Affirmative Consent aka Yes Means Yes

As the Lutheran Episcopal Chaplain at UC Davis, legislation was recently passed in California that directly affects the university and students I serve.  SB 967 aka the “Yes Means Yes” law, was signed by Governor Brown, thus putting a new way of charting and evaluating sexual interactions on campuses into place.

The previous standard, “No Means No,” presupposed that the victim of a sexual assault must have said no to the activity or did something to indicate the interaction was unwanted.  That is, she or he had to show evidence of a struggle or non-compliance (bruises, scratches, etc.).  But not all instances of sexual assault leave such marks.  If a victim was threatened, there may not have been a struggle (or affirmative no).  If a victim was severely intoxicated or unconscious, then there would be no evidence of a struggle.  And victims have also described simply being in such a state of shock or terror that they neither stated no or fought back in a way that the legal system deemed to be a ‘no’ response.  Thus, victims who were left with no bruises or no evidence of having said no faced an unfair uphill battle to prove the sexual contact was unwanted.  Likewise, alleged perpetrators have argued that since there was no struggle or indication the victim didn’t want it, they supposed what they were doing was ok.

This bill seeks to change that.  In the midst of physical encounters, this bill now requires that students receive consent at every point, and understand that consent can be withdrawn at any point.  The text of the law defines affirmative consent as “affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity.”  It also reiterates that someone who is intoxicated, unconscious, incapacitated, or asleep cannot give consent.  This is the standard of consent that colleges and universities must now use when investigating allegations of sexual assault.  The National Coalition of Men opposed the bill, saying that it is impossible for an accused man to prove that he secured consent.  So, is this a step forward or backward in protecting women and men from sexual assault?

Certainly, this isn’t the first time a policy like this has been proposed or enacted.  Back in the mid 90s, I remember discussing a college whose student handbook similarly required that sexual interactions receive consent at each step in the process.  In theory, it does seem empowering since it takes a much more positive view of human sexuality, seeking affirmation and checking and double checking that what is happening is acceptable to all participants.  If implemented, situations of rape and especially acquaintance rape, would decrease since if consent is withdrawn at any point, the interaction must stop.  And utilizing this as the standard when investigating an alleged rape does remove the need for the victim to prove through bodily harm that the contact was unwanted.

As a chaplain, it opens up space to talk about what is healthy in sexual relationships, and gives students a chance to be thoughtful about their bodies and how they communicate their intentions with one another.  Indeed, this law alone will not stop rapists from raping.  But hopefully it will lead students to be more intentional about how they proceed in intimate encounters.  And it sets a different standard for how rape allegations should be investigated.  It will be interesting to see how this changes the conversation about sexual interactions and the judicial process on college campuses.  

What online communities can show us about the principalities and powers

tw: sexual harassment, gendered slurs

From Slate: 

...Actress Emma Watson gave a speech supporting the HeForShe campaign, a project run by UN Women in support of women's equality around the globe. Watson, in her role as a Goodwill Ambassador for UN Women, denounced the negative impact that rigid gender roles have on both men and women. 

You can see the speech here. And what was interesting about the speech was that--to my ears--the speech was not incredibly radical.  Watson spoke of the need for gender equality in explicitly 'equalist' terms--as opposed to giving any indication of supporting a type of feminism that misogynists fear:  namely an inversion of power in which women can enact upon men that which men enact upon women.  (Interestingly enough, this fear of an inversion of power is when one can see that men who deny the existence of sexism actually know exactly what it is.  We see the same thing along any axis of privilege/oppression.)  Watson also mentioned the problems men face in a world in which gender expression and roles are so constricted.  She talks of specific instances where she has seen the harm "being a man" does to men.  Men are also made to fit in a small box of approved expressions and roles or men face the consequences of being seen as effeminate, weak, unmanly.  She explicitly notes that she would like men to take up the call of the HeForShe campaign because doing so will benefit both our future daughters and sons.

She also speaks of the moments in which she realized she was coming around to feminism, mentioning how "at 14, I started being sexualized by certain elements of the media." I will also mention that I remember what I read on social media the day she turned 18. It wasn't pretty.

The reaction from a certain website 4chan--which was where the recently stolen celebrity photos found a platform for being viewed--was rather swift and is particularly egregious.  It was also odd.  A site was started that showed a five day countdown, and after those five days it was threatened that they would publish nude photos of Emma Watson.  This news was met on 4chan and Reddit with glee, and a particularly good write-up from Vox (go read it!) on the issue gives an example of a particularly cruel and graphic comment one man made--as well as his hope that such a leak would end Watson's "career" as a feminist.

