What’s in a name? // Rebecca Fonville

Pic credit: 

http://chezpinkelephant.com/whats-in-a-name/

Many things can be and are associated with names. A name can represent family, a place of belonging, identity, ethnicity, nationality, responsibility, and pride. Names may have similar meanings for both men and women, however, it seems that women have an extra hurdle. Though men also have the choice of changing their names, it is far more common for a woman to change her name upon marriage than it is for a man to change his . . . ever.

I began thinking about this topic again because of the recent election and everything that was brought up due to various diversity aspects involved. I saw several reports about Hillary Clinton’s name and how it has changed throughout the years. Of course there are emotional and personal aspects of one’s name to consider, let alone the professional and political aspects, especially for someone in Hillary Clinton’s position. Reflecting on Hillary Clinton’s political career and her name changes, it is easy to see that she may have been changing her name for political advantages. However, my concern and disgust with this is not that she may be using her name to appease voters, but that this has been a successful strategy, and in her case, has been beneficial to the campaign. Throughout her political career, she has gone by both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Hillary Clinton on several different occasions, depending on the circumstance. This alone indicates to me how important names are to individuals in our culture. When one does not take her partner’s name, that individual can be seen as opinionated, individualistic, unsupportive, untraditional, uncaring, and heartless. However, when one does take her partner’s name, she can be seen as submissive, family oriented, and unambitious. It seems that women again, are caught in a web of options that only offer losing solutions no matter what they chose.

This conundrum follows most, if not all women, even those not directly involved in politics. I have a friend who is pursuing her doctorate in clinical psychology who has given quite a bit of thought to what she will do when and if she gets married. She has come to a decision that regardless of her marital status, she will keep her maiden name professionally, and perhaps change her last name personally. As we discussed this topic, it also became clear that this method she has chosen creates built-in professional boundaries that could be viewed as an added benefit in her line of work.

Similarly, I have known women who have married after their professional careers have developed that have had a difficult time deciding what to do about this whole name thing. The women I am aware of in this situation decided to hyphenate their maiden name and their partner’s last name, in hopes that they would be able to maintain and embody both parts of themselves.

When I began thinking more about this topic, the psychological ramifications that may present themselves to women making their own choices about their names struck me. Dependency seems to be fostered in a culture and mentality that says to young girls, “this is your temporary name,” or “your true name and identity will be found in a marital partner.” These messages may not be explicitly told to girls, but I remember hearing them as I grew. I loved my last name, and cherished it, but I also looked forward to the opportunity to change it, and dreamed of what it would be. When I was married, I did not even think twice about changing my name, and was honored that I was able to take my partner’s name. However, I am certain I did not think through all of the other ramifications changing my name might have for me. Though I do not think I would change my decision, and I believe there are many lovely things that came out of my own changing of my name, I do believe that I also got caught up in the dependency mind-game the western United States’ culture can play with women, telling them that their identity is found anywhere else than in themselves.

All of this is to say, names mean important things, and perhaps different things to different people and different cultures. However, in the culture of the United States, there seems to be direct guidelines for women on the meaning of names, and even where their identity can be found. It also seems important that the options women have in regard to their name can easily and frequently be cast in a negative light, which may be close to impossible to escape. This is also an experience that is seemingly unique to a woman’s experience. There are many different ways in which women of this society have navigated this experience, and these women may have been motivated by different means. What seems important is that one is aware of the ramifications of this decision that may come, regardless of one’s choice, and what feels most congruent within one’s self.

***Side note: while writing this, I had the thought of why is a maiden name even called a “maiden name?” To me, something about the word “maiden” connotes youth. So, perhaps we should have “old maid” names as well?***

Written Words: Political Tools // Meredith A. Martyr

“Caring for myself is not self-indulgence, it is self-preservation, and that is an act of political warfare.”

Audre Lorde

“To face the realities of our lives is not a reason for despair-despair is a tool of your enemies. Facing the realities of our lives gives us motivation for action. For you are not powerless ... You know why the hard questions must be asked. It is not altruism, it is self-preservation-survival.”

Audre Lorde

As a feminist psychologist-in-training and a social justice advocate, recent and not-so-recent events in our sociopolitical climate are consistently on my mind. This election was not just about the first woman president or a political revolution, it acted as a mirror, reflecting back what so many knew to be and others still struggle to see. A common phrase I continue to turn to, particularly in times of social revolution and movement, is Audre Lorde’s sentiment on political warfare. In honor of Audre Lorde, my allies, and myself, I have decided to leave academic rhetoric behind for this post and rather share one of my tools on behalf of political warfare: Words.

Prelude

There was something about the mass.

Upon entrance –

That static churn of air and limbs, petulant & pitched

The whole of us, the electricity was made and stowed

–  before the running of the bulls.

The standing, pausing, what would be. Hold.

Harness then hostility.

Then the streets rose up. Throat-closed off

As if breathing might turn pain into glass.

Somehow we had slipped away what we could live without.

You just wept.

We chose to have nothing – No air.

No face in our hands.

