(the slides will rotate)

RAPE PREVENTION EDUCATION: ONE SIZE DOES not FIT ALL

Where Women, Media, Rape and Feminism Collide
Indiana University Bloomington Study # 06-11476

• Last Spring I obtained IRB approval to interview the high school students who
participated in the program that I will tell you about. I had previous data (that I
will show you) in the form of new paper articles and media reaction to the group.

• The methodology behind the pedagogy of the program and the research was
participant action (I will explain it if you want to hear more about this method).
Grows out of a response to current CDC implemented rape prevention programs,
which address only heteronormative youth through the rhetoric of choice.

• What it was: Essentially, based on the premise that concept retention rates
increase by exposing students to a concept repetitively in different ways (James,
1967), in 2006 Chris Martin and I developed and implemented a feminist rape
intervention curriculum to be articulated through the lens of feminist activism
(participant action). I am going to tell you about the broad social context for
Project HOW and some of the specific outcomes.

Before transitioning into college where incidents of date rape skyrocket, young

women trained in feminist violence intervention techniques (participant action) are better

prepared for the challenges of college life and may be more likely to engage in civic

activities on campus. Many college aged young women are confronted with a new and

independent environment for the first time and may not have the skills to recognize or

confront sexual harassment or sexual assault, or even sexism, which is why colleges offer

necessary and helpful programming for their students, like theatre based improvisational

programs designed to raise awareness about sexual harassment or sexual assault [at EOU

it was called sex signals]. These programs may be the first point of contact with

representations of “appropriate” or somewhat responsible sexual conduct.

There is a necessity for mentoring and educating younger women about rape and

sexual assault before they reach the “traditional” college age; statistics that indicate up to

58% of middle school students are sexually active (Brown et al. 2006, p. 1429). Rape

1
prevention education in the United States is not a priority subject in the development and

implementation of high school curricula, despite national studies which indicate that

more than two million adolescents have been victimized by sexual violence (statistics

from Sauders et al, 2003). Rather than focusing on human relationships, adolescent

sexuality[1], and the prevention of violence in high schools, the federal government in

2006 gave more than $176 million toward the promotion of abstinence education in high

school curricula (U.S. House of Representatives, 2004). Many high schools avoid “sex

education” altogether—what I mean by this is basic biological discussions about the

sexual reproductive process—instead, abstinence only programs teach children to MAKE

THE CHOICE to “avoid sexual activities” altogether (U.S. House of Representatives,

2004). Children are taught to make the choice to remain abstinent until marriage, and the

heteronormative nuclear family is “preserved” under this rubric.

In addition to avoiding sticky issues such as sexual transmitted diseases and

bastard pregnancies, abstinence only education avoids the issue of teenage sexuality, in

direct opposition to statistics that indicate up to 58% of middle school students are

sexually active (Brown et al. 2006, p. 1429). Kids are sexually active, but they are not

learning about sexual activity in school. They are learning about it from somewhere.

Jane Brown (2006), a professor of Journalism and Mass Communication at U. North

Carolina, found that every young American spends about six to seven hours with some

form of media per day and claims there may be a correlation between early teen sexual

activity and the media saturated United States culture; [big gasp!<---sarcasm] while two

thirds of television shows contain sexual content, these media sources do not usually

promote nor teach “responsible behavior” (p. 34, 35, 36). Imagery is highly sexual and
[

2
often violent. Brown (2004) concluded there is reason to believe that high rates of media

exposure correlate to “increased callousness toward women and trivializes rape as a

criminal offense” (p. 40).

So, children are functioning in a sex-rich culture, which often sexualizes violence

against women, teens and pre-teens are having sexual experiences, and yet are not taught

basic knowledge about sexual and social responsibility. In light of Brown’s 2006 study,

abstinence only education seems irresponsible considering the statistics indicating that

children are increasingly victimized by sexual violence and that one in four women and

young girls are raped. However, a report from the U.S. House of Representatives (2004)

indicates that more than “$90 million in federal funding” has been allocated since 2001 to

sixty-nine grantees (electronic resource)—this averages to more than one million dollars

per grantee for abstinence only high school “sex education.”

