Post Operative Obstacles, Part 2

As of this post, I’m approximately 4 ½ months post op, and my recovery is still a work in progress. I knew it would be difficult, but there are still obstacles that I am overcoming. For the most part, I am no longer walking with a noticeable limp and I’ve been out of my large knee brace for about a month, meaning I no longer need to wear baggy athletic pants to work. I do however, still need to wear jeans every day. It’s amazing how quick others are to judge when you walk in to work wearing jeans on a Tuesday instead of Friday. Little do they know, I still can’t wear heels, and finding a pair of flat-ish shoes that match my nicer pants and have a decent amount of support is proving to be quite the task.

What still bothers me most about my recovery is the outward appearance of my knee. During my surgery, I had to have 2 or 3 screws inserted into my leg (I have no idea how many my doctor actually put in). With most of the swelling gone, those screws now visibly stick out of my upper shin. I have a couple of skirts I could wear to work this summer, but I find myself gravitating towards pants that hide the gross shape of my leg. Then I basically end up scolding myself for being so vain.  

Then there are the ongoing issues with the surgical scar. Whenever I go to Target I find myself walking down the first aid aisle and staring at the scar treatment options. The same questions are constantly swirling in my mind: am I actually bothered by my scar? Would I be making it less difficult to look at because I want it that way, or would I be doing it for the comfort of others? By the time all of my knee issues are dealt with, I will most likely have had five surgeries total on both knees (three on the left, two probable/inevitable/upcoming ones on the right). Five surgeries mean five different sets of scars. They won’t bother me, so why am I so concerned with how others see them? I am a person who is usually relatively unconcerned with other people’s ideas of beauty, especially when it comes to the feminine body. I don’t own or wear makeup, unless my sister somehow manages to browbeat me into wearing some for special occasions, so why am I so concerned over scars on parts of my body that are covered the majority of the time? More so, why am I so concerned about other people’s comfort in regards to my body? Maybe I didn’t realize how pervasive socialization could be, even for those who are hyper-aware of it. Maybe deep down I am actually bothered by my leg’s appearance. Either way, I’ll have to keep working towards making decisions about my appearance based on what I want, not what others want.

Jezebel: An Alternative Analysis

I read this article a year ago, but it stuck with me and I thought I would share it. 

How Bad Was Jezebel by Janet Howe Gaines

Briefly mentioned throughout the Books of Kings, Jezebel appears as a whore, an enemy of god, and the most evil woman in the Bible.  Is this reputation justified?  Author Janet Howe Gaines takes a closer look at the text.  [Note: The article (and this post) discusses the Bible as a historical document, rather than the revealed word of god.]

The Story in Brief

According to the biblical account, Jezebel was the Phoenician wife of Israel's King Ahab.  Jezebel's people did not worship Yahweh and the queen continued to worship her ancestral gods, particularly Ball.  The king followed her lead and idol worship flourished in Israel.  Eventually, the prophet Elijah called a tournament between the followers of Ball and Yahweh to see which deity could light a sacrificial bull on fire.  Despite the best efforts of the faithful, Ball did nothing; Yahweh however, obliged.  When the king delivered the news to Jezebel she stood her ground, threatening to have the prophet killed.  In another episode, the queen defied the Torah, exercising guile and absolute power in a land dispute.  Caught in the plot she remained unrepentant.  Eventually the king died and the Jezebel's enemies led a coup to rid themselves of the queen and her family.  Faced with certain defeat Jezebel remained defiant, making herself up and waiting in full view of her enemies.  When they reached her they threw her down from the tower whereupon dogs ravaged her corpse.  Yahweh's authority was reestablished.

An Alternative Interpretation

Gaines focuses important attention on the Biblical authors and how their perspective distorts our view of the historical Jezebel.  Biblical historians group 1 and 2 Kings into the "Deuteronomist" tradition, whose authors/editors aimed to "explain Israel's fate in terms of apostasy."  From these authors' perspective, the Israelites arrived in the promised land but erred in their ways, provoking God's wrath.  Idol worship would have been the most egregious of these errors.  As a foreigner and a woman who worshiped other gods, Jezebel presented a convenient symbol of wrongdoing and evil for the biblical authors.

The modern reader might see Jezebel as a strong woman preserving her cultural identity.  Throughout the account she has many followers and her threat against Elijah shows her as "more daring, clever and independent that most women of her time."  She has sufficient influence to boss the king around, make Elijah flee in fear, and drive her enemies to murderous revolt just to be rid of her.  The biblical authors did not appreciate such female strength and depicted her behavior as evil.  Recognizing this bias, cracks appear in the traditional interpretation:

1) Detailed stories of Jezebel's plots stretch the bounds of credulity.  For example, the reader must believe that Jezebel was terribly evil and universally hated, but also that all the noblemen joined in her plot to undermine a local peasant.

