In many of Dworkin’s books, and specifically in Pornography: Men Possessing Women, she argues that pornography is both dehumanizing to women and unavoidably linked to violence against them. This realization led me to ask myself an overwhelming number of questions: What are the consequences of creating a movement geared towards gaining male involvement as opposed to a movement that meets the needs of survivors? Do these two goals overlap or are they inherently different? Can I still call my curriculum a feminist effort when I’m compromising to cater to toxic masculinity? For the answers, I turned to an unapologetically loud activist in the fight to end violence against women: Andrea Dworkin. Without knowing it, I was upholding the patriarchy by avoiding key parts of the issue for the sake of male students’ comfort. As I reflected on creating these materials, I realized that I did all these things to save myself from having an argument instead of creating a learning opportunity.
I minimized the connection between athletes and rape culture and always made sure we included a case study where a perpetrator was wrongfully accused. When I started constructing this curriculum, I came to an unsettling realization. I'd always thought that I was doing this work through a feminist lens yet, when I paused to reflect on the language I used in the curriculum and trainings, I realized that much of it tried to call male students into the conversation, rather than act as a universal call to action. I’ve led a seminar on Title IX and consent, and am working with the administration to build curriculum on the issue. I’m a fierce advocate for sexual assault education in my school.
0 kommentar(er)
