Elena Marchetti-Bowick – The Stanford Daily https://stanforddaily.com Breaking news from the Farm since 1892 Tue, 31 Aug 2021 16:24:39 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.3 https://stanforddaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/cropped-DailyIcon-CardinalRed.png?w=32 Elena Marchetti-Bowick – The Stanford Daily https://stanforddaily.com 32 32 204779320 Putting less weight on weight https://stanforddaily.com/2015/05/26/putting-less-weight-on-weight/ https://stanforddaily.com/2015/05/26/putting-less-weight-on-weight/#comments Wed, 27 May 2015 05:01:51 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1101513 It is crucial that we work to diversify our definition of health. Rather than encouraging good eating and exercise habits for the sole purpose of losing weight, we should encourage them to improve future health.

The post Putting less weight on weight appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Having never weighed more than 120 pounds, I have gone through life frequently being complimented on my “fit” physique and “healthy” eating habits. Usually coming from people I barely know, people who certainly don’t know my eating or exercise habits, these comments reveal a deep misunderstanding of the relationship between weight and health status.

While it is a well-known fact that excess weight is associated with higher health risks, the two are not synonymous. Unfortunately, however, many Americans have come to consider them one and the same. While the concern about the health status of overweight Americans is entirely legitimate, as it is a public health issue, efforts to “improve” the situations of overweight Americans are extremely problematic.

Currently, losing weight is touted as one of the most effective means of improving health. As a result, incentives for practicing healthy habits, such as well-rounded diets and daily exercise, are shifting away from health itself and towards weight loss. And while this trend may not necessarily be bad, it has severe consequences for much of the population: namely, those for whom the desire to lose weight has become one driven by body image issues.

Unfortunately for us, Stanford seems to be especially prone to this. Our campus is filled with avid runners, who can be seen exercising at all hours and in all temperatures and weather conditions. In dining halls, we have the option of eating everything from salad topped with kale dressing to veggie-filled egg white omelets. And while for some these actions may very well be driven by the desire to improve health, odds are that they are in the minority.

Despite the fact that 95 percent of diets fail to successfully ensure weight loss, 91 percent of college women cite attempting to control their weight through dieting. Even among those who aren’t explicitly attempting to lose weight, fad diets are becoming increasingly popular. Across America, including at Stanford, many have taken to revamping their diets by ridding them of gluten, grains, processed foods, sugar, soy, etc. Unfortunately, however, despite the seemingly harmless nature of adopting healthier eating habits, these action can be very dangerous.

Eating disorder specialists have recently recognized a growth in orthorexia, a term that describes the obsession with or strict maintenance of a “healthy” diet. While orthorexia is not, strictly speaking, an eating disorder, because it alone doesn’t induce clinical health consequences, it poses an extremely high risk factor for developing an eating disorder. Fad diets are a major cause of orthorexia, and their popularity is growing. By promoting misinformation about what constitutes healthy eating, these fads rope people into the slippery slope that is dieting. The fact is that 35 percent of people who diet progress to pathological dieting. Among them, an additional 25 percent develop a full-blown eating disorder. Furthermore, for people who have struggled with eating disorders in the past, hearing about the perceived “healthiness” of food can be very triggering, and given the extremely high rate of relapse, these triggers are not trivial.

Stanford students and administration alike are guilty of conflating health with weight. Despite the fact that Stanford houses one of the most comprehensive eating disorder rehabilitation hospitals in the country, Stanford’s “BeWell” program regularly cites recommendations for weight loss, suggesting that weight loss automatically translates to better health.  Although giving tips for avoiding weight gain may not seem problematic at first, it can have serious effects for those with body image or disordered eating.

Much of the confusion between health, eating habits and exercise is a byproduct of our society’s assumption that fatness can be equated to unhealthiness. Many Americans believe that weight is determined simply by the difference between calories consumed and expelled, and thus can be easily controlled. But this assumption is on par with claiming that poor people are poor simply because they don’t work as hard as their rich counterparts. The fact is that many overweight people are primarily overweight because of genetic predispositions. Thus, by accepting the idea that behaviors control weight, which then determines health, we are blaming an entire subsection of our population for something largely out of their control. It is beliefs such as these that contribute to the extreme fat discrimination that occurs in the US. Furthermore, seeing as low-income Americans are one of the populations most susceptible to obesity, fat discrimination is also closely tied to classism.

