, what must seem to them, a brutal execution of someone they cared about.
Is it wrong, and even hypocritical, then to celebrate his death the way we do? It's understandable to me that people would be relieved that bin Laden was captured and killed, his actions on 9/11 and his terrorism around the world is more than enough evidence of the man's evil.
But this excitement, this ecstatic excitement that has been seen across the country this week is disturbing. It's cold blooded almost, that our thirst for revenge has been sated and that people have no problem openly expressing joy at the death of a man.
In no way is this meant to belittle the heroic efforts of the U.S Navy SEALS, what they had to do must have been both terrifying and difficult. Concern has been popping up about the morality of bin Laden's death and if shots needed to even be fired.
Facebook, especially, is a buzz with status' of concerned citizens who think that bin Laden should have been captured instead of being shot in front of a family.
According to the Guardian, Pakistani's foreign minister is questioning the way that the U.S handled bin Laden's death and the "legality" of it.
There is no question in my mind that if found, bin Laden should have been captured by the U.S. There is no question in my mind over the relief that Americans have expressed over his death.
However, was this the wrong way to handle the situation?
According to ABC News Fatah, bin Laden's youngest wife, jumped in front of bin Laden in order to protect him from the U.S. Navy SEALS as they fired their last shots. Taking a bullet in the leg, Fatah is now in custody, held by Pakistani officials who claim she is too injured to speak to the U.S.
Many Americans are celebrating the death of bin Laden. His actions on September 11th haven't been forgotten by any American. It's safe to assume that we'd be very hard pressed to find an American who mourned his death.
However bin Laden had a family, a considerably large family, who have to deal with his death and with the excitement and celebration that surrounds it.
Fatah, his youngest wife, made a desperate attempt to protect his life. Bin Laden and Fatah's daughter was there as he was shot to death. His family members witnessed, what must seem to them, a brutal execution of someone they cared about.
Is it wrong, and even hypocritical, then to celebrate his death the way we do? It's understandable to me that people would be relieved that bin Laden was captured and killed, his actions on 9/11 and his terrorism around the world is more than enough evidence of the man's evil.
But this excitement, this ecstatic excitement that has been seen across the country this week is disturbing. It's cold blooded almost, that our thirst for revenge has been sated and that people have no problem openly expressing joy at the death of a man.
In no way is this meant to belittle the heroic efforts of the U.S Navy SEALS, what they had to do must have been both terrifying and difficult. Concern has been popping up about the morality of bin Laden's death and if shots needed to even be fired.
Facebook, especially, is a buzz with status' of concerned citizens who think that bin Laden should have been captured instead of being shot in front of a family.
According to the Guardian, Pakistani's foreign minister is questioning the way that the U.S handled bin Laden's death and the "legality" of it.
There is no question in my mind that if found, bin Laden should have been captured by the U.S. There is no question in my mind over the relief that Americans have expressed over his death.
However, was this the wrong way to handle the situation?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)