Microsoft’s Internet Explorer may still have a stranglehold on the Web-browser industry, but officials at the University of Florida have given a vote of confidence to Explorer’s chief competitor, Mozilla’s Firefox.
Computing officers have put Firefox on software that they give to students. And several academic departments are recommending that students switch to the increasingly popular browser, arguing that Firefox is more secure and versatile than Microsoft’s model. (The Independent Florida Alligator)
60 Responses to Moving Away From Microsoft
Guest - November 10, 2011 at 6:58 pm
Great post, Claire. I admit I thought there wasn’t much point to blogging more about this case but you did bring up a nice angle.
I would add to what you have written above, however. Lesbians and gay/bi men differ significantly; one area of difference is that male homosexuality, being masculine in nature, involves a more troubling degree of exploitation, intimidation, and abuse.
I have been saying for 25 years that multiple trends in culture foster an attitude in men that the objects of their desire are replaceable, disposable objects.
One trend is heterosexual pornography.
Another trend is the growing acceptance of gay male subculture and its psychology in the mainstream.
While the heterosexual responsibility for this scandal is clearly pointed out (and well) in your piece, I would like to add that gay male subculture cultivates this sort of abuse by convincing gay men that other men are there for their consumption. Also by elevating sexual orientation above other important factors such as (1) who has more money (2) who is in a position of power (3) who is vulnerable, gay men have convinced themselves that when they exploit other men by using their privilege, rank, or prestige (as was the case with this abuse case) to force their victims into giving them what they want and then quiet anyone who objects, it isn’t somehow an extension of male sexual brutality.
I am horrified by the Penn State case but mostly because I grieve for all the boys and men who are victimized, sometimes as rape and more often as pressure and intimidation, and then left to piece together their sexuality, while nobody cares, least of all the gay rights activists who implicitly empower male sexual abuse of other men.
lesboprof - November 10, 2011 at 8:29 pm
LGBT activists do not support rape of any kind. Lesbians and gay men have been at the forefront of the anti-rape movement. Your homophobia is showing.
lesboprof - November 10, 2011 at 8:29 pm
TR, we are totally on the same page.
flaviafescue - November 11, 2011 at 12:53 am
This is what I’ve been saying ever since the story broke: that I can’t believe that none of the people who were told about this pursued it, given that it involves children, and same-sex children at that. I would not have been the least bit surprised if Sandusky had had serial affairs with undergraduate women, or even high school girls, and lots of people knew and didn’t see it as a problem.
But this does surprise me. I guess I didn’t realize just how far the sexual privilege of powerful men extended! Thanks, Penn State, for learning me better.
Michelle Moravec - November 11, 2011 at 7:10 am
“I would not have been the least bit surprised if Sandusky had had serial affairs with undergraduate women, or even high school girls, and lots of people knew and didn’t see it as a problem.”
Patriarchy sucks, no? Seriously, I’m too ignorant of college sports to know the answer to this question, but following this post, which I loved BTW, I wondered if any football coach had ever experienced a “scandal” over female sexual assault?
What I find the saddest about this whole situation is that feminists have been working for so long to chip away at the infrastructure that supports this kind of patriarchal CYA.
sand6432 - November 11, 2011 at 10:13 am
To be fair, Penn State officials did act vigorously to oust Renee Portland from her job as women’s basketball coach after allegations of her bias against lesbian players emerged. But just because they did take that infraction so seriously, one wonders all the more why they ignored and downplayed the far more serious behavior of Sandusky. And there seems to be only one plausible explanation: the old boys network. — Sandy Thatcher
Nathaniel M. Campbell - November 11, 2011 at 10:14 am
I’ll also remind everybody of the case at Notre Dame last year. A St. Mary’s College student took her own life because her accusations of sexual assault against a Notre Dame football player weren’t taken seriously. He was never punished, never even removed from playing.
