Teacher Gets 30 Days for Sleeping with Student

This morning I saw this story. It's about a 14-year-old girl at Billings Senior High School who underwent "pre-sexual grooming" by her teacher that led to them having sex back in 2008. When the school administration caught wind of the relationship, the teacher resigned. The case took so long to get through the courts that in early 2010 the girl, just weeks short of her 17th birthday, committed suicide.

On Monday, the judge finally sentenced the teacher: 15 years in prison. And then he suspended all but 30 days of the sentence. The defense attorney said, "She seemed older than her chronological age. Basically what we had was a troubled young girl." The judge said, "It's not probably the kind of rape most people think about. It was not a violent, forcible, beat-the-victim rape, like you see in the movies...It was a troubled young girl, and he was a teacher...She was as in much control [as the teacher]."

It's so easy to blame the girl. "She led the teacher on." "She liked the attention." "He was just trying to be friendly." "If she didn't want him to have sex with her, why did she tell him she did?" Oh, it's so easy. But you know what? Just because it's easy does NOT mean it's correct. In fact, it is a load of crap.

Pre-sexual grooming by a teacher might be the most despicable action that exists. If you're not used to the term "grooming," here's how it starts: the student hangs out after school one day and the teacher engages in friendly chat. Nothing inappropriate. Yet. The teacher starts allowing the student to feel like she's in charge of the budding "relationship." She starts pushing the boundaries. The teacher fakes feeling reluctant, but goes along with it, making the student feel like she's powerful. And there it goes: relationship underway. Completely consensual, completely illegal, completely asinine.

This girl went through the two worst years of her life before she killed herself. Depression, no friends, no social life, no motivation to go to school except to see "him," the "him" of course, being her teacher. Her married teacher. Those two years of her life were so bad and so horrible that she ended it because she could see no other way out.

This teacher killed a girl. And he's getting 30 days in jail. 30 days to sit by himself and think about the fact that in 4 weeks, his life will be back to normal. Sure, he doesn't have a job anymore or a wife waiting for him anymore, but he has a life. His student doesn't. Because he made her life a living hell and she wanted out so badly that she left. He killed her. And he gets 30 days.

I know this girl's mindset. I know how isolated she felt. I know how empowered she thought she was. I know how it felt like nothing would be better ever again. I know how every relationship after him reminded her of him. I know why she never trusted another man again. And I can understand why she ended it.

You might be wondering how I know. I do know what I'm talking about. Because I was the girl.

I was one in a list of a few girls that a teacher pre-groomed to become his mistress. Thankfully for me, I got myself out of it before I slept with him, but after he'd already taken two years away from me. The other girls went all the way with him. The administration covered it up. The teacher is still teaching. Still grooming his girls. And the courts won't do anything because I can't prove it happened. I've seen the "program" he went through after I graduated: a few paragraphs on an article about sexual misconduct with the prompt "how do you feel about this article?" That's what Kentucky does to teachers who sleep with students. That's it.

At least in Montana administrators get around to firing teachers who sleep with their students.

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." --Gandhi

Accidental Grownup: 5 "Fun" Things I Used to Hate

Today is my husband's first day back to school! He teaches choir at a high school and we've been busy the last few days getting his classroom set up. His first day back to school means that it's my first day back to having the house to myself during the days. After he left this morning, I realized that a few of the things I was looking forward to doing today aren't the same as they were a year ago!

1. De-cluttering the apartment. We always have stuff lying around that doesn't need to be out. I'm not sure why I don't de-clutter as much when my husband is home, but I get to put everything back where it needs to be!

2. Cleaning the kitchen. Our kitchen is small. This means one of two things: we should eat out all the time or we should have a really great organizational setup so that we never allow anything to accumulate in the kitchen. We do neither of these things. Today I get to do a deep clean of the kitchen and put some organizational tools in place to help us keep it clean!

3. Exercising. Now, to be honest, I've always loved exercising. It has not, however, always been a habit for me. Today I woke up just itching to get going in the beautiful sunshine we have today! I had a wonderful time and I can't wait to go again tomorrow!

