What Susan Collins Could Have Said

Susan Collins on her vote to confirm Kavanaugh

Those who believe in social justice and equality, equal treatment under law, are very upset about the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh.  It is a step backward socially and politically for this country.

Why say that? Socially, sure. But politically?

The Supreme Court is the very court that defined sexual harassment at a propitious point in our political history. The rape of employees — sex against their will— involuntary sexual relations, became a type of sex discrimination, one of the three types of sexual harassment. Sexual discrimination in employment had been illegal as far back as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But harassing on the basis of sex in the workplace became a criminal act following the High Court's hearing of Vinson v Meritor Bank in 1986.

Mechelle Vinson put up with demands for sex, pawing, public humiliation, and rape, from her boss fearing dismissal otherwise—until she could no longer take it anymore, quit, and sued Meritor Bank. This became the first "hostile environment" case to come before the Supreme Court. The judges found it despicable and ruled that the hostile environment based upon sex to be a type of sex discrimination.

The Supreme Court has heard many other cases since then, many quid pro quo, many about gender harassment (a second type of hostile environment), others about unwanted sexual attention. Women have been protected to the extent that their resources, evidence, and energy hold up during litigation.

Now what will happen?  Will employment decisions, definitions, roll back to the States? How did a man accused of attempted rape become an appointee to the Supreme Court, anyway?

Let's answer just that question because it is easy.  He's brilliant and accomplished, and has a majority — only because a woman (who shouldn't have) Susan Collins, voted for him, as did a male Democrat (who shouldn't have) Joe Manchin III (struggling to keep his democratic seat in West Virginia — a red state).  Manchin could have, should have, voted like his fellow Democrats, but decided to stick with his own best interests. This is the answer to the question, self-interest.

Politics is a selfish business. Stay in office, forget your own personal scruples.

So Manchin, we understand, almost. But Susan Collins truly failed us. A Republican, but a woman, too, a traitor, so to speak, who deciding the evidence too weak against Kavanaugh, who wondered perhaps, if Christine Blasey Ford was assaulted by someone else.

This conclusion leads some of us to be believe Collins surely is not one of the one in five who have suffered a rape, nor is she a one in four who beat off an attempted rape.  Because the face of the person who holds you down is not a face that you ever forget.

She had the opportunity to change history, to change a process, and she blew it. She could have said something that would truly change history. She could have, in the process, depoliticized the Supreme Court:

Judge Kavanaugh may be innocent, he may be guilty; his guilt is unclear. But that there is even a suspicion of doubt about his character as a High Court Justice of these United States, I am compelled to say NO to his appointment.

This country needs men and women with no history as a possible perpetrator of exploitation or abuse. For this position, especially, the country needs independent, fair-minded men and women who do not, have never, succumbed to group think, who do not do what the other boys do, will not merely vote a certain way because it is expected, by a group, to do so. This is the Supreme Court. The judges need to be that, supreme, the cream of the crop, individuated and fair, inscrutable.

So NO, Mr. Chairman. I vote no.

The confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh in the highest echelons of American power and politics tells us that the majority of the powerful have not learned anything about the essence and perversion of power, and closed their eyes to the prevalence, the classlessness of exploitation. It is confirmation that women are still a minority. Tell your daughters, friends, that they MUST run for positions of power to turn that around, and tell your sons-- be individuated, fair, and always, kind.

At some point, people like Susan Collins will age out.

Linda Freedman, PhD

Cyberbullying-Stalking and Might Makes Right

Internet safety presenters get the greatest rise out of the audience with talk about online sexual predators.  The predators exist, no question.

But the most common, most prevalent online danger to emotional health is cyberbullying, or cyberstalking.  We call it cyberstalking when the perpetrator is an adult.  The word bullying tends to soften intimidation, blackmail, slander, etc., tends to make it a children's crime, not really a crime, at all.

Adults bully, too, however, don't just stalk. Any time someone intimidates, threatens, verbally harasses, physically violates--  it is a manifestation of might making right.  Seeking power, attention, a persona of strength, this is what drives bullying.

By definition adults make better bullies. They are more powerful.  By virtue of their size and authority they can coerce children both physically and emotionally  to do things they wouldn't normally do.   Hence teachers are charged with sexual harassment when they have a sexual relationship with a student, even if the student initiates it.  The teacher, as a professional, knows the law and is supposed to know better. 

But the Internet is the great equalizer.  Online, children have power, too.  They know how to fake authority via anonymity and impersonation.  They have the resources, the means with which to harm others.  Electronic media-- digital photography, computing, texting, phones-- these are powerful tools. 

In a new study, the American Osteopathic Association recently found cyberbullying to be a real issue for parents.  Surveying 1000 parents, a majority showed concern about their children online and six had a child who had been bullied. We can't vouch for their methodology, i.e., how parents were found, or the reliability/ validity of the study, but we can tell you that nationally, in fifty states, the States Attorney's concur.  Of all the threats facing children online, cyberbullying is the most common crime, and parents should be concerned.

Defined in the study as taunting or spreading rumors about a peer online, cyberbullying is linked to the popularity of online social media, the ease of with which kids can connect with one another on sites like Facebook.

Mental health professionals have always worked with children who suffered from bullying by other children in the schoolyard.  The bully isn't usually anonymous in these cases.  Other children see, several others hear, what  is said or done.  Intimidated, they are afraid to report, even go along with it.  They participate, too, are a part of what we call, Group Think.