tenured_radical - November 11, 2011 at 10:19 am
But actually, they did not act vigorously to get rid of Portland. Her institutionalized discrimination against lesbians was well known, internally and externally, at least a decade prior to her being fired (in fact, this is still formal and informal policy on many women’s teams at D-I institutions.) Which is neither here nor there, except as part of a larger story about the Penn State athletic department’s independence from regulation.
yoAdrienne - November 11, 2011 at 10:49 am
I’ve been reading Tenured Radical for I think two years now, and analysis like this is what keeps me hooked. Thank you so, so much for articulating why I’ve been appalled but not really surprised by how this has come out. Perhaps like you a bit surprised that the power structure involved confused our culture’s feelings about the abuse of women (and the acceptability thereof) and the abuse of children, but overall this kind of dark shit goes on all over the place.
22113683 - November 11, 2011 at 10:58 am
Actually, there _is_ another explanation, and even more plausible: MONEY. Consider the millions of dollars per year that Penn State rakes in from the football program. This beggars what a sport like women’s basketball brings in. PSU can easily afford to throw the women’s basketball coach under the bus, while losing JoePA makes for a serious loss in the pocketbook. Solve the money problem and a lot of college athletic problems will disappear. This is not to downplay the problems of violence, abuse, prejudice, and double standards; those exist and they are real. This is just to place it all in perspective: $$$$.
11172648 - November 11, 2011 at 10:58 am
Superbly written and stated, dear Claire–and clearly deserving of wider circulation where it will be heard by those who need to hear it! How do we get you on The Daily Show?
historiann - November 11, 2011 at 11:09 am
Well said, TR. Like Flavia and Professor Moravec, I wonder about all of the sexual abuse of adolescent or adult women that continues to be tolerated and covered up, because that’s what women are for.
We as a society should ask why otherwise ordinarily compassionate college students are so eager to blame the victim of rape and sexual assault. I think it has to do with the consistent devalution of women, who are most often the victims, but I also think it has something to do with college student narcissism and a defensive belief that “*I*ll never be a victim–she must have done something to provoke the attack/didn’t have an escort after dark/picked the wrong friends/worn the wrong clothes/drank the wrong amount of alcohol/ingested the wrong amount of drugs.” And sadly, I think even many so-called college-aged ”friends” of rape victims think these thoughts, too.
yoAdrienne - November 11, 2011 at 11:16 am
Do you have any specific cites for “gay rights activists who implicitly empower male sexual abuse of other men”, like specific activists or groups who have made statements or actions that lead you to this conclusion?
tenured_radical - November 11, 2011 at 11:33 am
Phone lines are open!
icedgreentea - November 11, 2011 at 11:40 am
Mr. Lopez, you make a good argument in favor of gay marriage. Most of the gay men I know are not looking to objectify other men, they are looking to be able to legally marry men they love and treat them as cherished partners. For decades homophobes have been condemning the “gay lifestyle” for promiscuity and objectification, then when gays make it clear they want to marry and have families, those same homophobes react with horror. The hypocrisy is astounding.
matt_in_brooklyn - November 11, 2011 at 1:15 pm
“In other words, someone who has knowledge of child sexual abuse is legally obligated to report it to the police, not to the Nationally Famous Head Coach or the Athletic Director. ”
I have a very small quibble with the first clause of this statement. I used to be a teacher and was thus a mandated reporter. While it is true since (if I remember correctly) 2008 that mandated reporters must call police themselves, this was not the case before that date. Before then, the law required mandated reporters to follow their institution’s procedure. In my case, I had to call the school’s social worker, who handled the case from there. So depending on the dates of the assault, the witnesses and Paterno may actually have been technically within the law, if they followed Penn State’s reporting procedure (someone correct me if I’m wrong – also, do we even know what that procedure was?).
Of course this doesn’t detract at all from the main line of argument, or from the point that Paterno et al were morally obligated to do more than what the law required of them.