It is worth noting that while the threat to release those photos was a hoax, the reaction to the prospect of Emma Watson being "put in her place" was not. There might be a temptation to write the incident off as inconsequential since it came to nothing, but the 4chan and reddit reactions were real, and hideous.

To which I'll make two short observations:

1. It was not always known to be a hoax, and to be a woman speaking on feminist issues publicly in spite of the threats that one will probably receive is quite brave.  Rape threats are quite common, sexist screeds even more so.  (Witness the abuse Anita Sarkeesian recieves.)  Cursory Facebook and Youtube use will show it to be true that the comments men leave on any article having to do with feminism will justify the existence of feminism.
2. That it was believable--and that it has happened before--that men were planning to use sexual shame as a tool to silence a woman actually gives weight to Emma Watson's and feminism's claims about the state of the world's gender politics.

From the same Slate article as mentioned above, Amanda Marcotte writes that

Though there’s no way to know if this is a real threat, or just an ugly prank, Jill Filipovic of Cosmopolitan captured some 4chan users explicitly suggesting nude photo leaks to punish Watson for her outspoken feminism. "That feminist bitch Emma is going to show the world she is as much of a whore as any woman," wrote one. "She makes stupid feminist speeches at UN, and now her nudes will be online, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH," wrote another.

In addition to the clock the website features a photo of Watson wiping away tears. The choice is a telling one, demonstrating that the point of releasing these photos—or threatening to—is not the pleasure of seeing someone naked. After all, there are millions of images of naked women who happen to be consenting available online. It's about getting those tears, the pleasure of hurting and humiliating a woman who offended you by being unobtainable, and by standing up for other women.

Marcotte is bringing up a good point, even though she wrote this piece before it was known that the site was a hoax.  The threatened photo release--through the approval it was receiving from those who thought it real and justified--showed that the mindset of the supporters of the leak was not primarily about gratifying anyone's prurient interest.  The point would have been specifically to punish Watson for speaking out.¹  Like most gendered violence, the very real support for the fake threat to release nude photos was the outworking of power, not simply lust. And it is important to call demons by their proper name (Mk 5:9).

The apostle Paul speaks in his letters of the "principalities and powers."² By this Paul means the  spiritual and worldly forces that exist in opposition to God.  For it is Christ through whom all things were created and exist--whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers-- but the good news is that Christ has disarmed these powers and authorities through his life and death (Col 1:16, 2:15). The greatness and goodness of God is at work through and in Christ, who is placed above the principalities and powers (Eph 1:20-23).  The Church's role is one of proclaiming God's power and testifying to God's coming reign to these spiritual forces (Eph 3:7-12).  And the promise we inherit is the coming complete destruction of these forces-- "every ruler and every authority and power"-- at the consummation of history (1 Cor 15:24-28).

One way in which I define the powers and principalities are that they are those practices and ideas which foster impediments to seeing all as equally beloved and redeemed by God, meaning that there is little drive to foster the reconciliation Christians are called to witness to (2 Cor 5:14-21).  They could be spiritual or simply the mundanely human outworking of our desire for power and control in the face of uncertainty (which will have a spiritual impact).  Further, for the principalities and powers, there is little concern to active hostility to the equality of all before God (Gal 3:28) and the role of women in places beyond where society would deem them welcome (consider Jesus' relationship to women in the Gospel, as well as women's roles in Paul's letters and in Acts).   Colonialism, sexism, racism, and homophobia all fall within the control of principalities and powers that devalue the beloved of God while teaching others that they have a divine right to maintain an oppressive social order "for the good of us all."  Control is sanctified in lieu of holiness, forbearance, love, and grace.  The principalities and powers instead resort to threat, harm, shame and death.   You can know who you are dealing with by the fruits they produce.

It is not uncommon to hear Episcopalians talk about social issues and the role of a Christian in terms of the Baptismal Covenant's questions asked of all who seek right relationship with God--and two questions in particular: "Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons?" and "Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?"  I'd like to suggest that the impulse to social justice in general, and sexism in particular, does not begin at these two questions.  The impulse begins with the recognition that there are realities of this world we must renounce before we make these promises.

