Category: Tilting at Windmills

This is via the LATimes:

Like a character from a graphic novel, he dresses in black, has unusually blond hair ”” and kills bus drivers who sexually assault women.

In a place like Ciudad Juarez, known for its years of brutal killings of women, the story has inexorable appeal. But how much of it is true?

Authorities are taking the reports seriously enough to investigate and have posted undercover cops on buses. Women’s advocates say they wouldn’t be surprised if someone finally had taken long-denied justice into his own hands.

Two bus drivers were slain in the last week, and over the weekend an electronic message claiming responsibility was sent to several news outlets.

“You think because they are women they are weak, and maybe they are,” the message says. “But only to a certain point…. We can no longer remain quiet over these acts that fill us with rage.

“And so, I am an instrument who will take vengeance.”

Signed: David, Hunter of Bus Drivers.

The message says women who work the night shifts in Juarez’s enormous maquiladora industry repeatedly fall prey to the bus drivers on whom they must rely to get home in the dark.

For now, at least, there is no way to verify the veracity of the message, whether it was written by the actual killer or killers of the bus drivers, whether David the Hunter really exists, or even whether he is a he.

Of course, that’s not the actual copy – I’ve gone through and changed gender names and pronouns, to make clear the point that Kate Clancy made to David Dobbs on Twitter:

I find it interesting they question the gender of the killer here. Were it a man, no question.

And she’s right. Take another look at the actual paragraph versus the paragraph I modified:

For now, at least, there is no way to verify the veracity of the message, whether it was written by the actual killer or killers of the bus drivers, whether Diana the Huntress really exists, or even whether she is a she.

vs.

For now, at least, there is no way to verify the veracity of the message, whether it was written by the actual killer or killers of the bus drivers, whether David the Hunter really exists, or even whether he is a he.

“Or even whether he is a he” sounds strange to our ears, because we default to a gendered notion of vigilante justice, one rooted in Batman and strong men taking action, rather than the idea of a woman being capable of the violence inherent within the action.

This is the kind of insidious sexism that creeps into even the most progressive or liberal of newsrooms, and is the sort of thing that should be highlighted and pointed out. Those responsible—in this case, Tracy Wilkinson, Cecilia Sanchez, and their editors—should be held accountable for their gendered bias and gendered reporting, in order to move towards the elimination of both.

So, I was scolded this afternoon for daring to tweet about Rehtaeh Parsons’ father’s response to her suicide shortly after news broke about the Boston marathon bombing. Apparently the Internet can only care about one thing at a time, and the most important thing was the bombing and all other news, national as well as international, should stop.

Of course, tomorrow there will be another bombing somewhere else – probably not America, but does that matter? There will be another murder spree, somewhere; after all, doesn’t the FBI believe there are something like 30-odd serial killers working in America at any given time? There will be another massive traffic accident, there will be another mass casualty event, another epidemic, another something new and breaking, because in the era of 24 hour news, something is always new, something is always breaking.

So at what point, then, is it okay to make noise about the lack of investigation into a publicized, bragged about, distributed images of, rape of a teenage girl? A rape that was dismissed as a community concern, that wouldn’t be investigated or prosecuted, that led to a young woman’s death? When is it the day we get to talk about that? At what point is this violence against a woman, and the dismal response to it, allowed it’s time in the media sun?

A continued and on-going problem with violence against women is that it is de-prioritized for other news. Women, after all, are always being raped. Always being murdered. Always victims of domestic violence. The bleeding that happens simply isn’t newsworthy enough to lead; it’s too common.

And the only way that changes is to acknowledge that it is, indeed, possible to care about and advocate for and discuss multiple things at once. That a story doesn’t need to be dropped just because a new and shiny one comes along, that it is indeed possible to follow multiple ideas and have many concerns, and that in particular, news of violence and rape and suicide isn’t so low a priority that it cannot even be tweeted until a “more urgent” situation has passed. In fact, I can, as a matter of course, be incredibly worried about friends who were at the race today and yet still care deeply about the mistreatment of Rehtaeh Parsons. I have this ability, and I believe that you do, too.

There’s been a big fuss this last week over whether or not Apple is showing anti-choice sentiments via Siri’s answers for abortion providers, crisis pregnancy centers, and so forth. Chances are, if you’re reading this, you already are familiar with the debate.

Apple has released a statement saying that no, not so much, not anti-choice, just limited programming.

Do I buy this?

Yes.

Why?

Well, a few reasons. First, and probably foremost, the fun and funny answers that Siri gives are things that are largely connected to geek culture, or flippant responses to basic questions. And as the push to celebrate female geeks in the last year should already tell you, women are still making inroads in being a visible part of geek culture, which is still very male-oriented. Plus, if Siri had a tongue-in-cheek response to an abortion question, well, can you imagine? (Say, offering a coat hanger signed by RK Milholland?)

Okay, well, then why is Siri bringing up crisis pregnancy centers in response to searches for places for abortion? Chances are, it has to do with Siri’s search algorithms, which haven’t been revealed to us. As some bright blogger (who I found via Twitter following the other day, and thus have completely forgotten the name of) pointed out, many Planned Parenthood’s don’t list themselves as abortion providers, but as women’s health services or clinics. CPCs, on the other hand, tend to try to position themselves to come up as high as possible on searches for abortion services (and many do the same for birth control). Siri relies on third-party search services when not defaulting to smartass responses, and in this case I think we’re seeing a glitch, or at least a reveal of the curtain, of what happens when politics meets the world of search engines that aren’t Google.

Apple’s become a bit of a popular target lately, probably because there’s only so much a success story people want to hear before they can get a bit vindictive. A lot of people also want to see the company falter without Jobs, and are looking for signs of it.

But this issue with Siri doesn’t suggest a problem with Apple – or even with the third-party company, SRI, that developed Siri before Apple bought the technology last year. Instead, it suggests to me that we need to take a closer look at how legitimate and valued pro-choice, pro-women companies like Planned Parenthood have been forced to position themselves on the internet and in advertising, and how CPCs take advantage of that to promote their anti-choice agenda.