The Intersections of Feminist-Psychologist-Activist and Emotional Burnout // Renee Mikorski, M. S.

Img src: everydayfeminism.com

2016 has been a tough year. Prince died, Trump was elected president, and there have been countless national struggles and tragedies that have affected our collective psyche. Just recently in East Tennessee, where I live, the Smoky Mountain wildfires have killed dozens of residents and displaced thousands of others in the area. There has been a lot to complain about and mourn for in 2016.

In addition to these large-scale tragedies that (almost) anyone in the U.S. would find emotionally draining, we as psychologists have an added layer of emotional stress in that we deal with the emotions of others on a more intimate level through our work as clinicians. As we all know, clinical work can take its emotional toll on us, especially if we do not practice a regular self-care routine.

But, I am going to argue that the intersections of woman-psychologist-activist can put us as feminist psychologists in a unique position of additional emotional burden. I am speaking as a cis White woman writing this article but I can imagine that women psychologists of color, poor women, and those who identify as lesbian, bi, or trans may feel this intersectional emotional burden even more strongly. I think that we are all in a position to feel this emotional burnout in our clinical work, in our daily lives, and as activists and this puts us in an extremely vulnerable position.

As women, we are expected to take on the emotional burdens of others. For me, this has played out in my personal relationships, especially with men. I am expected to listen, and be understanding and supportive of others in their struggles. This can lead me to feel as though my own voice is not heard in the context of those relationships, which leads to inequity within the relationship.

However, not only are we as women expected to take on this role outside of therapy, our role as a therapist inherently requires that we willingly accept those burdens. Although we have all chosen this path (presumably) because we feel passionate about helping others, our work is still draining and we must acknowledge that. I think it is also easy (it has been for me at least) to dismiss our own feelings or our own exhaustion because we are expected (as women and as therapists) to provide for others and forget our own needs in both our personal and professional lives.

The last intersection that I believe influences our vulnerability to emotional burn out is activism. As feminist psychologists, the majority of us are likely involved in some sort of activism outside of the therapy room. Activism, like therapy, can be extremely emotionally taxing, especially when the oppressive forces we are fighting are dismissive and sometimes outright aggressive towards our struggles. Oppression in and of itself causes psychological distress, but actively choosing to confront this oppression on a consistent basis, as part of our professional identities, can be exhausting.

So, how do we cope with this? I have personally been struggling with this as of late, as I further solidify my identity as a feminist psychologist and an activist. How can we maintain all of these roles and not feel exhausted and burned out, especially as feminist women who are choosing to actively confront oppression on a regular basis? As the semester winds down and winter break approaches, I plan to dedicate some time to reflecting on these intersections of emotional burden and figuring out what works for me in terms of taking care of myself to maintain that stamina and strength that is required of us. Although I’d like to neatly end his post with some suggestions for self-care and rejuvenation, I think this is something that I will need to continue to reflect on as I continue to develop my identity as a woman, a feminist, a psychologist, and an activist. On that note, I wish you all a wonderful, restful, and rejuvenating winter break!

Written by Renee Mikorski, M. S.

Merry Stressmas \\ Lauren Jacobs, M.A.

Picture from Google

It’s the time of the year again where we travel from a distance to get together with loved ones and enjoy good company and even better food. We are told to relax and enjoy each other and everything that surrounds us during this season; after all it’s the most wonderful time of the year, isn’t it? Unfortunately for women, this season is known to be one of the most overwhelming periods of the year. A survey completed by the American Psychological Association discovered that women report an increase of stress by 44% around the holidays, which is disproportionate to men’s report of approximately 30% (1). It’s true. Despite the advances women have made throughout the years in education, the workforce, politics, and economic independence, on average they still do twice as much work at home with child care and chores than a man, even when holding a full-time career. For women, holiday stress may be a function of greater family responsibilities as we are expected to and often volunteer to take all of the tasks associated with family celebrations, such as shopping, cooking, and cleaning. It takes a lot of perseverance to do all of this regularly, let alone during the holidays when we are knee deep with family visits, gift-wrapping, stocking stuffing, and cookie baking tasks. We are busy little elves trying to make the holiday everything it should be for others, often losing our sanity and spirit along the way. But please, relax and enjoy the season if you haven’t been defeated by the expectations we’ve placed on ourselves.