2) The "whore" label likely derived from the writers' connection between "harlotry and idol worship."  In biblical contexts, "lusting after false 'lords' can be seen as either adulterous or idolatrous.” Other than the claims of her enemies, the biblical account offer's no evidence of infidelity on Jezebel's part.

3) The authors also interpret Jezebel's defiant last hours as a whorish attempt to seduce her enemies.  Their account deliberately mirrors stories of female idols or other evil women dying shameful deaths.  In contrast, Gaines suggests a more empowered a view of Jezebel “donning the female version of armor as she prepares to do battle . . . When she dies, she wants to look her queenly best.  She is in control here, choosing the manner in which her attacker will last see and remember her.”  She remains in control to the very end, taunting her enemies and never surrendering.

The moral of the story?  Perhaps Jezebel was not the whorish and wicked woman portrayed by the biblical authors.  Perhaps she was a powerful queen, maligned by religious enemies.

Belle

Next week the independent film Belle will hit theatres in the USA.  I had the privilege of seeing the film in February at the Athena Film Festival in NYC.

Belle is an historical drama based on the real life of Dido Elizabeth Belle, a mixed-raced British aristocrat who lived the late 1700s.  Dido was the child of an enslaved African woman and an admiral in the British navy;  the two likely encountered each other in the West Indies.  Her mother is believed to have died when Dido was very young and her father sent her to be raised by his uncle, an Earl and Chief Justice, in England where she was raised as a gentlewoman along with her white cousin Elizabeth.  The film was inspired by the painting the Earl had commissioned of his two nieces in 1779 and which still exists to this day.

The film examines what Dido's life may have been like given the real people she would have encountered in her life as well as the historical events that impacted her and her family.  Portrayed by the young British actress Gugu Mbatha-Ra, the film allows us to begin to understand the complex intersections of race, gender, and class that Dido had to negotiate, and to honor the courage and strength of Dido and her family in making the choices (large and small) that they did and the impact those choice can have.

Watch the trailer here:


When speaking after the film screening at the Athena Film Festival, director Amma Asante expanded on the goal of the film besides just bringing the story

Rape & Consent: presence of “No” or lack of “yes”

This post seems all the more relevant with the new GoT discussion of "was it consensual?" *

Definition of consent:

Consent is generally defined as “permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.”  However, this definition is still open to interpretation, whether giving permission means giving overt, expressive permission and that non-consent is the lack of overt, expressive permission.  This gray area of the word is especially dangerous in the realm of sexual assault and rape cases.

Definition of rape:

The 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.1

Overall, this definition is very inclusive.  It is not gender, object, or target specific, thus encompassing all acts we would typically consider rape.  Despite the clarity of this definition, that last phrase "without the consent of the victim" is open to many interpretations.

QUESTION 1: How to define with out consent (WOC): overt, expressive denial of permission or the lack of overt, expressive permission.

Note: This post mainly focuses on defining WOC in situations where physical violence and/or weapons were not explicitly involved and when victims have the capacity to express consent (i.e. not drugged, tied up, disabled, under-age). Thus, definitions and cases will be discussed in light of this viewpoint and details and definitions outside this area of focus may be omitted.

New Jersey Sexual Assault Definitions (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2) 2

a. An actor is guilty of aggravated sexual assault if he commits an act of sexual penetration with another  person under any one of the following circumstances:

(b) The actor has supervisory or disciplinary power over the victim by virtue of the actor's legal, professional, or occupational status

(7) The victim is one whom the actor knew or should have known was physically helpless, mentally incapacitated, or had a mental disease or defect which rendered the victim temporarily or permanently incapable  of understanding the nature of his conduct, including, but not limited to, being incapable of providing consent.

c. An actor is guilty of sexual assault if he commits an act of sexual penetration with another person under any  one of the following circumstances:

(2) The victim is on probation or parole, or is detained in a hospital, prison or other institution and the actor has supervisory or disciplinary power over the victim by virtue of the actor's legal, professional or occupational status;

Criminal Justice Information Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program [FBI] 3

• Rape, Completed Physical resistance is not required on the part of the victim to demonstrate lack of consent.

The following scenarios illustrate incidents known to law enforcement that reporting agencies must classify as Rape, Completed:

4. One night, a woman’s husband was very drunk, and he accused her of sleeping around. He became enraged, pushed her onto the bed, and penetrated her with an object. She was too afraid to struggle.

