February 4, 2012

On January 24, the Yale Political Union finally debated abortion directly. The fight had been simmering for a while; every week or three someone references it on the floor; it’s the cause célèbre of Right ...]]> By NATHANAEL DERANEY

February 4, 2012

On January 24, the Yale Political Union finally debated abortion directly. The fight had been simmering for a while; every week or three someone references it on the floor; it’s the cause célèbre of Right and comes up in speeches and especially questions quite often. Half of the members of the Right who showed up for the debate had just returned from the National Right to Life March in Washington, and WLH 119 remained packed for the two hours of the debate. Yet despite the enthusiasm of the Right, despite the passion of the guest, when the vote finally came, Resolved: Repeal Roe vs. Wade failed 36-25.

The Union is Yale’s largest undergraduate organization, and each week features a guest who speaks on a chosen resolution; students may question the guest and make their own speeches, and then the body as a whole votes on the resolution at the end of the evening. That Tuesday evening the guest was Timothy Goeglein, top lobbyist for Focus on the Family, a disciple of Karl Rove, and the founder of Bush’s Office of Faith-Based Initiatives and adviser to the president before resigning over plagiarism. In all eight Yale students gave speeches that night, responding to Goeglein and to each other, with numerous others asking questions. Attendance peaked at around a hundred students, and the room was far from quiet: as is tradition, members of the Union express support for a point by pounding desks and thighs, disapproval by hissing. The energy was not limited to the Right; several times during Mr. Goeglein’s speech, his words were completely drowned out by hissing (no mean feat), and the pounding during negative speeches was at least as strong as that during affirmative ones.

Mr. Goeglein, despite having informed the Union he would speak primarily about the constitutionality of Roe, immediately made his speech about abortion itself and “the tyranny of abortion-on-demand.” Further, it was an intensely partisan speech; Goeglein spent at least a third of it attacking Obama as an abortionist and, “if he really cared about women,” a hypocrite. Three main tactics of the anti-choice right were on display: first, that abortion is a danger to women’s health; second, relatedly, that regulation for safety and away from the “absolute right” of Roe is necessary; third, that abortion redounds to racist ends (he claimed that Planned Parenthood is “targeting” African-American and Hispanic women). Despite his “concern” for the health of women and for lowering the abortion rate, under questioning by he did not support any system whereby contraception might be made more available, and it was clear that the “safety regulations” he supported were designed chiefly to constrain and strangle as many clinics as possible–a strategy that has been on clear display in Virginia and Kansas.

Following Mr. Goeglein were three docketed speeches–longer speeches selected and prepared in advance. The first negative was given by Kara Brower ’13 of the Party of the Right; the second affirmative by Jeremy Weltmer ’13 also of that party, and the second negative by Jess Belding ’13 of the Party of the Left. Mr. Weltmer’s argument hinged on the voluntary nature of sex and its consequence, pregnancy; he claimed that, even if pregnancy was oppression for women, the government could not intervene against any oppression that derived from choice, not accident of birth. Both negative speeches concentrated on reasoning out the right to abortion: that the government should not intervene against “moral gray areas” and that Roe could be well supported by appeal to the 13th Amendment prohibition of involuntary servitude–directly calling out the “forced birth” position. Ms. Belding also pointed out, amidst some of the loudest pounding of the night, how it “follows in the great legal heritage of not trusting women” and, in a move that she herself found “disturbingly libertarian,” she translated it for the Right: if you don’t trust the government to spend money, she asked, why do you trust it to intervene within the family itself? This was a line of argument that proved convincing; a number of members on the Right, particularly in the somewhat-libertarian Party of the Right, in the end voted against Repeal Roe.

