In his commentary on rape, John Havelock is way off track
I'm writing to express my profound disappointment and anger at the ADN's decision to publish John Havelock's piece "Understanding gender differences: different does not mean the same" (Commentary, June 18).
Havelock's article acknowledges the public outcry over the Stanford rape case before writing that "women's liberation" has opened up a "change in assignments that has created a confusion in male and female roles and new ambiguities in gender relationships." He then takes a cliche spin through biological reductionism and the so-called "murk(y)" line of sexual consent, before offering his opinions about what girls and women in this country should wear. (Apparently, if you're wondering, it's nothing "sexy," but avoid pantsuits unless you might be president in the next 12 months.)
Havelock adds that the Stanford rape case wasn't "just another fraternity rape." His colloquial reference to a national criminal epidemic of sexual violence is noteworthy not because of what it says about crime or inequality or sexual violence or education, but rather because the point of his article is to essentially say the victim wore a short skirt. In Havelock's view, any girl or woman who finds herself the victim of a fraternity rape is somehow in the wrong for either drinking alcohol, assuming a man would not commit a violent criminal assault against her, wanting to make out in the first place, getting "sleepy" or not saying "no" in whatever sufficiently "forceful" manner Havelock believes this would-be rapist would apparently respect.
There's so much wrong with Havelock's piece, and the ADN's decision to publish it, that it's difficult to pinpoint exactly where things go wrong. Perhaps it's the manner in which Havelock boldly elevates what a woman chooses to wear over the value of what she has to say. Perhaps it's the manner in which he suggests girls and women don't have "terribly interesting" things to say. Perhaps it's his cautionary message that I shouldn't get too angry about any of it because, hey, it wasn't that far back that women were chattel and men were beating their fists and munching on boar legs over an open fire. Women: Be grateful you're not out there collecting berries. Men: Don't worry if you can't control your anger and don't feel like keeping it in your pants despite the fact that both the woman you're with and the law are telling you to. You can't help it, you're a man!
I love and respect my male friends, family and co-workers. Havelock's insinuation that they have only recently learned to walk upright, let alone understand the word "no" or the bounds of the criminal law generally, is just as demeaning of men as his article is of women. And I'm baffled that someone identified by your paper as a "university scholar" and a former chief legal officer of our state, who writes articles that you frequently publish, thinks this commentary is accurate, interesting or productive.
In an age when our state Legislature is shamefully cutting funding for schools, for public health services and for public safety, and when our state is leading the nation in rates of violence against women, Havelock's piece is an apt reminder of how far we have to go to make our state safer for everyone.
When reading a newspaper, I search for commentaries and articles that help shape political and public discourse and light the path ahead. Havelock's piece is a dark relic of an age long past, and I question your decision to run it.
— Janell Hafner
Juneau
Don't disarm stake-wielders
Maybe if we thought of domestic terrorists as vampires and werewolves we would understand that we need to be ever vigilant and ready to defend ourselves. We would understand we are fighting a war on our home soil and stop feeling so smug about our nonexistent American shield of protection. It's a war. Stop focusing on taking away our wooden stakes and silver bullets. Leaving us defenseless leaves them in charge. And we die.
— Nikishka Stewart
Anchorage
Progressive priorities?
The terrorist attack in Orlando was a horrible event, and any rational American identifies with the victims and their families and wishes them well. Forty-nine innocent people were killed and 50 or so wounded. President Obama is on his way to Orlando as I write this.
However, over the Memorial Day weekend, in the city of Chicago alone, 66 people were murdered and about 150 wounded. Most were African-American. This goes on day after day, year after year. Chicago has in place all the strict anti-gun laws the Dems would like to impose on the rest of us, by the way.
Yet Obama and the progressives make no mention of the carnage in Chicago — why? Could it be because their strict anti-gun laws do not appear to be working? Could it be because they are in charge in Chicago? Could Obama be using this tragedy for his political advantage? Or — I really detest this thought — could it be that black lives really don't matter to Obama and his administration? So sad.
— Michael L. Smulski
Eagle River
Thanks for holding the line
A big thank you to Lora Reinbold for maintaining her core fiscal conservative principles. For the last 10 years the RINOs and Democrats have recklessly, irresponsibly and foolishly expanded the state budget to unsustainable levels. Now they refuse to make meaningful and significant cuts while at the same time demanding we give up the PFD program and face an impending income tax. They went so far as to pass more spending to cover for the failing Obamacare program.