Our desire to do God's work in the world should imply the desire to throw off that which impedes that work.  In the Baptismal service, two of the three renunciations immediately come to mind:  "Do you renounce Satan and all the spiritual forces of wickedness that rebel against God?" and "Do you renounce the evil powers of this world which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God?"  These renunciations speak of throwing off the world's claims about the proper place of others and seeking instead to discern the wild and radical things God chooses to do with the unlikely in order to confound the wise and powerful.  It means de-centering the will to power (think Jesus' temptation in the wilderness (Mt 4:1-11)) in favor of God's will and mission for humanity.

Here's the point.  Whenever you see the use of terroristic violence, shame, and belittlement against anyone, you are seeing the powers and principalities at work, as well as the all too human desire for power.  And what was witnessed on 4Chan and Reddit in these particular instance--and many others--was the outworking of the desire to control through punishment.  All because one woman in a very public way said all women and men were equal.

It was flat-out sexism.

And it is important to call demons by their names.
______________________

¹ What wasn't a hoax, however, was the treatment of Anita Sarkeesian for her work in engaging video games through the lens of feminist inquiry.  The abuse that she recieved in digital venues which threatened to become all too real speaks to ways in which the treatment of women in the digital landscape mirrors "the real world."   Catherine Buni and Soraya Chemaly write for The Atlantic:

If, as the communications philosopher Marshall McLuhan famously said, television brought the brutality of war into people’s living rooms, the Internet today is bringing violence against women out of it. Once largely hidden from view, this brutality is now being exposed in unprecedented ways. In the words of Anne Collier, co-director of ConnectSafely.org and co-chair of the Obama administration’s Online Safety and Technology Working Group, “We are in the middle of a global free speech experiment.” On the one hand, these online images and words are bringing awareness to a longstanding problem. On the other hand, the amplification of these ideas over social media networks is validating and spreading pathology.

In other words, the internet and real life are not that different. The two connect because those same people who interact online exist in the world, too. The difference is that the persons who threaten others online might hold in their vitriol in real life for fear of social consequence.  Yet it must be noted that the same folks who threaten violence against women in digital forums likely interact with women in the real world.  That is not a pleasant reality to think about.

² As the KJV puts it; "powers" and "authorities" in the NRSV.  For the purposes of this piece, the authorship of the Pauline canon is not going to be addressed.

Abuse, Forgiveness, and Inequality

In the past few weeks, headlines have been filled with stories about various famous NFL players caught in the midst of scandal: Ray Rice of the Baltimore Ravens was suspended from the NFL after video of him knocking his then fiancé, now wife, unconscious in an elevator surfaced.  And Adrian Peterson of the Minnesota Vikings has also been suspended from his team after pictures of him “disciplining” his four year old son with a switch went public.  It has been shocking to watch fans of both players continuing to wear their jerseys and pronounce “support” for them, although for different reasons.  How do we, as Christians, approach these situations?  How do we analyze the actions and reactions in light of our call to love and forgive people, and to root out injustice in order to uplift the oppressed?

Ray Rice

The NFL made the decision to suspend Ray Rice for two games when he was arrested for domestic violence against his then fiancé.  Many people publically questioned if this punishment was serious enough, given the charges and severity of the crime.  But then, a few months later, the video of him punching her in the face and being knocked unconscious hit the internet, and the NFL was forced to respond.  He was cut from the Ravens and suspended indefinitely by the NFL.  His [now] wife, Janay, who was the victim of his violence, immediately condemned these sanctions, saying, “I woke up this morning feeling like I had a horrible nightmare... No one knows the pain that [the] media & unwanted options from the public has caused my family. To make us relive a moment in our lives that we regret every day is a horrible thing. To take something away from the man I love that he has worked his ass [off] for all his life just to gain ratings is horrific…”

Many have wondered how she could defend him (never mind marry him) after Rice rendered her unconscious.  This led to the twitter hashtags #WhyIStayed and #WhyILeft.  The reality is, 1 in 5 women in this country are victims of domestic violence and leaving the relationship can be more perilous than staying in it.  Women stay for many reasons including: love, children, financial security, feeling isolated, low self-esteem, the list goes on.  Women who leave often risk poverty, greater financial difficulties, and even an increased possibility the violence will escalate.

I don’t know Janay Rice, so I can’t try to guess what her motivations are.  In her statement, she indicates she loves him, and that the incident is something they continue to regret (that is: perhaps he is sorry for it?).  Fans have flooded message boards and done media interviews often with similar thoughts: while what he did was wrong, she forgave him, married him – so why shouldn’t we?  Other NFL players have done time in prison for their crimes and still play in the NFL (ahem, Michael Vick).  Should we (the public and the NFL) forgive Ray Rice?