The speech most strongly in the affirmative was given by Isabel Marin ’12 of the Federalist Party, who dismissed comparison between the “potential horror” of unwanted pregnancy and the “murder of 3500 babies per day.” Ms. Marin is well-known to the Union for her passion and eloquence on this subject, bringing it up in debates on everything from economics to genetic engineering; she spoke for double her allotted time before finally being gaveled down. The strongest speech in the negative was given by Marian Homans-Turnbull ’12 of the Liberal Party; in it she marked out the oppression of unwanted pregnancy as very much about one’s inherent condition of being female-bodied, and laid out a sweeping vision for a society wherein we all have full bodily autonomy. Roe was a landmark advance, she said, in the path of establishing women’s rights and as human rights, and to overturn it would be an attack on that entire process and that bedrock conception. Due to time constraints (a desire to watch the State of the Union), and the presumption that the debate would be more about constitutional questions than the morality of abortion itself, no speech was prepared or given directly lauding abortion as a positive good, though a number of members of the body were willing to do so.
As evinced by the sharply divided pounding and hissing–with the Left hissing as the Right pounded, and vice versa–the sides in the room were often talking past each other. This is not surprising, as despite the occasional attempts of various Third Way groups to “find common ground,” there is not all that much that can be said between those who believe in bodily autonomy and those who do not, or those who believe that human life begins at conception and those who do not. Both points came up during the two hour debate; neither Mr. Goeglein nor any other member of the affirmative gave any argument for their definition of human life, despite being asked multiple times; no member of the negative, despite often agreeing to the idea that abortion was “complicated” or “a gray area,” was willing to sacrifice autonomy or make women’s decisions for them.
Instead, as was made particularly clear during the questions put to Mr. Goeglein and his answers, the common-groundist approach of “safe, legal, rare” has turned into strangle-with-regulation and deny-contraception. One can only conclude that something other or beyond a desire to lower the frequency of abortion is at work here. It all comes back to Ms. Belding’s point: the anti-choice position is yet another in the “great…heritage of not trusting women.” It is here, perhaps, that the pro-choice movement should concentrate: rather than vainly attempting to find common ground on safety regulations and contraception, the focus should instead be on convincing us all to, finally, trust women.

Nathanael Deraney is a junior in Berkeley College. He is a contributing writer for Broad Recognition.

The first semi-annual Yale University Report of Complaints of Sexual Misconduct was released to the student body, staff, and faculty members, by Stephanie Spangler Tuesday evening. Spangler was charged with overseeing Yale’s By HANNAH ZEAVIN
February 1, 2012

The first semi-annual Yale University Report of Complaints of Sexual Misconduct was released to the student body, staff, and faculty members, by Stephanie Spangler Tuesday evening. Spangler was charged with overseeing Yale’s Title IX office after sixteen students, including this and other Broad Recognition editors, filed a Title IX complaint with the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Education last March.  However, nearly all of this information was readily available in different sections of the Yale University website.

The report contains details of all reports filed through Yale’s various redress mechanisms: the new Title IX coordinator, the University Wide Committee on Sexual Misconduct (both formal and informal complaints), the Yale Police, and the human resources office.

According to the Report, 29 undergraduates reported experiencing sexual misconduct, along with thirteen graduate and professional students, seven staff, two faculty members, and one person not affiliated with the University who experienced misconduct by a student affiliated with the University.  It is important to note that these figures only represent the students who used the reporting mechanisms. This Report excludes those who may have filed complaints through the New Haven Police Department, and those who did not report.  Though it is a truism, it is important to note that these statistics do not encompass all acts of sexual misconduct that occurred this academic year.

The documents lists, by reporting mechanism, the classification (i.e. college student, student, staff, faculty) of the complainants and respondents. It also briefly discusses the nature of the complaint, the gender of each respondent and complainant, and the resolution of the case, excluding all identifying details.

The Report indicates that men are seeking redress for sexual misconduct that they have experienced, perpetrated by both male and female respondents.  Though rape is stereotypically thought of, and depicted, as a problem unique to women, it most certainly is not. This often serves to discourage men from reporting.

Noticeably, the Report was not restricted to the student body, and discussed cases between students, staff, and faculty, as well as cases in which there was no student respondent or complainant. This further demonstrates that the sexually hostile environment present on our college community, and communities around the country, is also wide-spread in higher levels of the academy. Ten faculty members were respondents in these cases, and though Title IX law does not protect faculty and staff in the same mode as it does students, two alleged that they had been the targets of sexual misconduct.  One faculty member respondent was “relieved of his teaching duties.”

The Report exceeds legal requirements for reporting, but, as President Levin wrote in his follow-up statement, this serves as a gesture towards transparency. While it is true that the document is a step in the right direction, much of the information contained within it was already available, though not actively disseminated to students.  Anyone, whether or not they are affiliated with the University, has access to the archived results of the Executive Committee and the former Sexual Harassment Grievance Board. Though the Sexual Harassment Grievance Board has been replaced by the University Wide Committee, one can assume that in keeping with the Cleary Act, that body would also make a record of its activities available.  Because there was no listed Title IX coordinator before the Title IX complaint was filed in March of last year, that reporting mechanism did not compile such a report.  Whenever a report is made to the Yale Police, the Cleary Act mandates that students have access to that information. However, the University was found out of compliance with that Act last year.

