CCASA part 2
The Colorado Coalition against Sexual Assault has several important issues that they address as an organization. From their website (ccasa.org), their mission statement is: “The Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault is a membership organization promoting safety, justice, and healing for survivors while working toward the elimination of sexual violence.” And the organization has seven core values: 1) Anti-oppression and social justice/change. 2) Survivor focus. 3) Collaboration and community engagement. 4) Advocacy and education. 5) Safety and freedom. 6) Offender accountability. 7) Ethical practices. (http://www.ccasa.org/whoweare/index.cfm).
CCASA educates and communicates these values to the community in a variety of ways. They hold webinars each month on issues surrounding sexual assault, and hold seminars and meetings as well. So they do lots of networking and interaction with the community, holding these and other events like I’ll be doing for them in April (hosting a film screening for Sexual Assault Awareness Month). CCASA works to address public policy issues; members are informed and updated about public policies, and they “testify on bills and educate lawmakers concerning the Coalition’s perspective on sexual violence in Colorado.” Training is provided for members, and they offer publications on topics related to sexual assault. And they work with many other organizations providing information and education.
My class prompt this week for this blog is for us to say what we think our organization we’re volunteering for is doing well, and what they could be doing better. CCASA makes this difficult, as they’re doing an excellent job. I think if they can do anything better, it would be educating men on the subject of sexual assault (which I wrote about in the previous blog post). I think most of that is not a necessarily a problem with the organization, but rather with men and society in general, as this isn’t the kind of topic that men talk about or are talked to about. I know many men are simply uncomfortable with the subject; they feel like they don’t need to know about it and if told would be wondering why. Not a good situation to try and work with. But I know CCASA is trying and that they work to educate women and men. Unfortunately, with men being how they are, I don’t yet know how to make them more willing to learn about the topic of sexual assault.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
CCASA
For my Gender and Communication class (and also because I thought it would be a good experience), I am volunteering with the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault (CCASA).
Our professor asked us to write about two expectations that we have about working with our organization, where do these expectations come from, and are they supported or unfounded.
Overall, I have few expectation about working with CCASA, aside from that it’s going to be a rewarding experience. This is in part because the work I will be doing for the organization is outside of their offices and done on my own time. If I were under direct supervision, perhaps it would be different. But I do have expectations about the project I am going to be working on.
April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month; CCASA sets up a variety of events for this month, and my group partners and I have been tasked with planning a film screening and afterward leading a discussion on the issues presented in the film. One expectation I have from this is that far more women will show up than men. Not necessarily because men care less, but from gender issues being brought up through school/society, issues of Sexual Assault are presented more toward women. This is a shame for several reasons: 1) While the degree is certainly lesser, men still experience sexual assault/abuse. 2) Chances are that every man will at some point in their lives know someone who has experience sexual assault. 3) In the majority of sexual assaults, men are half the equation. This could in part be because of a lack of education about sexual assault and its effects that men are given—in my class’s book, Julia Wood writes about gendered communication in schools, and this is a subject, because of the themes of gender construction about what it means to male, would be avoided; and without knowledge about a subject like this, it also becomes difficult to understand where a survivor of it may be coming from and experiencing. It is my hope that I large amount of men attend the event; it’s relevant, wether they believe so or not.
A second expectation I have is that the discussion we have after we show our film (whatever it may be), will be intense and emotional. This subject is already intense as it is — a movie will visualize that, and as many are survivors of sexual assault or know someone who is, bringing a dialogue out of that will vocalize that intensity and could increase it. Although it’s a tough subject, I expect that the dialogue with be meaningful and enlightening for all who attend.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Movement
This week for my class we read about women’s movements and men’s movements as well.
What women’s and men’s movement do you most identify with? Why?
While reading through Wood’s book (http://www.amazon.com/Gendered-Lives-Communication-Gender-Culture/dp/0495794163/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1297827965&sr=8-1), I did not wholly identify with any particular movement, but instead specific parts of certain movements.