So, sexuality is avoided in high schools, but monogamy is expected. Kids are

supposed to make the choice to remain abstinent and avoid social situations, like

pregnancy….problem solved. This is the power of the rhetoric of free choice. So, when

a young woman gets pregnant, she is stigmatized by a paradigm that frowns upon

promiscuity, but she not allowed the freedom to “make the choice” to terminate the

pregnancy. She is merely irresponsible: we taught her to make good choices in school.

This rhetoric of choice seems avoids gendered power dynamics altogether, as the blame

is focused on girls and women for their poor choices. Within the United States, there is

still a great structural tendency to place focus on young women and their behavior rather

than allowing them to examine the short-comings of a system that values women for their

3
reproduction and "feminine attributes" while disallowing discussion of choice and control

over their own bodies.

Violence prevention education is available outside the school environment within

the programming of non profit organizations, like domestic violence shelters, with federal

funding from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The current rape

prevention campaign from the CDC, which has been adapted by many domestic violence

shelters nation wide, is called "Choose Respect. Give it. Get it” (Chooserespect.org,

2006). This violence prevention campaign is a heteronormative model implying on its

surface that respecting boundaries leads to personal safety: rape, then, is a result of

making the wrong interpersonal decisions, or rather a penalty for poor choices, much like

“teen” pregnancy. Rape as perceived through the lens of the CDC reduces sexual

violence to a product of partner or dating abuse ignoring structural problems, like

gendered violence, altogether.

Abstinence only education—make the choice to remain sexually pure until

marriage—paired with federally funded mass media “violence prevention” propaganda

such as the CDC’s “Expect Respect” Campaign reinforces the rhetoric of “choice.”

“Prevention” insinuates that violence against women is preventable if only the “proper

choices” about behavior are made. This is how the blame the victim paradigm works to

silence and minimize the problem of sexism and gendered violence. Girls and young

women under this rubric are the responsible parties for a myriad of social malaise.

What is unique about a feminist approach to the “problem” with violence is that it

takes the focus off of the individual—the woman, the potential victim—and places it

back on to structural issues. We teach girls and young women that they do not make the

4
choice to be raped, no one does, but that one out of every four of them is likely be raped,

especially once they reach college (both of us were victims on the college campus that

most of the girls will attend in their rural area). The curriculum is based on feminist

principles of social justice and gender equity and we focus on the integration of these

concepts with practice though feminist activism. Through consciousness raising, a basic

feminist principle, (ie, participation in activism—participant action research) the girls

learned to recognize the factors that contribute to the stigmatization of women and

victimization in general and to interrupt that cycle by holding young men, politics, media,

and other participants in the social structure accountable. Project H.O.W. women turn

the rhetoric of choice on its head and demand accountability for violence against women.

Project H.O.W. is not a violence prevention program. It is a violence intervention

program.

During the initial class in January 2006, Project H.O.W. students were provided

with definitions of healthy mutual, respectful, consensual relationships versus unhealthy

relationships based on power and control. Each of the young women in attendance self

identified as feminists during group introductions. The young women determined the

pace of the class and developed project goals as a group rather than being presented with

a pre-determined class to class curriculum.

The initial five or six meetings were held in a classroom as discussion groups and

focused on actively teaching about basic feminist theory through the framework of

popular culture. For example, one class focused specifically on iconization and

advertising. Using Britney Spears as a starting point our students spent twenty to thirty

minutes in a computer lab looking for different ways that Spears was constructed as a

5
social icon. These media focused activities inspired two Project H.O.W. sophomores to

write an expose’ article for their school newspaper entitled “Is This Equality?”

During the month of March 2006 Project H.O.W. moved out of the classroom and

into the community. H.O.W. students were invited to the local university to organize a

“talk back” panel presentation after the opening production of Eve Ensler’s play The

Good Body. Project H.O.W students developed partnerships with the university Gay,

Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered and Questioning Alliance and the Women’s Research

and Resource Center and invited representatives from each organization to join them on

the panel.