Levin’s transparency comes on the heels of the New York Times exposé of Patrick Witt and his alleged assault of another student.  While the informal complaint is one of those listed in this release, Levin did not address the allegations that he signed Witt’s Rhodes Scholarship endorsement while that complaint was pending.  Levin has not explicitly addressed the student body at all in regards to those allegations, leaving open the question of whether the University administration was complicit in a cover-up.

Spangler wrote in her email, “The number and scope of complaints make it abundantly clear that there is more that we must do as a community and as individuals to prevent sexual misconduct and to ensure that Yale’s culture is optimally supportive and unfailingly respectful of all individuals.” While a pressing goal of the utmost importance, it remains to be seen how the administration will encourage the community to prevent such misconduct.

Hannah Zeavin is a senior in Yale College. She is the Editor-in-Chief of Broad Recognition.

Last week, Newt Gingrich’s ex-wife, Marianne Gingrich, alleged that Gingrich had asked her to join him in an open marriage after she found out about his affair with current-wife Callista Gingrich (then Callista ...]]> By ANDREW WAGNER
January 31, 2012

Last week, Newt Gingrich’s ex-wife, Marianne Gingrich, alleged that Gingrich had asked her to join him in an open marriage after she found out about his affair with current-wife Callista Gingrich (then Callista Bisek). The only other time I personally remember hearing about open marriages from the media is in an episode of Arrested Development. Tobias, a former psychiatrist, and his wife, Lindsey, are having marital troubles. Tobias mentions to Lindsey that he has advised some of his patients to try out open marriages in order to save their own relationships. “Well, did it work for those people?” asks Lindsey. Tobias responds, “No, it never does. I mean, these people somehow delude themselves into thinking it might—but it might work for us.”

Open marriages, when not condemned in the media as outright immoral, are typically depicted as being weaker than traditional marriages, and bound for failure. As Gingrich comes under fire for his open marriage proposal, bringing open marriages into the national limelight, some members of the polyamory community have been unexpectedly compelled to defend Gingrich.

Legitimizing the very idea of polyamory has become a necessary first step. In a piece written for Salon, Sierra Black talks about her own, successful polyamorous lifestyle, asserting, “My marriage is open. It’s also happy and stable.” Black notes that polyamory isn’t for everyone, but explains the joys she and her husband personally get from it: “ I get so much support from my lovers. No one else, not my friends, not my parents, no one, is as willing to deal with the messes and mishaps of parenting as my sweeties.” Polyamory is such a hidden taboo in our society that its sudden entrance into the mainstream necessitates explanation and defense from those who are polyamorous, such as Black.

The context for Gingrich’s request, after his affair had been discovered, suggests to many that open marriages are only something desperate men spring on their wives when they want to continue an affair. Tristan Taormino, author of the book Opening Up: Creating and Sustaining Open Relationships, says, “We’re hearing that there was actually an attempt at an open negotiation. In a way, he gave her an opportunity to consent to it or not.” In Taormorino’s view, Gingrich wasn’t merely trying to force his wife into letting him have more sex, but instead was trying to openly discuss with his wife the possibility of an open marriage.

Black, on the other hand, distances polyamory from Gingrich. She writes that, unlike Gingrich’s scenario, “my husband’s and my open marriage has been based on openness and honesty from day one.” For Black, Gingrich’s “open marriage” would have been built on deceit, lying and shame—not an ideal comparison to convince people of the validity of her own open marriage. She thus makes clear that her open marriage—a “successful” one—is wholly different in character from Gingrich’s. She and her husband happily consent to each other’s extra-marital relationships and enjoy sharing stories of their other girlfriends. In essence, Black is trying to reclaim polyamory from the shady, shameful associations evoked by stories like Gingrich’s. Unlike Gingrich’s situation, Black’s open marriage is not a case of one partner urging or pressuring the other into transforming their relationship into an open one. Both Black and her husband wanted a polyamorous, open relationship with each other before they decided to get married. Her open marriage and many others just like it are formed because both partners mutually desire an open relationship, not because one partner is trying to accommodate another partner’s whims.