On the women’s movement side, I identified with a portion of the Power Feminism movement. While I do not agree with all of it, such as Wood paraphrases Naomi Wolf, “ . . . that the only thing holding [women] back from equality is their own belief that they are victims,” part of this makes a lot of sense to me, namely getting rid of the victim mentality. “Victim” has many connotations, and yes, many of them are accurate. But the problem with the word is that it places an emphasis on being powerless against circumstances. Sadly, people are victimized on a daily basis, but there is a difference between being victimized and having the victim mind set. If one has that mind set, they are not in control of their own lives, but rather all the forces of the world will be acting upon them and they will feel as if they have little to no choice. In the best-selling book “7 Habits of Highly Effective People” by Stephen R. Covey (http://www.amazon.com/Habits-Highly-Effective-People/dp/0743269519/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1297828701&sr=1-1), the first habit is “to be proactive.” One is either acting or being acted upon, and the difference between the two is immense. At one time, I was in the mind set where I felt I had no power, no control over my life. I let myself be victim to the whims of the world around me, and fell into a deep depression because of it. When I realized that I did have control, that I could act and it was in my power to make a difference, things began to change; I came out of the ditch I had been stuck in and started to move on. It’s an important thing for people to realize and many don’t. Never relinquish responsibility for your own life; so many do, and it’s the first step to grow as a person. If I can encourage anyone to be this way, to take control like that, I will.
For the men’s movements I read about, parts of several popped out at me, such as the organization NOMAS (National Organization for Men Against Sexism), wither their goals of teaching men how social constructs have emotionally stunted them, and then Antiviolence groups and others. One of the most interesting was the Mythopoetic Men movement. As Woods writes, “Mythopoetics want men to rediscover the deep, mythic roots of masculine thinking and feeling, which they believe will restore men to their primordial spiritual, emotional, and intellectual wholeness” (106). While I do not agree with much of the movement, especially as they place blame on feminism for men’s emotional problems (that’s simply part of a victim mind set as written about above; it seems like nothing more than scapegoat to me) and that “men need to reclaim courage, aggression, and virility as masculine birthrights,” the part of the movement that stuck out to me is the idea of father hunger, which Woods describes as “A grief born of yearning to be close to actual fathers and to other men and to build deep, spiritual bonds between men.” American society places an extreme importance on independence and causes many men to feel isolated. I don’t necessarily know if it’s “father hunger” specifically, but men in general seem to have this disconnect and have little in the way of mentors (I found it interesting that Woods mentioned the book Fight Club, which is absolutely relevant to this). This seems problematic, especially when so many men have been raised now on television and video games and then are expected to go out into the world. And the world can be harsh and uncompromising, especially if one has little in the way of social skills. Men are taught many things such as to be competitive and aggressive, burdened with ideas of being successful, playing sports, etc. I can remember in my youth being taught these things (although not necessarily overtly), but never was I taught how to hold a conversation, which is not a typically male thing. I was taught manners, etc. and while many typically male ideals have their uses, none are so much as useful as how to communicate with others, which determines more than anything else in our lives; social constructs place men in states of stoicism etc., but that helps no one deeply connect with others, be they men or women. Men should be learning these kind of skills from mentors, be they a father figure or someone else; instead, in many cases, emotions are locked away. And opening up is key to connecting with others. In social constructs, this is of course looked down upon men for men to do; but mentors and role models can change this.
Because, as Covey states in 7 Habits, independence is not the highest level of existing with others. We deal with other people on a daily basis, with nature and everything else. Independence is just a step toward realizing the interdependent reality of the world.
What women’s and men’s movement do you most identify with? Why?
While reading through Wood’s book (http://www.amazon.com/Gendered-Lives-Communication-Gender-Culture/dp/0495794163/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1297827965&sr=8-1), I did not wholly identify with any particular movement, but instead specific parts of certain movements.