It is thus crucial that we work to diversify our definition of health. Rather than encouraging good eating and exercise habits for the sole purpose of losing weight, we should encourage those practices in order to improve future health. By doing so we can continue to use these tools to prevent the health consequences associated with obesity without exacerbating fat discrimination and eating disorders.

Contact Elena Marchetti-Bowick at elenamb ‘at’ stanford.edu. 

The post Putting less weight on weight appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2015/05/26/putting-less-weight-on-weight/feed/ 4 1101513
Beyond rush: Promoting diversity in Greek life https://stanforddaily.com/2015/05/12/beyond-rush-promoting-diversity-in-greek-life/ https://stanforddaily.com/2015/05/12/beyond-rush-promoting-diversity-in-greek-life/#comments Wed, 13 May 2015 04:14:09 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1100837 If we want to make serious changes to the composition of our Greek organizations, it will require more than empty statements of encouragement and occasional critiques of the rush process. In order for minorities to want to be apart of Greek organizations, we must make them welcome, which may require a drastic alteration of Greek practices.

The post Beyond rush: Promoting diversity in Greek life appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
As memories of rush dwindle and pledges settle into their newfound communities, it remains crucial that we address the myriad of problems associated with sororities. While the grueling experience of rush is certainly a substantial flaw in the Greek system, students often focus solely on this this period, inadvertently forgetting to address some of the other, possibly more salient drawbacks of Greek life on campus, namely the underrepresentation of minority students.

Since joining Greek life is optional, it’s easy to brush off the lack of minority students as merely a process of self-segregation. After all, it’s not as if Greek life actively discourages students of color, low income students or queer students from rushing. On the contrary, many sororities try to present themselves as inclusive to all students. But as many of us know, actions speak louder than words. And when it comes to Greek life, our actions scream prejudice.

Problematic Greek practices begin at rush, where incoming classes are picked by existing members. Surrounded by herds of designer dresses, professionally straightened hair and perfected makeup it’s easy for anyone, from low-income to genderqueer students, to feel out of place. And as the process comes to a close, it’s no surprise who’s offered bids.

While queer, low-income and students of color speckle membership lists, the frequency of white upper class straight women is glaring. Although existing members clearly don’t purposefully select only the most privileged of candidates, the absence of explicit discrimination does not absolve Greek students of their responsibility to promote minority membership.

Unfortunately, however, this responsibility is not being accepted. While on an individual level many Greek members express interest in increasing diversity, there is a clear reluctance to implement the changes necessary to achieve this goal. In fact, socio-economically, sexually and racially exclusive practices in sororities are alive and well.

Low-income students face the most explicit barrier to entering Greek life. In addition to the obvious financial obstacles, i.e. dues and other fees, which are by no means easily waived, members of sororities face a number of social costs. In part because these costs are not recognized as such, and thus aren’t subsidized, they are often a much worse financial deterrent than explicit fees. These costs include purchasing gifts for your little, buying the rally gear required to fit in at many social events and paying for the dresses, heels and jewelry implicitly required at rush, initiation, and other events. Costs like these add up quickly, and while they may not be a part of sorority contracts, they certainly cannot be avoided without significant social consequences.

Unfortunately, low-income students do not solely suffer from the consequences of Greek exclusivity. The salient lack of women of color in sororities acts as a major deterrent for non-Greek students of color wishing to join the community. As described by Daily Columnist Mysia Anderson, it’s not easy being the only person of color in a group of white people. And thus, the current lack of racial representation unintentionally fuels a cycle of white hierarchy. But standing by and watching as white faces continue to be dominant in incoming classes will do nothing to change the issue at hand. Sororities need to make a stronger and more blatant effort to make women of color feel welcome.

The first, and easiest, of these steps is to eliminate racial microaggressions that so often make people of color feel uncomfortable. Last year, as Pi Phi geared up to host Pi Phiesta, their annual Cinco De Mayo themed fundraiser, a group of students requested to meet with the sorority president and administration to discuss the problematic aspects of the theme. Luckily, this meeting was successful as it allowed the sorority to realize the culturally appropriative implications behind their theme. But while Pi Phi should be applauded for their decision to change the theme to Pi Beta Paradise, the necessity of outside intervention to achieve this change attests to the lack of racial awareness within the organization. Making efforts to reduce these forms of racism can help reduce the isolation felt by students of color who do join sororities and will in turn encourage others to do the same.

