How do we safely and effectively mobilize women in objecting to the presence and practice of Men’s Rights Associations (MRAs), when the motives and actions being protested are those that place women at risk of physical harm and emotional trauma?

Many that sympathized with Elliot Rodger blamed the “friend zone,” blamed the women in Rodgers’ life for not having sexual relations with him – they blamed women collectively for the tragic events of Memorial Day Weekend shooting, suggesting that it was purely a response to the denied access to their bodies. If women had “done their job,” the sexual frustration, which caused the horrific events that took lives and compromised others, never would have occurred.

I would (and will) assert that misogyny, and not the resounding “no’s” from women in Rodger’s life were to blame.

The men that individually or in their association to others, that act as the performers and perpetuators of misogyny are to blame.

Elliot Rodger is to blame. His sense of entitlement and privilege, specifically to the body of another is to blame.

Instead of challenging the culture or examining the roots of Rodger’s evils, waves of commentary regarding social media activism run rampant. Even discourse of millennial hook-up culture has over shadowed in some instances the horrors of the actual event.

 

Misogyny is so deeply rooted within our culture, a constant thread in global and American history, that we may not even recognize when we are contributing to its ideologies.

And so, it is with this that I provide my own commentary to the pile:

The “Friend Zone” is a misogynist product living in a feminist ideology.

The innate and natural desires of men to engage sexually with women should be protected and honored – after all, it is the most natural of systems in the world, says they. When women “friend zone” men, they deny the natural progression of male-female dynamics, placing everyone, even themselves at risk.

This is where misogyny lives.

This is of course to say, that all male-female relationships begin with the assumption and presumption that sex is able to happen, and more likely than not will happen.

The “Friend Zone,” by our cultural standards isn’t where society in the masses begins, but instead where individuals seemingly end up.

Speaking from my living-that-twenty-something-kinda-life soapbox, I never hear of anyone “leaving” the “friend zone,” only of the definiteness of individuals being entered into it.

Rodger’s sympathizers blame this mental, emotional, and in relative terms, physical domain for the hurt and harm caused just a few weeks ago.

The Friend Zone is where sexuality goes to die, as one-by-one men are placed there by women (and in this regard we hardly ever hear of men placing women in this undesirable plot). A chosen few are moved from left to right – they are slid down the scale. 

This is where misogyny lives.

We are so culturally included to misogyny that we, collectively, have accepted this idea.

We have accepted, on some level, that men are moved into the Friend Zone, and not out of it. In doing so we have acknowledged that sexuality is the only dynamic in which male and female relationships develop.

In essence, the “Friend Zone” was developed out of the reality that women could in fact be friends with their male counterparts without wanting, needing, or exclusively seeking out a sexual relationship.

And it is in this that we must recognize how dangerous misogyny is. The term “friend zone” wasn’t popular identified until the early 2000’s. Coincidentally, language and dialog surrounding female sex and sexuality began to change as college campuses saw the beginning of the uptrend of women.

Misogyny kills. Literally. In the last three decades, all but one (61/62) mass murders have been executed by men. Of those sixty-one? 90% are white. 

“What are you trying to say?” you ask.

I’m trying to say: Misogyny kills. Literally. 

Most victims of such killings? Women. The most common target of these shootings? A current or former wife or girlfriend.

Misogyny is not a question for red states or blue states.

Misogyny is a culturally institutionalized hatred that has been so deeply integrated into our society that many can’t begin to see it, even when it's surrounding them. 

While women make up more than half of the global population, their status as a people, as a body, as a force has still more than not gone unchanged. 

Last week a high school in Utah came under attack for photo-shopping images of young women to impose more "modest" clothing on their photos. Shoulders were covered, sleeves were made longer, and any exposed cleavage was covered up.

Misogyny lives here.

For generations women have been told to cover their bodies. Student handbooks indicate that "too low" or "too short" is a dangerous distraction to the educational environment. And while the dialog surround the sexualization of children and related child psychology may validate the utilization of dress codes, misogynistic seeds are planted as one only side of the dynamic is addressed: there is no objection in our student handbooks to the objectification of female bodies by young impressionable high school men.(The “she was asking for it” mentality lives here.)

