RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: What Trump Taught America About Sexual Assault Print
Monday, 02 January 2017 12:05

Cauterucci writes: "Proud admissions of sexual assault, an inability to see women as anything but sex objects, and a penchant for sexual humiliation were not enough to keep the country's least-qualified major party nominee in history out of the White House."

This is assault. (photo: Mario Tama/Getty Images)
This is assault. (photo: Mario Tama/Getty Images)


What Trump Taught America About Sexual Assault

By Christina Cauterucci, Slate

02 January 17

 

hen Republicans nominated a crude misogynist to oppose a candidate who looked like she might be the nation’s first female president, the 2016 election seemed like it would be, at least in part, a referendum on America’s entire record of discrimination and abuse against women.

The results of that referendum were clear: proud admissions of sexual assault, an inability to see women as anything but sex objects, and a penchant for sexual humiliation were not enough to keep the country’s least-qualified major party nominee in history out of the White House. For anyone who voted for Donald Trump, bald-faced racism and sexism were not the deal-breakers they should have been. Hatred of women was on the ballot in November, and it won.

But there is a thin, tarnished silver lining to the platform Trump gave to his misogynist worldview this year. As both the president-elect and his alleged victims described the uninvited sexual contact he regularly imposed upon women, mainstream observers were made to consider that the more minor violations they described—forced kisses, gropes, and grabs—belonged on the spectrum of sexual assault.

Though reports of Trump’s abuse have been around for years, the public conversation about his alleged crimes began in earnest in October 2016, when the Washington Post published a 2005 clip of Trump saying he grabs women “by the pussy” and “just start[s] kissing them” without waiting for consent. Once that video dropped, more than a dozen women came forward to allege that Trump had done exactly what he’d bragged about. A People writer wrote that Trump shoved her against a wall and pushed his tongue into her mouth during a reporting trip to his Florida home. Former Miss USA pageant participants said he’d purposely walk into their backstage dressing room while they were changing, ogling half-naked women and girls as young as 15. (Donald Trump has admitted that he’s done this.) Several women detailed similar accounts of Trump ambushing them with his hands on their breasts, butts, and genitals.

These incidents were not rapes. They were all-too-common sexual violations that are often brushed off by perpetrators, bystanders, and victims alike as misunderstandings or harmless, standard male behavior. Most women have experienced violations like these; not all of them have filed the memories away under “sexual assault.” Hearing the disturbing details of Trump’s alleged assaults and zooming out to see his pattern of exploitation caused some women to reevaluate abuses they’d previously written off. Trump reminded women of their abusers; long-buried recollections rose like zombies. Calls to sexual-assault hotlines surged.

It’s a traumatic experience to realize that what once seemed like petty instances of boys being boys were actual sexual assaults diminished by a rape culture that normalizes unwanted touch. But confronting the real harm of these violations—and the misogyny and entitlement to women’s bodies that undergirds them—is a necessary step toward establishing a safer world for women.

The Trump allegations also gave non-victims not already taking part in contemporary discussions of consent an occasion to expand the boundaries of what they consider sexual assault. It would take a hardy capacity for self-delusion to read the particulars of Trump’s gropes and grabs—“his fingers slid under her miniskirt, moved up her inner thigh, and touched her vagina through her underwear”—and still brush them off as misguided flirtation. I wrote a piece in Washington City Paper about being groped on the street in 2014, and I’ll never forget one comment an anonymous man left on the online version. He wrote that the article had made him rethink his definition of sexual assault. The detailed questions the D.C. police detective asked me about the incident, which I included in my article, did the trick, he wrote:

As a straight dude, I admit that my first thought was “Some drunk guy on 18th Street grabbed her ass. It's boorish, it's fucked-up, it's illegal, but it's not exactly ‘sexual assault.’” Wrong. I was wrong. It was the detective's questions that really drove it home: “Which hand did the perpetrator use to touch me? Was it a pinch, a slap, or a rub? How many fingers were on me?” It makes my skin crawl.