Finally, an important barrier to address is the exclusion of queer women from sororities. In many ways, Greek practices are centered around heteronormative culture and the fostering of heterosexual relationships. It’s no coincidence that mixers are exclusively between fraternities and sororities, rather than within those communities. Despite being very open about my sexuality, I certainly would not feel comfortable being the sole member of my sorority to bring my girlfriend, rather than boyfriend, as my date to special dinner. This kind of heteronormativity certainly does not embrace queer women with open arms.

None of these critiques are new to the vocabulary of Greek members. In fact, the Greek Life Diversity Coalition made a concerted effort to promote changes such as these. But their efforts have been to no avail. This unwillingness to absolve practices that contribute to racial, sexual and socio-economic exclusion attests to the devaluation of diversity in Greek organizations as a whole.

If we want to make serious changes to the composition of our Greek organizations, it will require more than empty statements of encouragement and occasional critiques of the rush process. In order for minorities to want to be a part of Greek organizations, we must make them feel welcome, which may require a drastic alteration of Greek practices.

Contact Elena Marchetti-Bowick at elenamb ‘at’ stanford.edu. 

The post Beyond rush: Promoting diversity in Greek life appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2015/05/12/beyond-rush-promoting-diversity-in-greek-life/feed/ 1 1100837
Supporting activism: A pre-req to being a racial ally https://stanforddaily.com/2015/04/28/supporting-activism-a-pre-req-to-being-a-racial-ally/ https://stanforddaily.com/2015/04/28/supporting-activism-a-pre-req-to-being-a-racial-ally/#comments Wed, 29 Apr 2015 04:00:22 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1100035 When confronted with racial activism, rather than labeling it as overdramatic and annoying, consider that people of color have been fighting systems of oppression since the day they were born. And understand that their anger, no matter how aggressive, no matter how radical, and no matter repetitive, is justified.

The post Supporting activism: A pre-req to being a racial ally appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Four months ago I would have said, albeit naively, that Stanford handled racial issues pretty well. When friends from home were rallying in support of Darren Wilson and angrily proclaiming that “all lives matter,” Stanford students took a different stance and seemed to be consumed with a fiery passion for racial justice. Hundreds of students joined Silicon Shutdown to express their anger over the injustice that people of color face at the hands of American institutions. And, amazingly, our administration seemed to not only understand this anger, but to support it. Since then, however, Stanford students and administration alike have made it overwhelmingly clear that their valuation of students of color is no more than a front, used to promote their carefully tailored anti-bigotry, pro-diversity image.

Over the past few months racial justice activists have been barraged with criticism for their anger over the oppression of people of color. When a group of students decided to block the San Mateo bridge, arguably one of the most peaceful forms of demonstration, to protest the systematic murder of black bodies, their actions were labeled reckless and unproductive. When SOOP petitioned to divest Stanford funds from companies that contribute to human rights violations against people of color in Palestine, they were labeled anti-Semitic. And most recently, when ASSU Senator Malcolm Lizzappi, among others, decided to voice his frustration with the administration’s lack of support for communities of color, students responded by creating a petition to recall him.

If this condemnation of activism isn’t evidence enough of Stanford’s blatant disregard for the interests of students of color, one look at the Stanford Macroaggressions Facebook page makes it overwhelmingly clear. The page’s satirical intentions are evident from the name, which plays off the term microaggression, or unconscious racism, a practice that is harmful to most minorities. By explicitly mocking the actions of racial justice protesters, the concept of white privilege and the oppression of people of color, the page is no more than a blatantly racist forum for people to joke about oppression.

Unfortunately, Stanford’s apathy for racial justice is not restricted to the student body. In a powerfully written email, Stanford administration initially expressed clear support for student anger about racial injustice. But their most recent actions have implied the opposite sentiments. Although on the surface Provost Etchemendy’s statement on campus climate doesn’t seem problematic, read in context Etchemendy is implicitly condemning the action of campus activists. In the latter part of his statement Etchemendy goes on to express a desire for Stanford to elect “open-minded” students to ASSU rather ones “pre-selected to represent a filtered set of beliefs.” Although Etchemendy may deny that these statements target SOCC, his sentiments about the organization are clear.