This brings up important theological issues.  Certainly, each Sunday during worship (in the Episcopal and Lutheran traditions), we have some time of silence to reflect on our sins, and then we say a confessional prayer together, in which we acknowledge our sins and say we are sorry to God.  And then the priest pronounces absolution (forgiveness) to the congregation – assures them that if they are truly penitent (sorry) then God forgives their sins.  But the crux of that statement is IF s/he is truly penitent.  As a priest, it’s impossible to judge what is going on in someone’s heart – if s/he is really sorry.  So we emphasize the IF – if s/he is truly sorry, then her/his sins are absolved.

Perhaps Janay believes Rice is truly sorry and she has forgiven him.  Certainly, as Christians, we are called to forgive: “forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us,” we constantly pray.  We are sinners, and as such we hurt each other, and we turn away from God.  This happens on a daily basis for each of us.  However, because the psychology of domestic violence is so complex, it is simply not possible to say ‘she forgave him, so we should too.’  We don’t know why she is staying with him.  She may not even be clear on why she is staying with him.  God certainly will forgive him if he is truly sorry, and part of being truly sorry is to not remain in that sinful state anymore.  There is much he could do as a public figure to show his repentance and sorrow for his actions toward her.  Perhaps his supporters feel he has demonstrated that.  Part of what is troubling is his and Janay’s response to the sanctions that he has been given in response to his behavior.

Indeed, apparently, what Janay is upset about is the punishment that has resulted from this incident.  While we often talk about “judge not lest ye be judged,” and “vengeance is mine says the LORD,” there is also precedent in the bible of using punishment in order to correct wayward behavior (see the Hebrew Exile).  What is just punishment for someone in this instance?  Analyzing the power dynamics, as a football player and athlete, Rice surely has great physical strength – perhaps much more than an average man.  He also wields a large salary and social power through being a well-known public figure.  She is probably not as strong as he is, and likely she depends on him financially.  Additionally, they have a child together, and so their roles as parents play into the power dynamic as well.  Another video was released showing her possibly provoking him before he punches her.  Did she then deserve his retaliation? 

In terms of the power dynamics, the answer is absolutely not.  His physical strength undoubtedly overpowers hers.  Women should not hit men, as truly no one should hit anyone (we learn that at toddlers, right?  Don’t hit.  Period.).  But the inequality of physical size and strength between them is particularly problematic.

And perhaps part of what people are responding to in this instance is he didn’t just hit her, he knocked her unconscious, meaning a blow with a particularly strong amount of force.  A blow to the head (as any football player should know) is dangerous and potentially life threatening.  So this is a serious crime.  But is it serious enough for him to lose his career over?

That might be where it is difficult to judge.  Certainly, the National Organization of Women (NOW) has called for the resignation of Commissioner Roger Godell, citing his ineffective leadership and decision making throughout this situation.  NOW argues that domestic violence is a real problem among NFL players, and the league has not done enough to end it.  Thus, there is a reality – from a justice standpoint – that the NFL must get it’s house in order.  If domestic violence is not acceptable (it isn’t), then there must be mechanisms to punish and deter those who would engage in that kind of violence.  As Christians who care about justice and the inequalities that occur when wealthy professional athletes are able to exploit their privilege to abuse women, it is important to hold the perpetrators accountable – both the abusers and the systems that allow them to continue to be wealthy and famous.

And, we need to approach Janay (and their child) with deep compassion.  What she has experienced is horrific.  Physically, mentally, emotionally painful, and to have it played out on a national stage must be humiliating as well.  Not that she should feel this way – she didn’t ask to be knocked unconscious by her partner in an elevator, and did not deserve that treatment.  But she is staying in the relationship and thus this incident continues to affect her in numerous ways on a daily basis.  We definitely should pray for her and hope that she is seeking and receiving intensive therapy for herself and for them as a couple. 

Adrian Peterson

By now we know that Adrian Peterson disciplines his children by using switches, and doesn’t see a problem with ‘leaving a mark’ on them.  There has been much debate on spanking, as some parents and experts felt and continue to feel that it is an acceptable form of discipline.  Others argue that children should never be hit for any reason.  Some have defended Peterson’s parenting by claiming this is standard discipline in the African American community, and that parents should have the right to discipline their children as they see fit.  Further, numerous adults argue they were punished in similar ways and “learned their lessons,” and “turned out fine.”