5.  A woman broke up with her ex-boyfriend three months earlier, but he showed up at her workplace and followed her home. Once there, he intimidated her and told her he wouldn’t leave until she had sex with him. He forced her to perform fellatio.

6. A man who owned a restaurant threatened to fire a waitress if she would not consent to sexual acts with him. When she refused, he threatened her. She was afraid to resist and he performed  cunnilingus.

The New Jersey legal definitions make no real distinction as to which way to define consent. They do, however, clearly indicate the immorality of completing such acts on someone in a subordinate position. Being in a subordinate position clearly influences one's ability to give overt, expressive consent even with the absence of weapons or physical force. Intimidation takes on many forms, as demonstrated by the examples provided by the FBI reporting system (4-6). Here there are individuals in subordinate positions who were "intimidated" and "too afraid" to give expressive, overt NON-consent to the activities. These definitions do seem to accept lack of expressive consent in their definition of rape.

A Georgetown Law page 4 explains this reasoning well: 

Many states do not require a victim to resist in order to charge the offender with rape or sexual assault. In addition, there are many reasons why a victim of sexual assault would not fight or resist her attacker. She/he may feel that fighting or resisting will make her/his attacker angry, resulting in more severe injury. She/he may not fight or resist as a coping mechanism for dealing with the trauma of being sexually assaulted. Many law enforcement experts say that victims should trust their instincts and intuition and do what they think is most likely to keep them alive. Not fighting or resisting an attack does not equal consent. It may mean it was the best way she/he knew how to protect herself/himself from further injury. [Greenfeld, Lawrence A. and Steven K. Smith, American Indians and Crime, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 173386 (February 1999)]

Question 2: Must the individual know they are continuing an action WOC of their partner for it to be considered rape?

While the definition of WOC may be lack of "yes," this leads to a second question of how will a perpetrator know the act is non-consensual if there is no overt, expressed opinion one way or the other.  If the victim says it was rape because she did not consent, but the perpetrator says it was not rape because she did not not consent... which way will the courts lie?  Can one accidentally rape someone else?  Must the individual know the act is immoral for it to be rape?

Generally, the answer seems to be yes. Montana presents this definition: 5

45-5-503. Sexual intercourse without consent. (1) A person who knowingly has sexual intercourse without consent with another person commits the offense of sexual intercourse without consent

In the case of New Jersey definitions regarding those incapable of giving consent:

The victim is one whom the actor knew or should have known was physically helpless, mentally incapacitated, or had a mental disease or defect which rendered the victim temporarily or permanently incapable  of understanding the nature of his conduct, including, but not limited to, being incapable of providing consent.

However, when it comes to age and WOC,  it was stated in a case regarding a 14 year old girl: 6

Defendant contends that the court committed plain error by failing to instruct that mistake of age was a defense to the offense charged. We disagree. Just as consent is not a defense, for the same reasons, mistake of age is not a defense. In undertaking to have sex with the victim, defendant assumed the risk that she was under legal age.

A little conflicting.  Perpetrators assume the risk that their partners are consenting?   

Question 3: Should the case be to prove non-consent or to prove violation?

A different blog post made an interesting analogy regarding rape and privacy cases.7

I want you to think about theft and property law for a moment... we presume that, absent evidence to the contrary, you don't permit any random person to take off with your things. If someone takes something that belongs to you, the law does not require you to prove that you withheld permission. If the person who took your property wants to claim that you gave them permission--in other words, that you consented--that is on them. This does not violate the presumption of innocence, because the prosecution always has to prove that the person who took your property actually took your property.

For some reason, we don't see consent to sex in the same way. When we expect the prosecution in a rape case to prove a lack of consent, what we are saying is that the default position is one of consent... In order to keep things consistent, we should take the same approach to the right to sexual agency and bodily sovereignty as we do to the right to ownership and exclusionary control of property. We ought to presume that people default to a state of control and exclusion unless they give some indication to the contrary. This will not violate the presumption of innocence in rape cases, given that the prosecution will always need to prove that the accused had sex with the alleged survivor (and this is by no means trivial). I think going this way is better than applying rape-reasoning to theft cases, for what should be obvious reasons.

This then leads us back to the result of Question 2: perpetrators assume the risk that their partners are consenting?   

Question 4: Is "lack of no" a viable working definition?

Looking through various support sites, there is always an FAQ of the following: 8

I thought “no,” but didn’t say it. Is it still rape?

It depends on the circumstances. If you didn’t say no because you were legitimately scared for your life or safety, then it may be rape. Sometimes it isn’t safe to resist, physically or verbally — for example, when someone has a knife or gun to your head, or threatens you or your family if you say anything.