Dennis Shea - November 11, 2011 at 1:32 pm
A few corrections..about 10 percent of Penn State students took to the streets on Wednesday. Some of them were there for Paterno. Some of them were there because, like many outside this area, they can’t understand why McQueary, Curley, and Schultz are not fired. Some of them were there because they are just crazy 20 year olds that like to see a spectacle. So, please don’t draw general conclusions about Penn State students or the community. There are many of us here as horrified as all of you by this.
Tonight, if the media allow, you’ll see a different part of Penn State. By all estimates 10,000 or more will be here for a candlelight vigil for the victims. The students have cancelled their usual pep rally to attend. Or, if you visit RAINN, you’ll see that Penn Staters have raised nearly $100,000 already to support victims of abuse.
Despite the horror we have found here, there is also much of value. They want to join with all of you to prevent it from happening again and to heal the wounds of those who were victimized.
tenured_radical - November 11, 2011 at 1:43 pm
Oddly, I just did the online sexual harassment training for my new employer (which I am sure conforms to the 2008 law too.) But there are some states (I don’t know if PA is one) that make a person an accomplice after the fact if they don’t report a felony to the police — being employed by a university doesn’t exempt a person from that obligation. You point to a larger question which seems to be a chronic issue with Big Football, which is the normal reporting procedure actually involves covering such things up.
cosmo10 - November 11, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Thank you for this wonderful post and much-needed commentary.
cosmo10 - November 11, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Yes, there are plenty of “scandals” involving not only coaches, but players as well. University of Colorado was in the heat of such when I was there as a grad student.
tenured_radical - November 11, 2011 at 1:50 pm
Thanks for this. I do have two questions:
1. Why would *anyone* be “there” for Paterno in this situation? He made terrible, self-interested decisions, one of which was not retiring when he was still in some shape to be in control of his staff, but the ones that related to allowing a child abuser to use his facility for 15 years are horrifying and open up real questions of character that are not confined to this scandal.
And yes, I understand that it was not the majority of the students. But big time college football is a huge fraud, and none of the rage seemed targeted at that recognition.
proftowanda - November 11, 2011 at 2:12 pm
An ongoing, current case at a major campus that illustrates the points made also merits inclusion in the discussion — as does that, despite front-page coverage at a major national newspaper in Chicago, there has been no other national media attention for more than a year now; see http://www.jsonline.com/newswatch/133656848.html
Dennis Shea - November 11, 2011 at 2:28 pm
I think you’d have to ask that first question to someone more skilled in psychology. My amateur guess would be that Penn State basically represents the tendency found at all the big time D1 athletic schools on steroids. The emphasis on sports and the personality cult of the coach taken to its extreme and built up over generations. Remember Paterno has been head coach since 1966, and a coach since 1950. Some of the kids here today do not just have parents, they have grandparents who watched “JoePa”. And Penn State’s alumni network, the biggest one in the world, fuels the devotion, too. So, you have all that brewing for SIXTY years.
And, he really has done more than just be a coach. If you pick up any random book in the library, it’s not even rare to see that it was donated by Paterno. They donated to build an entire new wing of the library. He really does stress academics and is quite good at just connecting with young people, even today, on a personal level. I think in some ways, it’s not just that students identify with him. They see themselves in him.
Finally, add the fact that it has been an incredibly emotional week and they are your typical late adolescent crowd, and the Board announced their decision late at night, so alcohol was part of the mix, and, it was highly likely even before this happened, that it was his last year. and this is his last home game, where students were expecting to be able to say goodbye. and KABOOM.
I’ve spoken with many, many students and alumni who understand all the issues you mention, and it’s important to remember that while I think we know enough to be horrified at what he did, we still have much to learn about what happened and what he knew.
And remember that while you may view athletics as a fraud, many of them do not. And to them, many of those players are just the guy on the bus, in their class, their friend. Mike McQueary was a student in my department. It’s easy to view someone as a monster from afar; less so, when you pass him in the hall regularly. And all of this is not confined to just football. It’s part of the cult of power-secrecy-personality we have created in sports, entertainment, politics, etc.
