Out of Context

A one minute, twenty one second clip (http://louderwithcrowder.com/hillary-clinton-called-gay-marriage-hypocrite/) from a 17 minute, 30 second address (http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4542342/hillary-clinton-same-sex-marriage) has been circulating as “proof” that Hillary Clinton is a hypocrite for not supporting marriage equality until the recent Supreme Court decision that made it the law of the land. Here’s the context that’s missing from the shortened clip. The address she was giving was in response to the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, or Marriage Protection Amendment, back in 2004 that would have, if passed, defined marriage as one man, one woman, thereby prohibiting judicial extension of marriage rights to same-sex or other unmarried heterosexual couples. The clip highlights then-Senator Clinton stating that marriage is a “bedrock principle that exists between a man and a woman,” which is being taken to mean that Clinton herself defines marriage as a hetero-only institution and was, at the time, anti-marriage equality. Clinton has acknowledged that her views on a variety of issues, including marriage equality, have evolved over time (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/hillary-clintons-gay-marriage-problem/372717/). To paraphrase her, I think we should all be thinking human beings, constantly reevaluating where we stand. What we believe today is not set in stone. 

All of this points to a much more complex picture than what is shown in the shortened clip. If you listen to the rest of her argument, more of the picture is revealed. Clinton is not necessarily avowing her disbelief in same-sex marriage. Instead, she is calling out the hypocrites in Congress who used the sanctity of marriage as a reason why same-sex marriage should have been banned by constitutional amendment, yet did nothing to slow the increasing divorce rate by similar means. Her caution (“to consider altering this document [the Constitution], one of the greatest documents in the history of humanity, is a responsibility no member can or should enter into lightly”) is not meant as a deterrent to pursuing marriage equality, but is instead a yellow light to pursue such conversations through other governmental means, such as the Supreme Court (i.e., the Obergefell v. Hodges decision from this past Friday that ruled that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment).

Two other decisions that hinged on the Fourteenth Amendment include Loving v. Virginia (which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage) and Brown v. Board of Education (which declared that separate public schools for black and white children were unconstitutional). Now bear with me while I try to sort out some constitutional jargon. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The underlined portion is related to the “Privileges and Immunities Clause” (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution), which reads, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” Now what this means to me (a legal layperson) is that citizens (last I checked it wasn’t required that you be heterosexual to be a citizen) cannot have privileges (I would categorize the ability to marry the person you love as such) taken away by a state law. In 1823, Associate Justice Bushrod Washington defined privileges and immunities as "protection by the government, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject, nevertheless, to such restraints as the government may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole.” Based on this definition, I would say that obtaining happiness, for some, may entail marrying the person they love. What’s that I hear, my conservative friends? Oh that last part about restraints for the general good of the whole? I could buy that argument IF (and only if) there was some stipulation attached to this SCOTUS decision that somehow delegitimized your heterosexual marriage or your religious beliefs. However, as this lovely summary (http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/a-30-second-guide-to-how-gay-marriage-ruling-affects-you/) points out, the Obergefell decision does not affect you in any way unless you are homosexual, and want to be, or are already, married. Suffice it to say, since this decision does not actually negatively affect anyone, the general good of the whole is still intact! Crisis averted!

P.S. Can we all agree not to use “lesbian” as a (somehow) derogatory way of calling out a strong woman with short hair and a pant suit (i.e., “still no word on whether she’s a lesbian” in the louderwithcrowder.com piece)? A lesbian is a woman who is romantically involved with another woman and last I checked Hillary is married to a man (not to say that she couldn’t fall in love with a woman if that was something she was into… you do you, girl!). But until the woman comes out as such, can we stop speculating on her sexual orientation as a way to detract from her merits and politics? Appreciate it.

"Being LGBT does not make you less human. And that is why gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights." -Hillary Clinton

Can you erase racism?