Taormino notes, however, that open marriages don’t always start in the “honest,” ideal  way that Black describes. “Plenty of the couples that I talked to for my book came to a place of non-monogamy from cheating. I think it would be a mistake to dismiss this as Newt wanting to have his cake and eat it too,” says Taormino.

Gingrich’s open marriage came up at the recent South Carolina debate last Friday. Gingrich denied that he had ever asked Marianne for an open marriage (“The story is false!”) and received applause from the Republicans in the audience. Dan Savage notes in a piece he wrote for the New York Times that such a reaction shows that conservative voters are fine with Gingrich’s previous adultery, but not with an openly non-monogamous relationship. This, at first, seems incredibly hypocritical—what rationale could conservatives possibly have for tolerating a politician’s adulterous relationships, but not an open marriage?

Upon investigation, this isn’t quite so strange. Adultery, while a breach of the marriage contract, is still something of an affirmation of the basic rightness of the traditional institution of marriage. Adultery is typically discussed by most as a sin or crime one “commits,” suggesting (if not explicitly stating) disapproval. A person who has committed adultery is expected to feel guilty about cheating on their spouse, in turn implying that a monogamous marital relationship is the best relationship. In an open marriage, however, extra-marital relations are not denounced as sinful or damaging to the relationship but rather celebrated, thereby contending that monogamy is but one of many ways to successfully structure a relationship. As Amanda Marcotte writes, “There’s nothing nontraditional about what Gingrich was asking for, which is why the traditionalist voters didn’t hold it against him.” Adultery fits into our normative assumptions of the supremacy of the monogamous relationship. Open marriages challenge it.

Andrew Wagner is a freshman in Yale College.  He is a contributing writer for Broad Recognition.

January 31, 2012

As the Republican primaries move into Florida and beyond, the field has narrowed down to a few remaining candidates. Now that the pool is smaller it is important to take a look at all four ...]]> By EMMA JANGER

January 31, 2012

As the Republican primaries move into Florida and beyond, the field has narrowed down to a few remaining candidates. Now that the pool is smaller it is important to take a look at all four candidates positions on issues that affect us as women and as feminists.

Romney: As of the current polling in Florida, Romney is once again the presumed front-runner for the nomination. His positions regarding, well everything, are the most complex to analyze; the positions he advocates for on the campaign trail are quite different from those he enacted while governor of Massachusetts. Although he was pro-choice in the early 2000s, his views have since “evolved and deepened” (his words) and he has now signed a pro-life pledge stating that he would support the overturning of Roe v. Wade and that abortion should be “limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.” After this change of heart he has pledged to de-fund Planned Parenthood. The only silver lining in all this flip-flopping? He refuses to sign the Susan B. Anthony pledge for fear that it would overreach and defend numerous hospitals. Furthermore when asked about federal bans on birth control, Romney entirely evaded the question.
That said, it is hard to understand the affects he would have were he in office: “Just two months after he switched his position on abortion, Romney nominated a Democrat who ran for the state legislature as a ‘pro-choice’ candidate to a perch on a state district court”, (ABC News, 6/14/07). Similarly, his views on health care are widely inconsistent. Although he now advocates for the repeal of health care reform, it was Massachusetts’s health care plan that served as a model for Obama’s national plan. What is most worrisome about Romney is that it is impossible to know how he would act were he in office.

Gingrich: Newt Gingrich has been slipping in the polls since his win in South Carolina, yet he is still considered the most viable non-Romney candidate. He has signed the Susan B. Anthony pledge, promising to nominate anti-choice Supreme Court Justices and Cabinet members, to advance anti-choice legislation, to defund not only Planned Parenthood but “all other contractors and recipients of federal funds with affiliates that perform or fund abortions” and “to protect children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.” This is unsurprising given that he voted anti-choice 72 times while in the US House of Representatives. Gingrich has said that he would also repeal Obama’s health care reform.
Whether or not personal choices should have a bearing on politics, his track record with marriage and affairs is particularly sordid. This has led many to question his character in general, especially how he values and treats women both inside and outside the home. This seems to have already caused him some trouble with female voters. Of voters who rank themselves equal levels of conservativeness, Romney and Gingrich were tied among men, but Gingrich trailed by 13 percent among women.