The feminist methodology of human liberation, as articulated by Baumgardner

and Richards (2000, p. 5), was the inspiration to include other marginalized groups in the

“talk back” forum. One H.O.W. student said “I think that the Body Project was a very

useful activity because it gave everyone a chance to talk and compare different issues and

opinions” (Indiana University Bloomington Study # 06-11476). Initially projects were

organized for H.O.W. students as teaching models, but eventually the students took on

the organizational roles themselves and as the students became more involved in the

community, Project H.O.W. received media coverage.

Over the course of the five months that this feminist activist group was in session,

six of the young women identified as survivors of sexual assault: one third of the women

in Project H.O.W. were survivors of rape. During the emotional final session, one young

woman confessed that she had been victimized and that Project H.O.W. made her realize

that she is a “survivor, and [that she] no longer had to feel like a victim”; she said Project

H.O.W. taught “me how to control my energy and independence and the skill to open my

6
eyes, and to actually be able to voice my opinion about what I want as a woman, and as a

citizen of our system” (Indiana University Bloomington Study #06-11476).

Cierra Olivia Thomas-Williams

Gender Studies Department
Indiana University-Bloomington

The Road Through R.P.E. (Rape Prevention Education)

The journey that I have taken through Rape Prevention Education activism has
been profound, arduous, and rewarding (if you can believe that all happened at the same
time). Despite the twists and turns along this path, the journey has always been worth it.
My co-facilitator, Cierra Thomas, and myself have learned a great deal about the
dynamics of mentorship, creative and collaborative learning (including mixed gender
learning), and the importance of “passing the torch” to our students.

The Center for Disease Control or “C.D.C.” has provided, “more than $42 million in
funding to support rape prevention activities in all 50 states, 8 territories, and the District
of Columbia.”# Kristen Houser of the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence
describes the C.D.C.’s funding as a national wide effort to “address sexual violence as a
preventable community problem.”# According to a survey (National Violence Against
Women Survey) conducted by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the
Institute of Justice, “1 in 6 women and one in 33 men have been victims of a completed
or attempted rape at come point in their lifetime.” Further, according to the survey more
than half of all “[lifetime rapes occur before age 18]". In approximately 8 out of 10 cases
(83%), the victim knew the perpetrator." These statistics lend very important points of
consideration both in the field of sexual violence advocacy as well as in the creation and
guidelines of a Rape Prevention Education for young people.
Role Models and Federal Logic
Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary approaches are all important
considerations when interpreting the overall outlook of prevention. Through the Center
for Disease Control and Prevention, Rape Prevention Education efforts revolve around
the concept that prevention is "central to the field of public health." The crux of CDC
prevention funding and outreach focuses on primary prevention and how "basic health
principals can be applied to programmatic decision making". The CDC lens is therefore
largely focused on primary prevention, a rather impractical approach on it's own. .
Primary Prevention refers to educational "approaches that take place before sexual
violence has occurred to prevent initial perpetration or victimization"1. Whereas
secondary and tertiary prevention focus on the response to a victim/survivor after they
have encounter sexual violence--secondary being the immediate response after sexual
violence has occurred to deal with the consequences of violence in short term while

1
http://72.14.205.104/search?
q=cache:OH8X0o1_NWAJ:www.cdphe.state.co.us/pp/injuryprevention/CDCRapePreventionEducationPri
orities.pdf+primary+and+secondary+prevention+in+rape+prevention+education&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&g
l=us