On the women’s movement side, I identified with a portion of the Power Feminism movement. While I do not agree with all of it, such as Wood paraphrases Naomi Wolf, “ . . . that the only thing holding [women] back from equality is their own belief that they are victims,” part of this makes a lot of sense to me, namely getting rid of the victim mentality. “Victim” has many connotations, and yes, many of them are accurate. But the problem with the word is that it places an emphasis on being powerless against circumstances. Sadly, people are victimized on a daily basis, but there is a difference between being victimized and having the victim mind set. If one has that mind set, they are not in control of their own lives, but rather all the forces of the world will be acting upon them and they will feel as if they have little to no choice. In the best-selling book “7 Habits of Highly Effective People” by Stephen R. Covey (http://www.amazon.com/Habits-Highly-Effective-People/dp/0743269519/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1297828701&sr=1-1), the first habit is “to be proactive.” One is either acting or being acted upon, and the difference between the two is immense. At one time, I was in the mind set where I felt I had no power, no control over my life. I let myself be victim to the whims of the world around me, and fell into a deep depression because of it. When I realized that I did have control, that I could act and it was in my power to make a difference, things began to change; I came out of the ditch I had been stuck in and started to move on. It’s an important thing for people to realize and many don’t. Never relinquish responsibility for your own life; so many do, and it’s the first step to grow as a person. If I can encourage anyone to be this way, to take control like that, I will.
For the men’s movements I read about, parts of several popped out at me, such as the organization NOMAS (National Organization for Men Against Sexism), wither their goals of teaching men how social constructs have emotionally stunted them, and then Antiviolence groups and others. One of the most interesting was the Mythopoetic Men movement. As Woods writes, “Mythopoetics want men to rediscover the deep, mythic roots of masculine thinking and feeling, which they believe will restore men to their primordial spiritual, emotional, and intellectual wholeness” (106). While I do not agree with much of the movement, especially as they place blame on feminism for men’s emotional problems (that’s simply part of a victim mind set as written about above; it seems like nothing more than scapegoat to me) and that “men need to reclaim courage, aggression, and virility as masculine birthrights,” the part of the movement that stuck out to me is the idea of father hunger, which Woods describes as “A grief born of yearning to be close to actual fathers and to other men and to build deep, spiritual bonds between men.” American society places an extreme importance on independence and causes many men to feel isolated. I don’t necessarily know if it’s “father hunger” specifically, but men in general seem to have this disconnect and have little in the way of mentors (I found it interesting that Woods mentioned the book Fight Club, which is absolutely relevant to this). This seems problematic, especially when so many men have been raised now on television and video games and then are expected to go out into the world. And the world can be harsh and uncompromising, especially if one has little in the way of social skills. Men are taught many things such as to be competitive and aggressive, burdened with ideas of being successful, playing sports, etc. I can remember in my youth being taught these things (although not necessarily overtly), but never was I taught how to hold a conversation, which is not a typically male thing. I was taught manners, etc. and while many typically male ideals have their uses, none are so much as useful as how to communicate with others, which determines more than anything else in our lives; social constructs place men in states of stoicism etc., but that helps no one deeply connect with others, be they men or women. Men should be learning these kind of skills from mentors, be they a father figure or someone else; instead, in many cases, emotions are locked away. And opening up is key to connecting with others. In social constructs, this is of course looked down upon men for men to do; but mentors and role models can change this.
Because, as Covey states in 7 Habits, independence is not the highest level of existing with others. We deal with other people on a daily basis, with nature and everything else. Independence is just a step toward realizing the interdependent reality of the world.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Of Names
There is great power in names.