Although no community at Stanford goes completely uncriticized, the inaccuracy, salience and frequency of these criticisms attest to the depth of racism on campus. The fact is that in the U.S., people of color are systematically persecuted. Black Americans are ten times more likely to be arrested than people of other races who commit the same crime. Despite making up only 64 percent of the population white Americans hold more than 88 percent of the country’s wealth. And, holding all qualifications equal, employers are 50 percent more likely to interview job applicants with “white-sounding” names than those with “African-American sounding” names. If this doesn’t infuriate you, it should. At the very least it should convince you to support those who are attempting to abolish these inequalities.

But rather than encouraging these activists, students are condemning them. Unfortunately, there appears to be a clear threshold about just how angry people of color can be about the injustice that they face. Once their anger starts to inconvenience others, students lash out, labeling their actions as unnecessary, harmful and overzealous. But frankly, being vocal, disruptive and angry are integral to getting noticed and if we truly want to support the advancement of racial justice, we cannot just be superficially committed to the concept.

Thus, the complete lack of support that our campus has displayed for communities of color in the past months is unacceptable. As a white person, there is no way for me to understand the level of racism that people of color face. And consequently, I do not always feel as angered by some injustices that they find infuriating. But I have learned to recognize that because of my privileged perspective there is no way for me to understand the consequences of racial oppression better than people of color do. So regardless of how important I personally feel a given issue is, I unequivocally support the sentiments of people of color on the issue.

Condemning those who are working to fight systems of oppression is only contributing to that oppression. So when confronted with racial activism, rather than labeling it as over-dramatic and annoying, consider that people of color have been fighting systems of oppression since the day they were born. And understand that their anger, no matter how aggressive, no matter how radical and no matter repetitive, is justified. Above all, understand that in order to support racial equality you must support those who are willing to take the necessary steps to achieve it.

Contact Elena Marchetti-Bowick at elenamb ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Supporting activism: A pre-req to being a racial ally appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2015/04/28/supporting-activism-a-pre-req-to-being-a-racial-ally/feed/ 16 1100035
Stratifying Stanford one sandwich at a time https://stanforddaily.com/2015/04/14/stratifying-stanford-one-sandwich-at-a-time/ https://stanforddaily.com/2015/04/14/stratifying-stanford-one-sandwich-at-a-time/#respond Wed, 15 Apr 2015 03:43:33 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1098999 Working to improve economic equity is not always easy. But having an economically diverse student body is futile if the only thing it achieves is stratification on campus. If we truly value such diversity, we must work to make sure that students of all classes, not just the upper class, have access to the same resources.

The post Stratifying Stanford one sandwich at a time appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
For questionable reasons, Stanford chose to close one of students’ most beloved campus eateries, Ike’s, last year and replace it with an additional RD&E cafe. Citing RD&E’s inefficiency, wastefulness and inflated prices, a hefty group of protesters assembled to denounce the decision. But, despite RD&E’s numerous flaws, one central characteristic of the organization makes this decision one we should favor: RD&E locations are free for students on meal plans.

At Stanford, where the majority of students come from middle- and upper-class backgrounds, we tend to neglect the low-income perspective. For those of us who have never experienced poverty, it’s easy to forget that for many students, buying a sandwich from Coupa for lunch may not be feasible. But even when we do recognize this economic disparity, it’s sometimes hard to identify the consequences.

Unfortunately, these consequences are far from trivial. With eating being such an integral part of our socialization, productivity and health, especially in college, it’s no surprise that many low-income students identify eating alone in dining halls as a particularly lonely memory.  Because of the severe health consequences associated with loneliness, reducing class stratification on campus and, consequently, the isolation felt by low-income students, is a crucial part of maintaining student mental and physical health.

On campus, there are a total of 33 eateries, only eight of which are RD&E-owned and thus accept meal plan dollars. Although for most, the difference between a free lunch and one that costs $8 may not be significant, for others, the difference is dramatic. Since the cost of meal plans are incorporated into tuition, which is often reduced or eliminated entirely for low-income students, using meal plan dollars usually does not impose a financial burden. Paying out of pocket, on the other hand, can easily be economically impossible. Thus, students who can afford to pay for their lunch have over four times as many non-dining hall lunch options as their less wealthy peers.