When teens fight on the street, when they "gang up" on other teens, it can be a right of passage, a way to be popular.  Strength is attractive.  When they don't outgrow the behavior, professionals see bullying as an indication of an emerging, perhaps serious personality disorder.   Online bullying isn't literally physical battering but the effects certainly are.  Everything psychological is physical.

The consequences for the anonymous perpetrator are minimized, a huge incentive for the behavior.  It is much easier to displace anger online, to cause tremendous psychological pain via viral messages, malicious gossip, or exposure and shame, and the audience can be in the thousands.  Beats the schoolyard for impact.

It is the ultimate danger of sexting, really.  Pictures can go anywhere.

Victims of cyberbullying suffer anxiety and depression, lose interest in socializing, may become aggressive or withdrawn, slack off on school work.  They may have suicidal thoughts, and some follow through with these.

According to the new study parents are owning responsibility to make sure their kids are okay. They discuss cyberbullying with their children and many "friend" them to monitor their interactions. Others even check security settings.  That is enlightened parenting.

It is better than saying, "No Facebook for you." Barring children from social networking isn't effective, isn't even possible.  It is like telling kids they can't go out and play.  But discussing the possible dangers, teaching them how to avoid bullies and what to do as a victim (tell parents, contact police)-- these are first steps toward healing and prevention.

Again, it's that relationship that matters and not all kids are going to listen.  But when it is obvious that a child's behavior has changed, that he or she is overly anxious, doesn't want to go online anymore, can't concentrate, or closes the browser when someone walks into the room, then it is time to have that talk, time to insist upon getting help.


Linda Freedman, PhD, LCSW, LMFT

Lara Logan: Gang Rape

A brutal sexual assault on February 11, the day President Hosni Mubarak steps down.  Lara Logan, covering the story for 60 Minutes,  is separated from the camera crew in the melee of celebration.  A group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers save her.

It takes twenty soldiers.

What happened there? How does what could have been a gang rape happen in the middle of a celebration?  In the middle of all this feel good, Hurray for democracy! suddenly, there is a very, very

feel bad.

We want to know who attacked Lara Logan (we assume, could be wrong, raped, if it is a brutal sexual assault) , but her nemesis is a faceless mob-- faceless to us, not to her, for Ms. Logan will remember faces.  To the world they will be anonymous, like-minded men, unknowns, who made her into a symbol, a something that needs to be stamped out, hurt, taught a lesson. Why?

Reporters tell us that the journalists in Cairo were intimidated, thought to be spies for the West, for Israel.  The police rounded up the members of the foreign press and jailed them, interrogated and harassed them before finally letting them go.  Go get your story now.  See what happens. 

Intimidation, jail, one thing.  Rape, or sexual assault, quite another, a special type of intimidation, a different type of violence, one that symbolizes dominion.  But there are different types of rape, different motives, and this is as good a time as any to discuss them.

Mental health professionals used to think of rape as a generic angry act, an act of defiance.  But ignorance and power underscore acquaintance and date rape, acts associated with rape myths.  One such myth might be believing that nice girls say no when they mean yes. A man thinking this way might force sex, thinking he has permission-- when really, he doesn't. Rape, if it's forced.  No means No, in all fifty of the United States of America.

Acquaintance and date rapes can also be about anger, coercion, blackmail, harassment-- wielding power with sexual aggression.  None of it benign.  And alcohol is usually in the picture, yes usually, when it comes to acquaintance and  date rape. A victim is incapacitated, incapable of fighting, sometimes unconscious.

Jailed rapists, perpetrators of individual stranger rapes, have a different modus operandi, and are diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder.  These individuals are considered sociopaths, people who defy authority, who take what they want, who want to hurt others.

Gang rape differs in that it is a crime of passion, but all about the need to bond, to be a part of a group. If there is anger, it is difficult to determine who is angry.  Weaved into the psychology of gang rape is  group think, a need to find favor from a leader, a person who is influential, charismatic, encourages the crime.  The group believes, or wants to believe, what the leader believes, and each member likes the feeling, being a part of something bigger than himself, and follows along.

Gang rape is of one mind, a group cognitive process of coercion. Participants deny their own sense of right and wrong, their own individuality, to do what the rest of the group tells them to do.

Men convicted of gang rape tell us they were afraid not to join in.  They were afraid of being left out, afraid of losing status. Sometimes the rape is an initiation into the gang, or the club, the fraternity, even the team-- a way to become a part of something.  If you're not with us, you're against us.  Becoming one of the gang, male or female bonding, feels good.

In Cairo last week, becoming a part of something, pleasing someone, needing to attach to other men, impressing a leader, enjoying the feeling of power-- all of this mixed into the psychopathology, the sick thinking of every man in that fringe group.  And the subsequent conclusion, the sexual assault of Lara Logan.

The politics are unclear, do not matter.  What matters is need: the individual need for validation and a universal need for power and control.  And unfortunately, one way to achieve that validation is to join in, even when the group corrupts, behaves in ways that are psychologically, physically, and sexually abusive.  

One way to power is to show others how vulnerable they are.

Surely, had the Egyptian women who intervened not been there, Ms. Logan would be dead. And we would be watching funeral services on TV.

Linda Freedman, PhD, LCSW, LMFT