Frotteurism : a variation of street harassment 

Gender-based street harassment is very common nowadays, and I am fairly certain all of us have heard of it, witnessed it or experienced it by now. We can easily find testimonies about street harassment online (for instance, in this previous blog post).

Feminists have argued that street harassment is a manner for men to claim that the public space belongs to them and that women should remain in the private sphere. For example, Deborah M. Thompson stated in an article in the Yale Journal of Law and Feminism : 

If [...] women are subject to violation of that zone of personal privacy when they enter public areas, that very invasion of privacy effectively drives women back into the private sphere, where they may avoid such violations. Thus, by turning women into objects of public attention when they are in public, harassers drive home the message that women belong only in the world of the private.

In New York, the Rob Bliss Creative Video Agency filmed a woman walking on the streets for 10 hours (youtube video). In Belgium, Sofie Peeters a documentary film student filmed the streets of Brussels in her documentary Femme de la Rue (Woman of the Street).

Critiques have been made about the underlying racism and classicism of these films because their focus is on a white young woman being harassed mostly by young black and Latino men. Since then, sources and movements are more cautious and have acknowledged that everyone can get harassed by pretty much everyone. Hollaback, an international non-profit and movement to end harassment in public spaces stated :

Replacing sexism with racism is not a proper holla back. Ditto to classism, homophobia, transphobia, and the usage of any other identity signifier. In our experiences, harassment comes from people in every facet of our cultures and every strata of society.

The same movement along with Cornell University conducted an illuminating international survey in 2014, with total of 16,607 respondents. The survey reveals for example that more than 81.5% of European women and 85% of US women experienced their first street harassment before the age of 17.

However, there is a variation of this phenomenon that gets less coverage in my opinion : frotteurism. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as 

The paraphiliac practice of achieving sexual stimulation or orgasm by touching and rubbing against a person without the person's consent and usually in a public place—called also frottage.

Not surprisingly, it happens usually on public transportation where people (usually men, aged 15-25) act like the place is too crowded and get closer to other people (usually women). They get so close that they touch the victim and basically grope them or rub themselves against him/her. A bus or subway never gets that crowded. In fact, these acts can constitute sexual assault, depending on the country's law.
In taking advantage of the fact that they are stuck on public transport and in the crowd, the assailants count on the victim's impulse not to make a scene. They rely on the victim's embarrass and passiveness.

It would be truly interesting to have data on frotteurism and to identify countries/regions were it happens more frequently. I struggled to find such reliable information. However, it is common at least in France and Italy as I have witnessed firsthand. A special police force in Paris is actually dedicated to spotting frotteurs (to see them in action : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=229YitKOJJs).

Frotteurism is considered to be a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association.

The symptoms must have been present for at least 6 months and the patient must experience significant distress or negative impact on functioning [...] Diagnosis of frotteuristic disorder is based on recurrent touching or rubbing of one or more nonconsenting individuals on at least three occasions, and clinically significant distress. [...] Treatment of frotteuristic disorder focuses on the reduction of sexual urges and behaviors through behavioral therapy, used to identify triggers and redirect behavior, and psychopharmaceutical intervention.

I find it hard to believe that this type of behavior is a disorder. I am fairly certain that in some places or cities this type of harassment does not occur. Thus, it seems too easy to justify this horrific behavior by merely saying it is not something that the perpetrators can control.

The Birth of a Movement: Top-Down versus Bottom-Up Women's Rights in Rwanda and the United States

How does the birth of a feminist movement in a nation shape the later culture in the country? For insight on this question we can look to the United States and Rwanda, two countries which had two vastly different starting points for the push toward women's equality.

The women's movement in the United States saw its birth in the 1800's with the suffragettes. Encouraging citizens to take to the streets to march, the suffragettes worked for increased political power and representation with initiatives for women to have full citizenship and the right to vote. They also tackled issues surrounding the amount of agency a women had at home, working for women to have custody over their children as well as the right to divorce.