And finding the tremble in you, as you stood,

To walk away.

Snelling & Grand

I didn’t want to whimper on the wood.

In a space made still by hate

A space where we’d touch the opening

Of gates, the swelling of their throats.

I didn’t want the Times or the shelves

Of words meant to brace that silence,

Or to imagine the women coming or going

Convincingly towards that glass wall.

I didn’t want to sit silently

Even though that is what we do:

That we are right, holding on,

Making anyone, you

Rip apart the sheets & pull us

Down into our destructive, blind selves.

Third Party Witness

Mother Moon made sure

That night

That streetlights were on

            The apricots were ripe

                        And our bones would be tethered to the trees.

The mass made certain

–  with Mother Moon as witness –

That some lives would be changed

That some would persist

But the mournful mass did not see

            That some lives continue to matter not.

Rise Up: The Fight Continues // Annika Johnson

 img source: http://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/newshour/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/RTX2SLMK-1024x773.jpg

  

As I sit down to write this blog post there is roughly 24-hours till official election results begin to pour in. However, by the time you read this, we will (most likely) know who will be the 45th president of our United States. Regardless of the outcome of this election, something beautiful has happened, and it appears to be hidden beneath the pile of muck that is politics. A few nights ago I sat down with my mail-in ballot, a black ball-point pen, a voter’s pamphlet, and my computer. I sorted through each ballot measure and read the profiles of the various state and county positions. I saved the presidential selection for last. Not because I was unsure, but because filling in that bubble was a monumental historical moment, and it deserved my utmost attention.

The historical significance of this election has been hidden beneath layers of patriarchy and phrases such as “emails” and “private server,” however, it has not been overlooked by the women who have dreamt of this day—the day we would sit down to vote for the next president of the United States and a woman would be the face of a major political party. Little did we know that she would be contending against the the face of misogyny himself. There are many ways to look at this election season, but personally I saw it as a constant reminder of what women are up against:  a wage gap where women's work is valued less; a rape culture where the victim is blamed over the perpetrator; a society where our worth is described by our relationship to men as their “wives” and “daughters”. Not only was I voting for a woman, but I was voting against a profound patriarchy. I voted against a world where inexperienced men hold more authority than a woman with a lifetime of experience. A world where men can boast of sexual assault and people insist he should not be held responsible for his actions. The same world which holds women accountable for not only their actions, but also their husbands’. Tears fell as I carefully filled in my “Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine” bubble.

The very image of me sitting down at the table as an unwed woman in my mid twenties, achieving the highest level of education possible, voting for a female presidential candidate is one the suffragettes could only dream of, and here I am living it. Again, my heart could not weigh any heavier, only this time with appreciation for the women who fought to get us here. Women who, more than 100 years ago, were brave enough to make the audacious claim that women were autonomous individuals who deserved their own political identities. As I signed my name to my ballot, Andra Day’s “Rise Up” played in the background. An African American woman, who 51 years ago, would not have been allowed to cast her vote sang these words: “I'll rise up. I'll rise unafraid. I'll rise up. In spite of the ache, I'll rise up. And I'll do it a thousand times again.”

As you read this, we will have a clear victor in this race and regardless of the outcome of this election—no matter the results—woman have won today. And still, our fight continues.

Written By: Annika Johnson

Personal Foul, Unnecessary Roughness: Throwing the Flag at the NFL’s Domestic Violence Problem // Kelsey Thomas, M.A.

Photo by: Gary Markstein,

How fitting it is that October was National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, as we were all reminded how dangerously pervasive the issue of domestic and intimate partner violence continues to be within the National Football League (NFL).  Although the NFL is no stranger to violence against women, the league has a long and well documented history of being lenient with repercussions for domestic violence offences.  Here is a timeline of the NFL’s history of domestic violence policies (Brown 2016).

A. 1997-2000: The Violent Crime Policy (VCP) Era

Prior to 1997 no NFL player convicted of domestic violence was disciplined by the league, despite police reports of domestic violence for 56 players between 1989 and 1994 (Brown, 2016).  The NFL’s first conduct policy, the Violent Crime Policy (VCP) was adopted under the league’s former commissioner, Paul Tagliabue.  At that time, the league hired psychologist and domestic violence expert, Lem Burnham, to assist them in developing a policy for dealing with domestic violence.  Dr. Burnham suggested a zero-tolerance policy that would result in the banning of any player convicted of a domestic violence offense, and developed an educational program, including presentations for NFL players and employees.  However, many individuals still viewed the punishment for domestic violence offenses as a responsibility of the criminal justice system, and the VCP precluded immediate action by the league commissioner.  Thus, the NFL missed several opportunities during this time to address the growing problem with domestic violence within the league (Brown 2016).