7
tertiary refers to the long-term responses after sexual violence has occurred to deal with
the lasting consequences of violence and sex offender treatment primary prevention
tenets focus on stopping violence before it starts2-Throughout my experience as a rape
prevention education facilitator and a sexual assault advocate, I have come to recognize
that with 1 out of 6 women who are sexually assaulted throughout the United States (1-4
in the age group that Cierra and I were instructing), 3secondary and tertiary prevention
becomes just as important if not a critical consideration when developing a rape
prevention education program.
I found secondary and tertiary instruction to be lacking in the Expect
Respect program --the program my shelter's CDC grant representatives recommended I
offer young women (ages 14-19) in my Rape Prevention Education group. While
information included in Expect Respect program offered the important elementary basics
such as: dating expectations, defining abuse and respect, domination versus equality, sex-
role stereotypes, jealousy and control, cycles of violence, warning signs, dating Rights
and Responsibilities, owning your sexuality, assertive communication, tips on ending a
relationship, it lacked some of the depth and breadth needed in order to provide support
to young women located at a point in their lives where they may be responding to or
processing sexual violence… and there is a great likelihood at any given time we may be
mentoring and assisting a survivor--whether self-identified or anonymous.
While approaching the topics of survivorship may be within the comfort level of
feminist pedagogy--"called it applied theory" or "theory in practice"-- Ms. Thomas and I
have found it to be difficult to approach some public schools systems that often formally
require mentor/facilitators to have safe/quantifiable success with their programs;
quantifiable success being demonstrated with positive evaluations, standardization, and
assured contend and delivery systems that offer proof of our school system's capabilities
to providing safe/educational merit. In essence, public schools have to take into
consideration time, resources, and liability considerations that had great potential to stifle
activism and advocacy around sexual assault survivorship issues…widely considered an
"off the wall topic."
As a sexual assault advocate, I have personal experience and knowledge of
research that solidifies the fact that the majority of young women who have been
impacted by sexual violence in the past are at greater risk of re-victimized at some point
in the future. Therefore, there is great importance in establishing a curriculum (and
remember, curriculum also refers to the environment and collaboration that takes place
during a teachable moment) that creates a safe, confidential, consensual environment that
educates young people about the psychological consequences of Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder or PTSD, Vicarious Trauma, information about supporting a victim of sexual
assault, the importance of active coping, and information about how to seek emotional
support and advocacy (some of our students have gone on to be peer mentors and SART
[Sexual Assault Response Team Educators] for their local high school) as well as
providing options and information about being "as safe as they possibly can be." This is
why it is important to explore all modes of prevention. Although the best case scenario is
2
ibid
3
Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Rape Prevention and Education Program Grant at a Glance.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/pdf/RPE%20AAG.pdf accessed: June 19,2007.

8
to stop violence before it starts, there are several young people that have already
experienced this violence that need support, encouragement, and the tools to heal when
they feel comfortable conveying these experiences.
Another important consideration when selecting or creating a program is that it is
very difficult to find a pre-packaged delivery system that appeals to teens. Project
H.O.W. was created out of the intent to provide safe, honest, interactive, creative,
collaborative, and mobile opportunities for students to be highly active their
communities. Ms. Thomas and I had a goal of creating a program that would provide
activism opportunities, information, and support under an empowering feminist model
that would assist us--as instructors--and students to pass knowledge as well as the
leadership touch. Project H.O.W. was created out of the goal that young women can be
role models, mentors, and support systems to both their male and female peers as well as
themselves.
We also wanted a program that would appeal to both "disenfranchised" as well as
"mainstream" youth. Although it is easy to make the assumption that youth cutting
school, smoking dope, or engaging in other "high risk behaviors" are the obvious
perpetrators, both myself and my co-workers have advocated for youth, and have noticed
a pattern that "disenfranchised youth" are by in large not the offenders but the victims.
This concept can be reinforced when examining power structures in institutions like
public schools. There has to be consideration of the stratified/ hierarchical power
systems created inside school clicks and subcultures (as well as how this may be
consciously or unconsciously reinforced by educators, administrators, and faculty). In
schools, established "power players" (those that have established power and influence
among there peers) are more likely to offend while youth exposed to domestic and sexual
violence need support, information, and tools that offer healthy/anti-oppressive models.
This being said Ms. Thomas, and I were very aware of the fact that we needed to
have a neutral/non-threatening environment and create activities where young people
would feel comfortable examining there similarities and differences as strengths that
would benefit their collaborative activism. We realized that it would be very difficult to
have a individualized, mind-ful, largely student motivated program based on a capitalistic
model. So we drew from our knowledge, acquired information, and experience with
what appeared to be effective and ineffective and began creative Project H.O.W., a
violence intervention program.