The generalizations, I fear, allow those not here to construct a wall and pretend it couldn’t happen in their university or community. And the greatest tragedy of all of this would be if we allowed that to happen because it will allow that blindspot to persist and allow this to happen again.
How’s that for an economist playing psychologist?
viamonte - November 11, 2011 at 5:11 pm
This is not homosexual behavior, it is pedophilia. Period.
tenured_radical - November 11, 2011 at 5:45 pm
Terrific: this is a really useful contribution — thanks.
katisumas - November 11, 2011 at 5:48 pm
I am not really sure of what you’re saying. Are you comparing the rape of a ten year old child with “affairs”?
What difference would it make if the ten year old child had been a girl instead of a boy?
Pedophelia is a sexual orientation all its own. Many pedophiles rape children of both gender which have in common that they are prebubescent and thus lack distinct sexual traits….
Claire Potter’s piece hits it on the nail: the rape of boys was covered up because we already have a culture of covering up the rape of women. These little boys were conceptualized as women.
katisumas - November 11, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Look at the link provided by Proftowanda above (http://www.jsonline.com/newswa...) It is only one sad case among many others… women are the most frequent victims of rape, and that includes rape by football players and coaches.
katisumas - November 11, 2011 at 6:00 pm
ROP Lopez writes: “male homosexuality, being masculine in nature, involves a more troubling degree of exploitation, intimidation, and abuse.”
It seems to that blaming “masculinity” for “exloitation, intimidation and abuse” is an expression of misandry.
Of course there are a number of individuals (way way too many!) who are exploiting, intimidating and abusing their fellow human beings. These individuals come in all genders and all sexual orientation.
Again, pedophilia, being sexually attraced to prebubescent (essentially sexless) children has noting to do with being heterosexual, or homosexual, or lesbian.
Perhaps you should move to Uganda. You’d fit right in.
Paul Story - November 11, 2011 at 6:06 pm
“In other words, someone who has knowledge of child sexual abuse is legally obligated to report it to the police, not to the Nationally Famous Head Coach or the Athletic Director. Mandated reporters include teachers, coaches and health care providers, and once the athletic department permitted Sandusky to conduct his “child mentoring activities” on university property, every employee in the football facility became responsible for reporting misconduct against those children.”
While I would dearly love for this to be true, I don’t think it’s at all clear that, under Pennsylvania law, McQueary/Paterno/et.al. were “mandated reporters.” Their defense (and let me be clear that it’s a legal one, not a moral one) is that the child being raped in the locker room was not a student at Penn State, and so they had no legal responsibility to report it to anyone except for their own supervisor.
It is a horribly weak argument; I don’t know how Paterno and McQueary could walk through that locker room, how they could stomach the sight of Sandusky with full access to their facilities. But they seemingly complied with the letter of the law. That will be their defense.
katisumas - November 11, 2011 at 6:07 pm
I finally figured out that what these homophobes object to is not so much homosexual sex acts but homosexual love.
Could it be the reason the most strident homophobes, those who are obsessed with gay sex, are the most likely to be found solliciting homosexual sex in public bathrooms or from paid male prostitutes, as shown by recent scandals which I suspect are but the tip of the iceberg?
By the way R.O.P Lopez in all of his avatars in this forum always claims to be bisexual. This leads me and others to find his posts most confusing, and I wonder if they perhaps represent his own confusion?
Dennis Shea - November 11, 2011 at 6:14 pm
Sorry for the length. Sometimes, writing is the only thing that stops me from crying this week.
tenured_radical - November 11, 2011 at 6:34 pm
I just had to do an on-line sexual harassment & discrimination training, but: in NY, and according to federal laws, anyone brought onto a college campus as a vendor or as part of programming sponsored by the college (Sandusky was using the team as an activity for his icky little charity) is embraced by the institution. I’m sure someone who is actually an attorney is working on this, but I think they might have been.