B. 2000-2014: The Personal Conduct Policy (PCP) Era and the Ray Rice Incident

The NFL expanded the VCP to include other criminal conduct, and changed the policy name accordingly. In 2007, under Commissioner Goodell, the policy was revised to authorize disciplining players accused of domestic violence, even when no criminal charges were filed. At this time the policy was also expanded to include coaches, employees, and owners. Then, in 2014 video surveillance footage from an Atlantic City Hotel surfaced, showing Baltimore Ravens wide receiver, Ray Rice, forcibly striking his then fiancée (now wife) Janay Palmer in the head, rendering her unconscious. Originally, only the second half of the video was released, which showed Rice hitting, kicking, and dragging Palmer’s unconscious body out of the elevator.  The NFL and Commissioner Goodell issued Rice two-game suspension, citing the fact that the video provided a limited view of the incident, combined with the leniency shown by New Jersey criminal justice system as reasons for their own leniency in penalty. However, shortly after this announcement, additional video footage was released to the press, depicting Rice striking Palmer in the head. Public outcry ensued, and the Ravens unanimously agreed to terminate Rice’s contract, and he was subsequently banned from the league (Brown 2016).

C. 2014-Present: The Updated PCP and Current, Ongoing Issues

The NFL and Commissioner Goodell appointed three female domestic violence experts to assist in updating the PCP in response to the Rice incident. Allow me to walk you through the updated policy as it pertains to domestic and intimate partner violence, which became effective in December 2014 and was last updated on July 13, 2015.  On page two under the heading “Expectations and Standards of Conduct” it states that players convicted of a crime, those involved in the disposition of criminal proceedings (as defined by the PCP), and those who are not convicted will be subject to discipline if they have engaged in any of the prohibited conduct listed, including “[a]ctual or threatened physical violence against another person, including dating violence, child abuse, and other forms of family violence; [a]ssault and/or battery, including sexual assault or other sex offenses; [s]talking, harassment, or similar forms of intimidation; [c]onduct that poses a genuine danger to the safety and well-being of another person,” as well as several other behaviors (National Football League, 2015, pp. 6).  Pertaining to penalties for such offenses, the new CPC indicates that:

“[w]ith regard to violations of the Personal Conduct Policy that involve assault, battery, domestic violence, dating violence, child abuse and other forms of family violence, or sexual assault involving physical force or committed against someone incapable of giving consent, a first offense will subject the offender to a baseline suspension without pay of six games, with consideration given to any aggravating or mitigating factors.” (National Football League, 2015 pp. 6)

Possible aggravating factors listed in the handbook include: a) prior conduct violations, b) violence with a weapon, c) repeated striking, d) choking, e) or abuse against a particularly vulnerable person (e.g., abuse against a child, pregnant woman, elderly person, or abuse to others in the presence of a child). The handbook indicates that a player will receive “permanent banishment” (pp. 6) from the NFL for second offenses of this nature. Up to this point, I find the policy to be fairly spot on. It is all-inclusive in terms of different types of violence (i.e., domestic, dating, child abuse, sexual assault, etc.), and even included common intimidation tactics used by abusers (e.g., stalking and harassment). Inclusion of aggravating and mitigating factors to inform the discipline decision reveals a comprehensive understanding of the impact domestic violence has on children and its cyclical nature, as well as consideration for the fact that abuse is a learned behavior and abusers are likely to have their own baggage to unpack (i.e., be victims of abuse themselves). Also, the fact that permanent banishment after a second offense has been all but unheard of for any offense seems to demonstrate the league’s commitment to thoroughly dealing with their domestic violence problem. Excellent! Reading the policy up to this point, I am very pleased. But…wait for it…There it was, on the very next line at the very bottom of page six: a big, ugly loophole where feminist hopes and dreams go to die. The loophole reads, “[a]n individual who has been banished may petition for reinstatement after one year, but there is no presumption or assurance that the petition will be granted” (National Football League, 2015, pp. 6). Huh?  I’m not sure what dictionary Commissioner Goodell uses, but Merriam-Webster.com tells me the definition of “permanent”, as in “permanent banishment”, means “lasting or continuing for a long time, or forever; not temporary or changing” (Merriam-Webster.com, n.d.). There is absolutely nothing permanent about a penalty that can essentially be reversed in as little as one year. The policy in its entirety is undermined by this little one-liner, snuck in at the bottom of the page. To make matters more confusing and to further validate my trust issues with Commissioner Goodell, no guidelines regarding reinstatement consideration are provided. How convenient! It’s like they were SO tired from adequately detailing the first half of this policy that they figured they had done enough work for one day and said, “screw it, we’ll burn that bridge when we come to it.” After further dissection of the policy, I realize that the intimidation tactics listed as conduct violations are not actually grouped with the other domestic violence offense and thus, the same discipline guidelines do not apply to these coercive behaviors often used by abusers to maintain power and control. Furthermore, I was unable to find any specific and clearly outlined guidelines for disciplinary action corresponding with this form of abuse anywhere in the handbook—A loophole the size of a violated order of protection.  Apparently, the NFL and Commissioner Goodell can’t get within 500 feet of a comprehensive domestic violence policy.