I’ve been doing a lot of driving the past couple of weeks, which means that I’ve also been listening to a lot of podcasts. This week’s preferred flavor was TEDTalks. As I was driving Wednesday morning, I was following a truck with two “Eracism” bumper stickers, and two of the TEDTalks I listened to on Tuesday struck me as I considered what this bumper sticker means for social justice. The first TEDTalk I thought of was “Erin McKean: Go ahead, make up new words!” “Eracism” is what Erin and other lexicographers call a lexical blend, formed from joining two words, erase and racism, together by retaining a part of each word.

e·rase

/əˈrās/

verb

• rub out or remove (writing or marks)
• remove all traces of (a thought, feeling, or memory)
• remove recorded material from (a magnetic tape or medium); delete (data) from a computer’s memory

rac·ism

/rāˌsizəm/

noun

• the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races
• prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior

By considering these two definitions, we can infer that “eracism” means to remove all traces of prejudicial, discriminatory, or antagonistic thoughts, feelings, or memories directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior. Now, I’m all for racism being abolished; however, this definition is reminiscent of the notion of colorblindness. Which brings me to the second TEDTalk I thought of while following this truck down the highway, “Vernā Myers: How to overcome our biases? Walk boldly toward them.” In in, Vernā discusses implicit biases and how our brain automatically associates positive words with white faces. She goes on to state, “We’ve gone about as far as we can go trying to make a difference trying to not see color. The problem was never that we saw color. It was what we did when we saw the color.” The solutions she offers for combatting our implicit biases are to: (1) stare at awesome black people, (2) walk toward your discomfort by expanding your social and professional circles to include people of color, and (3) have the courage to say something.

So how do these solutions mesh or not mesh with the aforementioned definition of “eracism?” As Vernā discusses, our prejudicial, discriminatory, or antagonistic thoughts and feelings are often unconscious, and I would argue, influenced by larger institutions outside of the self. To imply that abolishing racism is as simple as training our individual selves to stop thinking and feeling racist things is to trivialize the complex phenomenon that is racism. Is there such a thing as individual racism? Of course. However, the more insidious face of race is covertly hidden in our institutions… our schools, our media, our legal system, etc. It is hidden so well that it is rendered invisible by those not directly affected by it. Therefore, even if we can individually get rid of our racist thoughts and feelings, we will still be surrounded by institutions built by those thoughts and feelings. Being better people is not enough. Our institutions need a major overhaul.

In terms of our prejudicial, discriminatory, or antagonistic memories… we’ve already tried erasing these through our history textbooks. We’ve attempted to erase the details of slavery, Japanese internment camps, our treatment of Chinese railroad workers, the genocide of Native Americans by simply not teaching both sides of the story. We’ve sugar-coated our nation’s history and deemed ourselves members of a “post-racial society.” Pretending bad things didn’t happen and aren’t continuing to happen doesn’t make them go away. Turning a blind eye to our nation’s racist past and present leaves it unaddressed and allows it to fester and grow. So, eracism? Maybe not the best slogan for social justice. 

The ABCs of The Bachelor... I is for Interracial Relationships

As a quick follow-up to last week's blog post, did anybody else notice that we didn't hear more than two words from Ashley S. on this week's episode of The Bachelor? I think she said one word when her name was called on the date card, and another when her name was called for a rose at the rose ceremony. Other than that... girl was silent! I don't know what to make of this lack of air time. Did ABC realize that they were treading on some pretty thin ice? Was Ashley I.'s break down enough drama for this episode? I guess the saga continues and we'll have to wait and see what happens next episode.

Now, on to the main topic of this post... The Bachelor(ette) and interracial relationships. If you're a discerning viewer (I consider myself in this camp), you've probably noticed that most seasons of The Bachelor(ette) have few men or women of color*. You've also probably noticed that these individuals, despite generally being attractive, intelligent, and interesting, usually do not make it very far in the competition. Case in point from this season, Amber. As I mentioned, I am in a Bachelor Fantasy League. My cynicism led me to select Amber as my off pick due to the aforementioned pattern. I anticipated that Amber would be shown the door, and I was correct. Some may say it's because she was a bit presumptuous suggesting that she and Chris pretend they're dancing at their wedding, but this suggestion can be shot down as Chris was also pretending to be engaged to Whitney on this week's episode. Some may say she's just not his type, but then why was he playing tonsil hockey with her mere hours before he said au revoir. I'm not exactly sure why Chris (or the producers) decided to give Amber the boot, but I think there's something larger at play here.