Again, what are the power dynamics at play here?  Surely adults are taller and stronger than young children, and control their ability to have access to food, water, shelter, and any number of other privileges (toys, outings with friends, extracurricular activities).  Children’s power mainly manifests itself in their ability to act out in negative ways, or in self-mutilation.  Peterson, as a professional football player, likely possesses a level of strength that surpasses the average adult male.  So the force he would use as he whips a child would be presumably even greater than a man who does not have the kind of physical conditioning and strength he has.  Thus, the amount of force he can inflict blow by blow on a young, small child, is quite considerable.  And, given the photos, did indeed cause extreme pain, cuts, and bruising all over the child’s body.  Some have argued that this was not a spanking, it was a beating.  And yet, there are those who say it is a parent’s prerogative to beat a child if they wish.  Where does this sentiment come from?

Many reference the Bible to condone using physical discipline on children.  Proverbs 13:24 is a go-to verse for this purpose: “Those who spare the rod hate their children, but those who love them are diligent to discipline them.” (NRSV)  Use a rod to hit and discipline your children, this is commonly interpreted to say.  And there are other verses along these same lines.  Does God want us to hit our children in order to discipline them?

In this much quoted verse, I would place the emphasis on the second half: that those who love their children must discipline them.  There is no denying that historically it has been socially acceptable to physically punish children.  I was spanked as a child.  But God has also endowed humans with the ability to think and research and grow in our knowledge and understanding.  And to date, study after scientific study suggests that there are more effective methods of discipline than spanking and that it harms children in numerous ways.  Opponents of spanking argue that hitting a child sends confusing signals – telling them it’s not acceptable to hit or be violent to a peer, and then to hit and be violent toward them as discipline only shows that, actually, this kind of violence is acceptable when one with great power and physical strength is using it against someone smaller and less powerful.  This is clearly problematic.  Countless experts and professional medical organizations now encourage parents to utilize other forms of discipline, rather than spanking.  Is this contrary to Proverbs 13:24?  No.  The verse is urging parents to discipline their children because they love them.  If we now have solid evidence of a better way to do so than ‘using a rod,’ then theologically we are beholden to use it.  To use a ‘different rod,’ if you will - the rod of time out or loss of privileges, etc.  Those rods are effective forms of punishment that don’t leave the physical and potentially emotional scars of a spanking or beating.

And that’s really why spanking is problematic.  Usually when a parent is disciplining a child, her anger level is elevated – potential highly elevated.  It may be tempting in the heat of the moment for a spanking to cross a line into a beating.  It’s hard for a parent to know how much force he is using and how it is affecting the body of the child receiving it.  Good parents want to discipline their children so that the memory of the consequence sticks so they will make better choices in the future.  But physically harming their child is not usually the goal of such a parent, and yet can happen all too easily in a situation like Peterson’s.  Indeed, Peterson himself confessed to his wife in a text message that he may have beat his son too hard.  He knew he had crossed a line.

Jesus abhorred violence.  He was constantly telling his disciples not to fight, and not to defend him through force.  It’s hard if not impossible to argue that he would have condoned hitting a child, for any reason.  Indeed, we as Christians do have the responsibility to discipline our children (“discipline” comes from the same root as “disciple”), thus we are called to follow the example of how Jesus treated people, and yes, how he treated his own disciples.  True, the disciples were adults, not children in need of maturity and growth.  But he felt a responsibility to them, as parents do toward children.  Responsibility is different than ownership, and while a parent is responsible for their children – for teaching them and raising them to be good adults, they must be treated humanely and decently.  Parents do not have the right to do whatever they want to a child, which is why there are laws against abusing children and government agencies to protect children from parents and other adults who would harm them.  These provisions exist because children are vulnerable and powerless, and are in need of protection from some adults.  Yes, parents have leeway in making decisions about how to raise their children, but if we understand children as being gifted to us by God (whether through biology or adoption) then we realize that as adults our call is to nurture, protect and raise them – that they are God’s children first, and thus that affects how we treat them.  Jesus asked his followers not to use violence against one another, and this holds true for all of God’s children.

How we treat one another is of utmost theological importance, and is at the heart of Christian faith.  The imbalance of power – physically and socially – between men and women, and a father and a son means their interactions must be evaluated in that light and that analysis must come out in favor of protecting the least among us.  The use of physical violence, according to Jesus, is never acceptable. Indeed, we must learn and grow from our mistakes, and part of that growth must be to show how we will be different as we move forward.