While men were involved in the early American women's rights movement, it was women like Susan B Anthony and Elizabeth Stanton who created the backbone of the suffragettes. While the messages they promoted were vital to the promotion of women's rights, the lives they lead were equally important for setting the stage for the American tradition of grassroots feminism. Susan B Anthony put work ahead of having children and challenged modern norms of how a woman should act by travelling on the road alone while Elizabeth Stanton showed her peers one could have a family while still being publicly bold and politically engaged. Together these two women set the stage for the generations of women after them to use their own voices and leadership to push for women's rights and equality from inside the home to the highest levels of government.

It is not always the case that women create the catalyst for change that changes the landscape for how much political power a woman can obtain. In 1994 Rwanda suffered a genocide that left much of the male population either dead or in jail, resulting in 70% of the population being women. This phenomenon led to the leader Kagame and the government to rewrite the Constitution instituting a requirement that 30% of Parliamentary positions were given to women, and women's education was launched as an important goal for the country. Overnight Rwandan women went from a world of traditional patriarchy where they had trouble owning land to one in which they would take a prominent role in governing the country.

In a recent story, the authors of the podcast Invisibilia looked at whether or not these recent changes in Rwanda also changed how society and culture treated women. In other words, did the Rwandan society change from "the outside in?" They found that although women had power in the public sphere, in the private they could not escape the expectations of being a traditional Rwandan women that did not have equal power in the home as their male counterparts. Also, since the change that gave the Rwandan women political power came from the top down, they were seen as ungrateful when they voiced the issues they were experiencing at home.

The comparison of the United States and Rwanda shows that while top down feminist movements may institute gender equality in political representation faster than a bottom up movement, but it often will not reflect the cultural reality most of the nation's women live in. While the United States may not have the same representation of women in political offices as Rwanda, the bottom up creation of the women's movement in the United started a tradition in which women can use their voices to push for such a change.

Breaking the Mold of Gender Stereotypes

A natural gender distinction exists in society. Children are taught from a young age that their clothes are labelled. Blue is for boys. Pink is for girls. The entertainment industry has taken this distinction to new extremes.

The totality of the popular Nintendo game ‘Super Mario Bros.’ depicts brave Mario on his dangerous quest to find and rescue Princess Peach, the misfortunate beauty who is being held hostage in evil Bowser’s castle. 

In the James Bond franchise, the secret agent with rippling pectoral muscles is famous for his one-night stands and chauvinistic attitude towards the women around him. A common thread weaves these, and most other popular phenomenon’s together- the woman is always the inferior character, the ‘damsel in distress’. 

While some progression has been made in the entertainment industry with heroines like Katniss Everdeen and Hermoine Granger, it is clear that we must see stronger growth before our children can experience a non-gender discriminatory society.

The upcoming US presidential election magnifies the above and depicts this discrimination on the real-life world stage. While I can appreciate that having a women candidate is remarkable, I find it upsetting that this gender classification has been the vocal point of the campaign.

In my home country of Ireland, woman have featured heavily in politics for many years. Two of the previous three presidents of Ireland have been women. While the Chief Justice of Ireland, Susan Denham, is the first female to hold this position, women are commonly seen in other judicial roles such as Supreme Court Justices (three in total) and High Court Justices (ten in total). 

The political leaders of any nation should be a fair depiction of all that nation represents. They should view their country as a cohesive whole, and give respect to their distinctive traditions, language and political beliefs.

Before a nation identifies under any of these categories, we can describe its citizens in the most basic of terms: ALL inhabitants of that particular state. Fundamental to this explanation is the equal composition of men and women. 

Of the 2010 USA Census population, 157.0 million were female (50.8 percent) while 151.8 million were male (49.2 percent). A female-led government should therefore not be painted as such a shock factor for this upcoming election. 

Perhaps I take for granted how lucky I am to have been raised in a country where gender-balanced leadership is not an elusive concept. I hope the citizens of America realise their duty to move towards change and to work towards discontinuing the permeation of the above pop-culture gender stereotypes in the real world.