Francene Botts-Butler - November 11, 2011 at 7:02 pm
University of Colorado Football program and Athletic Program had to pay a hefty settlement for not responding to a sexual assault complaint. Just Google Title IX sexual assault cases.
Francene Botts-Butler - November 11, 2011 at 7:13 pm
Further, Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments have been clarified on at least 3 occasions, Feb and Oct 2001 and just recently on April 4. 2011, to advise universities that they needed to do better investigating and reporting sexual assault, sexual harassment, sexual violence, bullying, cyber bulling, etc, when it involves any of their educational programs and activities. Yes it protects vendors and guests of the University. If you read the grand jury record, you can see where the grand jurors are laying the groundwork to say that Sandusky acted with the full knowledge of Penn officials. Penn State will have to answer questions under Clery and Title IX.
minnesotan - November 11, 2011 at 7:47 pm
A women’s basketball coach who discriminates against lesbians? Methinks the lady doth protest too much!
minnesotan - November 11, 2011 at 7:52 pm
You assume he is guilty. That’s not how the law of this land works.Who knows what kind of mental health issues the accuser could have had. At the university where I work, the last three rape accusations on campus have turned out to be false reports, two of which were by employees of the womens’ center, which happened to turn a tidy profit when the president of the university rerouted extra money to their office to help them deal with the rash of (as it turns out, fake) sexual assault cases going on.
This kind of thing is probably not the norm, but it does go to show that you cannot assume someone is guilty of rape just because someone else accuses him or her.
Elizabeth Freeman - November 11, 2011 at 8:46 pm
What? Sandusky was in no way part of gay male subculture or gay rights activism. Jesus. That this is the first comment is appalling
flaviafescue - November 11, 2011 at 9:10 pm
No, of course not. Reread my comment. I’m in complete agreement with TR.
elpea - November 11, 2011 at 10:34 pm
I’m not sure that the college sponsored the programming as opposed to Sandusky brought youth from the program to the games on his own behalf. Even if Second Mile sponsored the programming to attend football games, such staff might well be exempt as mandated reporters as their is no expectation that they are working with or responsible for attendees.
And while I am concerned about the interface between Sandusky and Second Mile, I wouldn’t call an organization that serves 100,000 students and provides programs to supplement those in the PA public schools an icky little charity. Second Mile is a well-respected organization largely funded by local community members, businesses, and foundations.
BriAnna Olson - November 12, 2011 at 2:44 am
“Let’s move this from the sports page to our classrooms and start connecting the dots.”
in terms of education, connected a dot to the James Baldwin quote:
“The victim who is able to articulate the situation of the victim has ceased to be a victim: he or she has become a threat.”
Remittance Girl - November 12, 2011 at 2:53 am
“The mistake Penn State made was, in many ways, a simple category error: they mistook these pubescent boys for women”
Especially when these pre-pubescent boys (I believe that 10 is pre-pubescent) come from underprivileged families. And most likely African American.
For certain types of white, authoritarian men, we’re really all the same – an underclass of quasi-humans to serve their means. Nothing more.
Vernon Howl - November 12, 2011 at 9:25 am
I’m not sure that this particular case is the right vehicle to make any sort of point about sexual assault on female students. Sexual assault on female students–and more importantly, unreported assault–is definitely a problem, probably at a great majority of colleges and universities, if not all of them. The enabling of a child rapist for over decade with the facade of a powerful athletic team is a much more particular occurrence, right? You can connect the dots from one story with the word sex in to any other story with the word sex in it but that doesn’t mean that you should. (This is just my opinion and, for the record, I totally agree with your sentiments on both issue; I only took some umbrage with them being ‘bundled together’ so to speak.)
