Click for larger image

In remarks both here and on my other blog I've made snarky references to what I've been calling "The Goldberg Spectrum of Sexual Violence Denial."  I'd like to explain what I mean with this chart.

The big, big problem is that most people seem to believe that the entire spectrum of sexual violence extends from ex-Senate candidate Todd Aikin's indefensible standard of "Legitimate Rape" to Whoopi Goldberg's equally indefensible standard of "rape-rape."In other words they see it as somewhere between attacks so violent that organ failure, a.k.a. "shutdown," results (Aikin) to something evidently worse than what Roman Polanski was convicted of (Goldberg.)

For Aikin, Goldberg, and evidently too many others, anything less than the most brutal forms of assault by stranger doesn't count as sexual violence at all.

There are many, many ramafications of this.  The big one being that virtually all victims to the left of Goldberg in the graph, above, are women and girls.  And while there are certainly exceptions, virtually none are men or boys.  Furthermore, perpetrators of sexual violence to the left of Goldberg on the spectrum are almost exclusively men and boys.  And because most people seem to believe the entire range extends only from Aikin to Goldberg it really seems as if all the stereotypes about gender, from the bitterest anti-feminist to the bitterest feminist, must be true.

 And if all that was to it then the stereotypes would be true.

However it's not true.  Aikin and Goldberg's standards are squeezed waaaaay over to the left of the spectrum.  There's substantially more.  In fact I'm pretty sure even Goldberg (though probably not Aikin) understands this.  But as I suggest in the chart, that public understanding still fades pretty quickly to a point that there can be bafflement or confusion (or calculated sexual-violence denial) about the so-called "gray area."  

Somewhat further to the right mainstream sexual-violence advocates understand that there's no "gray area," and understands as well that workplace and street or social sexual harassment is sexual violence and.  There's general (though not yet complete) agreement that young men and boys can be victims and even that for the most part, that "stolen kisses" and unwanted hugs count.  Although somewhere around that point understanding fades out and sexual-violence denial begins to creep back in.

I'd like to suggest, however, that the spectrum extends quite a bit further into terrain where almost everybody will deny there's sexual violence.  Although, I'd like to argue, that like the microwave background it's still there.  And that perhaps, like the microwave background, the extreme right end represents the faintest traces of original sexual violence.  But I digress.

I'd further like to suggest that as one begins to recognize the scope of the Goldberg spectrum the less easy it is to make tidy assertions about what is or isn't sexual violence or who the victims and perpetrators really are.

As you've probably heard, long-time anti-abortion, anti-choice activist Cathrynn Brown, a conservative New Mexico state legislator, has discovered a new-found interest in preserving evidence of sexual violence: making it a crime of "destruction of evidence" if a victim of sexual violence seeks an abortion or if anyone pressures her or assists her in obtaining one.

Well, as you might also have heard that original language was... a little broad. Why it might somehow have been interpreted to mean she just wanted to force victims to extend the violence perpetrated on them, their partners, their children, and their extended families* for another 9 months, or, heck, another 18 years and beyond!

So she's amended her bill. Here's the text: let me know if you see any problems with it. Note: I've got some problems with it. (The quote is in its original all caps but with my emphasis added.)

“AN ACT RELATING TO CRIMINAL LAW; SPECIFYING THAT A PERSON WHO COMMITS CRIMINAL SEXUAL PENETRATION OR INCEST AND WHO PROCURES AN ABORTION OF A FETUS RESULTING FROM THE CRIME WITH THE INTENT TO DESTROY EVIDENCE OF THE CRIME IS GUILTY OF TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE; PROHIBITING PROSECUTION OF THE MOTHER OF THE FETUS.”

Source: Follow the link on Brown's Twitter feed to her bill and its revisions

Somewhere out there a slightly less baby crazy but no less predatory successor to Mary Kay Laterneau* just got her wings.

Problem #1: As a non-stereotypical victim of sexual violence I’m particularly annoyed by the way Brown’s bill further hard-wires male-on-female, penis-in-vagina violence as the only kind that matters. Especially her revised version. 

