And I think to myself...

Thinking of the faces is not something that I regularly do. It is a luxury that I cannot afford to myself. It doesn’t mean I don’t care about the victims. It’s just self-preservation. I have always been afraid of being crushed under the weight of all the pain and loss.

When I started my college internship at CVAC in 2002, the second case I opened was with the mother of a homicide victim. I still remember the victim's name, but I never saw his face. Since then, I have worked with hundreds of families of homicide victims. I have seen some of the faces on t-shirts their families wear or on funeral programs families bring to our office, but it’s always in passing. I know the names. I see them over and over in case notes and in the list of names I assemble for our annual homicide victims’ vigil. I don’t know their faces.

Sometimes the stars align. Sometimes God smiles on us. Sometimes karma brings us good things. Sometimes there are coincidences that turn out for the best. However you want to attribute it, you know what I mean. And so it went with CVAC’s National Crime Victims’ Rights Week event this year. Victims’ Rights Week was coming up. An artist was looking for pictures of young victims of gun violence. A gallery just a couple blocks from the CVAC office gives space to artists free of charge.  It turns out that the artist’s schedule, the gallery’s availability, and Victims’ Rights Week all coincided, so we scheduled the exhibit and an opening reception.

For the “Faces Project,” Christine Ilewski paints watercolor portraits of young victims of gun violence, donates the original to the family, and collages reproductions of the portraits onto vintage handkerchiefs. These images make up a traveling exhibit with a mission to raise awareness of the toll gun violence takes on American youth. So, with the help of coworkers and interns, I narrowed down our clients according to the artist’s guidelines (victims under 20 years of age and killed by a gun) and sent them an invitation to participate along with an envelope for them to return the release form and a photograph of their loved one.

A few responses arrived in the mail. I did not open them. I told myself it was just to keep them from getting lost. If I’m being honest with myself, I wasn’t sure I wanted to see the faces.  Finally, one showed up with a handwritten note on the outside of the envelope that read “Last picture he took! Thank you.” My curiosity got the best of me and I opened the envelope. Seeing the picture nearly brought me to tears (which my coworkers could tell you is a rare occurrence). Then one arrived with a familiar return address, so I opened that one, too. Same result. Finally, I decided to open the rest. I found not only pictures, but also notes about the victims. Even in the midst of their grief, the families found happiness in this project and in telling their loved one's story.

Then it hit me, the tears I was holding back were not tears of sadness. Instead, I was in awe of how much this project meant to people and of the very small part that I could play in making it happen. I was in awe of how these families let us into their lives at the worst time and how much trust they place in us. Rather than crushing me under their weight, the faces buoyed my spirit.

Whenever I tell people where I work, they either tell me a story of their own victimization, they try to get away from me as quickly as possible, or they tell me how sad or hard my job must be. It’s true, although I don’t let myself think about that. Just like I don’t let myself dwell on the faces. Somehow, though, I am sitting at my desk and listening to Louie Armstrong sing “What a Wonderful World” and thinking that it couldn’t be truer. It’s a cruel world. It’s a difficult world. It’s a sad world. It is also a wonderful world. And sometimes there is wonder in the midst of the sadness. It is with that revelation in mind that I invite you to come see the faces.

Friday, April 19, 2013

5pm-7pm 

Vaughn Cultural Center

3701 Grandel

St. Louis, MO  63103

Comments by Jessica Meyers, Director of Advocacy Services

Taking stock of our resources

Today, several media outlets circulated news about a push to establish a National Compassion Fund for victims of mass shootings. Families of some of the victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks and of several highly publicized mass-shooting events have created a petition on the White House’s petition page to collect funds and to give them directly to the victims’ families. Since most people do not think about victim services until they need it or until it is in the news, this petition provides a perfect opportunity to explore the resources that St. Louis has to offer in the case of a local mass-shooting attack.

Need: Funeral & Medical Expenses

Resource: Missouri Crime Victims’ Compensation

Services: Mo CVC can provide up to $5000 in reimbursement for funeral expenses and up to $25,000 in medical expenses, lost wages, and/or loss of support for children.

Need: Counseling for Adults

Resource: Crime Victim Advocacy Center

Services: Free trauma-specific counseling for anyone age 10 and up

Need: Counseling for Children

Resource: Family Resource Center, Annie’s Hope, and others

Need: Spiritual Support

Resource: Homicide, Ministers & Community Alliance

Services: A volunteer minister is paired with grieving families to provide sensitivity and support to the families of homicide victims, to rebuild and strengthen relationships between the Police Department and the community and to reduce the likelihood of retaliation

Need: Group Counseling

Resource: NOVA (National Organization for Victim Assistance) Gateway Crisis Response Team

Services: CRT responds to crises in the workplace, neighborhoods, organizations and corporations with group crisis intervention and companioning.

This list is by no means exhaustive of all possible needs, but it also does not cover all of the available services. Listing all of the resources available would far exceed the limits of this blog and the limits of its readers' attention spans. While we cannot provide direct funds to victims like a National Compassion Fund, victim advocates at CVAC will assess what needs a family has and will do their best to find a resource to meet those needs. You can reach CVAC at our hotline 314-652-3623.

Comments by Jessica Meyers, Director of Advocacy Services

Asking the tough questions

Lest the previous post give the reader the impression that men are the only ones who have work to do regarding rape in our culture, I posit that women also have work to do. Contrary to the traditional approach where women must work at preventing rape, I argue we must work harder on how we react to other women who have been raped. We cannot control the actions of other, we can only control how we react to them.

To do this, we must ask ourselves difficult questions like:

• Why do women continue to have the prevention discussion when it puts an unfair burden on them?
• Why do we take on the responsibility for preventing rape when the responsibility really belongs on men not to rape?
• Why do we criticize and stigmatize other women for their choices?
• Why do we look at a victim and try to find a way to blame her?

For that matter, why don’t we ever stop to see that we may have been in similar positions in our past although with a different outcome? It doesn’t take a mental gymnast to do this. It’s just a series of simple questions…

1. Have you ever been in the presence of a member of the opposite sex?

2. Have you ever been alone with a member of the opposite sex?

3. Have you ever consumed alcohol in the presence of a member of the opposite sex?

4. If you answered yes to all the previous questions, were you raped in that situation?

Most people can probably answer yes to questions 1-3, while answering no to question 4. Yet, one common criticisms we hear is that a victim drank too much alcohol, leaving herself vulnerable in the wrong situation. Well-meaning experts will suggest that women not drink in excess around people they don’t know or trust. Still, this warning contradicts the vast majority of experiences that women have. Rape is the anomaly, not the rule. Why do we still hold rape victims to a standard that we, ourselves, do not live up to?

One answer is self-preservation. In order to get out of bed and face the world every day, we must have some sense of safety. We can build our sense of safety by mentally checking off behaviors that we see resulting in negative consequences. I will not touch hot burner on the stove because I once burnt myself. I will not go around railroad signals to beat a train because I saw the pictures of resulting collisions in driver’s ed. We tell ourselves we won’t get hurt if we follow all of these rules. We tell ourselves that we are in control of our fate. The same is true of rape.

It’s tempting to think that if I can figure out what a rape victim did “wrong,” then I can protect myself from that crime. I tell myself that I will never make the same mistakes, so I will never be raped. That way, I can go out and face the day without fearing for my personal safety when in the presence of any man. The fact is, though, this mental checklist does not protect you. Women can do everything “right” and still get raped.

Even women who have been raped fall victim to this mental accounting. They examine their own situation for some thing they can latch on to- something to which they can attribute the negative consequences. That way, if they just avoid that behavior or situation in the future and they will never be victimized in the same way. Victims blame themselves so they can feel a sense of control over their future. Control has been taken away by the rapist and the victim is willing to do almost anything to get that sense of control back- even to blame herself for her victimization.

As women and as human beings, it is difficult to accept that we are not in control. Rape, however, is a crime in which we are not in control. The only person in control of the situation is the rapist. He chooses to whether to rape or not. With that power comes the ultimate responsibility and ultimate blame. It is not the woman’s fault that she was victimized, but it’s understandable that she might blame herself so she can get back some sense of control. With rape victims, it is a difficult process to navigate self-blame, victim-blaming in society, and her ultimate powerlessness over her body and safety during the crime. That is why agencies exist to meet the myriad needs of rape victims.

For the rest of us, we need to learn to accept or refuse responsibility as is appropriate. I must take responsibility for not touching a hot burner. It is my hand and I choose where I put it. I must take responsibility for not trying to beat a train. It is my car and I choose not to cross the tracks when a train is coming. I cannot, however, prevent myself from being raped and if I am raped, it is not my fault.

To blame a victim is a natural method of coping with the threat of victimization. Thus, we must make a concerted, conscious effort to question out assumptions about blame or guilt. It requires that we be brutally honest with ourselves. As women, we must lead the way in refusing to accept blame for what a criminal chooses to do to us. However, we cannot simultaneously ask men to take responsibility for preventing rape while we blame a woman for her actions before a rape so we can feel safer. We must decide to hold rapists solely accountable for their actions, even if it means our world is more uncertain or more dangerous than we would like.

Comments by Jessica Meyers, Director of Advocacy Services

An ounce of prevention?

Recent politics is rife with conversations about rape and its prevention. The eyes of the nation have most recently been drawn to the state of Colorado for a pair of controversial statements. First, Joe Salazar a Democratic State Representative argued that women should not need concealed weapons to protect themselves from rape because “that’s why we have call boxes, that’s why we have safe zones, that’s why we have whistles.” His concern, not wholly without merit, is that a woman who fears for her safety might shoot an innocent person who had no intention of raping her. A second story out of University of Colorado at Colorado Springs concerns a school website that lists "Last Resort Tips" to avoid sexual assault. These include telling the potential rapist that you are menstruating or have an STD and/or urinating or vomiting on the attacker to dissuade him from raping you. The legislator from Colorado apologized and the university took down the list of “Last Resort Tips.”

More important than the apology or the removal of the webpage is that these two stories show how fundamentally wrong our discussions about sexual assault can be. By reframing rape as a gun control issue, the focus falls on women to prevent rape by carrying a gun or a whistle, depending on which side of the gun control debate someone happens to fall. By suggesting a woman scream or bite or tell certain things to her attacker, the onus once again falls on women to prevent their own rape. The logical conclusion of the prevention argument that many people fail to acknowledge is that victims somehow bear some responsibility if they fail to ward off their attacker. As if the woman is to blame for not preventing a man from raping her. That notion is unacceptable.

Victim blaming is nothing new. Over the decades of the victim services movement, we have heard questions about how short of a skirt the victim was wearing, how much she had to drink, or even how many sexual partners she had before the rape. This new brand of victim blaming is more insidious, however, because it is couched in terms of prevention. The bottom line is that no matter how many steps a woman takes to prevent rape, if a man is determined to rape her, it will likely happen. A woman can carry a gun and a rape whistle and still be raped. A woman can scream and kick and fight and still be raped. A woman can use an emergency call box and still be raped before help arrives.

Everyone can and should take steps to make themselves feel safer, but the only sure way to prevent rape is for men to stop raping women. Rather than teaching our girls how to vomit on command or how to shoot to kill, we need to teach our boys not to rape. Women should not have to look at every man as a potential rapist. Men should not settle for having to prove that they are not a rapist before a woman will engage them. Both genders deserve better than that. It is time for a real discussion about why rape happens. 

We need to ask ourselves as a society why rapes occur. Although we don’t have all of the solutions, we know that "a lack of prevention by women" is an unacceptable answer that puts a misplaced burden on women and an unfair stigma on men. It is not a woman's responsibility to prevent rape; it is up to men to choose not to rape. That understanding must be the starting point for a meaningful discussion on how to address the issue as a society.

Comments by: Jessica Meyers, Director of Advocacy Services

Let me remind you... rape is rape.

In a Massachusetts courtroom, a legal battle is brewing that could have enormous consequences for victims. As a result of a plea deal that put a man on probation for 16 years for raping a then-14 year old girl, the convicted rapist can now seek visitation rights for the child conceived during the rape. Even just on the face of it, many people have a gut reaction that this is not right.

There is a deeper aspect of this case, however, that hearkens back to the furor created by the “legitimate rape” comments by MO Senatorial Candidate Todd Aiken. While Rep. Aiken clarified his “legitimate” rape comment on Mike Huckabee’s radio show by explaining that he meant “forcible” rape. That type of parsing of language, fiddling with definitions, only leads to the undermining of the experience of all rape victims.

In the Massachusetts case, there is an undercurrent of the legitimacy question- asking what really counts as rape. According to a story from a Boston Fox affiliate, the convicted rapist’s lawyer would not comment on the visitation request, but did say that the relationship between the victim and perpetrator was “consensual,” although “inappropriate.” No. It was not consensual; it was rape. Statutory rape is rape. The perpetrator pled guilty to four counts of raping a 14-year old girl when he was 20 years old.

To call the Massachusetts situation consensual is to de-legitimate the experience of the victim, who according to reports, still suffers from anxiety and depression. To call it “inappropriate,” is to severely understate the trauma of victimization. To accidentally call forcible rape “legitimate rape” is to undermine the experiences of all victims whose rape experience doesn’t exactly mirror a narrow definition. Please call it what it is. Rape. Is. Rape.

Comments by: Jessica Meyers, Director of Advocacy Services

I’m Sorry, Rep. Akin, But Your Apology is Just Not Good Enough

It was only a matter of time until Republican Senatorial Candidate Todd Akin made a public statement about the firestorm created by his controversial comments about “legitimate” rapes not resulting in pregnancy. He chose to do so Monday morning on Mike Huckabee’s radio program. During the interview, Rep. Akin acknowledged making mistakes in his statements to KTVI’s Charles Jaco. He affirmed his belief that rape is “an evil act that is committed by violent predators,” a statement on which he and I agree. We agree, as well, that the consequences of rape go on for many years.

Like Rep. Akin, I know people (both in my personal and professional life) who have been raped. Although, unlike Mr. Akin, I don’t believe that makes me singularly more able to sympathize with them. I also believe most people know someone who has been raped, they just may not be aware of that fact because it’s not exactly something that is talked about in polite society. Rep. Akin has yet to specifically refute his claim that the female body can shut down to prevent pregnancy, but he did acknowledge that women do become pregnant as a result of rape. While these are steps in the right direction, Rep. Akin’s apology is still not good enough.

At the prompting of Mr. Huckabee, Rep. Akin stated that when he used the term “legitimate” rape, he was actually referring to “forcible” rape. This distinction just reinforces more myths about rape in our culture. Myths like “it is only really rape if the victim struggled or screamed or was tied up” or “it’s not as serious if you’re in a relationship with someone and they use coercion to force you into sex” or “a victim who was drugged or too intoxicated to give consent doesn’t count as much as someone who was physically forced into sex.” As if there weren't enough fears of the questions they will receive when coming forward after a rape, victims now must also worry about how much force is enough or whether they fought hard enough.

Making the “legitimate vs. illegitimate” distinction in an off-the-cuff remark may have been a mistake. Following it up with the distinction of “forcible vs. non-forcible” rape, presumably even after coaching from the campaign and on the friendly turf of Mr. Huckabee’s radio show, is absolutely inexcusable and undermines any hope that I had that he would use this opportunity as a learning experience on the realities of rape and rape myths in our culture. Instead, he is playing on semantics that only make the problem of combating rape in our culture more difficult. 

I’m sorry, Rep. Akin, your apology was not good enough. Your constituents and all victims of rape deserve more.

Comments by Jessica Meyers, Director of Advocacy Services

The Myth of the “Legitimate" Rape

Rape is sometimes reported falsely. To claim otherwise would be to ignore highly publicized instances like the Duke Lacrosse case. Statistics on the prevalence of false reports vary, but they are generally found to be the exception, not the rule. These exceptions, however, have only strengthened the cultural myth of the “legitimate" rape. More important to victims, however, is the flip side of the coin, the perception of the “illegitimate" rape victim.

The definitions for these terms are somewhat murky, but you will hear echoes of illegitimacy in the public discussion of rapes where the victim was in a relationship with the attacker, where the victim was intoxicated, or where the prosecution did not file charges. Legitimacy questions follow some standard scripts- Was she/he just mad at a partner? Is this a ploy in a divorce case? Did the victim know and trust the perpetrator? Was she/he drunk? What was she/he wearing? Why didn’t she/he report the crime immediately? Why was no one ever charged with the crime? Now, in the wake of comments by Missouri Republican Senate Nominee, Todd Akin, you can add “Did she get pregnant?” to the list.

From my perspective, the greatest problem with Mr. Akin’s statement is not that it shows a lack of understanding about the female body. Instead, it is his promulgation of the myth of the “legitimate rape,” as if all rape victims must somehow pass a public- not police or courts- scrutiny before being deemed “innocent” enough to be worthy of our sympathy. The more of these types of questions that are asked about rape victims in the public discourse, the narrower the definition of legitimacy becomes. It becomes not just a question of if the rape occurred, but the circumstances under which it occurred, as if a stranger rape is somehow more legitimate than marital rape or an intoxicated victim is more to blame for his/her victimization than someone who was sober. These questions and subsequent degrees of legitimacy and illegitimacy only serve to promote societal myths and to make reporting rape more difficult for the victim than it already is.

Comments by Jessica Meyers, Director of Advocacy Services