Laurel Lehl - November 12, 2011 at 11:33 am
I think you have made a relevant connection between this on-going incident and the way women are treated. Here is a link to information about the former Women’s BB coach who was notoriously homophobic, but kept her job (and received accolades) b/c of the culture at Penn State: http://kit10phish.wordpress.com/2011/11/10/lesbian-in-sport/
Nathaniel M. Campbell - November 12, 2011 at 12:35 pm
But when accusations are made, an investigation should at least be carried out. The problem is that, all too often, the accusations are brushed off and there is no investigation. Notre Dame’s police waited two weeks after Ms. Seeburg reported the incident before contacting the accused. In the mean time, seeing that nobody was taking her seriously, Ms. Seeburg fell deeper and deeper into depression.
I don’t want to take away the presumption of innocence and the rights of due process from anybody. In fact, I agree with you that sometimes, we too rashly run to judgment in cases like this. But at other times (and far too frequently), we deny the accusers the due process of investigating their accusations.
jimanders - November 12, 2011 at 12:49 pm
” they mistook these pubescent boys for women. “- that says it all so I don’t have to.
amelie - November 12, 2011 at 1:31 pm
Anyone who has unwittingly landed in the role of victim as the result of a university’s culture and
power structure knows the safeguards and resources warranted in any serious situation simply
don’t exist. Conversely, the protective measures prohibiting an abuser’s timely identification are
to everyone’s detriment. Put bluntly, the unthinkable is allowed while attempts to resolve or clarify
are repeatedly stifled. When “attached,” as staff and faculty are, the strategy is to attack the one
being “attacked”. The code of silence is pervasive and makes a less than safe environment.
For everyone.
Confronted with something shocking in the workplace, what do you do?
What if your institution doesn’t follow its own procedures? Without recourse, rights are taken away;
lives are shattered, it’s business as usual.
I’m connecting the dots because it’s the same thread. Keeping things internal and “under the rug”
is the mother of all red flags.
scott mcandrew - November 12, 2011 at 2:00 pm
Can’t we just have it the way it used to be, here in Rome
Donna Freedman - November 12, 2011 at 3:26 pm
I’m still trying to wrap my head around the “we did what was legally required” defense.
How could McQueary NOT start shouting “Stop raping that child!”
How could the university NOT call the police to report the rape of a child?
I’m pretty sure I know the “why”: He wanted a career in football, the university wanted to avoid a scandal. I just don’t know WHY.
Wondering how McQueary or Paterno or anyone else in the university hierarchy would feel if one of their own beloved children came to them and said, “Daddy, I was raped.” Further wondering how they’d feel if the child added, “…and a man came in while it was happening but he didn’t do anything to stop it.”
tenured_radical - November 12, 2011 at 5:31 pm
If Sandusky received permission to bring the children onto university property as part of his charitable activity, they became liable under federal law.
elpea - November 12, 2011 at 5:50 pm
@tenured radical, yes, I understand that, but my understanding from working with youth programming is that there is a difference when attending such official events as supported or sponsored by the U and those times when someone is accompanied onto campus that is not aprt of a sponsored event–in other words, as a private act. My understanding is that Sandusky, in several of the events described by victims on campus, was careful to act at times when there were no sponsored events. I know it seems tricky-dicky legal, but I recall that in MA that there was an attempt to clarify expectations of legal responsibility (as opposed to ethical or moral responsibility) for staff when they came across concerns that were not under the auspices of their workplace. It IS a grey area, as I understand it.
But I also think that if McQeary had mandated reporter training (which if they were considered mandated reporters, they will have been required by law to have had annually), they would have known their responsibilities in terms of reporting in regards to minors (as opposed to adult sex crimes).