Language shapes our perception of reality — each person experiences their own subjective reality rather than the world the way it actually is. No one is truly an objective observer of the world; every experience we’ve had shapes our perception, and part of these experiences is language and names. Names, whether they are for people, animals, objects etc., are essentially arbitrary symbols that stand in for the object in reality. “Table,” by itself without the corresponding object is essentially meaningless; such as would be the case if you had never seen a table and did not know what it was. But, let’s say someone had seen a table but did not know that it was called “table.” In their reality, it might be something like “a flat, rectangular plane supported by four legs.” But give them the name for it, that that’s a “table,” and they have a paradigm shift. “Table” replaces the “a flat plane supported by four legs.” Helpful and powerful, as “table” is broader and covers more than just a flat surface supported by four legs; it could have three, it could have five; it could be square or circular. But because of our unique points of view, we will each have a different image in our head when we hear “table.” For myself, the table I associate with that word is a large table of the rectangular four legged kind, old and made of wood. It’s the table I remember from my childhood. Someone else may think of a circular one made of metal. Or a long lunch table from elementary school.
Naming something colors it based our perceptions. If someone introduces a topic by saying something like, “This might sound weird, but...” it will sound weird, regardless of whether it would have before. Same thing if someone says, “Let me introduce you to my weird friends.” Companies market products also use this to create sometimes misleading impressions, such as the product Vitaminwater. Because of vitamin is associated with preconceptions of things that are good for us, it leads consumers to believe that it’s healthy to drink (http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2007106,00.html). These preformed associations of names, of course, extends to our own names as well. My name could completely decide an interaction with someone if they hear it before knowing anything else about me, as their mind will reference others with that same name. And if the only references are negative, that could be problematic. Examples like these make me think that Shakespeare’s famous line from Romeo & Juliet does not hold true: “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” If the flower were called stinkweed, chances are we wouldn’t be as fond of it’s odor.
Naming, then, is also a form of control. Aside from the examples above, to name something, is in a way, to own it. Parents name their children. Inventors name their inventions. Friends may give each other nicknames and couples may do the same. Each name will create new associations; trademarks. And like trademarks belonging to a company, there are names we are and are not “allowed” to use according to social constructs. Things that a couple might call each other and consider to be cute and terms of endearment can be revolting if said by a stranger.
Not only is our view of the outside world influenced by names, but also our view of ourselves. If we have an idea of how we are in our head, but then someone contracts it, the view of ourselves can change if our core isn’t solid enough. For instance, I’m thin. But someone could be justified in calling me scrawny. Different connotations ride alongside each of these words. If I allow “scrawny” to replace “thin” in my head, my self-image can completely change. This example is negative, but naming works both ways. The only thing that is consistent is that words and names have power and that we should be aware of how we use them, for both our own benefit and for others.
Language shapes our perception of reality — each person experiences their own subjective reality rather than the world the way it actually is. No one is truly an objective observer of the world; every experience we’ve had shapes our perception, and part of these experiences is language and names. Names, whether they are for people, animals, objects etc., are essentially arbitrary symbols that stand in for the object in reality. “Table,” by itself without the corresponding object is essentially meaningless; such as would be the case if you had never seen a table and did not know what it was. But, let’s say someone had seen a table but did not know that it was called “table.” In their reality, it might be something like “a flat, rectangular plane supported by four legs.” But give them the name for it, that that’s a “table,” and they have a paradigm shift. “Table” replaces the “a flat plane supported by four legs.” Helpful and powerful, as “table” is broader and covers more than just a flat surface supported by four legs; it could have three, it could have five; it could be square or circular. But because of our unique points of view, we will each have a different image in our head when we hear “table.” For myself, the table I associate with that word is a large table of the rectangular four legged kind, old and made of wood. It’s the table I remember from my childhood. Someone else may think of a circular one made of metal. Or a long lunch table from elementary school.