Santorum: Rick Santorum has a despicable record when it comes to women’s rights. He voted against choice 27 times in the House and 72 times in the Senate. He too has signed the Susan B Anthony Pledge and has vowed to repeal health care reform were he to become president.
But Santorum goes even further. He has opposed both the “health of the mother exemption” and the exceptions for abortion in the case of rape and incest, and going so far as to say that doctors who performed such operations could be criminally charged.  In the case of rape he has called pregnancy “nevertheless a gift in a very broken way.” And one of his aides has said, “that childrens’ lives would be harmed if the nation had a female president”

Paul: Despite his claims to being a Libertarian, Ron Paul has been just as anti-choice as the other Republican candidates. He has voted against choice 93 times while in the House.  He has signed the Susan B Anthony Pledge and has voted for the repeal of Health Care Reform. Many of his other views that pertain to women, and society in general, are more out of the mainstream, and will thus probably prevent him from being a serious contender, but they include his belief that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional and that minimum wage should be abolished. Finally he believes that society should not pay for the healthcare of people with AIDS and that federal law should not protect against workplace sexual harassment.

While today’s Florida primary election could pick the republican candidate for President, it’s important to note that not one of these serious political contenders has had anywhere near a pro-choice and pro-women record. The fact that these ideas and leaders are able to espouse such incredibly sexist positions and be taken seriously is terrifying. For a more comprehensive look at the candidates’ positions, check the scorecard compiled by Emily’s List.

Emma Janger is a freshman in Yale College.  She is a staff writer for Broad Recognition.

In 1984, Roger Gail Lyon spoke in front of Congress asking that more efforts be made to combat the new disease that was killing him. In Congress, he made an iconic ...]]> By CHAMONIX ADAMS PORTER
January 26, 2012

In 1984, Roger Gail Lyon spoke in front of Congress asking that more efforts be made to combat the new disease that was killing him. In Congress, he made an iconic statement: “I came here today with the hope that this administration would do everything possible, make every resource available—there is no reason this disease cannot be conquered. We do not need in fighting, this is not a political issue. This is a health issue. This is not a gay issue. This is a human issue. And I do not intend to be defeated by it. I came here today in the hope that my epitaph would not read that I died of red tape.”

Roger Gail Lyon died later that year. In the early years of the epidemic in America, HIV prevention methods were poorly understood. Today, through the incredible efforts of researchers and activists, HIV is a completely preventable disease. The most vulnerable and oppressed people in America, though, continue to “die of red tape.”

One of the most effective ways of preventing the transmission of HIV and other blood-borne infections is syringe exchange programs, in which intravenous drug users turn in used needles and receive clean ones in exchange. This prevents addicts from sharing needles with others who already have the disease.  One-third of HIV positive people in the United States contract it directly from IV drug use, and many more from sexual contact with infected drug users.

Syringe exchange programs are also one of the most cost-effective HIV prevention methods. Syringes cost less than ten cents, while lifetime anti-retroviral HIV treatment on average costs $385,200. According to The Harm Reduction Coalition, this is enough to prevent 30 HIV transmissions through syringe exchange programs. Additionally, six government studies and much outside scholarship have found that syringe exchanges do not promote increases in drug use rates. In fact, as they provide safe, non-judgmental space for users, they are often a path to rehabilitation and recovery.

In light of this, it was shocking when the FY2012 Budget reinstated a ban on federal funding for syringe exchange programs that President Obama had lifted in 2009. With a single sentence, the budget slashed one of the most important tools in HIV prevention. According to The Drug Policy Alliance, 32,000 people in the US are infected with HIV and Hepatitis C from sharing dirty needles each year.  Without federal funding for syringes, each and every one of these people’s lives will be in danger.

This, though, is not merely a health issue: this is a feminist issue. The people who will suffer most from the reinstatement of the ban are women—particularly poor women, queer women, and women of color. Feminists must make syringe exchange a key political issue in the upcoming year. Vocally and actively opposing the ban is a necessary facet in the ongoing fight for social justice.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report that in the United Sates, 61% of HIV cases in women are caused by drug use or sexual contact with someone who contracted HIV from sharing needles. In 2009, women comprised 23% of Americans newly infected with HIV. The incidence of HIV in women of color is staggering: 1 in 32 African-American women will contract the virus in her lifetime. The CDC goes on to state, “from 2000–2007, HIV infection was among the top 10 leading causes of death for black females aged 10–54 and Hispanic/Latina females aged 15–54.” The funding ban, then, will only serve to exacerbate the challenges women of color face.