Accounts of Trump’s alleged forced kisses—“within seconds, he was pushing me against the wall, and forcing his tongue down my throat. … I was stunned”—may have the same effect on mainstream Americans. Surprise kisses have long held an idealized position in American romance narratives. (See: “V-J Day in Times Square,” the famous photo of a World War II sailor grabbing a nurse he didn’t know for an uninvited kiss.) Conventional wisdom holds that a kiss doesn’t warrant affirmative consent; that it is the moment at which consent can be given or denied. Unwanted kisses may cause a moment of discomfort, the thinking goes, but since they don’t count as sexual activity, they don’t count on the spectrum of sexual assault.

Trump’s pattern of unwelcome kisses, an integral element of his alleged sexual exploitation, casts a shadow on that justification. America learned this year that Roger Ailes, too, made a habit of using his position of power to coerce women into kisses and worse. Megyn Kelly has said her former Fox News boss repeatedly tried to kiss her, and several women told the New York Times they’d endure his forced kisses and hugs to avoid upsetting him or losing their jobs. Ailes and Trump offer proof that an unwanted kiss isn’t harmless on its own—it’s a violation of the victim’s right to decide who touches her body and how. These cases also show that forced kisses usually go hand in hand with other, more serious sexual abuses. A man that ignores a woman’s bodily autonomy in one regard isn’t likely to respect it in another.

Of course, not everyone got on board as the mainstream definition of sexual assault expanded in 2016. When porn actress Jessica Drake accused Trump of grabbing her and kissing her without her consent, the president-elect pooh-poohed her protests. “She’s a porn star,” he said. “Oh, I'm sure she's never been grabbed before.” Betsy McCaughey, the Trump surrogate who made the myth of Obamacare “death panels” happen in 2009, said the allegations against Trump were nothing but “man-shaming,” making a big deal out of stuff men do because they’re men. The Weekly Standard asked Sen. Jeff Sessions (Trump’s anti–civil rights, pro–racist language pick for attorney general) about what it would mean if Trump had actually grabbed women “by the pussy.” “I don't characterize that as sexual assault,” Sessions said. “I think that's a stretch.” Dave Chappelle said Trump’s boast that his fame let him exploit women with impunity (“when you’re a star, they let you do it”) meant that the women, too taken aback or intimidated by Trump’s power to protest, consented to his alleged abuse.

2016 was also the year a sexual-assault survivor’s letter to her assailant, Brock Turner, got more than 11 million views in four days, becoming BuzzFeed’s most-shared piece of content since the Dress. Turner’s violation, described in heart-wrenching detail by his victim, was easy to identify as criminal sexual assault, unlike some of the alleged wrongdoings of Trump and Ailes. But the survivor’s statement reached far beyond the circles of people who normally read and think about sexual assault, undoubtedly driving unsuspecting readers to contemplate why a firm verbal “no” shouldn’t be a perpetrator’s only signal to stop. The letter painted a powerful image of the horrors that ensue when unresponsive silence is taken as a “yes.”

The same rule should apply to unsolicited kisses and touches, though those are rarely prosecuted as crimes in court. If Trump’s and Ailes’ accusers taught the nation that a stolen kiss is its own kind of violence, Turner’s victim gave a follow-up lecture on the damage sexual assault leaves in its wake. This might have made for an effective one-two punch of a lesson for our country on the importance of affirmative consent. Instead, in 2016, America’s young women and men learned that survivors get dragged in the press and perpetrators get to be president.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: What's the Truth? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36361"><span class="small">Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page</span></a>   
Monday, 02 January 2017 11:28

Reich writes: "What's the truth? Conservative talk-show hosts, right-wing media, and Trump himself are on a campaign to discredit traditional sources of facts and analysis - scientists, economists, criminologists, government data, and mainstream media - and substitute their preferred reality."

Robert Reich. (photo: unknown)
Robert Reich. (photo: unknown)


What's the Truth?

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page

02 January 17

 

hat’s the truth? Conservative talk-show hosts, right-wing media, and Trump himself are on a campaign to discredit traditional sources of facts and analysis – scientists, economists, criminologists, government data, and mainstream media -- and substitute their preferred reality.