If that hasn’t been enough, there is always that one other thing that occurs during the holidays that can truly put the icing on your gingerbread house. (Yes, I make terrible jokes to keep up with the holiday spirit!) This one thing is known as the time when a family member opens his or her mouth and asks a highly personal, probing question such as “When are you finally getting married?” or “When are you getting a real job?”, resulting in you being left to let it fester, become embarrassed, or have the holiday-halting shouting match that makes for a good story the following year. If that doesn’t scream “Holiday fun” I’m not sure what does. This additional stressor often compounds with the aforementioned, resulting in avoidance of these off-putting inquisitions and ill-directed focuses on things that do not make this season what it’s supposed to be.

It’s with this that I want to take a moment to pause in the chaos of this season. We’re very familiar with what it is like to be over-involved in a whirlwind of attending holiday parties, decorating our homes, and finding the perfect gifts for friends and family. The holidays show up and disappear within the blink of an eye. Let’s aim to put the “stressmas” of the holidays aside and focus on sharing good times with our loved ones and creating memories that will last a lifetime. Give thanks for all that we have and are yet to experience, acknowledging all of the blessings in our lives and not taking any for granted. If we could refocus our hearts and our minds, this season may be less stressful and more delightful – and after all, tis’ the season to be jolly!

Resources

1.    http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2006/12/holiday-stress.pdf

The Importance of an Ecofeminist Sensibility // Rebecca Marcelina Gimeno, M.A.

I believe that given this past presidential election, and current events calling for environmental activism, an ecofeminist sensibility is extremely important as we move into 2017. Issues of climate change, mass environmental destruction, and concerns of women’s reproductive health care have all been gathered up, degraded, and exploited in today’s political discourse. For these reasons and more, I am urging feminists, psychotherapists, and those interested in political activism, to learn more about ecofeminism. For me personally, it has been helpful to understand ecofeminism as a theory, and as a political movement, which understands there to be an important connection between the oppression of women and the destruction of the environment, and that the eradication of both oppressions is necessary to an egalitarian world

When I began to study ecofeminism during my earlier years of graduate school, I had wanted to solely focus my research on the intersections of the war on women’s reproductive rights and the destruction of nature. However, as I began to learn more about our political situation, I came to realize that this intersection also speaks to the ways in which science oppresses both nature and women's bodies in the name of “progress” and the ways in which the free-market profits on the destruction of women’s bodies, especially when controlling their reproduction and for the purposes the Sex Industry. The task feels overwhelming and endless. It is extremely difficult to write on one specific form of oppression, when so much oppression is shared amongst groups of people, sentient beings, and the environment. To talk about one struggle, in a way is to talk about every struggle, and to deny the intersectionality of oppression, secures the existence of oppression itself.

 Historically women’s bodies and the natural world have been exploited, owned, commodified, and regulated by governing bodies of power, especially by patriarchal forms of free-market capitalism. As a young feminist, student, and training clinical psychologist, I am interested in the ways in which this exploitation and degradation affects our collective consciousness and personal psyches, especially when considering the war on reproductive rights and environmental destruction. Ecofeminism and select orientations of psychology have made clear the dangers of oppression for our personal and social well-beings. The destruction of the environment and the occupation of women’s bodies is a worldwide phenomenon that holds in common a view of nature as a boundless resource, and women's bodies as profitable and in need of regulation. Climate change, war, pollution, and oppressive political regimes directly harm the natural world and oppressed populations. Women’s bodies are frequently at the front line of political conflicts and ideologies which often focus on the regulation of women’s bodies and means of reproduction. Similarly, akin to the natural world, women’s bodies, are often exploited in the name of science or progress, and at times are profited from in the case of the entertainment and sex industries.