If we stop defining each other by what we are not, and start defining ourselves by who we are, we can all be a lot freer  Emma Watson

Women in Ireland

Ireland, the beautiful Emerald Isle, off the coast of mainland Europe is the wonderful place I happily call home. Though small in both size and population, this fine nation has provided the world with some of the greats; Oscar Wilde, U2, and Conor McGregor, to name but a few. We are a nation that prides ourselves on our patriotism as we know how hard those who came before us had to work for independence. And we are a nation that have the incredible ability to grow and reform with the times.  

In the past century Ireland has practically never failed to evolve and accept change. While I can appreciate that, at times, such evolution is difficult and requires a great deal of effort and sacrifice, it is rare that a minority feels unaccepted or undervalued in our society. We have, in a relatively short amount of time, become independent from British Rule, legalised homosexual marriage, and has made major improvements with respect to feminism and women’s rights.

As was the case in most countries, and perhaps still is in some, Ireland was not always a place in which women were regarded as first-class citizens. Women had to fight to receive recognition of their status as humans deserving of basic human rights, such as the right to vote and the right to work. During the 1916 Easter Rising, a time during which the citizens of Ireland rebelled against British Rule to gain independence, Constance Markievics was a woman who was heavily involved in the organisation and carrying out of the rebellion. Due to the rebels’ immediate failure the most prominent figures involved were sentenced to death. Constance Markievics, however, who, due to her sex, was not. Even though she participated almost equally to the sixteen other men who were executed, she was instead sentenced to life in prison. The blatant sexism outraged her, of course. 

In my opinion, the strong presence of the Catholic faith in Ireland contributed to a significant portion of the oppression of women. According to the 1946 Census of Ireland 94% of the country identified as Roman Catholic. Due to this society placed a burden on women to behave a certain way. It was largely uncommon for children to be had outside of wedlock, and often those young women who did fall pregnant were placed into labour-intensive facilities referred to as the Magdalene Laundries. There they would work during their pregnancy and, upon the birth of their baby, it would be adopted by strangers. Married women were viewed as being inferior to their husbands. Their place was in the home raising children. It was common for families to have many kids and, being granddaughter to a woman who came from a family of thirteen children, I speak from experience. The Marriage Bar prevented married women from working outside the home.

Change in Ireland came about slowly at first. The right to vote was granted to women in 1918 which was a massive step in the development of women’s rights. First-wave feminists such as Maude Gonne and Constance Markievics relinquished their titles to new and determined second-wave feminists including the likes of Nell McCafferty and Nuala O’Faolain, women working hard for equality of the sexes. The 1970s brought with them times of monumental change for Irish women with massive statutory reform in favour of equal treatment of women and men. These changes came about in many areas such as employment and property rights with the legalisation of contraception occurring in the 1980s in spite of the ever-present Roman Catholic faith.

As I am Irish, my knowledge of the development of American feminism and the movements towards women’s rights was significantly lacking. I had barely ever before heard the names of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony prior to my first Feminist Legal Theory Class. Therefore, the ability to watch their progress and the progress of so many others that followed their lead, such as Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro, was truly enlightening. Knowing the history and improvements that had occurred in my own country made it decidedly fascinating to observe those of America. Comparing, contrasting and evaluating the various similarities and distinctions was an interesting process. It allowed me to further understand the turmoil and effort that those who came before us put into achieving basic human rights.

The history of feminism, regardless of the country in which it took place, is always impressive and always inspiring. Being a more passive person than I would like to be, I have a tendency to allow things to take their own course without my own interference. However, when it comes to the topic of feminism I look at all the good that has been done. I am pleased with the progress that has been made for us but it also strikes me just how far we have yet to go. 

Allies and defining the movement

Our first class period of the semester we answered two fundamental yet complex questions. “Do we consider ourselves feminists? And what does feminism mean to you?” There answers shared some commonalities, but each person’s beliefs and experiences influenced their responses. I ardently answered the first question in the affirmative. However, I avoided the second question altogether (whether intentionally or not I am not quite certain).

As a cis-male, my relationship with feminism is ever evolving; I try to be a constant learner, always open minded. Yet, I have been consistently reluctant to define feminism. I associate certain socio-economical and political tenetss to feminism: equal pay, reproductive choice, anti-body shaming. But I will not say Carly Fiorina is not a feminist, or not a good feminist. But is this reluctance correct? Is it evasive? I honestly do not know the answer.

I looked to bell hooks’ "Feminism is for Everyone" for some insight ( https://excoradfeminisms.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/bell_hooks-feminism_is_for_everybody.pdf). To hooks, creating male allies and generating feminist conscious-raising among men are pivotal to the success of the movement. This much seems intuitive; an exponential effect of more pro-feminism men checking the privilege of others, in turn creating more pro-feminism men.

hooks also articulates the importance of dismantling the false media narrative of anti-men feminism. hooks argues for educating men at a young age to effectively counter this. hooks identifies the benefits that feminism has for men. Patriarchy has clearly failed a majority of men, she argues, pointing at the male anxiety of the incoherent "men's rights" movement. It has left so many without a basis for identity based on anything except violent power.

Yet, hooks does not speak directly to my earlier quandary. I assume there are two reasons for this. First, it is a generally broad text, covering many topics; it contains historical background, critiques of past methods, and hopes for the future of feminism. Second, societal conscious-raising will achieve more for feminism than finely articulating male ally roles and responsibilities. But inferences can be made when considering the other preeminent goals hooks sets out in the text.

In the introduction to her book, hooks laments the breakdown of feminist politics within the feminist movement. Responsible, in hooks' mind, is the lack of clear definitions of what it means to be feminist. Without clear definitions, internalized sexism and patriarchal attitudes remain unchallenged. hooks considers addressing internalized sexism essential to the feminist movement.

After reading hooks, I consider my past silence evasive, and . If definitions are needed, and internalized sexism must be conquered, then allies cannot afford to be silent. This is not all to say that I, as a man, should be defining what feminism is. Rather, I must be actively seeking out the appropriate definitions so I can be confident in public discourse.

This semester, I plan to do just that, to become well versed, knowledgeable and confident. The next time I am asked those two fundamental questions, I will be able to answer both with equal vigor and confidence.

Are you a round or a pointy.

Are you a round or a pointy?

I was sent this article by a friend in a group text accompanied by "ARE YOU A POINTY OR A ROUND!"  Eager to be part of the labeling of our friends that immediately followed, I read the article.  I found myself learning more than was necessary about the author's family dogs.  Then the article asked if I understood the distinction the author was outlining with this comparison of canine personality traits.  I did not get it.

Eventually there was a list of celebrities with definitive classifications of "pointy" or "round."  Wanting to be a certain way is "pointy."  Not caring about types is "round." Again, I didn't get it.  I struggled to put my traits squarely in one of these two categories (pun intended).   It was almost as if my personality was more complicated than this strict dichotomy allowed. 

This is not the first time I've been asked to sort myself into one of two options.  I'm sure many readers relate.  There are quizzes online, in magazines, created by friends that constantly sort certain characteristics into groups A and B--including the ubiquitous Type A and Type B personality classifications.  Monica or Rachel , Feminist or not.   I saw the same either/or mentality in the Ken Burns documentary Not for Ourselves Alone: The Story of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. 

Many of the commentators in the clips we watched in class discussed how Stanton and Anthony were opposites.  The painted the women as the two options for womanhood.  Stanton was married and just kept having children.  Anthony was devoted to the work.  It invited the question, Are you an Anthony or a Stanton? 

But what if I'm both? What if I am committed to working for a cause I believe in, but equally committed to whatever type of family I choose to surround myself with?  It seemed absurd to me to pull out these characteristics about these women and pit them against each other.  They were both obviously more complicated than a simple category can convey.  We are all more complicated than a strict dichotomy.  Let's stop stamping out that complexity with dumb categories.