Two scenarios:

1 - (this one has evidence to substantiate my claims) We, as a society, are not over our aversion to miscegenation despite the landmark case Loving v. Virginia being 48 years in our collective past. Banks (2007) discusses the sex asymmetry tied to low intermarriage of black women, stating, "The most noteworthy feature of the post-Loving period is not the increased intermarriage of African-American men, but the sustained low intermarriage of black women, especially in light of the demise of antimiscegenation laws and the increased opportunity for interracial contact" (p. 533-4). Given that intermarriage and interracial relationships are still frowned upon by some in our society, Lehmiller and Agnew's (2006) finding that "individuals who perceived greater disapproval of their relationships had significantly lowers levels of commitment, suggesting that perceptions of marginalization was a significant predictor of commitment above and beyond the well-established effects of satisfaction, alternatives, and investments" (p. 48) is particularly relevant to the pattern of men and women of color not making it past the initial rounds on The Bachelor(ette). It is plausible that Chris, a farmer from a rural community, anticipated that others in said community wouldn't approve of his relationship with Amber when he decided to say sayonara.

2 - (this one is my cynical hunch) The show's producers want to demonstrate that they/the network is somehow above society's racist tendencies and so they rig the competition so that the participants of color stay a few episodes until they get the boot, making it look like The Bachelor(ette) simply had stronger feelings for the other participants. A bit of a concession technique to appease any viewers that happen not to be white.

Examples (Given Banks' findings about sex asymmetry, I will focus on examples from the three most recent seasons of The Bachelor):
1) Amber from Chris Soules' season was sent home on episode 3.
2) Chantel from Juan Pablo's season was sent home on episode 3.
3) Victoria from Juan Pablo's season was sent home on episode 2 because she was extremely intoxicated - not a great example.
4) Danielle from Juan Pablo's season was sent home on episode 5 - an interesting contrast to Chantel as Danielle had much lighter skin.
5) Robyn from Sean Lowe's season** was sent home on episode 5.
6) Ashley H from Sean Lowe's season was sent home on episode 1.
7) Brooke from Sean Lowe's season was sent home on episode 2.
8) Leslie H from Sean Lowe's season was sent home on episode 4.

Based on this sample, the average number of women of color on these three seasons of The Bachelor is 2.667 and the average episode of departure is 3.125. I'm not entirely sure what to make of these "statistics," so I'll give you some more... The average number of women on these three seasons is 27.667, making the average percentage of women of color 9.6%. According to Kerby (2012), "women of color comprise 36.3 percent of our nation's female population." Therefore, shouldn't the number of women of color on our television shows, including reality TV like The Bachelor, be representative of the larger population? Food for thought. On the other hand, maybe women of color are just smarter than us white girls... they've figured out that the best way to fall in love is most certainly NOT on public television with 26.667 other women. If so, kudos!

Notes:
*The lack of women of color on the Bachelor may be explained by Childs' (2005) findings. Her interviewees suggested that "interracial relationships are a sign that one is removed from African American communities" (p. 551). Since there is an application process to be on a show like The Bachelor, and these women are participating of their own free will, it is plausible that many women of color do not consider applying due to an intragroup stigma attached to dating a white man (which almost all of the Bachelors are). Childs also suggests that white racism plays a role in Black women not dating white men. One interviewee stated, "If whites still think you're inferior, why would I or any Black person want to be with one?" (p. 551).
**I didn't watch Sean Lowe's season, so I really don't know if there were extenuating circumstances surrounding any of these women's departures. I must say, I am impressed at the above-average diversity present in his season's participants, even the winner/his wife Catherine has Filipino heritage!

References:
Banks, R.R. (2007). The aftermath of Loving v. Virginia: Sex asymmetry in African-American intermarriage. Wisconsin Law Review, 533-542.
Childs, E.C. (2005). Looking behind the stereotypes of the "angry Black woman": An exploration of Black women's responses to interracial relationships. Gender & Society 19(4), 544-561.
Lehmiller, J.J. & Agnew, C.R. (2006). Marginalized relationships: The impact of social disapproval on romantic relationship commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 32(1), 40-51.
Kerby, S. (2012, July 17). The state of women of color in the United States: Although they've made incredible strides, many barriers remain for this growing population. Center for American Progress. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/report/2012/07/17/11923/the-state-of-women-of-color-in-the-united-states/