Sex workers are also disproportionately affected by HIV and drug use. A study of sex work among women at US syringe exchange programs found that the percentage of women who were sex workers ranged from 15% to 40%. Sex workers are also very likely to have sex with drug users, and may not be able to negotiate condom use, thereby potentially leaving themselves open to HIV infection from clients, especially in light of the ban.

Poor women are more likely to be drug users, and their addictions exacerbate their poverty. The same study indicated that 53.8% of women at syringe exchange programs who frequently sold sex had lived on the streets in the last six months. Only 42.5% had graduated high school. The ban, then, will heavily impact these vulnerable populations, who are rarely able to afford HIV treatment.

Queer people of all genders will also disproportionately suffer as a result of the federal funding ban. The National Network for Youth estimates that up to 40% of street youth identify as gay or lesbian. When transgender and queer people are included, the figures are even more staggering.  A National Gay and Lesbian Task Force study indicates that 26% of surveyed gay males became homeless the day they came out. Unsafe schools, unwelcoming families and discriminatory workplaces leave LGBT young people with few options, making them turn to drugs and sex work in disproportionate numbers; 46% of transgender youth reported sex work. Much like in the case of women sex workers, syringe exchange programs are one of the only barriers between these young people and blood-borne diseases.

Transgender people are also at particular risk as those who buy black-market hormones rarely have access to safe, clean needles. For many transgender people, hormone treatments are essential for good mental health and to help prevent violence against them in the work place and elsewhere based on gender presentation. A San Francisco Transgender Health Project study found that over 50% of clients had injected hormones outside of traditional medical settings. As 29% of transgender people have experienced harassment in medical settings, and as transgender people are four times as likely to have an annual income of under $10,000 than the general population, it is unsurprising that the hormone black market is flourishing. Without needle exchanges, these many transgender people will have struggle even more to find safe access to the hormones that they need. They, like so many other impoverished and excluded populations, will have a vital health measure removed.

The federal government made a cowardly decision at the end of last year. The language of the ban does not cut any money—it simply makes it impossible for groups to apply the funding in the best way that they see fit. HIV prevention groups will no longer be able to use federal funds to buy needles—thus limiting one of the most effective ways of stopping the disease. By cutting funding for needle exchange programs specifically, they condemn women, people of color, poor people, queer people, and sex workers to disease and death.

Albert Camus once stated, “It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.” As feminists, as progressives, as activists, we must not stand by as the federal government sentences people to death for their poverty, their work, their gender, their color. We must speak for the politically voiceless. Feminists have changed the world a thousand times over before—and we can do it again.

If we believe that discrimination is wrong, we will stand in opposition of the ban. If we want to claim the “AIDS-Free Generation” our president so optimistically speaks about, we will push him to not include the ban in his FY2013 budget and to push Congress to remove the ban.

Roger Gail Lyon died of red tape. He died because to the federal government, he was unimportant—after all, he was a homosexual sufferer of a disease of difference. The ban on federal funding for syringe exchange programs will only perpetuate the myth that some people are disposable, and that it is not our obligation to prevent disease whenever possible. Feminists, as leaders and “thinking people,” must apply our skills, our energy, and our passion to this issue. No one should have to die of red tape.

Chamonix Adams Porter is a freshman in Yale College.  She is a staff writer for Broad Recognition.

Since 1929, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has defined rape as “the carnal knowledge of a woman, forcibly and against her will.” This meant that, according to the FBI, men could not ...]]> By CHAMONIX ADAMS PORTER
January 10, 2012

Since 1929, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has defined rape as “the carnal knowledge of a woman, forcibly and against her will.” This meant that, according to the FBI, men could not be raped and sexual violence against intoxicated or drugged people was also ignored. On January 5, however, the FBI expanded their definition of rape to “penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

This new definition is beneficial because it acknowledges that rape is not always “forcible.” Because it does not require physical coercion, the definition includes statutory rape and rape by threat or emotional abuse. It also takes into account the interaction between consent, drugs and alcohol: that is, that an inebriated person cannot give consent. According to a Pepperdine University report, 90% of rapes on university campuses involve alcohol, so the decision has the potential to bring many more assailants to justice.