It feels as though every time I check the news, there is another abortion clinic closing, another obstacle towards securing contraceptive care, another report of domestic violence, and another environmental atrocity. Violence against the environment, and violence against women are felt internationally, and the consequences of this violence affects the whole of humankind and the Earth, our home. As activist and scholar, Greta Gaard (2010) so eloquently writes:

Ecofeminism calls for an end to all oppressions, arguing that no attempt to liberate women (or any other oppressed group will be successful without an equal attempt to liberate nature. Its theoretical base is a sense of self most commonly expressed by women and various other nondominant groups—a self that is interconnected with all life. (p.1)

Gaard is right. We cannot move towards a more egalitarian society when there is so much violence being done, violence against the Earth, women, people of color, our animal friends, and religious and sexual minorities.        

            I hope that we, as a collective, can enter the New Year with a renewed sense of hope and conviction regarding the preciousness of the Earth, and of all sentient beings. We have seen the power of solidarity and activism most recently at Standing Rock, and have also witnessed the resurgence of a renewed women’s movement following the presidential election.

            The time to tackle these environmental and reproductive rights issues is now. As was once often heard, uttered in the cries of protesters and activists during the political turmoil that followed the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the world can’t wait.

References

Gaard, G. (2010). Ecofeminism. Temple University Press.

Written by: Rebecca Marcelina Gimeno, MA.

Duquesne University

Misogyny is Played Out: A Demand for Music that Empowers the Sexes, without Sexism // Aimee M. Poleski, M.A.

Img source: http://soulumd.blogspot.com

            Hip hop has long been characterized by its gritty strength and power to energize a diverse audience through kinetic beats rooted in dynamic rhythms and commanding bass.  Early forms of hip hop unearthed culture of African American communities, allowing widespread exposure to culture rich with pride, drive, and an eclectic range of talent. The world came to love hip hop in both pure and polluted forms as artists broke upon the scene, leaving a legacy of a legend or a one-hit-wonder.  Despite the tenacious appeal of hip hop, a love of the music genre poses a problem.  Hip hop has remained entrenched with misogyny.  It perpetuates a culture of demeaning attitudes and behavior toward women.  As one female music reporter stated early in her career, “As much as women love hip hop, it doesn’t love us back (Iandoll, 2012).”       

            Hip hop emanated when cultural traditions met city life. West African story telling in musical forms became integrated with a rising culture comprised, in part, of graffiti, deejaying, break-dancing, and rap (Layne, 2014).  These elements led to the emergence of a new form of music in the Bronx, New York in the 1970s (Adam & Fuller, 2006).  As the economic and racial composition within the Bronx changed, so did the social problems residents endured.  Hip hop became an outlet for people of color to respond to oppression (Layne, 2014).  A new way of life led to the birth of an art form that has withstood changing trends, norms, and values within communities world-wide. 

            The next decade unceremoniously infiltrated hip hop with sexism. Racial themes and oppression of women arose from racist and sexist ideals established by dominant, White culture and the rise of capitalism (Layne, 2014).  Exploitation of women was initially reflected in hip hop lyrics in the 1980s, when groups such as N.W.A. and 2 Live Crew emerged. These performers left a legacy that traps many of us in moments of nostalgia when their music hits the ear.  However, they set the stage for a new standard in respect to a woman’s place in the world. Despite the medium being used to express various emotions, misogyny became a prominent theme in hip hop (Adam & Fuller, 2006).  Often over sexualized and the favored target of domination by men, rap lyrics portrayed women as submissive, disposable orifices.

            Female artists arose despite attempts to exclude women from the genre.  Artists such as Queen Latifah and Salt-N-Pepa created room for empowerment.  These women combatted the hypermasculine culture through boasting ideas surrounding safe sex and independence from men (Rhodes, 2013).  Yet progress was short-lived despite a handful of women breaking barriers.  Demeaning attitudes and behavior toward women proved to transcend the onset of a strong female presence in hip hop culture. While Black women were initially targets of racially charged sexism, misogyny within the genre would eventually be generalized to women of all backgrounds.  Women, as a collective group, became the ultimate target.