The ABC's of the Bachelor... A is for Ableism

I have a confession to make. ABC's reality dating show, The Bachelor, and it's female counterpart, The Bachelorette, are a guilty pleasure of mine. I belong to a Bachelor fantasy league (BFL) with some fantastic individuals who share in this guilty pleasure, but are otherwise amazing scholars. I'll speak for myself here, but I'm sure this also applies to many of my BFL colleagues... this television series is riddled with things to be critical of in the name of social justice, and while I savor those Monday night moments watching 30 women fight over one man, I also think it's a useful exercise to consider the implications of how ABC portrays the individuals on the show.

As I said, there are many issues that I could discuss with respect to The Bachelor. To name a couple, the lack of contestants of color (maybe one or two per season, out of a pool of 30), or the overwhelming sexism (for those of you that watched last night's episode, girls being forced to walk down a busy LA street in their bikinis... what was that?!). This isn't to negate any moments of "brilliance" that the show has also demonstrated, namely during Juan Pablo's season when women like Andi and Claire spoke out against Juan Pablo's treatment of women, Claire bringing to light the slut shaming that had occurred at her expense.

These issues aside, last night's episode was shocking to me for more than the bikini-clad street walking... the show's portrayal of Ashley S. If you're familiar with the show, you know that there is always that one woman who every viewer suspects is allowed to stay in order to bring the drama for ratings. From the first two episodes of the season, it appears as though Ashley S. is going to be that woman. However, her "drama" seems different than that of past women who have filled this role on the show (e.g., Michelle Money from season 15). During the season premiere, Ashley S. is shown picking a pomegranate she has confused with an onion during a monologue comparing another girl on the show to an onion that you would cut to see the different layers. During the second episode, paint gun-wielding Ashley S. is shown barely coherent, having a conversation with Chris that even he admits he couldn't follow. This is all done at her expense as the other girls laugh and joke about how Ashley S. shouldn't be trusted with the paint gun.

At this point it's uncertain what is causing Ashley S.'s lack of coherence. It's also uncertain whether this is scripted, put on, or if it is, in fact, real. If it's scripted, ABC needs to learn how to make jokes that don't involve calling someone crazy. If it's a persona that Ashley S. is putting on (in my opinion, the least likely of these three scenarios, but I'll entertain it for a moment nonetheless), ABC, as the network responsible for putting these scenes on television, should know better than to allow it. However, if it's real, ABC ought to be getting her some help rather than making her the butt of the joke on national television. No matter which scenario rings true, The Bachelor is treading on some pretty shaky grounds in terms of engaging in ableism. The fact that guns were involved on the group date adds major insult to injury given the countless instances mental illness overlapping with gun violence in our nation's recent history. As the rest of the season unfolds, we will hopefully get some answers and maybe, just maybe, Ashley S. will get the help she needs. Stay tuned!

So you say you're pro-family and/or pro-life...

So you say you're pro-family... but your definition of family is narrow and you might even support ripping families apart in certain situations (e.g., deporting "illegal" parents of citizen children, sending mothers and fathers to prison for nonviolent crimes). You most likely define family as the traditional, nuclear family that represents only 48.4% of families with children under the age of 18 from 2001-2007 in the United States according to the CDC, which defines nuclear family as "both parents must be biological or adoptive to all children in the family" (2010, p. 4). Now granted this definition may include both heterosexual and homosexual couples in states where it is legal for them to be married and have or adopt children, there are still states (my own included) which have constitutional bans on marriage equality, and others which have state laws, no recognition, or stayed pending appeals. When people say they are pro-family, what they generally mean is that they are pro-family's that have two heterosexual parents. The bone I have to pick with this idea is two-fold:

1) Two parents are better than one? As someone who was raised by a single mother (quite successfully, I might add), I take personal offense to this. My childhood and my upbringing were the epitome of love and support. Between my mother and my amazing grandmother, I was cared for quite arguably more than some individuals who are raised in a home with both of their biological parents. To insist that my life is less than because my family did not match the "pro-family" ideal, is insulting to me, my mother, and my grandmother. To add insult to injury, I am also a single woman who wishes to have children someday, regardless of whether or not I find my "one true love." I hope to adopt, but other people's politics may prevent this from happening if I remain unwed. As someone who is trained in education, truly wishes to raise children, and will be gainfully employed and able to provide stability, shelter, safety, love, and other needs beyond just those basic to human life, I find it ludicrous that I may be unable to fulfill the role of adoptive mother because I don't have a ring on my finger and a piece of paper. Being married does not necessarily mean someone will be a good mother or father. So for those of you who say you're "pro-family," yet oppose single individuals being able to adopt, please start describing yourself as pro-marriage (I won't get any further into the absurdity of our society's narrow definition of marriage than I already have).

2) Homosexuality is bad for kids? This is similar to my single woman wanting to adopt rant. Being gay or lesbian does not mean someone will be a bad father or mother. There are kids who will be forced to grow up in the foster care system (which has been said to be a determinant of future criminal behavior) because our society does not want them to have a gay parent. So for those of you who say you're "pro-family," yet oppose gay parents being able to adopt, please start describing yourself as homophobic.

So you say you're pro-life... but this only applies to unborn babies. Many individuals who say they are pro-life support the death penalty and defend cops who demonstrate police brutality that ends in death. To vehemently oppose abortion and turn around and say that young, black boys and men like Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, and Eric Garner "had it coming" because they were breaking the law is extremely hypocritical. What this hypocrisy sets up is a hierarchy of life worth... only some lives are worth fighting for. So for those of you who say you're "pro-life," yet support the death penalty and/or fatal police brutality, please start describing yourself as pro-fetus.

The point of this rant is simple, people who say they are pro-family and/or pro-life are playing to the public's emotions. After all, who can argue against family and life? The stances "pro-family" and "pro-life" individuals take are often contradictory. They say they value family, but look away as fathers are sent thousands of miles away from their children in the name of immigration policy. They laud the married mother and father whose fighting behind closed doors is impacting their child's mental health and well-being, and in the next breath criticize the single mother for having a child out of wedlock. They post Facebook statuses denouncing rape victims who get abortions, then share an article in support of Darren Wilson. Through it all, they contribute to systems of racism, sexism, and heterosexism. The effects of their confounding opinions oppress people of color, women, and the LGBT community.

Reference:

CDC. (2010). Family structure and children's health in the United States: Findings from the national health interview survey, 2001-2007. Vital and Health Statistics 10(246).

Seat at the table or scapegoat?

So, it's been a while since I've been on here. This is mostly due to the fact that I've been reading and writing a lot for my comprehensive exams, as well as preparing to begin data collection for my dissertation. As such, I've been immersed in the literature about whiteness, a central topic in my work as a teacher educator and educational researcher. So when I saw an article run by the self-appointed "best conservative news source," the Dc Gazette,  about the Huffington Post claiming that Mia Love was "enjoying" white privilege, I was compelled to look into what the Huffington Post actually claimed (see http://dcgazette.com/huffington-post-claims-mia-love-enjoys-white-privilege-wait-what/ and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/darron-t-smith-phd/mia-love_b_6116466.html).

Leonardo (2005) defines white privilege as “the notion that white subjects accrue advantages by virtue of being constructed as whites” (p. 37). The Dc Gazette article claims, "Just when you thought liberals couldn't be any more nonsensical, they come out and attack Mia Love for benefiting from a form of 'White Privilege'." However, reading the Huffington Post article, there is one mention of white privilege, "This is one way white privilege is reproduced at the legislative level of government." This mention of white privilege in no way is attributed to Mia Love herself, but rather to the system within which she was elected. The Dc Gazette writer accuses Darron T. Smith, the author of the Huffington Post article, of being "upset that Mia Love isn't playing the left's identity politics game." However, Smith himself acknowledges that Black voters are not monolithic. To be Black does not necessarily entail being liberal. What Smith carefully points out is that the Republican party to which Mia Love belongs, does not serve Black interests (e.g., with regards to education, economics, and health outcomes). What the Dc Gazette article does is promulgate the myth that white privilege and its counterpart white racism is an individual act. Mia Love, an individual, is said to be enjoying white privilege... a misappropriation of the term. The Huffington Post, on the other hand, acknowledges the systemic nature of white privilege by attributing it to the legislative level of government acting in its own self-interest, which is largely white, wealthy, and male. 