For example:

1. The CIA and FBI say Russia interfered with the election to benefit Trump. But Trump disagrees. And Breitbart News (until recently under the watch of Trump’s strategic advisor Steven Bennan) dismisses the CIA report as “left-wing fake news.”

2. Almost all scientists agree climate change is real and is caused by humans. But Trump disagrees. And so does Scott Pruitt, his nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency.

3. The F.B.I. and virtually all criminologists agree that the rate of homicides in the U.S. has plummeted in recent years. But Trump says it’s soared. So does Fox News.

4. Most health policy analysts agree that Medicare’s costs are rising both because the costs of health care are rising and the American population is aging. But Paul Ryan and many Republicans in Congress say Medicare itself is to blame.

5. Government data show the rate of illegal immigration has declined sharply over the last ten years, and that undocumented immigrants commit proportionately fewer crimes than native-born Americans. But Trump claims the opposite is true, and both Breitbart and Fox News agree with Trump.

6. Most economists and policy analysts don’t think that tax cuts to the rich result in better wages for most people. But Trump’s economic advisers contend otherwise.

On almost every major issue to be addressed over the next few years, Trump and the rightwing media are already feeding Americans big lies, and trying to discredit traditional sources of truth. This poses one of the greatest threats to our democracy.

What do you think?


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Donald Trump's Nazi Problem Has Gotten Out Again Print
Monday, 02 January 2017 09:21

Booker writes: "The alt-right was energized by the election of Trump and had been optimistic their controversial views, which embrace white supremacist and anti-Semitic ideas, were finding their way into mainstream politics."

A supporter of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump shows a bumper sticker reading 'I am a Deplorable' at Mohegan Sun Arena in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., on Oct. 10. (photo: Dominick Reuter/AFP/Getty Images)
A supporter of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump shows a bumper sticker reading 'I am a Deplorable' at Mohegan Sun Arena in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., on Oct. 10. (photo: Dominick Reuter/AFP/Getty Images)


Donald Trump's Nazi Problem Has Gotten Out Again

By Brakkton Booker, NPR News

02 January 17

 

rift has surfaced within the alt-right, the movement closely associated with white supremacism that has been celebrating Donald Trump's election as president. In fact, they are planning a big event around Trump's inauguration — the "DeploraBall."

Organizers of the event, which plays off Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables" swipe at some Trump supporters, have rescinded the invitation of a prominent social media personality with the alt-right movement, Tim Treadstone, better known by his Twitter handle @bakedalaska.

He tweeted on Monday anti-Semitic and racist comments that included "it's a common fact the media is run in majority by Jewish people, it's similar to observing blacks are good at basketball."

Another alt-right leader, author and organizer of the DeploraBall, Mike Cernovich, appears to have reached out directly to Treadstone to tell him it was not wise to raise the "JQ?" — or Jewish Question when he is a featured guest at the event. Cernovich also urged no Nazi salutes either, a gesture popular with the movement.

That's when things got heated and turned public.

Treadstone posted the private correspondence between him and Cernovich. Then posted a 45-minute tirade he titled "Oy vey! Banned from Deploraball."

The Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi publication, weighed in on the feud and sided with Treadstone: "The Deploraball is apparently an attempt at a sanitized, cuckolded, pro-Jew version of the NPI conference." It also lashed out at the event's organizers for previously uninviting leading alt-right figures like Richard Spencer and Sam Hyde.

Others sided with Treadstone and took to burning Cernovich's book Gorilla Mindset.

As we have reported, the alt-right was energized by the election of Trump and had been optimistic their controversial views, which embrace white supremacist and anti-Semitic ideas, were finding their way into mainstream politics. A further jolt was given to alt-right supporters following Trump's appointment of Steve Bannon, who previously ran Breitbart News, to be his senior strategist. Bannon has said in the past that Breitbart is "a platform for the alt-right," but after the election said there should be "zero-tolerance" for anti-Semitism.