            Despite the six-game baseline penalty for first domestic violence offenses being clearly outlined in the updated policy, Commissioner Goodell and the NFL are still struggling in their ability to enforce penalties. In late September of this year, one of the league’s current domestic violence scandals came to light, involving then-active New York Giant’s (NYG) kicker, Josh Brown. According to police documents, Brown admitted in letters, emails, and journal entries to physically, verbally, and emotionally abusing his now ex-wife, Molly. These documents were part of Brown’s case file associated with his arrest on May 22, 2015 following an altercation with his wife (Raanan, 2016). Despite being aware of this off-season arrest, the NYG resigned Brown at the start of this season. Additionally, despite the updated PCP’s six-game baseline penalty and the fact that aggravating factors were clearly present in this case (e.g., the abuse began when Molly was pregnant with their daughter and continued in the presence of their children later), Commissioner Goodell only suspended Brown for one game at the start of this season. Both Commissioner Goodell and the NYG co-owner justified their leniency and decision to resign Brown with the leniency of the criminal justice system and the fact that no charges had been filed (Santiago, 2016). I will detail the problem with this rationale in my suggestions to the NFL later in this article. Brown has since been released from the team (which only took the Giants several days to do), and has been placed on the commissioners exempt list, which is essentially paid administrative leave. Although his future in the league is uncertain, status on this list does not prohibit any team from signing Brown to their team, he simply will not be permitted to play.

So, here we are with this half written and almost entirely unenforced policy, and a continuous problem with players abusing women. Then somebody in the back, who maybe hasn’t quite been paying attention the whole time, dares to beg the question: “why does this keep happening?” In some ways, it seems rather obvious (hint: the half written and mostly unenforced policy), but why is this so hard for the NFL and Commissioner Goodell to get right? They can’t really use the whole “budget cuts” excuse like everyone else, so what exactly is the problem?  Do they just not care enough?  Is domestic violence just too complicated?  My guess is, the answer is probably both. Domestic violence is a complicated problem that presents in many different forms with various root causes contributing to its manifestation. In terms of average rookie or young NFL players, we have young men with still developing frontal lobes going from college to primetime in a matter of months, entering a profession and subculture steeped in toxic masculinity where they have millions of dollars at their disposal and all the associated status and male privilege society grants them. Already there are a plethora of potential risk factors for violence, and I’m just getting started. Combine all of that with a family history of domestic violence or trauma (witnessed, experienced, or both), any past head trauma associated with football as well as new head injuries, and any substance abuse. Top it all off with a growing sense of entitlement fueled by having little to no consequences for his behavior and voila! You have yourself an abuser.  Obviously, all of these factors do not apply to every abuser in the league. The point is that, “why does he do that?” is a complicated question because domestic violence is a multifaceted issue.  Now to the other side of this coin. The NFL’s substance abuse policy demonstrates that the league is highly capable of developing and enforcing a detailed policy when motivated enough.  So essentially, a major reason why Commissioner Goodell and the NFL have been unable to successfully target their domestic violence problem is because Commissioner Goodell and NFL simply do not care enough about their domestic violence problem. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not that they don’t care at all. They care a little bit, just enough to write half a policy and enforce even less of it. So, why does this keep happening? It keeps happening because domestic violence is a self-reinforcing cycle that will not stop without comprehensive and consistent intervention, the complexity and gravity of which has been sidelined by Commissioner Goodell and the NFL.

In response to the Josh Brown situation and the NFL fumbling their updated domestic violence policy, Bari Z. Weinberger, a family law expert from New Jersey, challenged the NFL in an open letter to implement a 7-point plan for taking a stronger stance against domestic violence.  Her points included: a) mandatory domestic violence prevention education for players, b) mandatory counseling following allegations or charges of domestic violence, c) greater transparency in domestic violence investigations, d) elimination of “locker room talk”, e) clarification of language regarding the six-game suspension rule to close loopholes that allow reduced suspensions (as was the case with Josh Brown), and f) support for players who take a stand against domestic violence (e.g., Steve Smith Sr. of the Baltimore Ravens) (Weinberger Law Group, 2016). I love that this attorney, woman, and self-proclaimed “life-long football fan” (pp. 1) used her expertise in family law to openly make suggestions rather than simply complaining. I find myself struggling with the ever-mounting cognitive dissonance associated with trying to balance my feminist core belief system with my genuine love for the sport of football. I know I am not alone in this respect. Even fans who do not self-identify as feminists are struggling achieve a balance within their moral reasoning systems that somehow allows them to maintain a positive association with football fandom and does not also imply that they condone or are permissive of violence against women. My current personal solution to this dissonance is writing this article, the remainder of which will be devoted to highlighting necessary changes I believe the NFL must make in order to properly address the problem of domestic violence.   