And yes, weak. I think those of us that bring this up are aiming to show the weaknesses of the law, no to defend it or anyone’s actions.
grania1 - November 12, 2011 at 9:48 pm
As I understand from the countless news articles I have read about this in the past two days (like watching a bloody train wreck over and over again) Sandusky did officially run a football program for local youth under the auspicies of the PSU Football program on the campus. Whether or not this was directly tied in to Second Mile, I don’t remember. However, he was the founder of Second Mile, according to news reports, and while it may have grown into a large and very well-respected organization, he had enormous privilege as founder. Also, it is very common for pedophiles to create youth organizations such as this one, which supply them with endless opportunities for abuse. It is very difficult for me to parse all the legal intricacies of this situation because it is so horrifying and so many people are morally (or immorally) complicit that it’s difficult for me to find the objectivity to do so. However, I agree with TR that the Big Business aspect of college sports is an important element of this story, that deserves a lot more attention. Margaret Soltan over at University Diaries has been heroically beating this drum for years now. Thanks TR for once again bringing an clear, intelligent and forceful voice to this discussion.
erin jones - November 12, 2011 at 11:00 pm
Like many queer individuals who have learned more about sexual and power dynamics through the process of understanding my own gender/sexuality, most gay people have a far more nuanced and developed sense of power dynamics in relationships than their straight counterparts, whose sexual identification and development usually require less soul-searching, experimentation, conversation and research.
Your assertions just don’t ring true. As I’ve been a part of the queer community for over 20 years, I’ve had many discussions with the gay men I’m closest with. Gay men on the whole are quite aware of power dynamics that obtain in relationships between young and older men, men of different races and socioeconomic backgrounds, gym guys/regular guys, cubs/bears, etc.
You seem to have developed a fairly comprehensive and firm opinion on this topic, but I don’t see any evidence that you are actually familiar even with the discourse on sites that are frequented by gay men, much less with the experiences of a wide range of actual gay men.
I was sexually abused by a male mentor figure from the ages of 14 to 17. (I’m female.). I’ve also enjoyed healthy relationships with straight men in which we discussed and played with power dynamics intellectually, emotionally and sexually. The power dynamics you describe still obtain in the most vanilla of heterosexual relationships. But the fact that these dynamics are established in the status quo makes them invisible for many people who’ve never been forced to approach their relationships with courage and open minds.
erin jones - November 12, 2011 at 11:29 pm
The connection here is not “sex.” The connection lies in the similarity of experiences of women and powerless, voiceless, vulnerable young men who are used by profitable, powerful and popular institutions.
This is a long story involving the suppression of rape or sexual assault claims, the vilification and shaming of victims and the ways in which the powerful Cover Their Asses for a buck and the continued power they hold.
When I was at UC Berkeley, these cases came up about once a year, if not more frequently. That was 20-something years ago. Since then, I hear of similar cases multiple times a year. Women and men have been waging a battle against this corrupt culture of cover-up for decades. Dividing those who fight this battle for the rights of the powerless will only delay the changes we will demand to see that this situation is not replicated in the future.
Furthermore, the corruption and exploitation of athletes who are poor and without backing has been a persistent topic in the sports community for years. The ongoing assault and rape of these boys is germane to this problem. “Bundling together” issues which are part of the overall problem is not creating false relationship. On the contrary, it’s an accurate view and may further the progress we can make in changing the environment that allows these crimes to be perpetrated year after year.
KidvanDanzig - November 13, 2011 at 2:47 am
Having been linked to this article by many people under the auspices of a “what if the boys were girls?” scenario that has been well-covered elsewhere, I was pleasantly surprised to find a post that said everything that needed to be said. It gladdens me that someone in the feminist blogosphere can place this horrific debacle in the context of wider issues of sexual assault without insinuating that the ordeal of those boys is a distraction from the greater (in scope and importance) issue of violence against women.
I hated being made to remember starting into anti-violence activism and being made to know that, in no uncertain terms, a movement that billed itself as being concerned with Sexual Violence did not find boys like me, who had been raped in childhood, to be under the purview of their work (men’s victimization was men’s work, as though the issues that made women-only spaces vital were never felt by us) and what’s more, we undid it by sucking away all media attention. So much of the outcry over Jerry Sandusky reminded me of that.