This is not the first time organizers for the DeploraBall have garnered unwanted attention surrounding the event. Earlier this month, Fox News reported that a Washington, D.C.-area venue was receiving threatening calls after deciding against hosting the ball.

The DeploraBall is scheduled for Jan. 19 at the National Press Club, a day before President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Here Are Seven Ways You Can Keep Fighting for Justice in 2017 Print
Sunday, 01 January 2017 13:52

Oluo writes: "No matter how much we'd like to hide in our homes for the next four years, we know that we cannot do that. We must fight for equality and justice. But the question is: how? What action can we take in the aftermath of such a heartbreaking defeat?"

'We enter 2017 in full knowledge that this year will likely be no better than the last one.' (photo: Timothy A. Clary/AFP/Getty Images)
'We enter 2017 in full knowledge that this year will likely be no better than the last one.' (photo: Timothy A. Clary/AFP/Getty Images)


Here Are Seven Ways You Can Keep Fighting for Justice in 2017

By Ijeoma Oluo, Guardian UK

01 January 17

 

It’s reasonable to just want to hibernate for the next four years. But that won’t help make things better

e just ended the worst year. Now starts, well: the worst worst year. Those of us appalled and terrified by the election of Donald Trump and the open rise of white supremacy in America ended 2016 exhausted and disillusioned. Now we enter 2017 in full knowledge that this year will probably be no better.

No matter how much we’d like to hide in our homes for the next four years, we know that we cannot do that. We must fight for equality and justice. But the question is: how? What action can we take in the aftermath of such a heartbreaking defeat?

As we start this new year, here are some resolutions for resistance.

Check your sources

Yes, we are really living in a dystopian future where we can’t be sure of what is true and what isn’t. A sensational story cross your eye? Yes, it may well be accurate. But it could also be made up by a teenager in a basement in Milwaukee, because we apparently live in a horrible world these days.

Check the links on all articles to verify that those links actually back up what the original article is saying with source material. No links? Try to find a more reliable source to back up the story. No luck? Then do not share that story. Write down the name of that publication and avoid them in the future.

Check the “about us” page of unfamiliar sites: is there actual staff? A lot of fake news sites will try to avoid criticism by calling themselves “satire” (note: the Onion is satire; fake news sites are really trying to trick you). Other red flags: website names that are close but not quite the same as established and reputable news sites, lack of dates on articles, lack of author name on articles, anonymous sources that can’t be verified (ex: “a friend said”, “someone at the scene said”, “our sources say”).

Diversify your news

The internet gives us a plethora of potential news sources. But we can still find ourselves consuming a dozen versions of the exact same viewpoint and convincing ourselves that we are well-informed.

When I was an undergrad political science student, I had an international relations professor who not only required that we read three separate and very different papers each day, but that we read the local, national, international and economic sections of each.

Then she would discuss a topic that had appeared in the papers and would test our ability to separate facts from the multiple interpretations given across the papers. This exercise taught me how widely the truth can be shaped and stretched, and how there can indeed be multiple truths for very important issues, depending on viewpoint.

It’s a lesson I try not to forget. Try to diversify not only the subject matter you read, but the ideology of the publishers and the identities of the writers.

Put your money where your mouth is

Make this the year that your money does the talking. Upset about the housing crisis in your area? Donate to a shelter. Believe in abortion rights? Donate to Planned Parenthood. Believe in small business? Shop local. Believe in equal opportunity? Support minority-owned businesses.

And don’t put your money into the businesses and banks that profit off the oppression of others or the destruction of the environment.

Pay attention to local politics

Guess what? There will be an election in 2017, and in 2018, and, well – you get the point. Local elections are where your vote counts the most and local votes are some of the most important votes you can make.

What happens in your town can affect what happens in your county, then your state, your region and, ultimately, in the nation. School levies, minimum wages, city council elections – these votes have a real and almost immediate impact on your life and the lives of your community. Don’t give that power away. Stay informed about what is happening locally. And vote.

