Matt Varilek’s take on marriage equality is one that is becoming increasingly obsolete. More and more people (including Varilek’s opponent in the primary) have begun to see the cruelty of denying the rights and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. Why on earth should we as feminists support this person? Honest question. I don’t get it. And while I’m at it, any feminist should recoil at a candidate who uses a phrase like “traditional marriage” to describe a model and an understanding of marriage and sexuality that is actually pretty modern.

The longer I remain an active observer of politics, the more tired I get of being told that I need to vote for the candidate who has a chance of winning, or the candidate who is the lesser of two evils, or the candidate who is a Democrat, or the candidate who is a better fundraiser, or whatever. This is about an issue of basic civil rights, and Matt Varilek is unapologetically on the wrong side of it. And we shouldn’t stand for that.

South Dakota progressives: you don’t owe Matt Varilek or the Democratic Party your vote. It’s quite the opposite, in fact – they need to earn your support. If Kristi Noem is re-elected in November, it will not be your fault. It will be because the Democrats chose a candidate who doesn’t share your values.

Our neighbors to the west in Missoula, Montana, (where, in the interest of full disclosure, I lived for two years) have over the past several months experienced a sort of perfect storm involving a rash of allegations of rape, an ineffective and insensitive university administration, police force and prosecuting attorney’s office who handled cases poorly, and a history of poor communication between the University of Montana and the city and county authorities that have caused survivors of rape to be further victimized. Many of the allegations involve members of the Montana Grizzlies, the university’s beloved football team – even the team’s starting quarterback has been accused of rape – but others include a foreign exchange student who became aware of allegations against him through the university and fled the country before city police could arrest him.

The local newspaper (the Missoulian) has done an amazing job of covering the details of this from the start, but this article from Jezebel does a good job of summarizing what has happened in Missoula thus far. It also reveals an attitude that seems pretty widespread throughout Missoula – that women who go to bars ask for it (the quote from a UM student in the article is “Yes the guys are rapists, but the girls help it along”), that “our boys” on the Grizzly football team couldn’t possibly be guilty of rape, that “our” beautiful, liberal, hippie, microbrew-drinking, Obama-loving city in Montana couldn’t have the kind of culture that allows for this kind of thing to happen as much as it does.

What this article does most effectively, I think, is that it reveals some of the problems we have in understanding rape and sexual assault. In most cases, rape doesn’t involve a stranger in a dark alley. The perpetrator is usually someone the survivor knows. The perpetrator is usually someone who has assaulted before, and will assault again. The perpetrator often uses alcohol or drugs to make issues of consent hazy or uncertain. Because of all of this, only a tiny percentage of sexual assaults ever come to the attention of authorities. I don’t think any of this – attitudes about survivors of assault or a lack of understanding about what sexual assault usually looks like – is specific to Missoula.

Both the federal Department of Justice and the Department of Education are currently investigating the city police and county prosecutors’ office and the university for possible gender bias and Title IX violations in their handling of rape cases. Hopefully this will lead to new policies in Missoula that will better serve survivors of assault when they come forward. Changing peoples’ attitudes about survivors will be much more difficult.

And enough is e-freaking-nough! So, listen up, Brookings and Rapid City folk!

“United for Women” March and Rally — BROOKINGS

This Saturday, 10 am to noon

Gather at 10 am at the Brookings County Courthouse at 314 6th Avenue and parade to rally outside the U.S. Post Office at 500 Main Street — marches encouraged to bring their own signs.

“Women Unite!” March of Solidarity — RAPID CITY

This Saturday

2:00pm

Memorial Park in RC

Know of other events across SD? Post ‘em to share with DakotaReaders statewide!

See, for example, these recent Slate columns from big-name blogger Amanda Marcotte (or like half the comments about anything parenting related on Jezebel). The first criticizes South Dakota girl-made-good January Jones for consuming her placenta in capsule-form after giving birth to her son. Now, there’s no question that we here at DakotaWomen have a, uh, complicated relationship with JanJo, but the recent attacks on her have been totally ridiculous. Maybe you think it’s gross. After I gave birth, I didn’t want even look at my placenta, let alone think about eating it. So what? There’s a lot of stuff I won’t eat. But Marcotte doesn’t just think it’s gross — she thinks it’s oppressive and some kind of misogynist plot to turn women into animals (for the record, I could buy the idea of a misogynist plot, but I doubt that convincing women to eat placentas is high up on their dastardly to-do list). And as it turns out as you read more from Marcotte on this topic, she thinks a lot of choices women make are actually oppressive to women: breastfeeding, cosleeping, babywearing, natural childbirth, looking their children in the eye (…probably).