Problem #2: I mean, does she seriously mean she now claims in her tweet that meant all along: that no mother will ever be prosecuted for destroying evidence of assault or incest by procuring an abortion for herself? Because that's saying once again that male-on-female violence being the only kind that counts: no woman ever could initiate sexual assault or incest, discover herself pregnant, and destroy evidence of her own guilt therefore she strictly and explicitly excludes that possibility in her text.

Problem #3 is more generic and more-commonly raised: particularly given the waiting time nine months seems like an extraordinarily long time to wait to gather evidence.  Nor is even hard DNA evidence on the (male) attacker be particularly determinative given the near-universal practice of defense attorneys arguing "she asked for it," "she's 'crying rape,'" "it was actually consensual."  Or the near-universal acceptance of such tactics by juries.

Problem #4, also generic and more commonly raised: very, very often sexual violence, even when committed by men against women, doesn't involve vaginal penetration, let alone male ejaculation, let alone pregnancy.  So while an embryo, fetus, or born person might have some value in some circumstances, it's by and large the least relevant kind of evidence police, medical personnel, counselors, or prosecutors should concern themselves with.

Problem #5 is just more about the typical anti-abortion/forced-pregnancy bullcrap that inspires these kinds of cruel stunts: Cathrynn Brown claims that by prohibiting "tampering with evidence" her anti-abortion bill "protects women and girls from incest and other sex crimes."  And yet... and yet... given a) her prior complete disinterest in issues relating to evidence gathering or victim assistance combined with b) her long-time involvement in "pro-life" organizations in her community I think it's... um... really, really unlikely that she'd stand aside if a victim sought an abortion in order to obtain evidence.  In other words she not only doesn't really care about male, child, or other non-impregnable victims she almost certainly doesn't care for impregnated victims either.

Problem #6: The whole thing just displays a complete incomprehension and/or dismissal of real-life sexual violence, its impact, its victims**, its assailants, its prosecution, and so on.  You're free to argue that protecting "the unborn" is more important than the health or safety of victims of sexual violence (never mind justice for or even acknowledgement.)  And it's possible and maybe even likely that Rep. Brown feels that way.  But if so it would be mighty nice if the were able to be honest about their priorities. Instead of smarming it up with smug lies about "protection" for victims of sexual violence. 

*See also Rene Chantal Frank, Dianne Dieterich, Amanda Soleto, Jennifer Riojas, Rhonda Eisenberg, etc.  Also, I originally spelled the name "Laterno" after foolishly trusting Google's suggestion -- turns out so many others misspell it that Google hints for it anywa.  Doh!

** Something I've never heard the forced-pregnancy crowd explain is how to get around the awkwardness around the Thanksgiving table every year not just for a victim the anti-Choicers wants to force to give birth but for her husband and father of her (possibly older) children, her parents, and so on.

Procedural Note: While this blog will raise or address specific topics its overall purpose is to challenge the social construction of the male gender.  (Where, remember, "male gender" isn't the same as "people who identify or are identified as men or boys.")

Because of this general focus the blog shouldn't be counted drill down into or focus on any other single, specific topic.  Not even issues that are near or dear to the hearts of individuals who may read or leave comments on it.

This in turn is bound to lead to disappointment.  Since I don't like to disappoint people (even people who's issues I don't agree with) I'm offering the best solution possible: start your own blog!

If you start your own blog you can focus on a particular issue as intensely as you choose.  Even better, you don't have to wait for me to post here (or, indeed, for anyone else to post anywhere) in order to address your issue.

So!

While I could suggest that it's free, easy, and very fast to start your own blog on Blogger, or Wordpress, or Drupal Gardens, or even Facebook, Tumblr, and so on, different people have different wants, needs, preferences, and brand loyalties.  And so no single recommendation I could make would suit everybody.  Also (see above) were I to recommend a single solution then sooner or later someone in comments might feel be bound, and maybe even determined, to argue passionately, frequently, and/or interminably that a different blogging platform was infinitely superior.

For that reason I'm instead going to recommend this free, cheap, and easy start-your-own-blog solution.  Or this alternative.  Or this.  Even if one of those resources goes out of date it's extremely unlikely that all will.  As long as there's an internet.

Finally, if at some point in the future I point persistent commenters to this post my intention is the exact opposite of trying to punish, silence, or even discourage them.  It's instead to reward, offer a platform to, and most especially to encourage them to own their own content so they don't have to rely on anyone else.