Queen Latifah was one of the first female hip hop artists, who preached messages of equality and empowerment.  Pro-equality lyrics were evident in her song U.N.I.T.Y. (1993,12):

Instinct leads me to another flow

Every time I hear a brother call a girl a bitch or a ho

Trying to make a sister feel low

You know all of that gots to go

Now everybody knows there's exceptions to this rule

Now don't be getting mad when we playing, it's cool

But don't you be calling out my name

I bring wrath to those who disrespect me like a dame

            Female independence was a promising theme in lyrics, but ultimately became a hybrid of sexist stereotypes.  One example is the “bad bitch.”  The bad bitch concept created a misleading representation of what a strong woman is and how she presents. The bad bitch describes the woman who asserts herself onto those around her, successfully manipulating others through a fiery attitude.  In turn, she is able to dominate even men. (Adam & Fuller, 2006).  However, the concept shifted to define a woman that uses dominance in conjunction with self-exploitation to achieve a goal (Layne, 2014).  A similar brazen stereotype in hip hop is the “ho,” or the sexually promiscuous female, referred to in various fashions over time.  While this type of female is looked down upon, negative views are often juxtaposed with idealization. The distorted portrayal of the sexually promiscuous woman enmeshes enamor and disgust through encouraging a woman to engage in sex.  She is praised if she behaves in line with the stereotype yet insulted in the same respect.  This woman is also dismissed if she does not fulfill men’s expectations of how she should use her body.  A woman’s innate sexuality, as well as her desire for positive attention and independence, are preyed upon by misogynistic themes within machismo, hip hop culture.  Trending terms have changed over time, but the message remains the same.

Lil Wayne is known for sexually explicit content in many of his rhymes.  In a verse featured on Drake’s song, I’m Goin’ In (2009, 5), his lyrics portray violence as an integrated component of sexual dominance through linking sexual references with a term used to describe a deadly gun shot:

Bad to the bristle

Hat to the rizzle

I'm so official all I need is a whistle

Bitch named Crystal

 Let her suck my pistol

She opened up her mouth

And then I blow her brains out

In his track U.O.E.N.O (2013, 4), Rick Ross describes taking advantage of a woman after drugging her.  His lyrics indicate a woman was date raped, and he boasts about the woman being entirely unaware that sexual assault has occurred:

Put Molly all in her champagne

She ain't even know it

I took her home, and I enjoyed that

She ain't even know it

            Misogynistic themes contribute to women being at risk. Aggressive behavior toward women is shown to increase after being exposed to music with misogynistic lyrics (Greitemeyer, Hollingdale, & Traut-Mattausch, 2012).  Priming occurs, which has short-term and long-term effects on attitudes and behavior toward women.  Lyrics blur sexuality and obtainment of romantic, personal, or professional goals, leading to distorted perceptions of what women should strive for and by what means.  Dichotomous messages may not effect a self-actualized woman, but to an impressionable young woman, lyrics matter.  Most importantly, sexist lyrics lead to desensitization, which becomes dangerous if listeners are effected by aggressive, sexual themes.  Ultimately, the effect of sexist lyrics increases the potential of women being subjected to sexual assault and violence (Adam & Fuller, 2006). 

            Conversely, lyrical content can also improve people’s perception of women.  Songs that contain pro-equality lyrics or those that are absent of content inciting objectification of women are associated with positive attitudes and behavior toward women (Greitemeyer, Hollingdale, & Traut-Mattausch, 2012). Despite this, it is an unfortunate reality that pro-equality lyrics in hip hop are rare, if not non-existent.  Some women, such as the Crunk Feminist Collective (CFC), are maintaining a love for the music and hip hop culture while adhering to core feminist values as a diverse group of scholars and professionals. Pro-equality content has the potential of increasing the image and treatment of women, and a love of hip hop can be embraced while still striving for a world that better reflects women’s true worth and potential.

Goodie Mob’s, Beautiful Skin (1998, 6), is absent of sexist lyrics.  As group members rap and sing about women’s worth, notably that of Black women, they present as feeling nearly indebted to the female sex. Lyrics liken a woman to a queen worthy of utmost respect.  At times more of a plea than a tribute, they express deep admiration for females and call for self-respect among women. By referring to a woman as a “sister,” the artists portray women as equal to men:

At one time my mind just couldn't conceive

A woman had to dress a certain way to believe

But, in the same breath allow me to say

That if you believed young lady you wouldn't dress that way

And I was attracted to your class, I couldn't see all yo' ass

And I was very content, and you deserved every compliment

Now, remember our indifferences make us the same

You gotta have some game, or

You ain't even gonna be able to take care of yourself

And Love when I look at you I see my reflection

So I offer my love, affection, and protection

Shawty, you dead fine, but the bottom-line is

You're still my sister

            Our society must advocate for an absence of misogynistic lyrics in music. Sexism is an integral part of music overall, with even female performers doing little to promote equality in some cases.  No woman, certainly not the lover of hip hop, will escape being victimized by a culture that demands women succumb to exploitation through sexualizing oneself as a means to an end. Women and men are worthy of escaping to music that empowers every human being. The woman who truly creates her own world and defines herself is the model for the hip hop world, and her resilience carries more weight than the dominant force of misogynistic culture. Likewise, it is time to move past holding men to unrealistic standards of masculinity.  Our music should better reflect the true potential of women and men. Music that can be categorized as microwaved garbage in its sound or content should be easily dismissed and receive little support.   We all deserve better, and it is time we demand it.

Written by: Aimee M. Poleski, M.A.

References

Adams, T. M., & Fuller, D. B. (2006). The words have changed but the ideology remains the same: Misogynistic lyrics in rap music. Journal of Black Studies, 36(6), 938- 957.

Crunk Feminist Collective. Mission Statement.Retrieved from http://www.crunkfeministcollective.com/about/

Drake. (2009.)  I’m Goin’ In. On So Far So Gone.  United States: OVO, Young Money             Entertainment, Cash Money Records, and Universal Motown.

Greitemeyer, T., Hollingdale, J., & Traut-Mattausch, E. (2015). Changing the track in       music and misogyny: Listening to music with pro-equality lyrics improves attitudes and behavior toward women. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 4(1), 56.

Iandoll, K.  (2012.) The chickenhead convention.  Vice.  Retrieved from http://www.vice.comread/the-chickenhead-convention

Latifah, Q.  (1993.)   U.N.I.T.Y.  On Black Reign.United States: Universal Motown.

Layne, A.  (2014.)  Now that’s a bad bitch!: The state of women in hip-hop.  Women’s     Issues.  Retrieved from http://www.hamptioninsitution.org/women-in-hip-hop.html#.WERIJmWMC9Y

Mob, G.  (1998.)  Beautiful Skin.  On Still Standing.  United States: LaFace Records.

Rhodes, H. A. (1993). The Evolution of Rap Music in the United States.  Yale-New          Haven Teachers Institute. Retrieved from http://teachersinstitute.yale.edu/curriculum/units/1993/4/93.04.04.x.html

Ross, R.  (2013.)  U.O.E.N.O.  On Notice Me.  United States: Eastside Corporation.

“How Much Do You Cost?”: A Story of Sexual Neo-Colonialism // Sonasha Braxton

Img source: http://divasays.tumblr.com/post/111756826819/defend-black-womanhood

             

I’ll start at the beginning. Here is who I am…I am an African-American woman. I am 32 years old. I was born in the United States. My parents are from the United States. My parents’ parents are from the United States and so on.  Many of my ancestors were already here…Some of my ancestors were brought here in chains, and sold on auction blocks. I consider myself African by nature, American by nurture.

Once upon a time when I was 21 years old, I was a student at United States International University in Nairobi, Kenya. It was my first time in Africa. I had been there about for about two months, when I was out at a bar with my friends, very close to the campus. My friends and I were all college students, and dressed accordingly so. I walked myself to the bar and took 200ksh out of my pocket to buy myself a beer. Someone tapped me on the shoulder. I turned around. It was a Caucasian male in his late 40s with scraggly hair. This man was slightly out of place in a college bar, but not an unfamiliar sight in the Nairobi nightlife. The music was blaring. I couldn’t hear him well, but he seemed to be pointing to another corner of the bar and making motions towards the beer I had already ordered. I side-eyed him and shook my head. Whatever it was I wasn’t interested. I had what I came for. He tapped me on the shoulder again and motioned for me to bring my ear closer to his lips so he could tell me something without yelling. I sighed and conceded, bending down slightly. “My friend would like to buy you a drink,” he said. I, beer already in hand, raised my beer and pointed to it. “I’m okay! I just bought myself a drink, but thanks!” I sashayed away back to my friends and started dancing.