Many fans took to Twitter, expressing disapproval of how Commissioner Goodell and the New York Giants handled the Josh Brown domestic violence incident. Credit: Tweet by @TheyCallMeAzul 

1.  Make it a Priority.

The NFL preaches the importance of integrity, warning players in the personal conduct policy that engaging in “conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL” is prohibited, and that those who engaged is such conduct will be subject to discipline (National Football League, 2015, pp. 2). However, the league has failed time and time again to lead by example and has been inconsistent at best in demonstrating integrity. I think it’s quite obvious that the NFL has, thus far, discounted the gravity of their domestic violence problem by prioritizing punitive action for lesser, non-violent offenses. For those who disagree or do not follow football, allow me to break it down. It costs a player four games without pay for letting the air out of a ball, but he could knock the air out of a woman for free. Smoking a blunt costs a player four, six, or even ten games without pay, but causing blunt force trauma to a woman may only cost him one or two games, and only more if there happens to be video evidence and public outcry. Until the NFL recognizes the severity of its domestic violence problem and gives it the respect and attention it warrants, nothing will change. This means not only making plans for change, but following through on them as well—commit to the play and run the route accordingly. 

2.  Stay on offense--Be Proactive about this Issue.

You can’t win anything if you are always only on defense. To tackle the issue of domestic violence head-on, the NFL needs to stay in front of it. We know the NFL and Commissioner Goodell have worked with psychologists and domestic violence experts, and we know that domestic violence education has always been a key component in this policy. Knowledge and understanding are the mechanisms of change and the foundation for which this entire program stands.  Make domestic violence education mandatory for everyone; Not because all players are abusers, but because every player has the potential to stop abuse if they all know what it looks like and what to do. Teach players, coaches, employees, and staff about the various ways abuse can manifest (physical, verbal, emotional, sexual, financial, etc.) and just how devastating the effects of each can be for victims. 

Education shouldn’t stop at the topic of abuse and domestic violence. Aggression is a central feature of football, and when that aggression has no barrier from personal life, it becomes dangerous. Players should be taught about the need to compartmentalize their positive (read: productive) aggression. This aggression can be viewed as an additional piece of protective gear, necessary to keep them safe in the game (like a helmet and shoulder pads), but if worn off the field, hinders their ability to function normally and be productive in their daily life. Players should be given tools to help them decompress and leave this excess aggression behind when they go home at the end of the day. Just as ice baths and stretching are necessary routines that allow players’ bodies to better adjust from games or practice back to daily activity, brief mindfulness or meditation exercise are necessary to help players debrief and orient their minds to the present moment, allowing the boundary for aggressive behavior to be reinforced.  

Lastly, work to create an environment that promotes gender equality and respect for women. Gendered discourse is commonly used in the form of challenging insults, with the end goal of motivating a player to improve his performance (McDowell & Schaffner, 2011). An example of this would be telling a player to “man up” or “grow a pair”, or calling him a “sissy” or more derogatory word that implies his shortcomings demote him to the status of a woman.  Trust me when I say, the list of “things worse than being a woman” is quite extensive, and if you can’t come up with a better insult you lack both imagination and intelligence. Violence against women is perpetuated by disrespect for and objectification of women. The NFL needs to recognize its role in perpetuating this problem, and take an active stance on the issue. As Weinberger suggested, work to eliminate “locker room talk”, but also raise awareness of how language is subtly used to reinforce negative feelings and disrespect for women, and prohibit the use of derogatory and sexist comments as a coaching tactic to challenge players.

3.  Protect your HUMAN Investments

While the bottom line in football may be about winning games, these draft picks and trade acquisitions are not simply investments being made. We as a society and professional sports industries need to stop viewing and treating professional athletes as if they are gladiators or action figures who are expected to sacrifice their bodies, minds, spirits, families, and lives for our entertainment and television ratings. Players are people, with pasts and futures that span well beyond the football field. They are dynamic and have mental health needs that change throughout the course of their careers and lives, just as their medical needs do. A player’s body may be his temple, but his psyche is the foundation holding everything up. If there’s a fracture in the foundation, the temple cannot remain stable. The NFL needs to better prioritize the mental health needs of players to ensure they are able to cope with stress without resorting to violence.

As previously mentioned, we know that a history either witnessed or experienced abuse as a child is a significant predictor of domestic violence. Substance abuse is also a risk factor for violence, and research has shown athletes tend to have higher rates of alcohol use and violence compared to non-athlete populations (Sønderlund et al., 2014). Lastly, we know that past behavior is one of the best predictors of future behavior. If a player has a history of being violent toward women, that pattern is likely to continue. The league needs to incorporate this well-established knowledge on domestic violence risk factors when screening players on draft day, and beyond. Ask about any history of abuse they experienced, inquire about what their home life was like growing up, use mental health professionals and standardized assessment measures to better understand the totality of the person you are taking on, and this process shouldn’t begin and end on draft day. Follow-up with players, closely monitor and re-evaluate areas of concern.  For individuals at high risk for domestic violence, have a preventative plan to educate and stop the issue before it starts or worsens. The league should look to and lean on the strongest, most outspoken players against domestic violence. I’m talking about players like Steve Smith Sr. and Tom Brady, who do not hesitate to speak out against domestic violence in the league. Eli Manning may have been the face of the NFL’s “No More” campaign, but without a script he had very little to say about the topic of domestic violence. The league should pair at-risk players with strong players to serve as mentors who will help hold them accountable for their behavior and assist them in making a healthy adjustment to their new lifestyle. 