Obviously the idea of ‘The Mommy Wars’ or whatever is nothing new. In fact, the idea that there’s controversy around anything having to do with women and reproduction is a no-brainer. But I was really starting to think that there were a few things we were on the same page about. For example, women’s reproductive decisions are their own business, right? Women have brains, they know their situation better than anyone, so they shouldn’t have to run their medical choices passed Leslee Unruh or Roger Hunt or me. And yet, you’ve got Marcotte and other feminist writers attacking women for their very personal reproductive choices: how they give birth, how they interact with their infants, how they deal with childcare. I have so many problems with this line of thinking parading as feminism that I’ll probably keep thinking of new issues long after I’ve posted this, but let me take at a crack at some of the main ones. Watch out — this is going to be like Mandy on the Super Bowl.

1. These are legitimate choices.
I won’t deny it — I take this shit personally. I’m a natural birthing, extended breastfeeding, co-sleeping, attachment parenting, somewhat stay-at-home mom. I’m also a pretty rabid feminist and (shocker here) I don’t really appreciate the implication that the decisions I’ve made as a result of copious research and consideration can be chalked up to some kind of misogynist Stockholm Syndrome. Maybe there are legions of mean, sisterhood-hating Stepford wives going around bullying malleable mommies into breastfeeding against their will, but I haven’t seen a lot of evidence of that. For one thing, none of these ‘dangerous’ practices are even particularly popular. So…least successful Patriarchy Plan for Widespread Oppression ™ EVER. Sure there are some ‘crunchy’ evangelists out there, but trying to make the choices of a small minority of women into a new status quo is like arguing that all of the meat eaters in South Dakota are being shamed into submission by a handful of vegans. Additionally, the many independent, intelligent, feminist women that have decided to adopt these practices aren’t stupid, they aren’t masochists and martyrs, they aren’t trying to emulate the Duggars, and they aren’t hurting anyone — can we just get the benefit of the doubt here? Why should I have an epidural if I didn’t want or need one? Because Amanda Marcotte says so? Why should I spend money on formula or time washing bottles if I don’t have to (because, guess what, infants have not figured out how to feed themselves and every method does require some level of effort)? If I’ve found a sleeping arrangement that guarantees I get to sleep in until at least 9 a.m., what right do a bunch of feminist theorists have to question that? How am I supposed to smash the patriarchy without a good night’s sleep? And if I like my kid, genuinely like hanging out with her more than A LOT of people I’ve worked with, how is that unfeminist? Simply because one way of doing something isn’t for everyone doesn’t mean it’s inherently bad. I actually have no opinion on the ‘over or under’ toilet paper controversy. I’m sure there are pros and cons, but I’m not going to revoke anyone’s free thinking individual card over it. And yeah, kids require time and sacrifice. So does every human relationship. So does having a pet. Of course, with a child, there’s the added pressure that you are raising up a person that will be unleashed on the rest of the world as an adult. So I think there are some convincing arguments for putting my needs second occasionally. And if you really don’t want to care for or interact with or being around kids, feminist mothers totally have your back, parenting probably isn’t for you and that’s okay, too! Do the responsibilities of parenthood fall disproportionally on women? Totally! But perhaps instead of blaming women for not sending their infants to a wet nurse, we could focus more on getting dudes to pitch in.

2. Feminism shouldn’t be carrying water for capitalism.
Ultimately, for all of the ‘ick’ and ‘weird’ factor Marcotte and others have relied on, the real criticism comes down to the idea that in order for equality to be achieved, each individual woman should be working outside the home, pursuing a career and trying to make a lot of money (and implicitly, of course, that this is what all women want and with out it, they are super unfulfilled, Feminine Mystique-style). When did we decide that? I thought we all thought working kind of sucked. Isn’t that why I’m saving for retirement? Obviously, there are some people who are crazy about their jobs. Bully for them. But this sounds like the kind of thing that someone that, I don’t know, BLOGS FOR A LIVING might say without really acknowledging that there’s very little self-actualization and fulfillment to be had when you’re working at a factory or waitressing or even being a low-paid drone at a non-profit. There’s nothing essentially feminist about tying your identity to paid work, and, in fact, if I were a big, oppressive corporation, it’s exactly the kind of idea I’d love to float. “They work more hours for less money, less benefits, fewer opportunities to see their families and best of all, they call it LIBERATION! *evil genius laugh*” If one has the opportunity to opt out of that system, even for a few years, and they want to, why shouldn’t they? And what happens to children if their parents are both off pursuing their careers? Do they form Lord of the Flies-like baby gangs and fend for themselves? No, unfortunately, someone has to take care of them, and that person is usually woman, probably a lower income home daycare provider, an older female relative, or a young female childcare center worker. Even if you send your kid to a fancy pre-school where everyone has a degree in early childhood education, because our society puts so little stock in caring for children, they’re probably barely clearing minimum wage. As a successful child of a number of childcare facilities, I don’t have any problem with daycare, but a system that tells middle and upper class women that they can only be successful if they work outside the home, but relies on a mostly-female child rearing underclass doesn’t sound especially feminist to me. Wouldn’t an egalitarian society value traditionally ‘female’ work so it could be more attractive to men and women of every socio-economic group? Shouldn’t we be advocating a system where we fit work around our lives, not vice versa?