While it’s clearly impossible, not to mention unreasonable, for Stanford to completely protect low-income students from economic hardship, they could certainly take steps to improve their experiences. Expanding the scope of RD&E to include all eateries, or simply providing students on financial aid with dining credit, usable at all on campus locations, could greatly expand the lunch options available to those who cannot normally afford to eat outside of RD&E. There are countless ways to alleviate low-income students’ financial burden when it comes to campus dining, but maintaining our current system is not one. Doing so will only continue to stratify students into those who can show up every day to class with a Starbucks coffee in hand, for example, and those who cannot.

These solutions are clearly not perfect. Students in Ike’s protests were correct to point out the numerous flaws embedded within RD&E, most notably their inflated prices for those not on meal plans, something that is completely unacceptable. Providing dining credit to students is similarly not ideal. On top of being a difficult task, it may make same low-income students uncomfortable. But regardless of the saliency of these flaws, the destratification potential of ensuring students are able to eat anywhere on campus makes trying to do so imperative.

Although the administration must play an integral role in improving campus eating culture, there are also a number of things that we as students can do to ensure we do not actively socially isolate our low-income peers.

When suggesting places to eat to a friend, either include at least one location that takes meal plan dollars, or for those who aren’t on meal plans — suggest eating at your house or swiping them into a dining hall. When it comes to larger groups of friends, classmates or members of a student group, it may be necessary to only suggest such places. Since costly locations, like Coupa, CoHo and Starbucks, tend to be more desirable, it may be hard for low-income students to express their desire to avoid these locations without being drowned out by the majority. Granted, these types of alterations to our behavior are inconvenient, but they are essential in order to ensure that low-income students are not forcibly isolated.

Unfortunately, the actions of students at elite universities across the country do just that. And Stanford is no exception. For example, on Friday nights, many CS section leaders get together for dinner at Treehouse. Although this isn’t a required event, and not all section leaders attend, those who wish to attend but cannot for financial reasons are significantly disadvantaged. Small thoughtless decisions such as these can play an integral role in the experiences of low-income students on campus.

Working to improve economic equity is not always easy. But having an economically diverse student body is futile if the only thing it achieves is stratification on campus. If we truly value such diversity, we must work to make sure that students of all classes, not just the upper class, have access to the same resources.

Contact Elena Marchetti-Bowick at elenamb ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Stratifying Stanford one sandwich at a time appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2015/04/14/stratifying-stanford-one-sandwich-at-a-time/feed/ 0 1098999
Incoherent and incompetent: The consequences of accent discrimination https://stanforddaily.com/2015/03/31/incoherent-and-incompetent-the-consequences-of-accent-discrimination/ https://stanforddaily.com/2015/03/31/incoherent-and-incompetent-the-consequences-of-accent-discrimination/#comments Wed, 01 Apr 2015 03:19:50 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1097986 In order to adequately support an anti-oppressive campus culture it is therefore crucial that we brand the xenophobic statements about professors’ accents with the same mark of bigotry that other discriminatory statements receive.

The post Incoherent and incompetent: The consequences of accent discrimination appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Like most undergraduates, Stanford students readily criticize their professors’, TAs’ and lecturers’ teaching abilities. And given the investment that students make to attend college, their desire to obtain high-quality teaching is entirely legitimate. However, among the most salient of complaints, one has far too frequently been misused and unsubstantiated.

“They can’t even speak English.”

This blanket statement is often thrown around by college students to describe professors with even the slightest of accents. At Stanford, where students profess to being anti-bigoted, we would expect them to think twice before making inflammatory statements on others’ quality of English. Instead, however, it still remains acceptable to castigate foreign-born professors and TAs for their supposed inability to communicate in English — an issue that has both racial and cultural implications.

On several occasions, I have had classmates proudly proclaim to me that from a list of options they selected their TA or professor based on “how foreign their name sounded,” in order to maximize their learning experience. The casual and unapologetic tendency of students to advertise their discriminatory beliefs about the nationality of their teachers completely undermines the level of political correctness that many Stanford students work to achieve. Although it is typically frowned upon to express blatantly racist, sexist or homophobic viewpoints, revealing a desire to avoid foreign teachers seems to have no similar consequences.