Decentralize whiteness

Just about every aspect of western culture centralizes whiteness. Our history, infrastructure, medical system, justice system, education system, entertainment industry – and yes, our social justice organizations – all do this. Whiteness is default, it’s ubiquitous and it’s insidious.

We don’t have to purposefully center whiteness. When we neglect to decentralize it, it will be automatically centered. So work to decentralize whiteness: in your children’s school lessons, in your PTA meetings, in your office meetings, in your city council meetings, in the film and TV you watch, in the music you listen to, in the leaders you support. If you do not decentralize whiteness in your movements for progress, you will leave people of color behind. And what kind of progress is that?

Understand your privilege

Just about all of us have some privilege, and it is very important for us to be aware and to be willing to name that privilege.

Your privilege is where you have the most power. Your privilege is the little piece of an oppressive system that you own and can therefore change. For example, I am not disabled – this is a major area of privilege for me. I’m very glad that I know this, because, when I am asked to speak on diversity panels, I can ask if there will also be disabled speakers, ramps and sign language interpreters.

My privilege means that I’m asked to speak at more panels than disabled people are. My voice is in the room while disabled voices are not: being aware of that keeps me aware of my power to help change that. If I refused to recognize that privilege (and there was a time where I would have let guilt or just fear of confrontation keep me from doing so) I would simply remain a part of an oppressive system, even while claiming to work for liberation.

Remember what you’re fighting for

It is very easy to become hyper-focused on what we’re fighting against – neo-Nazis, Islamophobia, racism, sexism. But nothing is a better and more important motivator than what we are fighting for. We are fighting for our communities, for our families, for our future.

What keeps you in the battle? Keep that close to your heart and let it be the light that guides your way.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Is Trump's Revelation the Same as Craig Murray's Revelation: An American Cut-Out? Print
Sunday, 01 January 2017 11:52

Wheeler writes: "Because security professionals are so confident in the Russian attribution of the DNC hack, they have largely ignored alternative theories from the likes of Wikileaks and Bill Binney. That's unfortunate, because Craig Murray, in his description of his own role in getting the Podesta files to Wikileaks, at least, revealed a detail that needs greater attention. He believes he received something (perhaps the documents themselves, perhaps something else) from a person with ties to US national security."

Craig Murray (left), former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange (right). (photo: AFP/Getty Images)
Craig Murray (left), former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange (right). (photo: AFP/Getty Images)


Is Trump's Revelation the Same as Craig Murray's Revelation: An American Cut-Out?

By Marcy Wheeler, Emptywheel

01 January 17

 

ecause security professionals are so confident in the Russian attribution of the DNC hack, they have largely ignored alternative theories from the likes of Wikileaks and Bill Binney. That’s unfortunate, because Craig Murray, in his description of his own role in getting the Podesta files to Wikileaks, at least, revealed a detail that needs greater attention. He believes he received something (perhaps the documents themselves, perhaps something else) from a person with ties to US national security.

[I]f we believe that Murray believes this, we know that the intermediary can credibly claim to have ties to American national security.

So on September 25, Murray met a presumed American in DC for a hand-off related to the Podesta hack.

I raise that because Trump is now promising we’ll learn something this week about the hack that may cast doubt on the claims Russia was behind it.

He added: “And I know a lot about hacking. And hacking is a very hard thing to prove. So it could be somebody else. And I also know things that other people don’t know, and so they cannot be sure of the situation.”

When asked what he knew that others did not, Mr. Trump demurred, saying only, “You’ll find out on Tuesday or Wednesday.”

If Murray met an American claiming to have done the hack, then Trump may have too. That doesn’t mean the Russians didn’t do the hack (though it could mean an American borrowed GRU’s tools to do it). It could just as easily mean the Russians have an American cut-out, and that while the security community has been looking for Russian-speaking proxies, they’ve ignored the possibility of American ones.

I have a suspicion that Trump’s campaign did meet with such a person (I even have a guess about when it would have happened).

I guess we’ll learn more this week.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 Next > End >>

Page 1777 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN