Tag: children

Cuando el NO de tu niña/o se transforma en silencio (When your child’s NO becomes silence)

Esta blog fue escrito con Leah Holland de la Coalición de Programas de Asalto Sexual de Washington.

Where-We-Live_web-1Casi un año atrás estuve presente en una reunión de amigos en donde se encontraba este hombre, muy querido por el grupo, jugando un juego  con las hijas del vecino. Me informaron que el juego sucedía cada vez que el veía a estas niñas. Este hombre ya en sus avanzados veintes corría detrás de las niñas y las colgabas de cabeza para abajo. La niña de seis años  parecía estar divirtiéndose al principio del juego pero la niña de diez lo empujaba y le decía que se mantuviera alejado. El hombre ignoraba el mensaje directo de la niña (como si no significara si) y continuaba el juego. Yo le pedí a la pareja del hombre que le comunicara a él que la niña estaba tratando de hacer respetar su cuerpo. Ella no disfrutaba del juego y parecía que la niña de seis años estaba irritándose también. La pareja de este hombre me respondió que ella ha estado tratando de explicarle que el juego no les parecía divertido a las niñas, pero también agrego que “todo los niños/as lo amaban y lo consideraban el mejor tío del mundo.” Eso fue lo último de nuestra conversación.

¿Que podría haber hecho y dicho yo acerca de esta situación con el objetivo de comunicar un concepto muy complejo a todos los/as tíos, tías, padres y hermanos con buenas intenciones que se encontraban allí? Yo no intervine directamente y sabía que el grupo con el que estaba, consideraba ese comportamiento culturalmente aceptable. Tampoco quise decir algo  en frente de la pareja de este hombre que podría haber sido tomado como un intento de sexualizar lo que estaba pasando, pero tuve influencia sobre ella para que convenciera a su pareja de que parará el juego con las niñas (aunque le llevo muchos intentos). Esta situación me puso a pensar seriamente acerca de la importancia de intervenir cuando vemos que hay niños/as pasando por situaciones como ésta.

Como adultos es fácil de olvidarnos de que la manera que los adultos respectaron o no nuestros límites personales  cuando éramos niños/as tiene un impacto durante toda nuestra vida. Las conversaciones con los niño/as acerca de los límites personales parecen ser mas populares cuando los padres dicen a sus hijos que no se dejen tocar por extraños “allá abajo.” ¿Pero que hay acerca de decirles a los niños que no toquen a otros niños cuando éstos no quieren ser tocados? ¿Decirle a los niños que está bien el no besar, abrazar o apretar las manos de alguien si ellos no lo desean? ¿Decirles a los niños de que cuando ellos sean adultos tienen que respetar los límites personales de los niños/as que no quieren jugar juegos donde los cuelgan de cabeza hacia abajo? Complicando las cosas un poco más, es difícil de pensar que los adultos que conocemos estén, sin intención alguna, haciendo  a  un niño/a más vulnerable a la coerción sexual en el futuro con el hecho de ignorar sus voces ahora. Este mensaje es comunicado con más fuerza a las niñas. Las niñas son frecuentemente criadas para ser calladas, sumisas y complacientes.

¿Parecería que las niñas presente en esta reunión están siendo criadas con la confianza para decir cuándo algo no les agrada, pero cuanto tiempo continuaran pensando que tienen este derecho si sus voces son constantemente ignoradas por los adultos? ¿Cuánto tiempo tomara hasta que sus voces de NO se transformen en silencio? ¿Si ellas están viendo que si alguien con más poder quiere acceso a sus cuerpos, lo obtiene, cómo podrán ellas hablar de consentimiento con sus parejas en el futuro? ¿Cómo podrán ellas reconocer coerción?

¿Entonces qué podemos hacer? Podemos enseñar a nuestros niños a que pregunten antes de abrazar a alguien y pedir que otros adultos no insistan que un niño/a les den un beso, pero no podemos ser los únicos adultos trabajando en contra de la cultura normativa que devalúa las voces y los derechos de los niños/as. Ya sea que ocurra en el grupo de iglesia, grupo de chicas y chicos scouts, o pequeñas ligas organizadas, nosotros podemos acercarnos a otros adultos para hablar acerca de que podemos hacer para empoderar a los niño/as a que usen sus voces, pero también hacer responsables a los adultos cuando vemos comportamientos potencialmente problemáticos. Así, ayudamos a los niño/as desarrollar buenos  límites personales y también  cambiar las normas culturales que facilitan que el abuso sexual de niños/as continúe.

La Coalición de Programas de Asalto Sexual de Washington, está apoyando un plan de enseñanza de prevención de asalto sexual de niño/as, Donde Vivimos (Where We Live), que está diseñado a enseñar a los adultos a reconocer comportamiento preocupante y a intervenir de manera efectiva para mantener seguro a los niño/as. Donde Vivimos específicamente se enfoca en comportamientos “luz amarilla” que no son explícitamente abusivos pero que pueden ser señales de comportamiento predatorio o falta de respeto por los derechos y límites personales de los niño/as. Donde Vivimos es gratis y descargable a través de la Coalición en contra de la Violación de Pennsylvania. ¡Revíselo y díganos su opinión!

****

This post was co-authored with Leah Holland with the Washington Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs.

About a year ago I was attending a gathering where this man, well-liked by the group I was with, was playing a game with the neighbor’s children. I came to find out this happens every time he saw these girls. The man, who is well into his late twenties, would run after the two girls, catch them, and lift them upside down. The six year old was finding it amusing at first, but the ten year old would push him away and tell him to stay away. He would disregard her strong message (taking her no as a playful yes) and continue the game. I asked the man’s partner to communicate to him that the girl was trying to tell him to respect her boundaries. She did not enjoy the play and it seemed that the six year old was becoming increasingly annoyed as well. His partner replied that she has been trying to get him to understand that what he was doing to these two girls was not funny to them, but she also added that “all the children love him and consider him the best uncle in the world.” The conversation was left at that.

What could I have done and said about the situation to communicate a very complex concept to the many well-intentioned uncles, aunts, parents, and siblings who were there? I did not intervene directly and I knew the group found this behavior culturally acceptable. I did not want to say something that could be construed as me sexualizing the situation. I enlisted his partner to get him to stop the game (though it took her many attempts). This situation really got me to think seriously about why it is important that we do intervene when we see things like this happening to children.

As adults it is easy to forget that the way people respected (or didn’t) our boundaries as children, directly impacts us throughout life. Conversations with children about boundaries seem to be popular when it is parents telling children not to let strangers touch them “down there.” But what about telling children not to touch other children when they don’t want to be touched? Telling children that it is ok not to want to kiss, hug, or shake someone’s hand if they don’t want to? What about telling children that when they grow up to be adults they need to respect the boundaries of children who don’t want to play upside down games? To further complicate things it is hard to think that adults we know may be unintentionally making a child more vulnerable to sexual coercion in the future by ignoring their voices now. This message is conveyed even stronger to girls. Girls are often raised to be quiet, obedient, and accommodating.

It seems like the girls at this gathering are being raised to feel confident in saying no when they do not like what is happening, but how long will they feel that  they have this right if their voices are constantly ignored by adults? How long will it take for them to quit saying NO and just stay silent? If they are being shown that when someone with more power wants access to their bodies they get it, how will they be able to talk about consent with their partners in the future? How will they be able to recognize coercion?

So where does this leave us? We can teach our children to ask before they hug someone, and ask adults not to insist a child give them a kiss, but we can’t be the only adults working against the cultural norm of devaluing the voices and rights of children. Whether it’s a church group, Girl or Boy Scouts, or Little League, we can bring adults together to talk about what we can do to empower kids to use their voices, but also hold adults accountable when we see potentially problematic behavior. Not only will this help children develop good boundaries, but it can also change the cultural norms that allow child sexual abuse to continue.

The Washington Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs  is piloting a child sexual assault prevention curriculum, Where We Live that is designed to teach adults to recognize concerning behavior and intervene effectively to keep kids safe. Where We Live specifically focuses on “yellow light” behaviors that are not explicitly abusive but may be signs of grooming or a lack of respect for children’s rights and boundaries. Where We Live is free, and downloadable from the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape. Check it out and tell us what you think!

Scorched Earth

I was thinking about a man I know. He’s a bully and on a scale of one to ten, he’s a solid ten jerk. You know him too.

He’s been married four times. Has many, many children—mostly boys. And now his children are having children and carrying on their dad’s tradition of being irresponsible fathers.

This man is marching through life burning everything in his path. His reach and influence are deadening to those in his inner circle, maddening to those of us sitting a few rings out—and legendary in the community. This man’s thousands of twins (including his brothers in the NFL) have the same impact.

© photo by Johsel Namkung
© photo by Johsel Namkung

I’m tempted to focus on the amazing resilience of this man’s families and the others he has impacted, and broaden that to the resilience of the human body and spirit. After all, what happens after a fire? The wildflowers sprout and the trees re-emerge. Right?

But I’m not going there.

Life calls upon us to be resilient enough with unavoidable  illness, loss, and death. What I’m calling out is all the avoidable illness, loss, and death. All the damage done by bullies, rapists, batterers is damage of their own making—it is all under their control and therefore they can prevent it from happening. So, why don’t they?

In trying to make some sense out of this, I revisited a “fireside chat” that my boss Nan Stoops gave earlier this year. It’s long, but if you skip to 16:30 you get to the meat of a pretty darned brilliant commentary that sheds some light on why the bully in my circle keeps on destroying.

Briefly, I believe Nan’s view is that for better or worse, the gigantic movement of mostly women working to end violence against women developed ideas that focused on women’s victimization, and not on men’s violence. And we placed the responsibility for ending violence on individuals and families, not on communities.

Imagine what would have happened if my bully was required to go to a shelter, rather than his wives and children fleeing. What if rather than putting him in jail, we had every institution guide—and if necessary shame—him when he behaved in arrogant and mean ways? What if everyone, everywhere just said “don’t talk to her that way.” And “How about you join this group and take this class on being a great dad?” What if my bully had to answer for himself over and over again?

Dependence, independence, interdependence

A fascinating article in the New York Times describes how some single mothers identify as Republican. Here are people who have not created traditional families, or for whom the traditional family structure has failed, and who are disproportionately in need of government supports like food stamps. And yet, about 25% align themselves with the party of “traditional family values” and small government. singlemom

Why? As a single mother friend of mine says “I am not looking for more independence” as she raises her young son; and sometimes it seems like that’s what progressives/Democrats have to offer. The emphasis on equality in work and educational opportunities leaves some of us feeling as if we should achieve economic success while at the same time providing a fulfilling family life for our kids, too—all by our liberated selves. The bar is just higher and higher, and that does not feel liberating.

My friend knows she needs interdependence—neighbors she can count on to watch her child so she can run to the store or work late (and vice versa); people to bring her food and help care for her little one when she is sick; involved grandparents who will help nurture a strong sense of family. The fact that she has someone dependent on her makes interdependence necessary, and more that that, attractive.

I think mainstream feminism has missed the boat on this point. The emphasis on equality in public life: politics, workplace, finances, on women having access to the social goods and opportunities men have has put the movement at risk of devaluing the work traditionally done by women: nurturing children, caring for the frail and elderly, building community networks. Too often, progressives and feminists have let conservatives “own” these issues in public debates, or make it sound as if prioritizing caregiving and prioritizing women’s liberation are at odds with each other.

A lot of social policy is based on the idea that everyone is an independent, rational adult who can choose whether or when to connect with other people. What a fascinating fantasy. This assumes no pregnancy, no children, no frail elders, no dependents, no dependency. Just as medical research that assumes everyone is a male aged 18-40 isn’t particularly useful to women, social policy constructed on the assumption that we are all independent atomistic individuals doesn’t tend to work too well for infants, single mothers, parents, adult children taking care of elderly parents, and those who need assistance from others to live their lives.

The fact is everyone starts out a very fragile, vulnerable baby. And as parents know, carrying a pregnancy and giving birth is exhausting, challenging and even dangerous, and just about everyone needs help with the process in order to live and have the baby live. And most of us are going to spend the end of our lives in need of profound assistance from the people around us. In between, we may have periods of illness or injury where our survival depends on others.

In reality, dependence and taking care of those who are vulnerable are deeply integral to the human experience and should be finely woven into everything about how we think of organizing every part of our society. For example, this hospital emergency room.

Conservatives claim ownership of “family values” yet their vision involves enforcing traditional gender roles. But liberalism and feminism leave some feeling like they have to do it all on their own, and they are not measuring up if they can’t. So here is the challenge for all of us as we shape public policy:

  • To always keep in mind dependents and the people who care for them. Whatever choices we make or aspirations we hold must take into account and work for them.
  • To find ways to support caregiving that do not rely on oppressive gender roles and do not require caretakers to sacrifice their economic well being, social connections, or status.
  • To realize the deeply human task of caretaking requires qualities and skills our public lives sorely need: patience, thoughtful observation, empathy, and respect for the dignity and value of those whose abilities differ from our own.
  • To keep in mind that liberation actually means that everyone, men included, gets to participate in the important task of caregiving—because it is only then that the full range of humanity is available to them.
  • Not all equality has economic measures—some of it happens in places where the rewards and challenges are immeasurable, yet profound, like parenting or helping an elder die with dignity.

The most recent wave of feminism had many tasks. Two big ones were to secure equality in the public sphere and to redefine the very nature of what it means to be human. To do the latter, we must embrace and affirm the fact that we are all dependent at different points in our lives, and the profound and loving work of taking care of dependents (traditionally women’s work) should be valued and shared among men and women.

To create beloved community, our vision must include non-oppressive, liberatory ways of maintaining connection, dependence, and interdependence.

News you can relate to

Some news stories that caught our eye this week:

  • Joe Biden pays an emotional visit to the National Domestic Violence Hotline, which he helped create.
  • ‘Toxic stress’ is a new way to think about the effects that exposure to abuse, neglect, domestic violence and family dysfunction has on a child’s future.

Don’t overthink it, $15 an hour could fix a lot

There is something afoot in the fight to raise the minimum wage—the increasingly visible voices of low-wage workers. The Fight for 15 started in Chicago and has spread to 50 cities including Seattle. At SeaTac Airport, baggage handlers, shop workers, and folks transporting people using wheelchairs, are all asking for a $15 minimum wage to provide for their families.

American_Flag_&_SloganAs a country, we say that all work is honorable, no job is beneath anyone, and that if you show up and do your best, you will be rewarded. Not if you are a low wage worker. Nancy Salgado confronted the U.S. president of McDonald’s and asked “It’s really hard for me to feed my two kids and struggle day to day. Do you think this is fair, that I have to be making $8.25 when I’ve worked for McDonald’s for ten years?” She was ticketed for trespassing.

McDonald’s minimum wage employees recently received a Practical Money Skills Budget Journal. Perhaps this is their answer to Nancy’s question. But it’s not exactly going to help her situation. To begin with, the sample income is NOT based on a full-time minimum wage (more like 2 minimum wage incomes). Their example doesn’t include groceries or childcare, and healthcare is a hilarious $20 monthly expense. Rent is only $600 a month. Where is this city? The smiling teenager on the front of the budget journal does not represent the vast majority of people working minimum wage jobs. It is adults (and more women than men) who are trying to make a living and care for children on minimum wage. $15 an hour is closer to what it actually takes to support a working family.

When you support a $15 minimum wage, you are also helping women and children live violence-free lives. People are always telling women who are in abusive relationships to leave—don’t stay for money, leave because your life will improve and you will be a better parent. But that’s not true if you walk out the door into homelessness. So they tell them: go get a job, find an apartment, find childcare, get new credit cards, open another bank account. Oh, your partner trashed your credit? You must not be trying hard enough.

$15 an hour means you can take care of yourself and your children and you won’t have to face the decision of either returning to an abusive relationship or becoming homeless. We all benefit when everyone around us can go to bed each night knowing that they can provide a loving home and have the resources to face whatever lies ahead.

My birthday reverie for my girls, and for every girl

birthday-cupcakesMy twin daughters just turned 16. Along with the incredible gratitude and hardly-contained love I feel for my children, I wanted to reflect on being a parent in this particular moment in time.

  1. I remember having dreamy day-dreams imagining my twin daughters as sixteen-year-olds.
  2. I wondered what kind of parent I would become. Do I have the freedom to make mistakes?
  3. I want to fearlessly talk with them about sex, life, death, relationships and their place in the world—no matter how anxious it makes me.
  4. I ask myself, will my children actually talk to me or ignore me?
  5. I worry about all that could happen to them and they show me their enduring resilience every day.
  6. I look around and try to understand the world they live in.
  7. I stand back and observe their friendships—what are they saying to each other?
  8. I see who they choose to hang out with. I embrace these new voices of authority and look for openings of influence.
  9. I watch them try to figure out who they are while bathed in pop culture, hoping I resonate down deep.
  10. I expect them to be kind to the awkward kid at school.
  11. I hope they have the right information to share with a friend who’s in trouble.
  12. I quake at the thought of their first relationship—let it be caring, fun, and nurturing.
  13. I yearn for teachers that ignite their curiosity and respect their thinking.
  14. I optimistically expect that all the adults around them will demonstrate loving and equitable relationships.
  15. I imagine them standing up for their friends and joining with strangers to build their community.
  16. I long to raise brave, lion-hearted, compassionate, jubilant, genuine young women who can take care of themselves, will experience sustenance in their work, and express love for themselves and those they hold dear.

Summer reading

It’s summertime. Bye-bye, I’m heading to the beach.

It is inconceivable to me to go without a book. On my list this year: Zippy by Haven Kimmel, which I borrowed from my library and devoured in a few laugh-out-loud sessions. Truly a funny, poignant tale.

A particularly explosive guffaw of relief flew out of me as Kimmel recalled a violent episode in her childhood home when things could have gone terribly wrong, but didn’t. Her dad did not beat up her mother. She writes:

Mom told me, when I was old enough to ask, that she had learned the lesson from Mom Mary, Dad’s mother, who took her future daughter-in-law aside and told her that a woman has got to make herself absolutely clear, and early on. In Mom Mary’s own case, she waited until she and my grandfather Anthel were just home from their honeymoon, and then sat him down and told him this: “Honey, I know you like to take a drink, and that’s all right, but be forewarned that I ain’t your maid and I ain’t your punching-bag, and if you ever raise your hand to me you’d best kill me. Because otherwise, I’ll wait till you’re asleep; sew you into the bed; and beat you to death with a frying pan.” Until he died, I am told, my grandfather was a gentle man.

It reminded me of Mette’s mom’s theory about ending domestic violence—that women just need to get scarier than men. I asked Mette to ask her mother if it would be okay to share her theory. Her mom replied “Hell, yes. And I might add, I would be happy to teach classes on how to be scarier than anyone!”

In reality, there is nobody less scary than Mette’s mom Cindy. Though I have never given her cause to be fierce with me, I do believe she has that capacity.

And hence to the point. Fierce is different from scary.frying-pan

I mean, I really do not want to be reduced to simply scary—to beating my chest louder and harder than the primate squatting next to me.

But to warn someone off with a metaphorical frying pan—with a “Don’t you dare disrespect or threaten me or our children”—is the essence of the fierceness Cindy could give lessons about.

Historically, we have turned to the police, courts, and prisons—institutions designed to simply scare people—to deal with domestic and sexual violence. It hasn’t worked.

A smattering of people are coming up with different approaches. Ideas for engaging men coming out of prison, using technology so abusive dads can have safe contact with their kids, and creating alternatives for batterers to seek help themselves, before police and courts get involved.

I am feeling very optimistic that we are on the cusp of making an evolutionary leap—from scary to fierce. From having only fear-based approaches that at best impose an unstable peace, to becoming resolutely fierce in defending the foundational worth and dignity of women and children. It’s time.

Preventing homelessness

We bring you this post from Kendra Gritsch, our Domestic Violence Housing First program specialist.

Did you know that domestic violence is the leading cause of homelessness for women and children? Women often face isolation, discrimination, and limited resources when leaving an abusive home. Because of this, many survivors are forced to choose between stable housing and safety.

To eliminate housing as a reason to stay in an abusive relationship, WSCADV and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation partnered to pilot Domestic Violence Housing First (DVHF). Our partner programs across Washington State are helping survivors get and stay in safe, permanent housing by providing things like flexible financial assistance. Then, advocates have the flexibility to provide whatever kind of support the person needs to be self-sufficient.

After three years of doing and learning, we are beginning to capture the impact of this approach. The YWCA of Kitsap County found: “we had to learn how to listen … and how to celebrate who they (survivors) were and maybe back up a little about what the YWCA is.”

Where the danger often is

Gun-Violence-Plan

Have you thought about mass killings when dropping your kids off at school or going to a movie lately?  It’s hard not to, given the horrific shootings recently. But do you think of them every time you enter your house?

Most mass shootings occur in private spaces, and involve families. Mayors Against Illegal Guns recently issued a report on mass shootings. In all cases where a shooter killed four or more people, 57% involved domestic violence: meaning the shooter killed their intimate partner, and frequently, their children and other family members.

What surprised me about this report was not the fact that many mass shootings are domestic violence related: we know that from our Fatality Review work. No, what was surprising was to see a mainstream group make this connection: that the deaths of (overwhelmingly) women and children at the hands of murderous (overwhelmingly) men is an identifiable, terrifying pattern and it often has domestic violence at its core. Usually we see the media and officials treating each domestic violence related shooting as an isolated and unpredictable incident.

You and I may have felt frightened by the Sandy Hook or Batman shootings, but if you are a woman in an intimate partnership with a man, especially one who keeps a gun in the house, the odds of being terrorized in your home are higher than the odds of being in a terrorist attack or mass killing committed by a stranger. We know that almost half of women murdered are killed by their intimate partners, and women are more likely to be murdered or threatened with guns when guns are in their homes. The violence most relevant to women and children is the violence committed in their own homes, by a person who should be loving and nurturing them, but we rarely see this connection made so clearly.

News you can relate to

Some news stories that caught our eye this week:

  • Cheers filled our offices yesterday when the president signed the Violence Against Women Act. This article is a good summary of why we’re so excited about this.
  • Returning an abducted child to their home country seems like a good thing, right? Often it is. But what happens when the abductor is a parent trying to keep a child safe from an abuser? Research shows that “many abductions are actually flights to safety.”
  • Singer Thao Nguyen shares how she’s been influenced by the women she’s met in California State Prisons “who have lifted and inspired and taught me things I wouldn’t learn with anyone else.”
%d bloggers like this: