Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Jane Doe Inc.’s Statement on the Gubernatorial Race

By

First the why.  Jane Doe has a history of speaking out when we believe an advertisement for a product or service is offensive, hurtful or exploitive to victims and survivors of violence or is an unfair representation of the dynamics of sexual and domestic violence.  For instance, this past summer, we called upon Building #19 to remove its description of tank-tops as “wife beaters.”  Several years ago we mobilized a campaign to get the Boston Phoenix to stop running promotions for their personal ads that minimized the seriousness of domestic violence and restraining orders.  The misleading content of the Healey ad required a similar response. 

Our concern with these ads is four-fold: 

1)  We acknowledge the very real problem and fear of stranger rape, but at the same time we cannot deny, dismiss or minimize that sexual assault and rape is approximately 8 times more likely to be committed by someone who knows the victim.  What we take exception to in Healey’s ad is her decision to use a fear-mongering approach rather than focusing on real solutions. By choosing these images, Healey plays on our worst fears – as women, as men, as parents, friends, colleagues – by promoting this terrible myth that women are in most danger walking alone at night when in reality they are most in danger in their own home, on a date or with someone who professes to love them.  Anyone who claims to be a victim advocate or a champion for victims’ rights or even has the most remote understanding of victims’ issues wouldn’t do this. 

2)  While we know that not every victim will experience these ads in the same way, we have heard from numerous advocates, counselors and survivors themselves that the messages in Kerry Healey’s ad terrifies victims and discourages them from reporting the crime, seeking support or participating in the criminal justice system.  For years we’ve understood  from survivors that menacing images (e.g. clenched fists, black eyes, bruises) in awareness or other materials often evoke flashbacks and interfere with healing, with current relationships and with job performance. Sexual violence is the least reported and least indicted crime.  Less than 16% of all rapes are reported to police.  We do not need to create additional barriers for victims to overcome when deciding how to heal and to seek help from systems that should hold the offender accountable. 

3)  The baiting question in Healey’s second ad on this subject asks:  “Have you ever heard a woman compliment a rapist?”  The true answer is “Yes” and anyone with any experience in this field or with an understanding of the dynamics of sexual and domestic violence knows why.  Rapists and batterers are skilled manipulators; many rapists are otherwise loved community members; domestic violence batterers are often upstanding members of the community; they are members of our families, our co-workers, our neighbors and our fellow congregants. Survivors often struggle with having positive – indeed loving feelings – for the person who abused them and betrayed their trust.  Portrayals of rapists and batterers as strangers perpetuate myths that close down dialogue and keep victims further isolated.  A comment like this only serves to continue to blame victims for the insidious nature of sexual assault.

4)  The questions we should be asking are: Why does rape happen?  What societal and cultural norms foster tolerance about rape?  What can men and others do to challenge these norms?  Not surprisingly when raising these questions, Jane Doe Inc. has been called a “crazy bunch of man haters” on local talk radio shows.  These claims must be exposed for what they are:  an attempt to undermine our credibility with slander and a challenge to the masculinity of any man who speaks up for victims and aligns themselves with victim advocates. 

As advocates for victims’ rights, we call upon candidates for all levels of government – from governor and district attorney to the legislature and school board – to stop the fear-mongering and focus on real solutions.  We urge every voter to consider these issues when going to the polls:

1)  Does the candidate have a full understanding of the impact of a violent society?

2)  Does the candidate articulate solutions that are rooted in communities and neighborhoods – the places where social norms are anchored and reinforced?

3)  Does the candidate support increased funding to support a robust network of rape crisis, domestic violence and stalking services for all victims, families and communities – including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people, immigrants and refugees, people with disabilities, the elderly and others?

4)  Does the candidate have a record of setting a tone where victims are listened to and respected?

5)  Does the candidate support legislation that will create a broader array of legal options for victims of sexual assault and stalking who are currently denied the fullest protection under the law?

6)  Does the candidate support “Patrick’s Law” which would allow a child to sever legal ties with a parent who is convicted of murdering the child’s other parent?

7)  Does the candidate have the skills, experience and vision to align best practices for police, prosecutor and judicial training to ensure that the effectiveness of the justice system in supporting victims and holding offenders accountable?

8)  Does the candidate support or oppose proposals from Father’s Rights groups to replace the current standard for “best interest of the child” in cases of child custody and visitation which would further endanger victims and children? 

9)  Does the candidate support or oppose Governor Romney’s proposal to grant state law enforcement officials with the power to enforce immigration laws that will deter even more victims of crime from seeking help from police and the judicial system?

Domestic and sexual violence tears apart so many families, and our elected officials have the capacity to affect change that will have a tremendous impact on Massachusetts.  The social and policy issues that sustain violence and what we can do to stop it deserve to be front and center as election topics and dinner conversations.  We stand with victims and survivors because we know that blaming or baiting victims and victims’ families or salacious headlines will get us nowhere.

========================================================================

Comments and questions can be directed to:

Toni K. Troop

Director of Development and Public Relations

Jane Doe Inc.

14 Beacon Street, Suite 507

Boston, MA  02108

Direct:  617-557-1807

Fax: 617-248-0902

 

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Thank you, Jane Doe Inc., for explaining so well and so fully why ads like those of the Kerry Healey campaign tend to distort the issues. One would think a “career criminologist” would know better.

  2. I consider myself somewhat enlightened when it comes to issues of gender and gender violence (as compared to the average person on the street, anyway), but I, too, need refreshing on the of the points made by Toni Troop above.

    <

    p>
    As for JBurns comment that Healy should know better, I agree.  Whith a Ph.D., I guaruntee she knows better, but she took a gamble to get elected. 

    • tblade, I felt the same way when I read the statement. Even though I care very much about domestic violence – an issue that is misunderstood – I hadn’t thought of the implications of the ad until I read the statement.

  3. I received this email a while back. I certainly wasn’t in favor of Healey, but reading it made me truly sad. Because Healey’s approach is actually hurting women.

    <

    p>
    If she doesn’t know better, then she’s not qualified to deal with these issues. If she does know better, but she ran these ads anyway, that’s even worse, as it shows she doesn’t mind hurting people in order to win the race.

    <

    p>
    I can’t help but wonder why she wants to be governor. Maybe I’m naive, but I don’t know what the point is if you’re not using your position to help the people of Massachusetts.

    • Is the original post intended to influence a political outcome?  Close to election, message generally in oppostion to one candidate with no moderating views, specifically mentioning campaign ads and names.

      <

      p>
      The organization is ‘non-partisan’.  I reckon I should forward this post to the IRS-Charities Division for their opinion.  Might want to familarize yourself with factsheet 2002-10 and 2006-16 and IR 2006-36.

      • Gary,

        <

        p>
        I got this email, second hand, quite a while ago. I don’t remember when. So the timing isn’t as relevant as it appears.

        <

        p>
        It was clear to me from the tone and phrasing that they were not intending to endorse any candidate (don’t forget, there are four altogether) but that they were genuinely and deeply concerned about the implications of this ad, and the effect it may have on women who are victims of date rape or marital rape, who are embarrassed about reporting these crimes.

        <

        p>
        It’s a serious issue, and shouldn’t be taken lightly. They point out how the ad is even more inappropriate than it appears.

        <

        p>
        Janet

        • If you got this ‘quite a while ago’ – why does it reference an ad that has been on TV for about a week?

          <

          p>
          (Which I deplore, myself – but as bad politics)

    • Peter,

      <

      p>
      The articles you link to don’t justify the harm she did in the ad. I would encourage you to really read the statement Jane Doe made. It’s thoughtful and thorough. I believe that what they said really needed to be said.

      <

      p>
      I wish you wouldn’t minimize Jane Doe’s statement by reducing it to a superficial attempt to be against the GOP. This isn’t about “marginalizing GOPs” it’s about helping us to understand an important and serious situation.

        • The statement was emailed to me more recently than I had thought – Friday, October 20.

          <

          p>
          Are you saying they shouldn’t make statements to protect victims just because it might be interpreted as back-stabbing of a candidate? Your statements are so unfair and so lacking in a deeper appreciation of what’s at stake here, that I won’t reply to you any further.

          • Key factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
            • Whether  the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office;
            • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval for one or more candidates’ positions and/or actions;
            • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election;
            • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election;
            • Whether the issue addressed in the communication has been raised as an issue distinguishing candidates for a given office;
            • Whether the communication is part of an ongoing series of communications by the organization on the same issue that are made independent of the timing of any election; and
            • Whether the timing of the communication and identification of the candidate are related to a non-electoral event such as a scheduled vote on specific legislation by an officeholder who also happens to be a candidate for public office.

            <

            p>
            You make your own decision whether or not their published statement is in violation of Federal law. 

            <

            p>
            I’ll make sure the IRS has a say.

            • the statement by Jane Doe, Inc., does not even come close to a violation. I find it sad that the Republican party now has two tactics it uses to try to win campaigns:  vicious personl attack ads that distort the truth and threats. I cannot believe that anyone would not understand and be concerned about the points raised by Jane Doe, Inc. Your only reaction is to threaten a group that helps out victims of sexual assault and domestic violence?!! 

              <

              p>
              I think Kerry Healey got some bad advice in her campaign from some “professional” campaign consultants who hopefully will have to find some other line of work after the election is over.  It is really too bad for the voter, because this campaign should have been about the issues.  I support Deval Patrick, but I do think Kerry Healey is smart and concerned about issues that are important to people.  Unfortunately, due to her decision to turn nasty, she was never able to show the voters that side of her. I also think her consultants underestimated the voters and Deval Patrick. 

  5. The ads were reprehensible.  Jane Doe, Inc., has every right to pursue their mission to advocate for and protect victims.  The comments that I read from Peter and Gary reveal their ignorance which is apparently shared by the republican candidates and their campaign. 
    How about the question on funding?  Healey masticates about victims and rapists yet the funding is, where?  His Mittness frequently said “the devil is in the details” during their first year in office (does he pay in-state or out-of-state taxes?), well folks the proof is in the pudding and she is either clueless or sinister (desperation!) about the psychological effects of her ad campaign.  A PhD. means squat without heart and soul.  I’m hoping she just doesn’t have a clue….either way she isn’t qualified for the position of CEO of the Commonwealth.  Should’ve used the campaign money to fund some shelters for battered women and children.  That would have been useful.

Archives