Scene 2. I was thirsty again. I walked back to the bar. The same 40-something white man with the scraggly hair was there. This time he stood up directly in front of the space I thought I would be able to squeeze into the bar. “My friend wants to buy you a drink! He wants to meet you!” he yelled, again pointing over to some dark corner. At this point somewhat curious, and one Tusker in, I replied “why can’t your friend talk to me himself?”. “He’s shy,” he responded. Amused that we had reverted to middle school interactions, and half expecting him to deliver a paper which said “will you go out with me” with “yes”, “no” and “maybe” as boxes to check, I became curious. I thought, maybe his friend is a cute 20-something Kenyan banker, a gorgeous 30-year old Ugandan lawyer… I thought, who knows. “He’s right over here” he insisted. I said “ok” and followed him just a few steps away from the bar, to a high top in the corner. The friend was an unattractive 50-something Caucasian- American. He greeted me, shook my hand, asked my name, and where I was from. I answered, recoiled my hand, said “nice to meet you, but I’m going to go back to my friends”. He motioned for me to join them. I shook my head and hustled back to the table where my friends were.

Scene 3. Last drink. Same man. Same spot. Same question. Same refusal. Followed by the question, the first of many of the same design, with different accents, languages and configurations, that I would hear often while living in Kenya, “my friend wants to know how much.” I said, “how much what?” totally confused. “My friend wants to know how much it would cost for him to sleep with you?”. What happened next, is somewhat of a blur. I know that a fury engulfed me. I remember walking outside. I felt like I was suffocating. I remember coming back. I remember using a lot of expletives. But what I will never forget is how the situation was resolved. I was asked to leave the club… I was told I was making too much noise. I was disturbing business. This was not the last time something like this would transpire. It would go on to happen in Djibouti, and in Ethiopia, and in Ivory Coast. I, Black woman, minding my own business, sexually propositioned by he, White man with a few dollars in his pocket, was at fault for disrupting a totally unacceptable and disrespectful attempted “transaction”.

           

Since this first occurrence back in my 20s, I have learned to contain myself somewhat better, to learn to listen for the response to the question I now pose genuinely curious, “what makes you think you can buy me?” I have heard everything from “oh I’m sorry…I thought you were from (insert country here)” to “everything can be bought”; everything equally as insulting.  All that these answers have amounted to is this, “as a Black woman, your body is a commodity, that I as a White man, have the right to purchase it/you”. While this is a personal narrative, I do not share this burden alone. It becomes important as it makes the case of what I will call “sexual neo-colonialism,” a legacy of the exploitation of the bodies of women of color. If we understand neo-colonialism, as the last stage of imperialism, as did Kwame Nkrumah, as its most dangerous stage; as a stage in which sovereignty is only a façade and that power is used for “exploitation rather than development,” than we must too understand neo-colonialism as the most dangerous stage not just for the “developing state” but for its people, particularly its women. The African female whether in diaspora or continental stands to lose her sovereignty, and too be exploited, rather than space intentionally made for her to develop herself the way she sees fit.

Colonialism left in its wake the destruction of pre-colonial political, social and economic systems in which women ranked highly, and replaced them first with “native authorities” exclusive of women followed by clientele-patronage systems, which too excluded women.  Women often lost tremendous power during the colonial period as well as economic autonomy. This resulted from women’s exclusion from the global marketplace and new reliance of women’s unpaid labor. Customary laws developed under colonialism and inherited from Europe, disadvantaged women favoring men.  They accorded particular rights to men, such as the right to testify in trials that were closed to women. Women were removed from power as heads of associations often with the final say over market or agricultural disputes, and replaced with men[1]. Simply colonial rule restructured family, sex, gender and sexuality by creating legal mechanisms to control women’s positions in society, positions in their families, and expressions of their sexuality, for the sake of White Western capital.