SB 128 was passed by the Senate and thankfully did not make it through the House. Anna MacKinnon voted to pass SB 128, one of the very people who led the reckless spending spree over the last eight to 10 years. She deserves to be canned, or, at the very least, should change her party affiliation to Democrat, since that is exactly how she has conducted herself: Spend recklessly to buy votes like a true Democrat.
— Sam Albanese
Eagle River
Havelock's commentary doesn't belong in the 21st century
John Havelock wrote an opinion piece that reads like it was written in the 19th century. In an attempt to explain the blurred lines between sexual consent and non-consent, he cites the case of the Stanford University man who was convicted of raping an unconscious woman behind a dumpster. The man was convicted of three felonies. I don't see any blurred lines, especially since the woman was unconscious and unable to give consent, and neither did the jury.
This leads Mr. Havelock into a discussion of "women's liberation" and the "battle for equality" — somehow making those issues to blame for sexual assaults. He even offers a scenario of the typical frat party (has he been to one?) where the "tipsy, sleepy (female) invitee" — is he trying to say "drunk"? — had "better be forceful … shouting, hitting if necessary" if she changes her mind about having sex, that she "created the enhanced risk in the first place since in an age of more casual sex, the male is assuming consent."
What utter cynical nonsense.
Unable to stop himself, Mr. Havelock continues to assert that "biologically speaking, men think more about sex and are driven by sexual desire, once aroused, far more than women." His reference to support such absurdity is "Portnoy's Complaint" — a novel. In case he missed it, that means fiction.
I won't address the other ridiculous assertions he makes about how women "ask for it" by the way they dress.
Mr. Havelock should stick to the things he knows and leave psychology, sociology and perhaps an understanding of the law to others.
— Sharon Stockard
Anchorage
Don't mess with Permanent Fund but do levy an income tax
There's $52 billion in our Permanent Fund. What is earned on a $52 billion investment? Six percent? That's $3.12 billion a year. Pay us 3 percent. Some $1.56 billion divided by 700,000 of us is $2,228 per resident based on half of a 6 percent return on investment. Reinvest the other $1.56 billion back into the fund to account for future raises in cost of living and increases in population. This Permanent Fund will never disappear and will always grow unless it is restructured by our governor and Legislature.
Do not base dividends on oil production or price. Base dividends on the earnings of the Permanent Fund. Base future additional contributions to the fund on oil production or price (volatile and dwindling), if there is anything left after paying for state government.
For a steady, dependable source of income to run state government, levy an income tax. An income tax will take all or most of the dividends from those who will miss it the least and who can afford it the most and who will still have the most income left over after the tax, i.e., those with high incomes. Those with little or no income will get to keep all or most of their dividend, and these are the people who need it the most.
An income tax will also finally make those in the oil and fishing industries who work in the state but live elsewhere contribute to the state of Alaska, which provides their livelihood.
I find it disingenuous — and, frankly, immoral — that our governor and Legislature would consider reducing the dividend and reducing the Permanent Fund. They know that plan will affect them the least and affect the poor the most. They were not elected to do what is best for them but to do what is best for us.
— Bill Hearn
Seward
Can we really vote the bums out?
Will the upcoming November state election be one of change or will it be business as usual? With all the clamor about throwing out the "bums" currently down in Juneau in high gear, will voters make the right choices for those willing to make difficult decisions for the good of all Alaskans and not special groups? Or will apathy continue to run rampant among voters as in past elections, and the same type of politicians get a return trip to Juneau?
Gov. Walker's call for a special session to begin in the middle of July will present very interesting situations for incumbents running for re-election.
— Douglas Panilo
Anchorage
Let's define 'park,' folks
Concrete. No grass, no flowers, no trees big enough for shade. Looks like Halcro had a great idea to commandeer maybe a hundred badly needed downtown parking spaces for his "park." What a waste. Let me guess: They're going to call it Andy Halcro Municipal Park.
— Penny Burt
Anchorage
The views expressed here are the writers' own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a letter under 200 words for consideration, email letters@alaskadispatch.com, or click here to submit via any web browser. Submitting a letter to the editor constitutes granting permission for it to be edited for clarity, accuracy and brevity. Send longer works of opinion to commentary@alaskadispatch.com.