3. These ‘feminist’ theories HURT WOMEN.
Beyond the annoyance factor and the personal insult, there are some pretty serious consequences to this crap. The characterization of women who make certain choices as ‘crazy’ or too dumb to understand their own minds or more interested in vanity and trends than in their own health adds to the perception that women in general can’t be trusted with their own reproductive choices and leads, very directly, to things like incomplete informed consent (and, sometimes coercion) in birthing, lack of access to alternatives and resources, and discrimination against mothers. It reinforces the idea that it’s women, not the system, that are to blame for inequality. It is rooted in an outdated, second-wave framework that assumes that all women are in the same position with access to the same options and doesn’t acknowledge the systematic barriers many women have to even being able to MAKE a choice. It really infuriates me. It is seriously dangerous to women and NOT FEMINIST. I realize that there are many ‘feminisms’ and blah blah blah, but there’s a point where snark and paternalism parading as feminism needs to STFU.

And as sparkly Euro-dance fairy Robyn and my (fantasy) bff Amy Poehler have both said so eloquently: DON’T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!

*This article about increased hostility to abortion rights in state legislatures could also be entitled, “Remember in 2006 when we kept saying this isn’t just a South Dakota problem? And have been saying it for six years?”

*I’m envisioning a meme where Stace Nelson is like, “I told you so!” And may be wearing a tinfoil hat.

*This is an interesting infographic on women in the sciences. I’m not sure I love the “girls are smarter” dichotomy set up in the beginning, though. Why does it have to be a zero sum game — can’t we all be smart?

Created by: EngineeringDegree.net

*How do you turn being a total asshole into a regular newspaper gig? I guess I’ll have to ask this South Dakota-hater at the Chicago Tribune. So far, I’ve only been able to parlay it into this blog.

*In news to no one, sex laws and rape culture are really f’ed up. On the one hand, you’ve got young people whose whole lives are being ruined for engaging in consentual sex, often in the context of a committed relationship (see also: Judith Levine’s Harmful to Minors). On the other hand, you have have a fairly small number of serial rapists attacking large numbers of women and getting away with it because the world is making excuses for them. The second article is expecially illuminating — everyone should read it.

*Exciting news, social networkers — now you can become the mayor of doin’ it!

*Interesting article on a recent wrongful birth lawsuit. Could women whose doctor’s have lied to them have similar recourse?

*You might think, as I did, that this is a parody. It is not. It may, however, be the best thing to come out of the Santorum campaign.

*Actress Amber Tamblyn wrote several ‘awareness raps’ as a joke, only to have them declared totally awesome. Download them!

Nowhere are disparities and barriers greater than in rural areas for women and girls. Rural women and girls comprise one in four people worldwide. They work long hours with little or no pay and produce a large proportion of the food grown, especially in subsistence agriculture. They are farmers, entrepreneurs and leaders, and their contributions sustain their families, communities, nations and all of us.

Watch her full comments below.

First we have the low-hanging fruit that is the Rep. Jenna Haggar/Rebecca Black. Things that are sad: Rebecca Black would probably make a better legislator. Or at least a more honest one.

Next up: Sen. Jim Bradford. Or as I like to call him, The Prophet. Bolo tie and all, this one’s spot on. If anyone sees Bradford opening an email with the subject line “Hello from Prison!” we might want to let the state know.

I always thought Rep. Scott Munsterman reminded me of someone, but I could never put my finger on it — that is, until now. Throw on some guyliner and get yourself an emo haircut and you, my friend, could pass for a rocker — or at least the dad of one.

Slap some of those sassy red lady glasses on Miranda Priestly of The Devil Wears Prada and — boom! Rep. Tona Rozum! Let’s hope Rozum is easier to work with.