The trickle-down effect of the disempowerment of the African woman has also emboldened the White hetero male to assume his place in the hierarchy of African affairs is one of superiority, and one in which any Black woman continues to be for sale. This is further reinforced often by the colonial mentality, the internalized colonialism of many members of African society, which favors and in fact protects unfettered white male hetero sexuality and promotes its unbridled exploits. It is this internalized colonialism, in actuality, the reaction of those around her, that asks the Black woman either to suppress her reaction to verbal sexual violence totally, or to react within the confines of what white hetero-males have sanctioned as polite gender normativity; to smile and say “no thank you”, to gently brush away prodding hands, to repeat “no” quietly, avert our eyes, and meekly insist that we decline such advances. This internalized colonialism of its witnesses says she is “overreacting”, when she yells, pushes away, tells, or even says no firmly. It says that “well, most other women would have said yes.”

Someone will say that this will stop when African women stop having relationships with such men. Someone will say that when these women, who may find poverty less miserable than sex with the occasional dream peddling foreigner, simply say no, then all African women will stop being objectified. To which I would respond that until the system that has systematically underdeveloped not only Africa but the entire Global South, a system which has destroyed indigenous spirituality and replaced it with a White savior both hanging in the homes of its believers and walking the streets as sex tourists is dismantled, then Black women, Brown Women, all women of color, will continue to be harmed by it.

This returns me to my story. The man in question was an American. There was no question of impoverished conditions. I clearly stated that I too was American, but this did not prevent the proposition, nor has it on multiple occasions. I, due to the intersectionality of my race and gender, was considered a commodity, buyable, and expendable. I am not the only woman of color who has had such an experience. I often exchange stories with my expat women of color friends, who have often witnessed and experienced the same. The globally internalized white hetero male superiority complex and systemic inherited exploitative North-South relations that support the continued effort to colonize, conquer and commodify the woman of color’s body, as an economic enterprise, must necessarily change, and sexual neo-colonialism, must be destroyed and at last put to rest….

So I will finish at the beginning. I am an African-American woman. I am 32 years old. I was born in the United States. My parents are from the United States. My parents’ parents are from the United States and so on.  Many of my ancestors were already here. Some of my ancestors were brought here in chains, and sold on auction blocks. But, “How much do I cost?”…I am priceless. We are priceless. Not even on the auction block were my ancestors’ souls for sale.  

The President-Elect and the Future of Fat-Shaming // Jen Trimpey, M.S.

jpeg from: http://thesheaf.com/2014/01/31/you-count-more-than-calories-eating-disorders-illuminated/

            I’m an 8+ hours of sleep type of person. When I wake up in the morning, I have a tendency to be irritable, confused, or just generally disoriented. Back home for the holidays, my mom will tentatively ask me every morning if I’m “the beauty or the beast.” Usually it’s the beast: I stumble around, make copious amounts of coffee, and sit cross-legged in front of a mirror on the floor foggily forgetting that I’ve only applied mascara to one eyelash.

I do one other thing in my morning routine: I talk to myself. I tell myself I am beautiful even though I might have eaten too much pizza the night before. I tell myself that I have value even though I ate 3 donuts that someone brought to work. I tell myself that I am not fat even though, some days, I struggle to believe it. Sometimes I forget that talking to yourself isn’t necessarily the norm. But for me, my emotional and physical wellbeing rely on these personal accolades. I stay healthy and grounded this way; I love and appreciate myself this way; I model these behaviors to teach little girls how to love themselves this way.

This election shook me for too many reasons to be thoroughly and accurately described in this blog post. Of the many, the most personal relates to my eating disordered past. All that self-talk I do in the mornings is simply my response the parts of me that, at one point, unquestioningly believed that societal standards of beauty were my standards of beauty. In my adolescence, these standards dominated my view-of-self, which eventually resulted in the development of an eating disorder. My rural upbringing in Alaska didn’t protect me from absorbing media and/or social portrayals of “femininity” and “beauty.” Now then, what do we do to protect children growing up in the mainstream United States with a president who endorses the (untrue) societal, gendered standards that espouse oppressive views directed towards women and girls? How do we help them understand that what their president thinks about their bodies is not indicative of their actual value? 

