Protecting the Perpetrator

  

Protecting the Perpetrator

As seen in the Steubenville case, people tend to blame the victim and find reasons to prove an abuser's innocence. This can also be seen in the relatively recent Larry Nassar case. Nassar was a well-liked, well-respected national team doctor for USA Gymnastics and also worked for Michigan State University who assaulted countless athletes and others over the years. Nassar was accused of sexual assault on multiple occasions, and teachers, coaches, and cops neglected the allegations because they didn't believe he was capable of these actions. One gymnast, in particular, told a coach she wanted to report the assault, and the coach told her she would ruin Dr. Nassar's reputation, have to go through questioning and face Nassar with the accusations which prevented her from pursuing any accusations.

The way that this was handled silenced lots of victims. It was normalized among gymnasts and was no longer a red flag. The "treatments" that Nassar had been doing to these girls had become so common that no one saw them as alarming. They would talk amongst themselves and have little to no suspicions about what was happening to them. This is especially important because these girls were being abused by a doctor they were told they can trust. Because of Larry Nassar's high status as national team doctor, and his extremely innocent, friendly persona, people were not quick to accuse him of any wrong-doing, and even tried covering it up. 

It is thought that a handful of employees at MSU had heard of what Nassar was doing and didn't take action against him. It was also reported that John Geddert of Twisters gymnastics was informed of Nassar's 'treatments', but he protected him because he was well respected, and a close friend. All of these people silencing victims and protecting Larry Nassar were extremely harmful to the progression of the case and negatively impacted so many lives. Over 265 women were assaulted by Larry Nassar and many were silenced from as early as 1990. 

This type of behavior is seen often in society and is certainly visible in the Steubenville case. Like Nassar, the football team had a positive reputation and was well-known by its community. People tend to disregard these accusations because they refuse to believe that the individuals they see so highly could be associated with such actions, let alone committing them. However, if they do believe the accusations, people will try to protect the perpetrators and prevent them from ruining their reputation, and the high status they have been seen at for so long. This not only promotes and justifies rape culture, but it also results in victim-blaming. 

When victims of sexual assault see others suffering from victim-blaming, they are less likely to come forward with their stories allowing these abusers to get away with these horrible actions and continuing to contribute to the rape culture that exists in our society. As seen in the documentary, once Jane Doe had made her accusations about her assault, others began to come forward as well at the protests. When people come forward with their stories, it raises awareness about how common it is, and how, as a society, there needs to be a change. 

In society, people will need to learn that sexual assault is not something that should be pushed under the rug or ignored. These abusers are criminals and should be blamed and convicted accordingly. Everyone in society needs to do their part to make this happen, and people need to stop contributing to rape culture by victim-blaming and protecting perpetrators. 

Sources: 

https://www.mlive.com/news/2018/02/who_knew_what_when_about_larry.html

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jan/26/larry-nassar-abuse-gymnasts-scandal-culture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Gymnastics_sex_abuse_scandal

https://www.hbo.com/documentaries/at-the-heart-of-gold-inside-the-usa-gymnastics-scandal/about

Victim Blaming and Roll Red Roll

  Why is it so common for people to rush to judgment of victims, especially in instances of rape? Is it because of our natural instincts to want to protect ourselves, to not want to accept that there are instances in which bad things happen to us that we cannot control? That seems to be a part of it. But as research done by Boston College professors suggest, it is also due to the influence of group-mentality. When the interests of a larger group are at risk, some might be inclined to go against their morals in order to protect them. The rape case in Steubenville is a prime example of this. Even when the football players knew that what happened was a felony, they felt that the rape victim, who threatened the strength and reputation of their football team, was less of a concern than the fact that they had lost a quarterback. The town of Steubenville was not the richest neighborhood and has had its share of drug use and job losses during the early 2010s. Yet they had a stadium that could house 10,000 of its 18,400 residents at the time, complete with a horse statue that spewed fire every time their team scores. With football being one of the town’s few sources of pride, any threat to it could also be seen as a threat to the community itself. It didn’t help that the team lost their season after the Trent and Ma’lik were removed. And blaming the victim allows the group to have someone to blame for ruining their community. Rather than the rape being the focus, the discussion surround maintaining the comfort of the town.

  This allows for the perpetuation of a culture where rape is simply ignored. In the case involving the star Stanford swimmer Brock Turner, the athlete was uncovered by two people behind a dumpster on top of a naked, unresponsive woman. The victim released her own account to the public. During the investigation, she states that her rape was referred to as “college campus drinking culture and the sexual promiscuity that goes along with that”. Such dismissive language shows a reluctance to see what happened for what it was. In the documentary we watched, the coach felt uncomfortable having to hear the word ‘rape’ from the police. People tend to refer to rape by many different names due to the stigma and bad connotation. But as the victim in the Brock Turner case urged, “The seriousness of rape has to be communicated clearly, we should not create a culture that suggests we learn that rape is wrong through trial and error. The consequences of sexual assault needs to be severe enough that people feel enough fear to exercise good judgment even if they are drunk, severe enough to be preventative”. By not forcing people to confront the severity of their actions, they are more likely to see rape as okay. The results of UCLA psychologist Neil Malamuth’s survey of college males on campus are a testament to this. Sixteen to twenty percent of male students responded by saying they would commit rape if they knew they would get away with it. And when he referred to rape as “forc[ing] a woman to have sex,” the figure jumped to thirty-six to forty-four percent. If we truly want to change the way rape is treated, laws need to be passed that require stricter sentencing and having a national discussion that addresses it rather than dancing around the subject. Those who break the law should be held accountable for their actions, but the stigma of rape has prevented this from happening.

Big Red Horse

Sources:

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/10/the-psychology-of-victim-blaming/502661/

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/sports/high-school-football-rape-case-unfolds-online-and-divides-steubenville-ohio.html?