But anyway, thank you for the thoughtful piece. Yet more evidence of institutional enabling of exploitation and abuse.
*edit – I have no idea why it’s there or how to fix it, but for some reason it looks like a random picture from my facebook wall is attached to this comment. Embarrassing.
butteredtoastcat - November 13, 2011 at 5:46 pm
“The mistake Penn State made was, in many ways, a simple category error: they mistook these pubescent boys for women”
God, if that doesn’t say it all!
Just a note on Pennsylvania’s mandatory reporting law. There is a loophole which allows witnesses of child abuse (or those that suspect it) to go to their work superiors and not directly to the police. There is a Democratic lawmaker from Philadelphia trying to change the state law to remove the loophole:
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/6e33c3475c4c458098fffac98c4f979a/PA–Penn-State-Abuse-Legislation/
(This is also the loophole that may make the GA McQueary a protected “whistleblower”)
Here is the law as written. Part (b) is the loophole which will be used in the argument that Penn State administrators were not required to contact the police once the information went to the next notch in the hierarchy.
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/049/chapter21/s21.502.html
21.502. Suspected child abuse—mandated reporting requirements.
(a) General rule. Under 23 Pa.C.S. § 6311 (relating to persons required to report suspected child abuse), RNs, LPNs or CRNPs who, in the course of their employment, occupation or practice of their profession, come into contact with children shall report or cause a report to be made to the Department of Public Welfare when they have reasonable cause to suspect on the basis of their professional or other training or experience, that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse.
(b) Staff members of public or private agencies, institutions and facilities. RNs, LPNs and CRNPs who are staff members of a medical or other public or private institution, school, facility or agency, and who, in the course of their employment, occupation or practice of their profession, come into contact with children shall immediately notify the person in charge of the institution, school, facility or agency or the designated agent of the person in charge when they have reasonable cause to suspect on the basis of their professional or other training or experience, that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse. Upon notification by the RN, LPN or CRNP, the person in charge or the designated agent shall assume the responsibility and have the legal obligation to report or cause a report to be made in accordance with subsections (a), (c) and (d).
butteredtoastcat - November 13, 2011 at 5:50 pm
I’ve attached the relevant part of the PA state law further down in these comments. There is definitely a loophole that will be used to fight against the charges against the Penn State administrators. It’s despicable, but you know that the attorneys will do this.
butteredtoastcat - November 13, 2011 at 10:41 pm
Looks like the Daily Beast has tried to pick up on the same points you are making. They haven’t done it nearly as well, but it was written by a young man:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/11/12/joe-paterno-s-troubling-attitude-toward-sex-charges.html
Noticed - November 14, 2011 at 8:25 pm
“The mistake Penn State made was, in many ways, a simple category error: they mistook these pubescent boys for women.”
Exactly. If the victims were female students at Penn State do you think any of this fallout would have happened? Of course not. Then it would be about what they were wearing, how drunk they were, how many people they’d slept with in the past, etc.
Thank you for this perspective. It’s amazing to me to see the football world suddenly concerned with sexual assault. It’s about time, but clearly the gender (and age) of the survivors has played a big role in the subsequent actions taken by the University.
minnesotan - November 14, 2011 at 9:13 pm
That’s a fair comment. Unfortunately I am not privy to the details of the police investigation (and I doubt you are, either), so I can only speculate about the delay in contacting the accused. Perhaps they were gathering evidence before hauling someone in to the police station on rape charges? I can’t say that would be a bad idea, since issues regarding sexual assault tend to label people for life, regardless of their innocence or guilt. Nonetheless, if the investigation was actually a non-starter, then I agree something needs to be done. If the investigation merely proceeded too slowly and carefully for your taste, then I think it’s your taste that needs changing.
Once again, though, this is all based on speculation.
Marianne Balton - November 15, 2011 at 9:18 am
Consider feminist persepctive