The morning after the election, I felt as though the world was ending. I woke up a mere 4 hours after I fell asleep (not necessarily the best thing to happen to an 8+ hours-of-sleep woman), scrolled through the News application on my phone, and then tried to cry myself back to sleep. It didn’t work. Reluctantly, I went through my groggy, stumbling-for-coffee morning routine, but couldn’t seem to shake the fact that this election’s results meant more to me than I expected. I thought he had no chance, so I never questioned what it would mean if my President told me, albeit implicitly through his words to other women, that I’m “Miss Piggy,” “fat,” “ugly,” or that I need to “suck [my] gut in.”[1] Turns out, it meant quite a bit. As I tried to process what had happened, I couldn’t seem to stop thinking that the election results meant that my country had told me that I’m nothing if I’m not thin, perfect, and beautiful. I cried for myself that morning. But mostly I cried for all the little girls (and boys) who will grow up with a president who—whether he meant it or not—told them that they aren’t good enough simply the way they are.

Grasping for hope in the throes of my mid-election blues, I decided to re-read The Feminine Mystique. In the introduction to my edition, Freidan cites a quote she wrote in her first autographed copy of the seminal piece, which stated, “Courage to us all on the new road.”[2] While the quote was not initially directed at the new president-elect’s term, it still appeared to give me the courage I needed to hope and advocate for something different. It seems so easy (and much less tiring) to give up, but we are on a new road and in dire need of courage. Even though I’m not quite sure how yet, it now seems more important that I advocate for the children who may internalize their future president’s words. My hope (among many other hopes) is that we teach children from both red and blue families that their worth isn’t connected to their appearance or weight, even if that might be a tiring endeavor. And, since our president may hesitate to remind children of that, the responsibility now falls on us—on me—to not complacently follow my tiredness, irritation or frustration. Rather, now it’s my time to fight: not only for myself, but also for everyone else out there experiencing similar emotions or sentiments.

Written by: Jen Trimpey, M.S.

           

---

[1] Commins, L. (2016, September 29). 15 times Donald Trump fat-shamed Kim Kardashian, Jennifer Lopez, and more. Retrieved from www.cosmopolitian.com/

politics/a4260297/donald-trump-fat-shaming

[2] Freidan, B. (2001). The Feminine Mystique (10^th ed.). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company. 

Rape Culture: It’s Almost Everywhere // Renee Hangartner, M.A.

Img source: http://fabnewz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/greys-anatomy-season-13.png

Maybe there’s a theme; but I again found my inspiration for this blog from the magic that is Shonda Rhimes.  Here’s some necessary background.  The last several weeks have been stressful and rewarding. I coordinated a successful SPW event to raise awareness about sexual violence against women on November 18^th and 10 days later I successfully proposed my dissertation, which is on sexual harassment. Unfortunately, I’ve fallen behind on my favorite shows, like Grey’s Anatomy. My reward for a successful proposal defense was to play hooky and catch up on my favorite show. Okay, I only played hooky for 2 hours, it still counts.  Anyway, episode 2 of season 13 included two strong statements to counteract rape culture, and I know a light bulb went off above my head despite any empirical evidence to support such a claim.

  First, in a neurotic rant about a guy between Meredith Grey and Maggie (her half-sister), Meredith boldly points out that the qualifier of “gross” is unnecessary when describing sexual harassment as there is “only [one] kind of sexual harassment”. I say “thank you Meredith and thank you Shonda”. If you watch Grey’s Anatomy and missed that tidbit, it might be worth your time to go back and feel that sense of pride I felt. Later, when a couple of surgeons are excited about removing a tumor that a patient has named after her husband’s mistress Wilma, violent language is used to get everyone pumped up about the procedure. An intern (Wilson) is clearly triggered by the enthusiasm about violence against “Wilma”, because while everyone is excited to remove the tumor, they are using a women’s name in conjunction with such violent language. This is an excellent example of how violence against women is normalized.  She points that out to her superior, another female surgeon. Side-bar-did I mention that one of the reasons I love this show is the abundance of strong female characters and persons of color playing DOCTORS? Anyway, that entire scene is another display of saying something when you see something.

Perhaps I’m primed because of my research and activism activities to attend to scenes like this in popular culture; but I feel it’s also my responsibility to point them out when I see them.  There are so many normalized interactions and phrases that promote rape culture in our everyday lives that make scenes like these, on prime time TV, precious.

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