Acknowledging that people other than women can be raped is also very positive. An estimated 3% of men have experienced sexual violence, and these men of course deserve the same protection under the law as female victims. Additionally, framing rape as something that can only happen to women perpetuates the model of men as an all-powerful, invulnerable, untouchable class. To define men this way is to define women as weak, powerless victims, which simply allows for more sexual violence to occur.

As it does not stipulate the sex or gender of the victim or perpetrator, this definition allows genderqueer, agender, and other non-binary people to seek help for sexual assault. Although little concrete data exists, one study found that 50% of transgender and genderqueer individuals had experienced sexual violence. The definition, then, can help to better address the needs of queer people.

The new definition is not perfect. It does not address that not all sexual violence involves oral, anal, or vaginal penetration—for instance in cases where victims perform oral sex on. The change in definition also does not necessarily mean follow-through from law enforcement officials. The change will only be effective in curtailing sexual violence if it is accompanied by education for police, lawyers, and judges. The definition is certainly progress, but every case that reaches the FBI is one too many rapes. The government must work to teach citizens the new definition of rape, and therefore prevent these crimes from happening at all. The definition change, though, is a step in the right direction.

Chamomix Adams Porter is a freshman in Yale College.  She is a staff writer for Broad Recognition.

On January 3, the New York District Attorney dropped charges against Yaribely Almonte for self-abortion.  The 20 year-old New York City resident was arrested in November after a fetus that was later traced to ...]]> By JESS MCHUGH
January 7, 2012

On January 3, the New York District Attorney dropped charges against Yaribely Almonte for self-abortion.  The 20 year-old New York City resident was arrested in November after a fetus that was later traced to her was found in the dumpster outside her apartment building.  The building’s superintendent discovered the fetus in a plastic bag.  Authorities said that Almonte admitted to having consumed an herbal tea that is marketed as a way to induce miscarriage in the 25th week of her pregnancy.  This tea, called hierba de ruda, costs about $3 and is advertised prominently in many drugstores all over Washington Heights.  The autopsy of the fetus, however, was inconclusive and authorities are not certain that the tea was the cause of death or whether the fetus was delivered alive and died sometime after birth.

The uncertainties of the autopsy, however, were not given as reason for the charges dropped; no specific explanation was released to the public.  Self-abortion cases are rarely brought to trial and even more rarely convicted and thus, the outcome of this case is in keeping with the New York State’s legal precedent.  In Almonte’s case, though, the issue is more complicated than the usually clear-cut lawful right to choose in the United States. Abortion is legal up until the 24th week of pregnancy in New York.  So the question remains: in a country where abortion is legal and state where they are unusual accessible, why did Almonte wait until a week after the legal period had passed, and why did she ingest a miscarriage-inducing herb when she could have had a legal abortion? What barriers to medical care remain for New York women seeking to terminate a pregnancy?

Young pregnant woomen like Yaribely Almonte face disturbing obstacles in Washington Heights.  One article in the Manhattan Daily News reports that in the predominantly black and Latino neighborhood in which she lived abortion was not considered socially acceptable.  In Washington Heights and other communities like it, the stigma of abortion—often rooted in religious belief—
coupled with high poverty rates can put young women in an impossible situation. We cannot forget that, despite legal protections, even outside of the sub-culture of Washington Heights it is often extremely difficult to seek support and medical care when faced with unplanned pregnancy.

The dismissal of the charges against Almonte is a complicated victory for feminists. Almonte’s case draws attention to the fact that despite the existence of legal abortions, some women still feel forced to terminate unwanted pregnancies through their own means.  Whether because of cultural stigma, insufficient funds, or lack of access to clinics, pregnant women—particularly those coming from marginalized neighborhoods—are not always given the support they need to exercise their right to reproductive choice safely.  One would think the U.S. had moved beyond the era of dangerous self-abortion methods, the wire hanger a system of a darker time, but this case and others like it prove the continuation of such practices.  As Andrea Miller, president of Pro-Choice New York, commented that in this case, “It should have been a public health matter not a criminal matter.”

Jess McHugh is a freshman in Yale College. She is a contributing writer for Broad Recognition.