4.  Work on Your Defense.

The NFL’s inability to consistently enforce penalties for domestic violence offenses looks a lot like those parents who can’t keep theirs kids in time-out for the duration of the punishment. The difference is, inconsistent parenting produces an unruly child who’s most at risk for having a tantrum in the grocery store, while inconsistent penalties for domestic violence help to produce a man who endangers the lives of women everywhere. Consequences are a natural part of life that all people must experience in some form or another. When someone does something that violates a rule or law and the corresponding punishment is missing or inconsistent, the behavior is reinforced and the likelihood that this person will engage in that behavior again increases. When a person is not held accountable for his actions, he begins to believe such rules and laws do not apply to him, leading to a pernicious sense of entitlement. Josh Brown admitted to having an excessive sense of entitlement, stating that he had essentially viewed himself as God and his ex-wife as his slave. This is a characteristic trait of abusers that is only made stronger by the NFL’s weakness in enforcing penalties that would hold abusers in the league accountable their behavior.  When a six-game suspension can so easily be reduced to one game or no suspension, a clear message is sent that the league finds domestic violence acceptable, which is why it keeps occurring. The NFL needs to stop making empty threats of punishment to players who commit domestic violence and empty promises of justice to those players’ victims.  

There needs to be clear and enforceable guidelines for individuals arrested or charged with domestic violence offenses. The need for intervention and leniency decisions should not be based on conviction or whether charges were dropped because in the majority of domestic violence cases, criminal charges are not pursued. The issues are often settled instead in family court because treatment is preferable to criminal punishment such as imprisonment. If there was enough evidence for an arrest to be made or charges to be filed at any point, there is enough for the league to enforce a penalty. The policy should include a firm minimum penalty. If consideration is to be given to aggravating and mitigating factors, the amount of influence these factors have on the penalty should be outlined clearly in the conduct policy. Significantly more detail and transparency is necessary for this policy to effectively improve the NFL’s domestic violence issue. The conduct policy should include a tiered program of similar detail to the league’s substance abuse policy. Specific requirements should be outlined in detail for each stage, such as completion of anger management courses, attending both family/couple therapy as well as individual therapy, complying with any legal requirements (i.e., protective orders), and avoiding any new arrests. Also, as is done in the case of substance abuse violations, the league should follow the player and monitor his progression through the program over the course of several seasons (e.g., players remain in stage one for 24 months or two full seasons). The policy should detail how the league plans to monitor players’ progression through treatment to ensure its effectiveness and promote accountability. Lastly, clear guidelines should be in place for re-signing player who have committed domestic violence offenses in the past or during off-seasons, and clear punishments should be outlined and enforced for owners who violate these standards.      

Until Commissioner Goodell and the NFL can up their game and make tackling the league’s domestic violence problem a real priority, we are only going to hear of more abuse and a longer list of victims who didn’t have to be. Fans can do their part by speaking out against domestic violence within the league, about the problem of violence against women throughout society, and by supporting players who actively do the same. With yet another domestic violence scandal recently resurfacing involving rookie star running back, Ezekiel Elliott, Commissioner Goodell has an opportunity to make the right call and throw the flag at domestic violence.

Written by Kelsey Thomas, M.A.

 References

Brown, M. L. (2016). When pros become cons: Ending the NFL’s history of domestic violence leniency. Family Law Quarterly 50(1), 193-212.

McDowell, J. & Schaffner, S. (2011). Football, it’s a man’s game: Insult and gendered discourse in The Gender Bowl. Discourse & Society, 22(5), 547-564. doi:10.1177/0957926511405574

National Football League. (2015). Personal conduct policy. Retrieved from https://nflpaweb.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/PDFs/Active%20Players/PersonalConductPolicy2015.pdf

Permanent. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved November 6, 2016, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/permanent.

Raanan, J. (2016, October 20). Giants kicker Josh Brown detailed domestic violence in documents. Retrieved from http://www.espn.com/espn/print?id=17837045

Santiago, E. (2016, September 18). NFL fumbled own domestic violence policy. The Journal News. Retrieved from http://www.lohud.com/story/opinion/contributors/2016/09/12/nfl-fumbled-its-own-domestic-violence-policy/89951912/

Sønderlund, A. L., O’Brien, K., Kremer, P., Rowland, B., De Groot, F., Staiger, P.,…Miller, P.G. (2014). The association between sports participation, alcohol use and aggression and violence: A systematic Review. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sports, 17(1), 2-7.