We fail to address this dangerous institution because more often than not conservative forces are quick to denote feminists as their ideological enemy.

We fail to address this harmful and hurtful status when we impose “traditional” notions of masculinity on young men, identifying sex as a status, and not as a privilege of consent in (or outside) the parameters of a relationship.

MRA leader, Paul Elam said to writer Jaclyn Friedman: “I find you, as a feminist, to be a loathsome, vile piece of human garbage. I find you so pernicious and repugnant that the idea of fucking your shit up gives me an erection.”

This is where misogyny lives.

We fail to address this oppressive manic because while many are willing to say the elevation of ideologies of individuals like Paul Elam or Elliot Rodger are wrong, it is still a vastly radical notion to push for gender parity at home, in the work place, and on our city streets.

Every two minutes, an American is sexually assaulted. Each year, close to 300,000 sexual assaults will occur and only 60% of them will be reported to the police. 44% of the survivors of sexual assault are under the age of 18. 80% are under the age of 30. (rainn.org)

I graduated from the University of Montana in 2013, having spent four of the best years of my life living in Missoula, a city which I adored, and attending a school that had been at the top of my list since I was still sporting braces, studded belts and those black pants with the chains on the side. The University of Montana (and Missoula, for that matter) is a treasured jewel of the Treasure State. The campus is at the base of Mount Sentinel, the city is surrounded by gorgeous mountains and home to the Clark Fork River. The community is inclusive, diverse, welcoming and home to honest and good people- people with big hearts and open doors. I cherished every day I spent living, working and playing in Missoula.

While I attended the University of Montana, I became involved in Residence Life and Student Affairs. I wanted to give back to a school that had been such an amazing home to me and help other students have as an amazing experience at college as I had had. Training to be a Resident Assistant is extensive- it is truly a crash course in any kind of situation you could ever be faced with as a Resident Assistant. I learned about all of the resources my university had to offer. I learned how to plan floor programs, how to help students succeed in their academics, how to make floor decorations, how to confront students who were drinking and smoking marijuana, how to help students struggling with depression and eating disorders, how to help students conquer homesickness and how to mediate roommate conflict (including the always uncomfortable “sexiled” situations). One part of training that I also received was what to do if I were to come across a student who had been victim to a sexual assault. I remember a pit in my stomach as we approached training on this issue. What an uncomfortable and difficult task to be faced with. The thought of being approached by a victim of sexual assault and having to help them scared me. Would I be able to get them the resources that they needed? Would I be able to make sure all the legal logistics were taken care of (fulfilling my obligation as a mandatory reporter as required by federal law)? I remember, ever so foolishly, expressing gratitude internally to myself that I had male residents. Men are less likely to be victim to sexual assault than women and even more less likely to report it. The likelihood of having to be confronted with this situation would be minimal. It was a horrible thought to have and a horrible way to look at it, it was also a very humanistic way to look at it, and with that, I continued my training.

Eventually, I worked my way through the ranks and became a residence hall supervisor, with my own staff of resident assistants and a residence hall to look after and manage. 

It was winter of 2011 when headlines were made about sexual misconduct happening involving players from our national championship winning football team. In December, the local newspaper published an anonymous tip that three University of Montana football players were alleged assailants in a sexual assault investigation. In response, the University hired a former Montana Supreme Court Justice to investigate the claims. On New Year’s Eve 2011, the special investigator reported to the President of the University that there was a “gap in reporting sexual assaults”. 

One week after the report was filed by the special investigator, a member of the football team was arrested and charged with sexual assault. A few weeks after the arrest of the football player, the President of the University, along with one of his Vice Presidents and the University’s chief legal counsel, held an open forum where they promised to “aggressively educate” students on sexual assault, look into the reporting flaws, investigate past incidents of sexual assault and to review the student athlete code. A few days after the forum, allegations arose that the local police department and the University police were not doing enough to prevent and address the sexual assaults once they were reported. Little did I, my friends or the University know that this was just the beginning of a story that would gain national attention. 