4. Making a budget. I love numbers and I like making sure I have enough money to eat, but it's only been in the last few years that I've gotten good at budgets. Today I'm making our expense/income sheets for our new monthly budget!

5. Planning for the future. Well, we got married this summer, so I suppose that means kids are in the works sometime in the next few years! The only problem with that is that I am still self-employed and not exactly raking in the dough. I'm excited to look at what I need to be doing to generate a substantial supplemental income, while still doing something I love!

I think sometime over the last year, I accidentally grew up! These are all things I used to dread or not see as top-priority, but now they all seem rather important and fun. And, as an added bonus, it's always fun to feel like an adult every now and again!

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." --Gandhi

"Ditch Mitch": When Will We Have Substance?

The Capitol. Kinsey Hein, 2013.

I live in Kentucky. I have voted in Kentucky elections for the last six years. I vote for candidates based on what they are bringing to the office for which they are running, how they have run their campaigns, and whether or not I believe that they have the best interest of the country at heart. I do not vote for a candidate just because they represent a certain party.

I am not a fan of Senator Mitch McConnell, one of Kentucky's senators. No, it's not because he's a Republican and I'm a Democrat and so of course I should hate him. It's because I don't agree with things he's supported (or loudly not supported) during his tenure in Washington. He has voted for war in Iraq, the Keystone Pipeline project, and a tax break for himself; all issues I see as despicable. He has voted against gun regulation, campaign finance reform, the Violence Against Women Act, affordable health care; all issues with which I have a very personal relationship and believe are necessary for the good of our country.

Mitch McConnell is up for reelection in November 2014. The assumed Democratic candidate running for US Senate is Alison Grimes, the current Secretary of State of Kentucky. She took the office only 19 months ago, so when her name started coming up, I paid attention. I wanted to see what experience she's gotten during her stint as our Secretary of State, seeing as she was a local intellectual property lawyer before she was elected. I've listened to a few of her speeches and I agree with her more than I agree with McConnell on a number of political issues.

I am, however, disappointed by the campaign Grimes is running. Slogans like "Ditch Mitch" and "Team Switch" are all over local television and newspapers. Grimes's bid for the Senate is polling well simply because she's saying that she is not Mitch McConnell. I don't want to vote for someone because they aren't "the other guy;" I want to vote for someone.

I expressed my frustration to my husband about the fact that Kentucky's best hope of a Democratic US Senator is using grade school insults to persuade voters to vote for her. He listened for a minute, and then said, "She has a campaign team that is using polling data that shows what works to get a win."

"Ditch Mitch" works? "Team Switch" will win Grimes the election? If these absurd sayings work, I think we have a lot more to worry about than which candidate won the election. If someone who has only 19 months of public service experience can win a seat at the national level on elementary school level quips and not on her resume or voting record (because she doesn't have a voting record), what does that say about us as a society?

Sure, it might simply mean that more people voted against McConnell than for him.

But what else could Grimes's winning demonstrate? That we don't care who takes a seat in the US Senate as long as it's not "the other guy"? That we are perfectly fine not only supporting, but rewarding the playground insults (that we wouldn't allow our children to say) our elected government officials are using during their "elevated discourse"?

I'm tired. I'm tired of this divisiveness that we insist on clinging to like a lifeline. I'm tired of the die-hards out there who refuse to see the other side of every issue just because of who brought the issues up. I'm tired of the name calling. I'm tired of the holier-than-thous out there who think that people who don't agree with them just aren't smart enough to understand. I'm tired of the staunch patriots on both sides who think anyone on the other side of the aisle is a complete jerk. I can't be the only who's tired of all of this!

When we heard about the tragedy at Sandy Hook, who didn't hug their kids a little tighter that night? I can tell you it wasn't just Democrats who did.

When the death of Osama bin Laden was announced, who didn't feel a little tiny sense of relief knowing that he had finally been brought to justice? I can tell you it wasn't just Republicans who did.