Weinberger Law Group. (2016, October 27). Family law expert challenges NFL to overhaul domestic violence policy. PR Newswire. Retrieved from http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/family-law-expert-challenges-nfl-to-overhaul-domestic-violence-policy-300352438.html

The Art of Being a Warrior in a World Unaware of Its Warzone: An Open Letter to Men // Shelby M. Burton

img src: http://www.virago.co.uk/christmas-feminist-quote-cards/

DISCLAIMER: I began writing this piece for the natural audience I had assumed for a blog called FemPop, aka: women. Plot twist: I had an epiphany that the real audience who can benefit from these accounts are men. Although I can explain how the gendered world we live in is also negatively impacting men, I can only have this conversation once we have covered the elephant in the room, the elephant being the massive sexual violence that is happening to women and the world being the country that we live in.  In case you are as logical as I am, here are some data (Breiding et al., 2014):

	Women	Men
Rape	19.3%	1.7%
Stalking	15.2%	5.7%
Any account of sexual violence	43.9%	23.4%

Essentially, what I am saying is that these things happen to men, but that it happens at an even greater rate for women, even after taking underreporting into account (Black et al., 2011).  And the faster we start talking about how this influences women, the faster we can start talking about how it also influences men, since men, as a whole, are socialized to avoid discussing their sexual violence experiences.

So, men, I will admit it: we need you. We need you on board. We need you to HEAR US. We need you to understand that harassment does not always look like harassment from your perspective. Although we need you to stop raping, and assaulting, and “locker room” talking, we need you to start by educating yourself. By reading this. By reading similar accounts of women.  We need you to see the wounds from the fire that we burn from each and every day. Only then can we also protect you from the residual smoke that has been slowly infiltrating men, as well. 

A Warrior’s Life

I have three bottles of pepper spray: one in my glove compartment, one in my nightstand, and another that I cling to each night as I walk from my car to my apartment, ready to spray at any attacker. I survey my surroundings, from the protective shelter behind the wheel before I make my way to the door that is seemingly miles away. I ensure that all belongings on me are secured so as to avoid being an easy target for muggings. Every single night, I wonder how much more time will pass before I no longer have to go through this ritual.

For my college graduation, I was gifted a Taser gun for my move across the country, funded by a family who feared their little girl living in a city like a child going to war. I spend the hard-earned money from my graduate student stipend on self-defense classes rather than going out to dinner with my friends. I live in a world where I cannot accept drinks if I did not see the bartender make them, where I am taken advantage of in any situation involving technology or cars, and where I have been treated differently in academic and professional settings based on the gender in which I identify with. 

This year alone, I have been followed in grocery stores and coffee shops (yes, those are both plural), and on one occasion I was briefly stalked by a man who was working on my car. I have been photographed on the street by guys who were catcalling me, have had to break several boys’ hearts because I was the first girl who identified that what they just did (or was about to do) was sexual harassment, and then guilt tripped because they disagreed. Guess what? The harasser does not get to be the one who decides what harassment looks like.

We Are Here

This is my lived experience, but there are other lenses through which women see the world. Thus, in an effort to bring attention to how sexual violence impacts others’ worldviews, some organizations on my campus teamed up with me to launch the We Are Here Movement, inspired by Duke University. As part of this movement, one simple question was posed: What would a world without sexual violence look like? Here are some popular responses:

What would a world look like without sexual violence? Safe. Fearless. Empowering. Stable. Free. Peaceful. Equal. Respectful. Consensual. No rape, assault, or abuse.  Men, I ask you, does your world look like this already? I make no assumptions. I realize that, especially when taking intersectionality into account, your world may not be safe, fearless, empowering, etc. But I wonder how much of this is attributed to sexual violence, as compared to women’s.  And if it is attributed to sexual violence, I am going to make a risky statement: I wonder how often the perpetrator was also a man. According to a study completed by the Centers for Disease and Control, not only are women mainly victimized by other men, men are also often victimized by other men (Black et al., 2011). 

Now, here is another word cloud dictating all of the negative responses we received in relation to the question, reflecting today’s struggles associated with sexual violence.

Again, men, I ask you: is your world dictated by being overpowered by others, victimization, slut-shaming, and fear of the dark? Would you describe it as Hell? If your answer is yes, is it because of sexual violence?  I am not assuming that your answers were “no” to all of these, but I am wondering how women as a whole identify with these statements in comparison to men.

Now What?

Each of these clouds paints a different world.  While one represents “Hope,” the other represents “War.” I cannot help but wonder which world you would rather take part in building.  For suggestions on how to take action, here is a starter list:

1.      Share this article. Get other men on board. Talk about it. If they mock you, be empowered enough to keep fighting for change. Remember, as a woman, I would rather be in a position to be mocked than a position to be fearing for my life each day.

2.      Engage in conversations with other women about their lived experiences. You might be surprised at the privileges you never realized you had, like going to a grocery store without fear of being followed or being able to walk in the dark at night.

3.      Then, do something about it. Get in contact with a local women’s organization, seek therapy for your own possible experiences with sexual violence, and/or talk to your children about how they can be the change.

If you are still reading, I end this piece with gratitude. Whether you are questioning what is in this article or whether you already define yourself as a feminist, thank you. It is by reading this article that you have taken the first step toward hope. I long to live in a world where I can walk home from class at night without grasping the pepper spray in my right hand and my keys in my left, perfectly positioned in between each finger so that it can also serve as a weapon. I long to live in a world where I do not have to wonder why a stranger is taking pictures of me on the street, and where I do not have to be so worried about my surroundings at a coffee shop that I am studying at that I opt to study at home instead. Only when we warriors unite together will we be able to put an end to this horrific War on Sexual Violence.