In February, two women reported that an international student had sexually assaulted them. An email was sent out to students soon after informing them of the sexual assaults (as mandated by The Clearly Act) and the international student fled the country shortly after- before any meeting could be scheduled and formal investigation launched. He was gone, and there was nothing anyone could do. There would be no justice for these two survivors. 

A few days after the international student fled the country, I received an email from the University telling me and other students that we should feel safe reporting sexual assaults, even if they were done under the consumption of drugs and alcohol. I figured that this was the University’s way of trying to make students feel more comfortable about reporting sexual assaults, but I didn’t feel like it was enough. Students don’t want to be told to feel comfortable reporting sexual assaults. There shouldn’t be a need to report sexual assaults in the first place, and with this I began to question the school's response to these crises. 

Towards the end of February and early March, the two survivors who had been sexually assaulted by the international student reported the incident to the city police. The survivors criticized the University’s response, saying that they had failed to properly act to address the situation, and because of that inactivity, the international student had been allowed to escape. In response, the President of the University defended the school and said that it was the victim’s responsibility to report the sexual assaults to the police- not the University’s. I read these remarks in utter horror. What he had done was breaking the cardinal rule of cases involving sexual assault: he had blamed the victims. But he had not just blamed the victims- he had essentially washed the University’s hands clean of any responsibility for the sexual assault.

In early March, headlines were made when a woman filed a restraining order against one of our most talented and well recognized football players. I remember thinking it was sad that this story was receiving so much attention for the sole fact that it involved a prominent member of our football team. It wasn’t enough that someone had been brave enough to report their sexual assault. No- it seemed that the only reason that there was so much publicity surrounding the story was because a football player was involved. 

Despite all of the bad publicity surrounding the sexual assaults being reported and the school’s lackluster response, perhaps one of the biggest controversies was when the athletic director and the head football coach were fired. There was no reason given for their dismissal, but many speculated that it was a result of the athletic department’s failure to properly address and investigate the reports of football players committing sexual assault. Public reaction was mixed. Some saw it as a necessary step to move forward while others were outraged and concerned for what a change in leadership would mean for the football team. I remember thinking how different things would be if their outrage could have been directed to the sexual assaults taking place and not as to whether or not we would have a winning team anymore.

In late April, it was made public that the US Department of Education was actively investigating the University’s reporting process. A few days later, the U.S. Department of Justice began investigating the Missoula Police Department, the Missoula County attorney's office and UM in response to the sexual assault cases. They announced that they would also be looking into a reported 80 sexual assaults that took place in the past three years in Missoula.

The next few weeks were like a hurricane of controversy. CNN, CBS, Fox News, Jezebel, The New York Times and so many other news outlets came to Missoula and to the University. As a resident assistant, I was barred from speaking to the press, but even if I could, I didn’t know what I would say. I was outraged at how my school had handled the sexual assaults. I was grateful that a dialogue was happening on the issue of sexual assault. I felt defensive and wanted to protect a school and community that I so dearly loved. The actions of a select few did not accurately represent the greater University and Missoula community. But things kept going from bad to worse with new scandals coming to light every day.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, the New York Times was able to come into possession of several thousand worth of emails between University officials. One email that stood out was one in which one of the Vice Presidents asked if there was a rule in the student conduct code that would allow the administration to punish a student who had spoken to the press regarding her sexual assault. Again- a member of the University’s administration was seeking to shame and punish a survivor of sexual assault for having the courage to come forward and share her story. Was I offended and outraged? Absolutely. Was I surprised? Not at all. I knew that unless there was a change of leadership, nothing would change. The patriarchy was in full force with the men at the top seeking to hold on to whatever privilege and protection they had left. (Eventually the Vice President stepped down from his position, but it was only to move to a new position on campus where he would go on to make over $125,000 a year.)