An SF Gate article attests to the minimal effort that students tend to put forth in understanding their professors. The article tells the story of several students at UC Berkeley who spent three weeks attempting to decipher the meaning of “auto-Italian,” which eventually turned out to be “authoritarian.” Although I’m sure this was a frustrating time for them, it is unfair for students to denounce their professors for having thick accents when they cannot even make the effort to understand the meaning of a single word, even when used in context. While the true meaning of “auto-Italian” may not have been immediately obvious, with a minimal amount of effort, or a mere request for clarification, the students could have resolved the issue.

Furthermore, in many cases, the quality and comprehensibility of professors’ English is exaggerated. The fact is that English fluency is a prerequisite for even applying to Stanford, not to mention getting in or being hired. To apply, graduate school applicants are required to obtain at least a 100 out of 120 on the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). On top of this requirement, graduate students who wish to become teaching assistants face an additional English language screening to ensure they are prepared for the job. This screening is quite comprehensive and evaluates both the quality and pronunciation of their English. Equally rigorous screenings are also certainly required for professors, who undergo lengthy interviews before being hired.

Unfortunately, students’ discriminatory attitudes have non-trivial consequences for professors and TAs, as many students fail to understand the key distinction between the ability to speak English and the presence of a non-American accent. Given the high percentage of graduate students hailing from abroad, students at Stanford are bound to encounter a number of TAs and professors with foreign accents. Thus, instead of shutting down and labeling what could be an easily navigable accent as insurmountable, students must learn to adapt to pronunciations that do not precisely match their native tongue.

Additionally, it’s important to recognize that accents do not necessarily impede teaching ability. Neglecting to do so can disadvantage excellent professors, who may receive terrible evaluations for a portion of their teaching that is almost completely out of their control.  As it stands, the correlation between poor learning experiences and professors with accents is more driven by prejudice than teaching quality.

In fact, a recent study published by Nicholas Subtirelu found this to be true. Subtirelu examined discriminatory trends on ‘Rate my Professor’ and revealed that professors with common Korean or Chinese last names received significantly worse evaluations than their American-named counterparts. More specifically, their ‘clarity’ and ‘helpfulness’ scores were severely hampered by their nationality. Subtirelu links these attitudes with accent biases, as many students’ comments specifically complain about their “Asian” professor’s accent.

Because a significant portion of international academics are from Asian countries, China, India, Taiwan, etc., the issue of accent discrimination is also highly racial. Subtirelu’s study points out a particular bias against east-Asian accents that is highly problematic. While academics of European descent certainly face similar issues, their discrimination does not take on quite the same saliency as their colleagues of color.

Although condemning students for their xenophobia may not completely eliminate their prejudices, just as anti-racist movements have not abolished racism, we cannot allow them to go uncriticized. In addition to creating a safer environment for international students and professors, erasing these prejudices may very well help alleviate students’ dissatisfaction with their learning experiences. In order to adequately support an anti-oppressive campus culture, it is therefore crucial that we brand the xenophobic statements about professors’ accents with the same mark of bigotry that other discriminatory statements receive.

Contact Elena Marchetti-Bowick at elenamb ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Incoherent and incompetent: The consequences of accent discrimination appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2015/03/31/incoherent-and-incompetent-the-consequences-of-accent-discrimination/feed/ 1 1097986
Relationship abuse: The forgotten half of SARA https://stanforddaily.com/2015/02/24/relationship-abuse-the-forgotten-half-of-sara/ https://stanforddaily.com/2015/02/24/relationship-abuse-the-forgotten-half-of-sara/#comments Wed, 25 Feb 2015 01:48:17 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1096440 We as students can and should expect our administration to play a proactive role in addressing violence against women, rather than waiting to institute change until public anger surfaces. Thus, I urge SARA to live up to its name and not treat relationship abuse as an aside, casually slapped on to the end of an acronym, but rather address it with the severity that its victims and survivors deserve.

The post Relationship abuse: The forgotten half of SARA appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Over the past few months, many educational institutions have finally recognized the need for genuine efforts to curb sexual assault. In the aftermath of a series of high profile sexual assault cases, including our very own #standwithleah campaign, administrators began taking notice of the injustices faced by victims and survivors of sexual assault. Unfortunately, however, this upswing of sexual assault reform has not been matched by similar efforts to improve justice for victims/survivors of relationship abuse and intimate partner violence. Despite the fact that relationship abuse is perpetrated at a similar rate to that of sexual assault, our practices — especially at Stanford — reflect a deep disparity in the attention given to these two issues.