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/katiejmbaker/heres-the-powerful-letter-the-stanford-victim-read-to-her-ra

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/08/what-makes-a-campus-rape-prone/402065/

How Common is Sexual Assault?

In the Steubenville documentary when the case becomes nationally known, more women come forward with their stories of assault by past football players from Steubenville High. Some from fifty or more years ago. In the Bay, it is pretty uncommon to hear about sexual assaults that happen in our own neighborhoods (other than the Brock Turner case). In March 2018, two boys from Graham Middle School were arrested with sexual assault charges from a female student. Graham is only a fifteen-minute drive from Los Altos, yet this was not brought up. This brings the question of how common sexual assault is present in our country today and why it continues. 

While the rate of sexual assault has fallen by 63% since 1993, the amount is surprisingly shocking when it is put into numbers. Every 98 seconds, an American is sexually assaulted. Each year 321,500 Americans in the general public over the age of twelve are victimized. In total, around 481,000 people have been assaulted in some way. Most of the victims tend to be females, however, 2.78 million (as of 1998) men in America have been a victim. 

When sexual assault is brought up, common questions are asked such as: What was he/she wearing... Were they drunk... Were they dating… Was it during a party? Although in the Steubenville case the assault was at a party, 48% of victims are actually sleeping or doing an activity at home. Another 29% are usually traveling between locations. Shockingly, 7% were at school. 

If sexual assault is morally and ethically wrong, why is it so prevalent in our country? Now some may suggest that the best way to combat this is for victims to come forward with their stories but in reality, our culture has accepted and normalized sexual violence. If they come forward, they are accused of creating a false story with the intent to ruin the life of the perpetrator. Victim blame is influenced by observers and then aspects of the victim(s) and perpetrator(s). The most crucial factor is institutional and societal levels that create the environment around victim-blaming, also known as rape culture. In order to expose the reality of sexual assault and reduce it, rape culture must be eliminated.

Sources: https://www.rainn.org/statistics/scope-problem
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sexual-assault-statistics_n_58e24c14e4b0c777f788d24f
https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2018/04/12/juveniles-arrested-after-alleged-sexual-assault
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6348335/

Tragedy of the Commons and our Water Table

The tragedy of the commons can be seen in a lot of aspects of our society. One way is water usage by farmers. For years in California, there was very little regulation on how much water farmers were using. According to Peter Gleick, the co-founder of the Pacific Institute, “as long as nobody was measuring or monitoring groundwater, it was to the advantage of any farmer to pump as much as they could.” He claims the system, “was designed to favor ignorance.” Not only was the amount of water not regulated but it is also free. Which is another reason farmers have not been incentivized to use water sustainably.

This is an example of the tragedy of the commons because without regulation each farmer does not feel he owes it to another farmer to only take a fair share of the water supply. If only one farmer took their fair share that farmer would suffer as others had more resources.

During the drought from 2011-2015, this issue was only exacerbated as with the reduced rainfall farmers had to turn more to groundwater in order to irrigate their crops. In an attempt to help the problem the government has taken some action. In 2014 the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act was passed which attempts to bring groundwater basins into balanced levels of pumping and recharge. But today only 1/5 of the states water basins are regulated by gauge meters meaning the rest still fall victim to the tragedy of the commons. Farmers continue to overuse our groundwater and as a result, the central valley has been sinking. Essentially as we continue on this route "over-pumping can lead to even more serious problems if the excessive extraction takes place over a long period of time – including the lowering or sinking of the land surface, which is called land subsidence, and, in areas along the coast, seawater intrusion." Basically either the land will sink or saltwater will get into the soil making it impossible to grow crops.

This raises many moral and ethical questions. Is the government responsible for placing regulations on groundwater usage? Should farmer be responsible and risk lower crop yields? Should farmers have to pay for water like the rest of us? But then, in turn, the price of food would the price of food rise?

https://west.stanford.edu/news/blogs/and-the-west-blog/2018/california-s-groundwater-free-all-ends-grappling-how-measure-what-s-left
https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/SGMA-Groundwater-Management
https://www.watereducation.org/aquapedia/overdraft
https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-latest-drought/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Valley_land_subsidence

desperate times come for desperate measures
raft idea

Baby M/Surrogate Mothers Discussion

Although I support women having full control of their body, I also support the decision that Ms. Whitehead doesn't get to keep Baby M. When all three adults signed the contract and the other parents gave Ms. Whitehead the money, the deal was set that Baby M would go to those parents. Ms. Whitehead willingly agreed to that deal, which is why it was wrong that she went against them and tried to keep the baby.

Once the contract was considered void, it became a custody battle. However, it was pretty obvious who was going to win. Because Ms. Whitehead was seen screaming and crying, it only helped the other parent's case. Others began to see that she was unstable and not fit for raising Baby M. I believe that the other parents deserved to win because they were mature, stable, and loving parents that wanted what was best for their child. They handled the situation as best as they could and didn't make a big scene like Ms. Whitehead. Overall, they just wanted to add a new member to their family and Ms. Whitehead was the one that made this unnecessarily difficult for them. 

The Baby M case was very complicated, which is why surrogate mothers that aren't using their own eggs is a safer way to go. I believe that women that voluntarily agree to be a surrogate mother are accepting the challenge of carrying another family's baby and letting them go, once they are birthed. I feel that the surrogate is responsible for being familiar with what they are signing themselves up for. Although it is their body, the signed the contract and should follow it in order to make the situation safer and straightfoward.

Welcome!

Welcome to our classroom blog!  I sincerely hope you find this a valuable resource for information and sharing ideas.  Please remember to observe classroom guidelines on the blog but also understand blogs are often informal rather than formal writing assignments.