References

Black, M.C., Basile, K.C., Breiding, M.J., Smith, S.G., Walters, M.L., Merrick, M.T., Chen, J.,

& Stevens, M.R. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey

(NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and

Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

About Last Night- Why is America More Comfortable with Sexual Assault than with a Woman President? // Lauren Clinton

Img source: http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a5247168/trump-standing-behind-clinton-presidential-debate-2016/

Like all feminists, I believed November 8^th 2016 would be the day the glass ceiling would crack. Having cast my absentee ballot already, I expected, like most of the country, to sit back, and watch Hillary Rodham Clinton become our first female President after a 30+ year political career; an obvious choice over a B rated celebrity with no political experience. I was sure this would happen.

I was wrong.

How was I wrong?? How was it possible for the most qualified candidate our country had seen in decades to possibly lose to an openly xenophobic, misogynist, racist, predator? Why would America, the great melting pot, land of opportunity, allow this to happen?

The answer to this question is of course, multifaceted. Many Republicans felt jilted by the Obama administration, and were eager to move into any new direction they had offered to them. Many found Trump relatable, funny, and charismatic. A sizable pool of Democrats could not get passed the loss of Bernie Sanders, and chose to vote independent, or not at all. Moreover, many could not find Hillary relatable, or were troubled by scandals pertaining to Benghazi and her emails. But no matter which facet you believe was most impactful in this devastating loss, one thing is for certain: America was more comfortable with sexism, and sexual assault, than a woman President.

Some may argue, “It had nothing to do with her gender, Hillary was corrupt!” But let’s look at the facts: Hillary Clinton underwent not one, but two FBI investigations pertaining to her careless use of a personal email account for government business. Upon completion of both investigations, no criminal charges were filed (Brander, Brown, & Perez, 2016). This is not the first time something like this has happened. Many important male politicians have made this same mistake—including Colin Powell and Jeb Bush (Zurcher, 2016).  So while this act may be questionable, dare I say neglectful, it is not one that has been indicated to be treason or corruption previously. Moreover, it again begs the question, “Is this less understandable than sexism? Than sexual assault?”

“Donald Trump is NOT sexist or guilty of assault! This is locker room talk!” Statements like these make feel sick to my stomach, especially when they come from other women. While rape culture might want us to believe what Donald Trump discussed in his infamous video was no big deal, this was a description of an unwanted instance of molestation, groping, and harassment. This is not how men talk to one another: this is how predators try to express their power over others. Women who believe this is how men interact with one another should NOT be shamed—they are victims who have grown up in a culture where this type of behavior and logic is not only permissible, but internalized as a norm.

Days before the polls opened, Hillary Clinton was cleared of any potential charges. But she wasn’t the only one. Prior to the release of Donald’s graphic description of “grabbing women by the pussy”, a woman alleged Donald Trump of raped her as a 13-year-old girl (Doe, 2016). This is terrifying, considering Donald Trump has been formally accused of sexual assault and rape previously, including by his ex wife Ivana (Bloom, 2016). Days before the election, the child rape case was dropped. Considering the National Sexual Violence Response Center reports only 2-8% of rape accusations are ruled as “false” (meaning specifically, there is not enough evidence to prove it is true and advance to court) and more than 60% of sexual assault (NSVRC, 2012) cases go unreported, the likelihood of this accusation being flippant seem slim.

So, the nation had a choice. Elect a qualified woman with a hell of a resume and questionable past, or elect an unqualified man, who has been accused and admitted to sexual assault and misogyny far more times than Clinton’s emails were scoured. They made their choice. What now? We relish in the likelihood that HRC will win the popular vote, suggesting the majority of Americans see Trump for who he really is, and not how he pays to look. We listen to the stories of survivors and take them at face value. We applaud our women, especially those with intersecting identities, for being strong in the face of danger. We love all those in equal, greater, or lesser despair over impending consequences. And we never, ever stop fighting to not just crack the glass ceiling, but burst through it.

Bloom, L. (2016). Why the New Child Rape Case Against Donald Trump Should Not be Ignored. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/why-the-new-child-rape-ca_b_10619944.html

Bradner, E., Brown, P., & Perez, E. (2016). FBI Clears Clinton—Again. CNN. Retrieved from: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/06/politics/comey-tells-congress-fbi-has-not-changed-conclusions/

Doe, J. (2016). Affidavits retrieved from: https://www.scribd.com/doc/316341058/Donald-Trump-Jeffrey-Epstein-Rape-Lawsuit-and-Affidavits#fullscreen?platform=hootsuite

National Sexual Violence Response Center (2012). False Reporting. Retrieved from: http://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf

Zurcher, A. (2016). Hillary Clinton Emails—What’s it All About? BBC News. Received from: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-31806907