Naming something colors it based our perceptions. If someone introduces a topic by saying something like, “This might sound weird, but...” it will sound weird, regardless of whether it would have before. Same thing if someone says, “Let me introduce you to my weird friends.” Companies market products also use this to create sometimes misleading impressions, such as the product Vitaminwater. Because of vitamin is associated with preconceptions of things that are good for us, it leads consumers to believe that it’s healthy to drink (http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2007106,00.html). These preformed associations of names, of course, extends to our own names as well. My name could completely decide an interaction with someone if they hear it before knowing anything else about me, as their mind will reference others with that same name. And if the only references are negative, that could be problematic. Examples like these make me think that Shakespeare’s famous line from Romeo & Juliet does not hold true: “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” If the flower were called stinkweed, chances are we wouldn’t be as fond of it’s odor.
Naming, then, is also a form of control. Aside from the examples above, to name something, is in a way, to own it. Parents name their children. Inventors name their inventions. Friends may give each other nicknames and couples may do the same. Each name will create new associations; trademarks. And like trademarks belonging to a company, there are names we are and are not “allowed” to use according to social constructs. Things that a couple might call each other and consider to be cute and terms of endearment can be revolting if said by a stranger.
Not only is our view of the outside world influenced by names, but also our view of ourselves. If we have an idea of how we are in our head, but then someone contracts it, the view of ourselves can change if our core isn’t solid enough. For instance, I’m thin. But someone could be justified in calling me scrawny. Different connotations ride alongside each of these words. If I allow “scrawny” to replace “thin” in my head, my self-image can completely change. This example is negative, but naming works both ways. The only thing that is consistent is that words and names have power and that we should be aware of how we use them, for both our own benefit and for others.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Gender & Communication
I am repurposing this from my writing blog which I wasn’t using, to a blog for assignments for my Gender & Communication class until the end of the semester.
Describe and reflect on . . .
1) one interaction with parent(s) that communicated expectations for your gender
There are few specific incidents with my parents that I can remember that communicated expectations for my gender; there are certainly general incidents such as being purchased action figures and playing catch and the like, but few that are specific. One, while I can’t remember if it was a single time or multiple (probably multiple, which serves to reinforce), was being taught manners as a child by my mother. While learning consisted of many things (“Mind your Ps and Qs”), I can remember two in regards to being male. First, that while walking down the street with a lady, as a gentleman it was my job to walk on the outside of the sidewalk in the even that if a passing vehicle splashed water/mud/whatever else, I would supposedly take the brunt of the blast instead of the woman whom I happened to be with. Second, to open doors for women.
The first always seemed quaint to me; a custom from a different time or place but that was practical and self-sacrificing, but more so, it places the man into a more protective role, which looking back on it, would of course extend through my mind in more than just regards to walking in a certain position on the sidewalk. The second always just seemed polite to me, and while taught more in regards to women, it is something I do for everyone.
Now, despite that I find the first quaint and never consciously think about it, it’s something I find myself doing automatically most of the time: it’s scripted. Same with the opening doors. But walking on a specific side of the sidewalk seldom has a reaction in regards to how others perceive me (at least one I’m aware of, beyond being more engaging to the left brain or right brain). Opening doors is different. Even though it’s considered to be “polite,” no one, for the most part, cares. There is the periodic “thank you” that is actually appreciative, but most of the time the thank you has about as much thought put into it as the thought it took for me to open the door — scripted responses, no more. But sometimes, there’s another response, one that comes almost entirely from women: a look of disgust, and no more. This look to me signals a possible two things, either: 1) “I can get the door for myself, jackass.” Or 2) “This guy’s a doormat.” Not pleasant, but viewed socially, the idea of “doormat” seems to apply, as whomever enters a room first is perceived as having a higher status/value. So in general, while I may enjoy being polite for others, going in first and then holding the door until the other person can hold it for themselves is a more neutral practice when dealing with strangers on the street.
2) the most recent interaction with someone who communicated expectations for your gender.
