More Seattle/UW news
kyonkun pointed me toward today's issue of The Daily, our campus newspaper, for more news about Monday's murder.
Today's issue presents some interesting juxtapositions. First of all, I was pleased to see that the 'front page' picture features the Silent Witness display for SARVA Week. For those who don't know, the display is made up of wooden figures of women, each with a story of a real woman from Washington state who lost her life to relationship violence. (Unfortunately, the caption is a little vague, and calls them "information panels meant to educate on themes and scenarios relating to Sexual Assault and Relationship Violence (SARVA) Week.")
That's great - I'm glad to see some mention of SARVA Week. But what about actual articles on the project? There was one news article about last night's SARVA Week event, "The J-Spot: A Sex Educator Tells All" by sex educator Jay Friedman. The coverage was decent, but had a very shallow treatment of the political content of the talk. For example, the article reported Friedman's statement that, "In comparison to other countries, the U.S. is very backward and Victorian [about sex]." However, it didn't include any mention of the power structures that are so inextricably tied up into attitudes about sex, of the oppression faced by women and queer people especially - which Friedman, though hardly a radical agitator, did address in his presentation.
Here's what the article had to say about Friedman's discussion on the responsibility placed on women to educate youth about sex: "The majority of sex educators are women, Friedman said, and thus, most men learn about sex from women. It's important for there to be someone speaking out about the male side of sex, he said." Actually, Friedman didn't say that we needed someone talking about the male side of sex - he said that men need to take some responsibility off of women for talking about sex. That would mean talking about men's responsibilities during sex, and letting men know that they don't have the right to make sexual demands of their partners. The Daily's report makes it seem like it's an "oh woez poor mens" problem about guys not getting enough attention, which, while a part of Friedman's message, was not at all the most important one.
Relatedly, while there is mention of the homophobia faced by young men growing up, there's a decidedly "oh woez poor straight guys" bent to it, rather than an acknowledgement that homophobia hurts gay men far more than straight men - though, admittedly, that was also a failing committed by Friedman himself.
Perhaps the worst part, though, is that even though this was a SARVA Week event - and was reported as such in the article - there is no connection made between this and Monday's shooting. Not even in the follow-up article about the murder. This article, in fact, is decidedly neutral in tone - it includes quotes that express sympathy toward the victim, but does not address the systemic problem of domestic violence.
Of course, I shouldn't expect that kind of critical content in a straight-up news story. And there is an actual editorial piece about the murder, one which apologizes directly to the victim for the way "the system failed you." Thankfully, it doesn't blame her at all for being responsible for the violence done to her.
I wish there was more, though - after all, where would be a better place to make mention of SARVA Week, and the actions being taken on campus right at this moment to fight this kind of violence? Or, since the question is asked, "Why didn't anybody listen?" why isn't there mention of who, exactly, failed? Why not address the fact that Seattle police did not communicate to the UW police that she had a restraining order on the perpetrator? Why not mention that the problem of nobody listening is a persistent and rampant problem faced by victims of relationship violence all the time? After all, if, say, President Emmert had received continual threats from someone, you can bet that such a person would be arrested, and that the president himself would receive some sort of protection. Yes, having an editorial statement of sympathy is good, but - just like President Emmert's message - the failure to address the pattern of relationship violence, or the efforts currently being made against it, is inexcusable. Half of the women killed in the state of Washington are killed by their partners or ex-partners - this ought to be known.
There is, by the way, no mention about President Emmert's message, or about the student response. But I don't know how much turnaround time there is on the paper - it might have been too late for them to include anything in today's issue. See Dora being optimistic. Be optimistic, Dora, be optimistic.
Today's issue presents some interesting juxtapositions. First of all, I was pleased to see that the 'front page' picture features the Silent Witness display for SARVA Week. For those who don't know, the display is made up of wooden figures of women, each with a story of a real woman from Washington state who lost her life to relationship violence. (Unfortunately, the caption is a little vague, and calls them "information panels meant to educate on themes and scenarios relating to Sexual Assault and Relationship Violence (SARVA) Week.")
That's great - I'm glad to see some mention of SARVA Week. But what about actual articles on the project? There was one news article about last night's SARVA Week event, "The J-Spot: A Sex Educator Tells All" by sex educator Jay Friedman. The coverage was decent, but had a very shallow treatment of the political content of the talk. For example, the article reported Friedman's statement that, "In comparison to other countries, the U.S. is very backward and Victorian [about sex]." However, it didn't include any mention of the power structures that are so inextricably tied up into attitudes about sex, of the oppression faced by women and queer people especially - which Friedman, though hardly a radical agitator, did address in his presentation.
Here's what the article had to say about Friedman's discussion on the responsibility placed on women to educate youth about sex: "The majority of sex educators are women, Friedman said, and thus, most men learn about sex from women. It's important for there to be someone speaking out about the male side of sex, he said." Actually, Friedman didn't say that we needed someone talking about the male side of sex - he said that men need to take some responsibility off of women for talking about sex. That would mean talking about men's responsibilities during sex, and letting men know that they don't have the right to make sexual demands of their partners. The Daily's report makes it seem like it's an "oh woez poor mens" problem about guys not getting enough attention, which, while a part of Friedman's message, was not at all the most important one.
Relatedly, while there is mention of the homophobia faced by young men growing up, there's a decidedly "oh woez poor straight guys" bent to it, rather than an acknowledgement that homophobia hurts gay men far more than straight men - though, admittedly, that was also a failing committed by Friedman himself.
Perhaps the worst part, though, is that even though this was a SARVA Week event - and was reported as such in the article - there is no connection made between this and Monday's shooting. Not even in the follow-up article about the murder. This article, in fact, is decidedly neutral in tone - it includes quotes that express sympathy toward the victim, but does not address the systemic problem of domestic violence.
Of course, I shouldn't expect that kind of critical content in a straight-up news story. And there is an actual editorial piece about the murder, one which apologizes directly to the victim for the way "the system failed you." Thankfully, it doesn't blame her at all for being responsible for the violence done to her.
I wish there was more, though - after all, where would be a better place to make mention of SARVA Week, and the actions being taken on campus right at this moment to fight this kind of violence? Or, since the question is asked, "Why didn't anybody listen?" why isn't there mention of who, exactly, failed? Why not address the fact that Seattle police did not communicate to the UW police that she had a restraining order on the perpetrator? Why not mention that the problem of nobody listening is a persistent and rampant problem faced by victims of relationship violence all the time? After all, if, say, President Emmert had received continual threats from someone, you can bet that such a person would be arrested, and that the president himself would receive some sort of protection. Yes, having an editorial statement of sympathy is good, but - just like President Emmert's message - the failure to address the pattern of relationship violence, or the efforts currently being made against it, is inexcusable. Half of the women killed in the state of Washington are killed by their partners or ex-partners - this ought to be known.
There is, by the way, no mention about President Emmert's message, or about the student response. But I don't know how much turnaround time there is on the paper - it might have been too late for them to include anything in today's issue. See Dora being optimistic. Be optimistic, Dora, be optimistic.