File under: awkward. Rep. Jim White as Jim Bakker.

Rep. Mitch Fargen was definitely channeling Jonah Hill when he took his new legislative photo, that’s for sure. Hey, Mitch! I’ll give you $5 to say “sma-smortion” on the floor before session ends!

These two even gray the same! Maybe the Mitt should take a lesson from Rep. Phil Jensen and put himself in “time out.”

Move over, Jan-Jo! South Dakota has another connection to Mad Men! (Rep. Melissa Magstadt/Christina Hendricks)

Sen. Eldon Nygaard. Smokey the Bear. ‘Nuff said.

And my personal favorite: Rep. Laura Hubbel as Frau Farbissina. It’s also not unbelievable that Hubbel is working for some evil dictator trying to take over the world or that she might one day appear on the Jerry Springer Show.

There are also plenty of other old guys who look like stereotypical old guys, legislative men who look like old lesbians, and probably a lot of other doppelgangers out there that we haven’t thought of or didn’t include. Got a SD legislative celebrity look alike? Hit us up!

According to their website, PROJECT RESPECT.ORG works to combat sexual and gender based violence amongst South Dakota’s Native American youth by promoting healthy, responsible and respectful relationships through holistic and contextually relevant capacity building  activities that instigate confidence building, peer education, cultural preservation and positive social change, with the intended outcome of increased educational and economic opportunities.

Holly was raised in western South Dakota and graduated from St. Olaf College. She was a staffer for former U.S. Senator Tom Daschle,  a former child advocate for Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA), and served as a sexual assault advocate for Working Against Violence, Inc. in Rapid City.   She was also a public policy fellow for the Population Institute in Washington, DC and has worked as a Career Transition Advisor for the Department of Labor’s Job Corps program.

Kelsey: Why did you decide to start Project Respect.Org?

Holly: I’ve had almost  a decade of experience working with low-income youth and women, in several different capacities.  For the last four years I’ve worked with a large number of Native American youth and young adults, and I’ve witnessed the ramifications from an epidemic of sexual and gender based violence (SGBV).  These ramifications affect everything for these youth; how they interact in person and on social media, the relationship choices they make, the type of education they receive, whether or not they’ll graduate from high school, go on to college or get a job, or how early in life they have children,  and their possible dependency on alcohol or drugs.  To me, this is an issue that can no longer be ignored.

K: How was the current non-profit landscape failing to meet the needs that you were seeing?

H: I think there are several organizations in South Dakota that do a phenomenal job in providing advocacy and support for victims of of SGBV, and they do good job of bringing public awareness to the problem.  With that said, many of the services that these organizations provide come into play after SGBV has already occurred.  Project Respect.Org is different in that our mission focuses entirely on holistic approaches to prevention, and these approaches need to happen early in life–I’m talking about intervention for grammar school aged children, and perhaps even pre-K.  By the time we start teaching non-violence to tweens and teens, it’s often too late for many youth.  I’m not saying that attitudes can’t be changed at that point, but children—young children–start learning about the value of relationships and love and respect before they can even talk.  With this said, finding a holistic approach to prevent and combat SGBV isn’t going to be easy, and it is not going to happen over night.  That’s why a large portion of our program design in the early stages is reaching out to the Native community and getting data through needs assessments.  This will help us capture a better picture of the problem and help us find the right tools for solutions.  Project Respect.Org’s mission is also unique in that we want all approaches to encompass cultural preservation, and we also want to  to build bridges between the Native and non-Native community.  In my view,  just as the problem of sexual violence was largely introduced to Native culture through colonization by non-Natives, it should end with the help of non-Natives.

K: What kind of results have you seen so far? Any big surprises?

H: Community support for our mission has been great.  Everyone I talk to agrees that this is an issue that has been ignored for far to long.  I’ve also been overwhelmed at how welcoming the Native community has been of our group’s efforts.  I am white, and I’ve worried that some people may view me as an outsider coming in to try to “fix” a problem through a euro-centric approach, and I honestly can’t blame any member of the Native community who might feel that way.  But so far, the response has been amazing.  The community members and students I’ve been privileged to work with thus far have been wholeheartedly supportive of our mission.  I should add that our organization is made up of Native and non-Native board members, and our objective is to make the organization sustainable for and by the Native community through holistic, culturally relevant practices. As far as surprises go–I’m finding that the widely cited statistic that one of every three Native women will be a victim of sexual violence is likely too low.  We don’t have hard quantitative data yet, but just from online surveys and informal focus groups, I’d say that the more likely statistic is two out of every three women are or will be a victim, which is staggering.

