One is Too Many…or is it?

This blog was inspired by the image seen below.

(Image provided by AU Green Dot on Facebook. A bystander initiative to prevent, and end power-based violence)


Where did these stats come from? Also, how can we trust the validity of these stats?

Well, that’s sort of the point of this blog. Does it really matter?!

In my work as a sexual violence prevention educator, working with men, I’ve learned to avoid using statistics while giving a training or presentation. Men get really defensive when they’re shown how one-sided the perpetration of sexual violence is, and debating statistics is not my job. Men will make excuse after excuse to try to denounce the accuracy of a statistic like: 1 in 5 women will be a victim of sexual assault while they are in college. Why do you think this is?

Masculinity is like a melding pot of privilege, entitlement, performance, judgment, and constant critiquing the status of ones (and others) manhood. For the most part, when a male hears the word “men” or “man” in a sentence the inclination is to identify with what is being said on the simple basis that he is a man. Therefore, it must be referring to him, too and now it is personal. This reaction is understandable in a society that is male-centered, male-dominant, and male-focused.

In prevention we focus on strategies that create change in beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors which foster support of sexual violence. So, the fact that I do not include statistics in my speaking engagements is rather irrelevant in my opinion. Besides, unfortunately I don’t believe there is anything that vibrates a person at their core more than a survivor’s story or experience of their own.

I think when men take talking about sexual violence statistics personal it’s important that we use this to acknowledge that they are capable of connecting with the issue itself; which when trying to engage them in violence prevention work, is seemingly the hardest for them to do. Even if their reaction is out of sheer frustration, because their privilege is being challenged, it still elicits feeling.

Privilege as we know allows men (especially those of us who are white) to glide through life without having to take responsibility for things that we think have no immediate affect on our lives. Rejection of statistical evidence is another way to dismiss being accountable for changing them.

"There are always two choices in life, either put up with the conditions as they are, or take the responsibility to change them." - Paulo Coelho

Diverting attention away from the violence itself is distracting us from addressing the root of the problem!

Before I get a huge backlash from the hyper-masculine population, let me say I wholeheartedly believe that one act of violence committed toward a man is too many, too. I’m not denying the fact that men are victims & survivors to violence as well.

I understand that statistics are a crucial element to illustrating the severity of violence, and that in turn provides funding for programs that are working to end violence, and/or providing support for victims of violence. When in society we have people that see a statistic, and completely dismiss the violence to argue the validity of that statistic ..we have a problem! This has happened numerous times in my trainings, presentations, and even on Step Up’s Facebook page. I say we leave the validity of statistics to those who need them (statisticians, granters/funders, etc.) and in the societal narrative build the foundation of our discourse on the concept that 1 is TOO many! Don't you believe one is too many?

Maybe this idea sounds absurd to some, and I’ll accept that. What I can’t find to be acceptable, though, is that a person would minimize one act of sexual violence (or any other form of violence) toward a child, a woman, or another man.

Also, check out the 1 Is 2 Many PSA here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXox6ma1gtE 

Gun Control Is Missing the Point!

By now I'm sure everyone is aware of the horrible tragedy that took place in Aurora, Co. My heart goes out to all of those impacted by the cruel action of James Holmes. At the bottom of this blog I will place a list of places where you can make some sort of contribution if you'd like to help.

It seems as though in wake of this tragedy.. people (beside the President, and Presidential candidate) are trying to exercise their political agenda. I see the left screaming 'gun control' because they feel as though Holmes had too much access, and the right is saying this is exactly why we need guns. I feel as though they're both missing the core of the problem here. I'm not defending the 2nd amendmant, or joining either side, because in my opinion to bring guns into the dialogue is erroneous.

Mainstreem media along with Hollywood play a crucial role in normalizing violence in society. When we're bombarded with messages inclusive of violence on a daily basis we become desensitized to it. We lose our connection to the severity of violence in society, unless it directly affects us; which is saddening to me. Shouldn't one act of violence (lethal or not, masscre or singular) put us in action to show it's not tolerable?

The patriarcharl society we occupy entails a list of standards for men that teach them to be a man they must adhere to it. We glorify, and glamorize men's violence in many avenues across the board (sports, T.V., music, etc.). This condtioning of hypermasculine ills begins at a very early age, and it demands that males reject expressing or showing emotions. Showing emotions is typically seen as feminine, and boys are taught that we should shun anything seen as 'girly,' because that is weak, and (the goal of becoming) a 'real man' isn't weak. While boys are taught to repress (primary) emotions, they are also taught that anger (secondary emotion) is accepted, and sometimes celebrated. Therefore, men are more prone to assert anger and aggression as a substitute or coping mechanism.

When we're talking about guns, and people who committ violence it is a detriment to combine the two. I do not agree with the term 'gun violence'. For one, it leaves the perpetrator out, and implies that guns have a causal factor in violence. Guns are not violent, but people are. I think it's crucial how we frame language around topics of such importance, such as violence, because the language shapes our perceptions. It also portrays who we should hold accountable.

The implications that gun control would prevent a tragedy, like the one in Colorado, correlates with the idea that abstinence only education will prevent teen pregnancy, and STD's (we see how well that works). Blaming or implying blame on guns for violent acts committed by people with guns, is the like blaming words for verbal abuse instead of the abuser. It's not the words that are to blame, it is the person in control of the words! The title of one article read: "It was inevitable, given our lax gun laws". That is in line with those who hold the mind-set rape is inevitable given our 'laxed dress code' in my opinion. Controlling ojects in which a person uses to do harm does not prevent that person from causing harm.

I could care less if there were guns in the world, but guns don't kill people! People kill people!



Aurora Mental Health Center: http://upwr.me/giveamhc

Thrive With Confidence Foundation: http://upwr.me/givethrive

Bonfils Blood Center ($$): http://upwr.me/givebonfils

Bonfils Blood Center (Blood): http://upwr.me/bloodbonfils

Mile High Red Cross: http://upwr.me/coredcross