Relationship abuse constitutes a pattern of abusive and coercive behaviors used to maintain power and control over a former or current intimate partner. Relationship abuse can take many forms but is primarily emotional, financial, sexual and/or physical.

Stanford’s Sexual Assault and Relationship Abuse (SARA) office was created with the intent to serve victims and survivors of sexual assault and relationship abuse at equal rates. Unfortunately, since SARA’s establishment, the latter of its purposes has been placed on the back burner. A quick examination of the “Not Alone” portion of SARA’s website makes this disparity exceeding clear. Stunningly, while the words “sexual assault” cover the page, appearing a total of 16 times, relationship abuse is mentioned a mere 3 times. Similarly, the title of SARA’s primary hotline for victims, Stanford Confidential Sexual Assault Counselors, excludes relationship abuse, presenting the service as a resource exclusively for victims of sexual assault. Small rhetorical inconsistencies such as these are not trivial, as they can send a strong message of exclusivity to the student body. Furthermore, apart from the underwhelming amount of information provided on the topic during NSO, the intricacies of and protocol for addressing relationship abuse are largely neglected in campus programming.

Recently, in light of the numerous publicized injustices in the world of sexual assault, the disproportionate focus on the crime has been magnified. Problematically, the newly established Task Force on Sexual Assault fails to even include relationship abuse in its title, and ensuing town hall meetings have all focused exclusively on sexual assault. While the omission of relationship abuse can be partially attributed to the lack of publicity and protest surrounding the issue, this certainly does not excuse its neglect.

In fact, the exclusion of relationship abuse from recent reform demonstrates the minimalistic commitment our administration has to preventing violence against women. Students’ demands for meetings, discussions, and panels on sexual assault have provided the university with a prime opportunity to spread awareness not just about rape, but also about stalking, relationship abuse and intimate partner violence. Instead of doing so, however, our administration has prioritized the short-term appeasement of outraged students over the necessity of reform.

Often, intimate partner violence is mislabeled as an issue that affects men and women at equal rates. While there are numerous male victims of intimate partner violence, and we should not minimize their experiences, it is important to recognize that over 95% of such abuse is perpetrated by male partners against female victims, making the action truly gender-based violence. Thus in order to affirm its commitment to women’s safety, it is imperative that our administration works to minimize relationship abuse’s presence on campus.

Furthermore, recent statistics show that upwards of 29% of college women have been in an abusive relationship. Despite the alarmingly high frequency of relationship abuse, most students do not know the proper avenue for obtaining safety and justice when confronted with this issue. In fact, 58% of college students reported not knowing what to do if their friend were in an abusive relationship and 38% reported not knowing what to do if they themselves were in an abusive relationship. This should come as no surprise when even places — such as Stanford — that pride themselves on victim and survivor services so infrequently discuss relationship abuse.

We should not take the neglect of relationship abuse in campus programming lightly. In the United States, more than 3 women die each day at the hands of abusive partners. As with sexual assault, survivors of relationship abuse and intimate partner violence are subject to harsh victim-blaming attitudes, attitudes that can only be curbed through education. Due to the highly nuanced nature of relationship abuse, it is crucial that sexual assault and relationship abuse be addressed in unison. The grim reality is that victims who report relationship abuse often face significant danger of possible violent retaliation by their partners. Thus, policies that are developed to address any type of violence against women need to consider the safety of survivors of relationship abuse. Failing to prioritize safety planning, for example, can easily turn well-intentioned policies into ones that could harm victims of relationship abuse. As a whole, victims of sexual assault and relationship abuse require many of the same institutional protections, leaving no logical reason for the two to be separated.

We as students can and should expect our administration to play a proactive role in addressing violence against women, rather than waiting to institute change until after public anger surfaces. Thus, I urge SARA to live up to its name and to not treat relationship abuse as an aside, casually slapped on to the end of an acronym, but to rather address it with the severity that its victims and survivors deserve.