I spent the summer working on campus in Missoula. The students had all dispersed for the summer, but the controversy had not. The Department of Justice was actively questioning and investigating police officers from the city and campus who had handled the reports of sexual assault. The County Attorney made news by refusing to work with the Justice Department on the investigation, saying that he had no legal authority to do so. He would go on to ask the county for $100,000 in order to pay for Department of Justice expenses if he was forced to corroborate with them. The city council allotted several thousand dollars for an anti-rape campaign for the city. The University drafted a mandatory class for students that educated them on sexual assault. It was an online class and test that took an hour to do but was mandatory for any student and employee on campus. I worked on the committee set to design and implement the course. I thought it was a good course for what it was and, with everyone else, recognized that improvements would need to be made as the years progressed. A patriarchy at work - making sure the issue was being "addressed" but the tactic was questionably as to its effectiveness. 

As the year progressed, I found my campus and my community a different place than it had been when I started out three years prior. There was a thick tension on the air. There was an elephant in the room and people were, for once in a long time, forced to recognize the issue of sexual assault. 

There were positive moments and negative moments. One negative moment was when the star football player was found not-guilty of sexual assault. I say that it was a negative moment, not because I questioned his innocence or guilt. I say that the experience was negative because I found the community’s response less than appropriate. This was a woman who had been brave enough to come forward and report that she was sexually assaulted. She was reported as “Jane Doe” in the press and her image was concealed from all forms of media, but we knew who she was. She was a good, decent, honorable individual. Bringing this claim forward was a gamble and she ended up losing her case. For her, there was no justice and the community’s main concern was whether or not the football player would be allowed to play on the team again. The conversation quickly went from awareness and prevention of sexual assault to whether or not we would ever have a winning football season again. Seeing the comments online made me physically ill. How could, after the past months, just ignore everything that had happened and move on like nothing happened. What sexual assaults? What negligent police officers? What failure of the University to report and prevent assaults? It was all about football. A few days after the verdict, I joined hundreds of fellow students and members of the community for a vigil by the Clark Fork River. We lit candles and placed flowers in the river in honor of every brave soul who had (and will) come forward to report their sexual assault. The weather was rainy and the mood was somber, but the message shined bright and clear: We Are All Jane Doe.

I knew two people during this time who were sexually assaulted; no matter what capacity you're in, when someone close to you is sexually assaulted, you always ask yourself “What could I have done? Could I have done more? Could I have prevented this?” I have made peace with the fact that there was nothing that I could have done. But there is something that I can do in the future- something that we can all do. We need to make the problem of sexual assault a public one. Sexual assault can never go back into the closet and be a hushed subject that we are too afraid to discuss and resolve. We need to empower survivors to be able to come forward and share their stories. Even more importantly, we must respect the survivors who don’t want to come forward and we need to always remember to not shame survivors. The most important thing we can do is discuss and educate. Nobody asks to be raped. 

If a woman is wearing a Victorian-era dress, she is not asking for it. If she is wearing a tracksuit, she is not asking for it. If she is wearing Lady Gaga’s VMA meat dress, she is not asking for it. If she is wearing nothing at all, she is not asking for it. We have the power to change the discourse, but more importantly, we have a responsibility to do so. We are all Jane Doe.

Bradley Kneeland is a 2013 graduate of the University of Montana, in Missoula. A Montana native, Bradley now lives in Springfield, MA where he attends Law School. A great thanks to Bradley for sharing his experience and passion with this guest post! 

Sexual assault and rape are crimes that not only effect an individual's physicality, but ones that traumatize their victims far beyond the end of the physical act. They violate an expectation of safety, and security, they break trust and self-confidence. These are crimes that compromise the dignity and integrity that all persons are entitled to: the exclusive choice to engage in sexual relationships that is an innate right of every human being.

Sexuality is an innate part of a person, and an innate part of the human experience. A person’s sexuality belongs to no one but himself or herself. That innate part cannot be separated from the self – when that part of a person is violated, their whole person is violated, when self-hate touches that part of a person, it touches them as a whole. Sexuality is bound in relationships, and interactions; it is gaged and valued in choice: the choice with whom it will and will not be shared, and the surrounding experience of how those relationships develop and when.