Whenever we hear about kids who have bad schools or people without food or young moms who get laid off, who doesn't feel for them? We all do.

We all have common goals. We all have the same things we care about more than anything else in the world. Shake off that grade school sense of "I've gotta call this guy a bad name to make myself look better." Move on from that childish yearning for victory, just so you can say you've won, even if you haven't earned it. Become that person, that leader, who is willing to question his own opinion to give the other side a chance to be heard. Become a leader and, for the good of your country, reach across the aisle and shake the hand of someone who, deep down, is just like you.

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." --Gandhi

Sources:
McConnell's voting record
2014 KY Senate Polling Statistics
KY Secretary of State Legislative Initiatives

The Bechdel Test: Women's Roles in Film

This morning I was doing my usual Facebook browsing while drinking my coffee, and came across an interesting status from one of my friends:

I'm lucky to have my friend Kelley. A month or so ago (to make a point) she asked me about naming movies which contain a scene where two or more women carry on a conversation W/O a man present and on a topic OTHER than men/ the male protagonist. A month later I've come up with "Fried Green Tomatoes" and not much else...can you help me out Face-bookers?

It got me thinking. And thinking. And then I became intrigued! I went through my DVD collection and out of 103 movies, the only two I have in which women are having a conversation without a man present and on a topic other than a man or men in general are "The Devil Wears Prada" and "Little Women."

The official test name for a piece of media in which there is a scene with a) at least two women present, b) the women talking to each other, and c) them talking about something other than a man is the Bechdel Test (not having a man present during the conversation is another criterium added to my friend's challenge). This test was first suggested by Virginia Woolf in regards to literature back in 1929, but became introduced by Alison Bechdel in 1985 in a comic strip. Kay Steiger refers to the Bechdel test as "the standard by which feminist critics judge television, books, movies and other media."

But why should it be used by only "feminist" critics? If we are truly interested as a society in achieving equality between men and women, shouldn't all critics be interested in this criteria? Shouldn't we want to see movies in which women are talking together about things other than relationships with men? This is not just about the feminist agenda; it's a cultural slap in the face to 150 million women. And what's worse is that we are all conditioned to it.

And we don't even realize it:

I previously mentioned that I have two movies that pass the Bechdel test. After going through my DVDs, I had a thought: what about movies in which men have a conversation on a topic other than a woman or women in general? The opposite of the Bechdel test, if you will. Out of 103 movies I own, 57 of them fit this criteria. Every superhero movie, every comedy, and every political or spy thriller fits this criteria but not the other.

I am what I would like to consider a rather forward thinker. Yet, over half of my movies have scenes in which men talk about things other than women and only two of my movies have scenes in which women talk about things other than men! I, an incredibly tuned-in fan of equality, have been watching and purchasing movies that are massively male-dominated!

But what does it mean?

We are still developing into the society a lot of people like to think we already have. A lot of people like to think that women have the same opportunities men have and that if we didn't have kids, we could be equally successful. That's not true yet. Many people like to think that racism is a thing of the past in our country. That's not true yet. A huge number of people in our country like to think that if you "want it badly enough and work hard enough," you can "get out" of wherever you come from and be whatever you want. That's not true yet. These are all ideals that we desperately crave and I feel like we assume they're already fact because we want so badly for them to be true.

But we have to realize where we come from; we, the American culture. It's been male dominated from the start, if you don't count the Native Americans as having started our culture (and let's be honest here, how many of us remember that they were American before our ancestors were?). It's been white dominated from the start. And it's been capitalist driven from the start. Can we expect our culture to change? Absolutely. Can we demand that there must be a change? Yes! But change is slow; it took us 150 years from the declaration of us being American to get to the white, male, capitalist part of who we are as a culture. We've only been burning bras and allowing our daughters and sisters to have opinions and jobs away from the home for 65 years. Yes, we've made some changes and yes, we're getting closer to the ideal society that we so deeply desire, but we're not there.

Yet.

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." --Gandhi