Contact Elena Marchetti-Bowick at elenamb ‘at’ stanford.edu 

The post Relationship abuse: The forgotten half of SARA appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2015/02/24/relationship-abuse-the-forgotten-half-of-sara/feed/ 1 1096440
We are not your porn https://stanforddaily.com/2015/02/08/we-are-not-your-porn/ https://stanforddaily.com/2015/02/08/we-are-not-your-porn/#comments Mon, 09 Feb 2015 04:40:16 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1095237 In effect, due to their status as a stigmatized minority, queer women have an increased susceptibility to the physical and mental consequences associated with harassment. Despite the severity of these consequences, ending the sexual harassment of queer women, especially on college campuses, remains to be prioritized.

The post We are not your porn appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The first time I danced with my girlfriend at a frat party it look less than a minute for us to get interrupted. Soaked in entitlement, beer and sweat, a drunk frat boy slid his hand onto the small of my back and leaned in to say “Damn you two are so hot. Can we kiss?”

Since then, I count myself lucky to come out of a frat party without having been harassed. Although it is rare, every once in a while I go home on a Saturday night feeling respected. Most of the time, however, I enter a frat party with the understanding that I will be fetishized, sexualized and even violated.

Sexual harassment of women, especially on college campuses, is by no means an uncommon phenomenon. Over 55 percent of women in the U.S. have experienced street harassment at least once in their lives. Luckily feminist organizations and anti-harassment campaigns have played major roles in normalizing the condemnation of sexual harassment, both on the street and elsewhere. While men certainly still catcall women with little to no repercussions, in communities such as Stanford there is now a general recognition of the sexist nature of the practice.

But what about when a man interrupts a female couple kissing in an attempt to join in? By and large, efforts to curb sexual harassment have targeted interactions between heterosexual individuals. Despite the fact that the verbal harassment rate for LGBT individuals is approximately 20 percent higher than for their straight counterparts, queer women are often not recognized as victims of sexual harassment. The consequence? Harassment of queer women is brushed off as a natural byproduct of sexual curiosity.

Over the past few decades, homophobia against queer women has changed dramatically. While queerphobic violence, slurs, and other explicit forms of discrimination continue to plague the lives of queer women, they now also face extreme sexualization. This sexualization is evidenced by the titillation of men by ‘girl on girl’ action. It’s no surprise that in the US Pornhub’s most frequently searched term is ‘lesbian.’ Unfortunately, the flawed nature of queer female representation is not constrained to the porn industry. TV shows such as ‘Faking It’ that portray lesbian relationships as mere attention seeking strategies are no better. Rather than affirming the legitimacy of queer female relationships, this type of representation depicts the population as hypersexual and highly superficial.

Thus, while queer women may be significantly less stigmatized nowadays than they have been in the past, it stems from an increased sexualization of the identity rather than an increased respect for it. As a result, queer women across the country have been rendered unable to be intimate in public without facing violating and invasive remarks from people (namely men) who have taken to fetishizing the community.

This absence of respect is precisely what leads to the harassment that my girlfriend and I, along with many other queer female couples, face on campus. Men lining up to watch us dance, asking to dance with us, even to kiss us, has become the norm.  And while unwanted attention is certainly preferable to outright violence or homophobic slurs, this complete disregard of our personal boundaries should not be trivialized. In fact, the harassment of women has tangible consequences. Women who have been harassed often undergo ‘self-objectification,’ a process by which they internalize the sexism they have experienced. Sadly, self-objectification produces high rates of shame and body insecurity and is consequently linked to the onset of eating disorders, anxiety and depression.

Although queer women are certainly not the sole bearers of these consequences, they are uniquely prone to experiencing them. Unlike their straight counterparts, queer women are subject to ramifications of ‘minority stress.’ In effect, due to their status as a stigmatized minority, queer women have an increased susceptibility to the physical and mental consequences associated with harassment. Despite the severity of these consequences, ending the sexual harassment of queer women, especially on college campuses, remains to be prioritized.

Instead, queer women are treated as public porn: no more than entertainment for others. But we are not your porn. And treating us as such is neither natural nor harmless. So the next time you see a queer female couple at a party, on the street or in a park, understand that their intimacy is not an invitation. Their affection is not yours to enjoy. And their autonomy is not yours to take.


Contact Elena Marchetti-Bowick at elenamb ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post We are not your porn appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2015/02/08/we-are-not-your-porn/feed/ 19 1095237