Known at the STOP Act, H.R. 1593, was reintroduced to the 113^th Congress this past April by Congresswoman Jackie Speier (D-CA) . First introduced in 2011, the Sexual Assault Training Oversight and Prevention Act died after being referred to committee.

Sexual Assault and rape are epidemics in the American military. They are crimes that touch all branches of the military, they are not limited to a class of commissioned or non-commissioned, nor are they unique to one sex or biology. Rape in the military affects men and women of every age and from every decade. It finds its victims at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland as well as the Lackland Air Force Base outside of San Antonio, Texas. It takes place in foreign lands, and right here at home.

While these are issues that may be gaining political momentum, sexuality, sex, gender, and orientation are nothing new to be considered by the armed forces - it is only now that their way and means of being considered and evaluated is changing.

The ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy which reigned from February 1994 to September 2011 deemed the intent to engage in homosexual “behaviors” as “an unacceptable risk t the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.” (10 U.S.C. § 654 [b]).

While the past two years have given way for our nation to recognize gay and lesbian members of the military as what they truly are – American heroes – there are still calls and questions. DADT held so much more power than just the prevention of social justice in the ultimate duty and honor, but it also gave way and has been cited again and again within the game of power and control that is military rape.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affected rape victims in two ways – first, it created an environment of risk: if you relayed or reported the assault, you risked being labeled “homosexual” – loosing your job and livelihood in a game where competing ranks told two different stories. This created an environment in which victims did not tell others the weight they carried, nor were they asked, if it had been reported, if they were okay. Second, it created a scapegoat for discharge that was virtually untraceable: had male or female victims alike not engaged in sexual relationships with superiors, the threat to “cry wolf” was all too great, and all too real. 

The Department of Defense released an anonymous survey in May 2013 surrounding sexual assault. They found that sexual assault is on the rise – with 26,000 cases having occurred in 2012 as compared with the 19,000 in 2010. While women make up only 15% of all military personal, they make up 47% of the victims. Of the 13,900 male victims found in this survey – 76% went unreported. Unreported to ranking superiors, unreported to doctors, kept in the hearts and minds of the victims, many of whom had lasting physical and emotional damage to show for it.

The STOP Act would amend the United States Code Title 10 in the creation of a Sexual Assault Oversight and Response Council that would be comprised of mostly civilians and would be independently established from the chain of command within the DOD. Members of this council would be selected and appointed by the President and the Secretary of Defense. Their most significant duty? They would be responsible for the reviewing of each case stemming from a sexual-related offense that have been referred to an appellate court within the military or that has been referred by the Department of Justice.

What does this mean?  It means it would take the fact-finding out of the hands of the military chain-of-command and place it in third party hands. It would create and develop specific sexual assault reporting protocols, develop risk-reduction and response training, file the formal policy on sexual assault, and advise the effectiveness of the Director of Military Prosecution.

The Sexual Assault Oversight and Response Office would coordinate to carry out criminal investigations, it would coordinate the oversight of the three fundamental rights of rape victims: safety and security, a place to communicate, and to be validated. In lay terms this means – victims of sexual assault in the military will have the right to a criminal investigation of their claims and not just a response from a hierarchy of leadership. This means that individuals that are victim to these heinous crimes will have a team working to ensure their physical, mental, and emotional safety, and get the help and treatment they need, and not after the fact.

Sexual assault and rape victims in the military are isolated by the trust and comradery that are so prevalent and necessary. Its victims are violated in a way that separates them from “unit cohesion” so essential to line and field.

This is a crime that has touched some of the bravest men and women of every generation. This is a battle that they were not prepared to fight. This is a violation of the most innate rights of those who honorably called to stand up for ours.

It is time we do something to protect those, to honor those, and to serve those who so willingly have done it for us today, tomorrow, and in so many years passed.