K: The lack of data on the actual extent of violence against Native women is definitely a problem. Were you aware of the some of the conflicting studies that have come out in recent years that primarily argue about the race of the perp? I had written an article about it for the Institute of American Indian Studies about it and we came to the conclusion that there was really a need for someone to gather more qualitative data, sort of like Amnesty International did with their report, but focused just in SD.  I know the Government Research Bureau at USD was also working on a grant to try to train data gatherers on reservations in an attempt to fill in a lot of statistical gaps, but I’m not sure what ever became of that. Anyway, it seems like a problem that everyone recognizes and no one is ever able to address.

H: You bring up an excellent point.  The Amnesty International report “Maize of Injustice” indicated that most perpetrators of sexual violence against Native women are in-fact non-Native.  However, I think there may be some   debate about that finding.  One thing to remember is that girls and women who are isolated on reservation communities lack the resources and agency support to report an assault, so there is currently no sure way to find out how many assaults on the reservations go unreported.  Also, a lot of statistics compiled by the federal government relied on the very outdated 1923 definition of “rape.”  Now that that definition has changed, it may allow for more accurate reporting.  It is very important to understand that many, many women on reservations who are abused or assaulted do not report it–in fear of retaliation from the perp–and in many cases, even family members.  There are some great lobbying efforts being done by the Indian Law Resource Center and other organizations to increase the training and resources on reservations to help get a system in place to track the number of assaults and investigate the assailants.  American Indian women face challenges that no other ethnicity faces when it comes to seeking justice in SGBV related crimes.

K: How do issues of reproductive justice fit in to your mission? Some anti-violence organizations tend to shy away from taking those on.

H: The  concept behind reproductive justice is  something that can be tied into  a holistic approach to combating and preventing SGBV.   The greater theory behind reproductive justice is that all women and girls, regardless of economic status or ethnicity, be given the right to control her sexual identity, activity and reproduction.  With that said, we are not an organization that will provide referrals to reproductive health care centers or birth control- as there are other organizations that provide that type of advocacy and support.   But part of our holistic approach will include accessing the needs of young girls and women to see what tools are required to to ensure that they have control of their mental, physical and sexual health. In our view, those tools are required to prevent a climate that supports SGBV.
K: What are your ultimate goals for ProjectRespect.Org? Where do you hope to see yourselves in 5 years?

H: Our goal is to become a self sustaining organization that is actively promoting SGBV prevention while encouraging education and economic opportunities.  Sexual violence is often a symptom of larger underline assumptions including poverty, lack of family structure, lack of male remodels and low self-esteem. By implementing our intervention strategies on multiple levels (individual, interpersonal and community), we will promote cultural programs centering on the concept of ‘yuo’nihan’ (Lakota term for ‘respect’), which increases cultural pride and self-esteem, and eliminates an environment that unintentionally fosters SGBV. We believe that this will result in increases of high school graduation and secondary education completion for Native youth, which in turn promotes economic opportunity and establishes a new cultural cycle that prevents SGBV.  In five years, our goal is to be an established, self sustaining organization with programs in Native communities throughout South Dakota.

K: You’re a pretty accomplished person — what’s made you decide to stay in South Dakota instead of doing ‘bigger and better’ things elsewhere?

H: I’ve been blessed with opportunities to travel and live elsewhere in the US, but South Dakota has always had my heart, and it will always be my home.  I think of myself as pretty progressive, which can be frustrating- given our state’s political landscape.  But in my view, there is nothing more important than trying to bring positive social change to something that you love and deeply care about.  I was very lucky to grow up with a father who taught me the importance of empathy as young girl.  He educated me on Native American history and culture, he took me to powwows and the Lakota Nation Invitationals when I was growing up.  He had me read “Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee” when I was in the 8th grade.  He basically gave me the tools to recognize and call out the racism against Native peoples that was ( and sadly still is) extremely prevalent in many parts of South Dakota.  And this racism, in many ways,  contributes to the epidemic of SGBV amongst Native youth.  I am blessed to have a strong will and the skills to help fight this problem.  What can be “bigger and better” than that?

K: How can DW readers get involved with your mission?

H: Like everyone, we need money!!!  Make an online gift at http://fundly.com/projectrespectdonate. But if you can’t donate, support us online, like us on Facebook, or join our social media campaign that is accessible through our website. We are also looking for monthly guest bloggers.  We also hope to start some direct services with youth in Rapid City, so we’ll need basic donations like office supplies, art supplies and other misc. items.