But note, this only deals with the black/white situation... namely, where guns/violence/substances are involved.  What if you find yourself in a situation mentioned in Question 1 where intimidation stems from fear and power?  If you do not say no at that immediate point in time, do you waive all your rights to a successful legal case? The internet seems pretty mum on this regard.

As a final thought, I came across this black/white situation where substances were involved and yet non-consent is defined by the defense as "presence of a no." 9

In the case that has shocked the nation, prosecutors state that the inebriated girl was taken to a number of parties by a group of drunk teenagers, supporting her to walk when she wasn't physically capable.The prosecution claims that the group later sexually assaulted the girl while she lay unconscious.But attorney Walter Madison, who represents one of the accused boys, argues she was drinking voluntarily and left willingly with the group of boys.

As reported by the Cleveland Trader Madison said: 'There's an abundance of evidence here that she was making decisions, cognitive choices.' 'She didn't affirmatively say no,' he stated.

 "There's an abundance of evidence here that she was making decisions, cognitive choices."

If WOC much means overt, expressive non-consent in this case where a teenage girl is severely intoxicated, I doubt a "lack of no" definition will hold up in many courts regarding cases without substances/weapons/violence. The definition may be the right one, but if it is not used... it is irrelevant.

A Game of Clichés

Rather recently, George R. R. Martin's book series A Song of Ice and Fire, commonly referred to as the Game of Thrones series, has skyrocketed in popularity. I'll admit that I started watching the HBO series before reading the books, but it didn't take long before I dove head-first into them. Not long into the series, I discovered that I really dreaded the chapters from one particular character's point of view. I found myself loathing Sansa Stark chapters, as well as anytime she made an appearance in other chapters. I am most definitely not the only one. Last week, this article found it's way to me, and it really made me think about the reasons I disliked her as a character. Fair warning, spoilers can be found within the article. I myself don't despise Sansa because she is feminine, as the article argues, but because she seems to willing to give up her agency and allow others to make decisions about her, for her. She allows herself to be the pawn in other people's plays for power. Have you ever heard of an argument being made where viewers or readers hate a character based on their feminine qualities? I can't say I've ever heard of a male character being vilified for messing up while being too masculine.

Women & Energy: An Important but Underappreciated Dynamic

Last week, as I read through a scholarly article about social science-based energy research, I was surprised to see “Gender and Identity” in the list of promising though underdeveloped research areas.  I shouldn’t have been surprised.  While under-appreciated, gender interacts with energy in many important ways.  Women throughout the world spend hours collecting fuel before using it for cooking and other chores.  Energy also shapes our practices, cultures, and communities.  For example, the article notes how communal cooking fires can act as havens “where women can gather to discuss their personal issues without the presence of men.”  Of course Schwartz Cowan’s link between technology and gender roles (see the More Work for Mother posts) also applies to energy.  

Getting Cast

I stumbled across this video about race and gender in the entertainment industry.  It is funny and clever (and true!) on so many levels!  Enjoy!

Meet Lammily

Have you guys heard the buzz about the new Lammily doll?

The Lammily doll is a new doll created by artist Nicholay Lamm, that he designed to have the average body proportions of an American 19 year-old.

When I first heard about this new doll, I think I rolled my eyes, as a lot of the press was talking about the doll as 'the modern Barbie' or some such comparison.  But then I actually looked at the images of the doll, and the Lammily doll looks awesome!

The Male vs. Female Brain

The Essential Difference- The Truth about the Male and Female Brain by Simon Baron-Cohen

Recently, I read through a book by Simon Baron-Cohen, a prominent UK psychologist and cousin of Sasha Baron-Cohen, regarding his theory of the male and female brain.  He is most known for his research into empathy and developmental disorders (i.e. autism) which have brought him around to this more over-arching theory.

Concept:
The female brain has evolved to be better structured for empathy whereas the male brain is structured for understanding and building systems.  This leads to three types of brains: Empathy (E), Systematizing (S) or Balanced (B) brain.
He does point out that males can have female brains and visa versa, but on average females score high on empathy than males and males score higher on the systematizing tasks than women.

Behavior:
Dr. Baron-Cohen spends much of the book analyzing the behavior of children and their interactions to support his claim.  Boys, for example, choose to play with mechanical toys (trucks, cars) and enjoy ordering and analyzing facts like baseball or soccer scores.  Girls, however, tend to play with dolls and adopt a more social style of play.  They exhibit more cooperative and pretend play which greatly involves interacting and reading the actions of another person or playmate.

Secondly, he reviews the method of developing social stratus or hierarchy.  Boys, he says, quickly establish social dominance, often squashing the weakest for the greater reward of power.

Happy International Women's Day!

I read this post yesterday and thought it was so spot on that I had to share:
Why feminism still matters in 2014