While I am certain this happens in every day interaction on unconscious levels, the most recent time I can think of is while taking a group Salsa dancing lesson. The male instructor at the time made a comment about men being followers vs. their normal role in partner dancing being the leader; his comment was along the lines of “Men shouldn’t be led on the dance floor. It’s not right.” But the best instructors know both the leader’s part and the follower’s part (as he does); that, it seems, is reserved for in lessons. In Salsa (or most partner dances I’ve done), I’ve never seen a man dance with another man outside of a lesson and rarely in a lesson. The one time was done reluctantly by a male instructor when there were less followers than leaders, so he jumped in to fix the imbalance. This is quite contrary to a time when I did some Lindy Hop, where the male instructor jumped in to be led when I wanted some help so he could find what I needed help on, but then also placed me in the follower’s role so I could feel the proper amount of pressure I needed to use for the correct lead and then switched back (something that I have never seen happen while I’ve Salsa dancing). And more so, the Lindy instructor was much more comfortable with it.
Describe and reflect on . . .
1) one interaction with parent(s) that communicated expectations for your gender
There are few specific incidents with my parents that I can remember that communicated expectations for my gender; there are certainly general incidents such as being purchased action figures and playing catch and the like, but few that are specific. One, while I can’t remember if it was a single time or multiple (probably multiple, which serves to reinforce), was being taught manners as a child by my mother. While learning consisted of many things (“Mind your Ps and Qs”), I can remember two in regards to being male. First, that while walking down the street with a lady, as a gentleman it was my job to walk on the outside of the sidewalk in the even that if a passing vehicle splashed water/mud/whatever else, I would supposedly take the brunt of the blast instead of the woman whom I happened to be with. Second, to open doors for women.
The first always seemed quaint to me; a custom from a different time or place but that was practical and self-sacrificing, but more so, it places the man into a more protective role, which looking back on it, would of course extend through my mind in more than just regards to walking in a certain position on the sidewalk. The second always just seemed polite to me, and while taught more in regards to women, it is something I do for everyone.
Now, despite that I find the first quaint and never consciously think about it, it’s something I find myself doing automatically most of the time: it’s scripted. Same with the opening doors. But walking on a specific side of the sidewalk seldom has a reaction in regards to how others perceive me (at least one I’m aware of, beyond being more engaging to the left brain or right brain). Opening doors is different. Even though it’s considered to be “polite,” no one, for the most part, cares. There is the periodic “thank you” that is actually appreciative, but most of the time the thank you has about as much thought put into it as the thought it took for me to open the door — scripted responses, no more. But sometimes, there’s another response, one that comes almost entirely from women: a look of disgust, and no more. This look to me signals a possible two things, either: 1) “I can get the door for myself, jackass.” Or 2) “This guy’s a doormat.” Not pleasant, but viewed socially, the idea of “doormat” seems to apply, as whomever enters a room first is perceived as having a higher status/value. So in general, while I may enjoy being polite for others, going in first and then holding the door until the other person can hold it for themselves is a more neutral practice when dealing with strangers on the street.
2) the most recent interaction with someone who communicated expectations for your gender.
While I am certain this happens in every day interaction on unconscious levels, the most recent time I can think of is while taking a group Salsa dancing lesson. The male instructor at the time made a comment about men being followers vs. their normal role in partner dancing being the leader; his comment was along the lines of “Men shouldn’t be led on the dance floor. It’s not right.” But the best instructors know both the leader’s part and the follower’s part (as he does); that, it seems, is reserved for in lessons. In Salsa (or most partner dances I’ve done), I’ve never seen a man dance with another man outside of a lesson and rarely in a lesson. The one time was done reluctantly by a male instructor when there were less followers than leaders, so he jumped in to fix the imbalance. This is quite contrary to a time when I did some Lindy Hop, where the male instructor jumped in to be led when I wanted some help so he could find what I needed help on, but then also placed me in the follower’s role so I could feel the proper amount of pressure I needed to use for the correct lead and then switched back (something that I have never seen happen while I’ve Salsa dancing). And more so, the Lindy instructor was much more comfortable with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