Another phenomenon at play in this debate is white exceptionalism. White exceptionalism is a type of "blame game"  in which white individuals who see themselves as anti-racist set themselves apart from other white individuals and groups which they deem to be racist, essentially seeing themselves as exceptional whites. This describes what the Republican party is doing here. They are setting themselves up as exceptional whites by essentially using Mia Love as their scapegoat. The GOP cannot possibly be a racist entity if they are willing to let a Black, Mormon, woman sit at their table. With Mia Love on their side, they can continue to promote legislation that is in the interest of the white majority with little regard to the implications it has for the rest of the population and point to Utah's Haitian-American representative as "proof" that they are doing no wrong. 

In sum, is Mia Love "enjoying" white privilege? No. She is being used by those who do possess white privilege. Sure, she now has a seat at the table, and I hope she decides to use it for the good of those who are oppressed due to their race, religion, and/or gender, but make no mistake in thinking that her own race, religion, and/or gender have been forgotten. Electing a poster child for the GOP's skin-deep re-branding effort does not make Utah progressive, nor does it mean that the U.S. is "post-racial." 

Leonardo, Z. (2005). The color of supremacy: Beyond the discourse of ‘white privilege.’ In Z. Leonardo (Ed.), Critical Pedagogy and Race (pp. 37-52). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Hey, baby... nice ______ (fill in body part here)!

I'm breaking my silence. I've felt violated and scared one too many times to keep quiet. Last night while walking the one block from the bar to my car after a friend's going away party, I was catcalled. "Hey, girl! Everything about you is looking right in that dress... ooo that ass!" Something to that effect. While the correct response may be for me to feel flattered (I did spend over 5 hours at the gym this week... glad to know it paid off for this "gentleman"), I felt violated. I was scared, counting the steps I had left before I reached my car. I got my cell phone out and made a call... maybe if I'm on the phone with someone they'll leave me alone. Not quite an eye witness, but at least someone would hear me scream if the guy decides to get out of his car and follow me, or worse. Thoughts rushed through my head. "I should have gotten a ride to my car... why am I walking alone at night?... is this dress too revealing?... I should be wearing more sensible shoes." This guy may think he's boosting my ego. He may think he's paying me a compliment, but what he's really doing is making me remember that 1 out of 6 women have been raped in her lifetime (https://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims). So far, I've been one of the five, but every time something like this happens I wonder if my luck is running out.

Now I'm not saying I don't appreciate attention, but these guys on the street... they don't know me. When a friend or even an acquaintance tells me, "You look pretty tonight," or "I like your new haircut. Looks good on you," I appreciate the sentiment as what it is... a genuine compliment.

Catcalling, within the broader category of street harassment, is a problem... one that warrants our attention. According to a national survey done by Stop the Street Harassment, 65% of women have experienced some form of street harassment in their lifetimes, 86% of those experiencing it multiple times, if not daily (http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2014-National-SSH-Street-Harassment-Report.pdf). This isn't to say that men are not also harassed on the street. Women are guilty of objectifying men too. I've done it... I mean Mark Wahlberg's Calvin Klein ad, anybody? However, what stands out to me here is that 9 out of 10 rape victims in 2003 were female (https://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims). Maybe this data is outdated, maybe I watch too much Law & Order: SVU, but I'm tired of being scared.

Catcalling may be a manifestation of insecurity; however, I'm more inclined to believe that it is, in some instances at least, a manifestation of power. I'm a pretty brazen individual. I usually say how I feel, making my opinions (right or wrong, for better or worse) known, for example, this blog. However, in instances where a guy is yelling obscenities and evaluations of my body at me through his car window, I'm silenced by fear. I feel powerless to defend myself. If I yell back, "leave me alone," or "get a life," will that anger him in some way, encouraging him to retaliate? So I keep my head down and my mouth shut and quicken my pace. How will this ever end if we keep our mouths shut though? Luckily, there are people who are leading the way to get the word out, like http://www.ihollaback.org/. So, the next time you're catcalled or made to feel powerless while walking down the street, tell the world. Raise awareness.