Jessica Valenti is a young feminist superstar. She’s best known for founding feministing.com and helping to build it into one of the most prominent, respected sources of online feminist journalism—all while speaking across the country, ...]]> By JULIA CALAGIOVANNI
January 4, 2012

Jessica Valenti is a young feminist superstar. She’s best known for founding feministing.com and helping to build it into one of the most prominent, respected sources of online feminist journalism—all while speaking across the country, teaching at Rutgers University, and writing books. Although she has stepped down from Feministing, she remains a strong presence in the feminist community, online and off. Her 2009 book The Purity Myth rocked my sixteen-year-old world, so I was excited to hear that it had recently been adapted into a documentary. (It’s available to stream for $4 until February 17th.)

The material is probably not new to most feminists: virginity isn’t real, politicians hate women, and feminism is grossly misunderstood. But like the book, this documentary manages to stay engaging. The film sets Valenti’s commentary against a well-cultivated selection of television clips, newspaper headlines, and pop-culture examples. It’s a slightly updated version of the book itself, with all of the legislative and cultural insanity of 2011 (remember that time Republicans almost shut down the government?) included. By drawing on popular films and music, Valenti shows just how deeply these myths are embedded into American culture. How better to illustrate the virgin/whore divide than with Taylor Swift and Britney Spears clips?

The documentary gleans plenty of material from the work of those in the abstinence-only movement. We’ve heard it all before, but to actually witness an ‘educator’ say, “Personally, I love gender stereotyping…a man wants to kill a dragon…and save a princess,” or to see a talking head claim that a woman’s greatest source of pride is keeping a clean house, startles and infuriates anew. At times, the opinions espoused seem identical to Stephen Colbert’s assertion that Plan B will turn young women into “wanton harlots with an insatiable sexual appetite” or the infamous scene in Mean Girls where a gym teacher warns students, “Don’t have sex, or you will get pregnant and die.” In Valenti’s words, “parody is often indistinguishable from reality.”

Valenti’s narration anchors the documentary. She provides enough pop-culture to get an audience’s attention and enough smart commentary to keep them outraged. Her tone could come off as strident or mocking—she’s frustrated, and rightfully so— which might turn off some viewers. But really, what better way to take on a movement that essentially tells women to stay pure and keep quiet? She rips into abstinence-only sex education, the passive feminine ideal, the infantilization of “virginal” women, and the legislative attacks on women’s reproductive autonomy and health. She also makes important intersectional points—that the “purity” movement has a very specific idea of the “perfect virgin” (thin, white, fairly financially secure and, often, Christian) and that queer sexualities or gender identities are not even considered.

That’s a lot to take on in forty-five minutes. She hits on several of points that have received a lot of feminist attention in the past few years, including purity balls, the absurdity of abstinence-only sex education, and the battle over the HPV vaccine. But, while the need to present plenty of evidence is understandable, the film sometimes feels scattered and its order forced. This is a complex issue, and its social, political, and health consequences all deserve examination. The connections between the film’s segments will make sense to viewers already somewhat familiar with the issues at hand, but other audiences could be left somewhat confused.

Personally, I was frustrated that Valenti spoke “of” the youth of America rather than “to” them. She could basically be anyone’s cool, older, enlightened sister, yet seems to pass up an opportunity to speak directly to the youth of America. Her assertion that “We really should be teaching our daughters that their ability to be good people is based on their intelligence, their compassion, their kindness—not what they do with their bodies,” is spot on, but why not say that directly to the young women who may be watching? Those who are most often fed the purity myth could use her perspective the most.

Of course, there is a fine line between making something accessible to teens and diluting it for them. But every teenager who has suffered through a high-school sex-ed class knows that there is a huge disconnect between the abstinence-only message and the reality of their peers’ lives. Some will be willing to consider the politics that Valenti addresses and, maybe, even the f-word (Feminism).

That perspective is desperately needed, as the documentary shows. We can see the many ways this myth is reinforced—in schools, in the media, the political arena, and, most terrifyingly, by the very people charged with raising healthy, empowered children—their parents. A single misguided ideology, with its lobbying groups and its complete denial of the reality of young people’s sexual choices, has so infiltrated American culture that it is taught in our schools and espoused by teenage celebrity idols.

Valenti describes herself as a “feminist evangelist,” and here adopts film as her new pulpit. We have all seen the pervasive effect of the “purity myth,” and it is essential to understand its political ramifications as well as its larger implications—namely, that a visible and vocal movement wants to shame women into passivity, beginning—but not ending—with their sexuality. The Purity Myth’s documentary is a timely and engaging explanation of this threat.

Julia Calagiovanni is a freshman at Yale College. She is a staff writer for Broad Recognition.