How to Be/Not Be a "Nice Guy"

by Sarah Jeanne Lombardo
PCC Sylvania

A group of men gathered several times at my school to discuss the need for a Men's Resource Center on campus. Now, I'm all for Men's Resource Centers as places where fellas can gather to discuss and then change the ways society constructs and maintains gender norms--i.e., that men are perfect and stoic and strong and should beat up anyone who says they're not (which usually means calling them womanly or gay), and women are pretty and polite and accommodating and should never say or do anything offensive (like talk about the ways "being accommodating" harms women). I'm all for MRCs as places where dudes can put together programs that help other dudes be nicer to themselves and women, especially where "be nicer" means stop hating women and gays or anything about themselves that could be considered womanly or gay.

From what I hear, some of the discussions have been about how unhealthy these gender roles are. But most of the conversations have been about the ways that men are made to feel bad about being men. The example that keeps coming up is a poster (full disclosure: I co-created this poster) for a school-sponsored play that discussed how women are treated on campus after sexual assault, and how these create an unfriendly atmosphere for women in higher ed. The poster featured a close-up shot of a man with very "angry hands" taking off his belt, presumably to assault someone, either physically or sexually (and yes, I know the latter encompasses the former). Below the image was the quote "1 in 3 college men say they would rape a woman if they thought they could get away with it."*

The discussion regarding this posters often consisted of "this poster says all men want to rape women, and I don't rape women, so this if unfair." Of course, that's not what the poster said, and if anything is unfair, it's the stuff women do on a daily basis to protect themselves from rape, or the things guys get away with because women are afraid they might get attacked if they say something, but I do see how men who don't rape might get itchy when they believe someone is calling them a rapist. Unfortunately, the discussion rarely veered toward "what can we do about it," and when it did, the answer was never "ask men why they might feel rape is something you don't do because it's illegal, not because it's wrong--and then work on ways they can stop."

The answer was either "get women to stop saying these things" or "we should prove to women that we're the nice guys." While the former was just dangerous--if we don't say these things we don't get any closer to stopping these things from happening--the latter was really misguided. The group pondered volunteering at a shelter for raped and/or battered women. When, afterward, one of the participants asked me how I felt about it, I didn't really offer an opinion, but I did wonder aloud if men were even allowed to volunteer at shelters, since women might want to recover from the trauma of their male partners' violence in the absence of males. His response was a kinda sorta chest-thumpy "but I'm not her husband...she needs to see that I'm a nice guy!"

This was frustrating for multiple reasons--the most important being it was just plain selfish. Dudes should work with survivors of domestic and sexual violence because they want to help women become empowered after a thoroughly horrifying experience, not because they want to look good. Moreover, if the space they want to work in doesn't really work well if they're there, and they refuse to accept a policy that addresses this, they are failing to recognize the importance and validity of a safe space. In failing this, they reaffirm the idea they should be welcome into any space on their terms. Barging into a space to say they're not the barging-in type isn't really nice. The first thing guys have to do to prove they're nice is listen to women when they say they're doing it wrong.

Now, I understand that this argument is hard to swallow--what's the difference between not allowing men into a shelter and not allowing women into the military, or blacks onto a golf course? What's the point of sheltering women from men, when they're just going to be encountering men in their daily lives once they get out of the shelter? Et cetera. I don't agree with these lines of thinking, but I know it takes a lot of education to get away from them, so I don't push it. I did, however, impress this:

Women don't just want nice guys to prove they're nice guys, they want nice guys to help other less-than-nice guys be nice guys. There are a lot of spaces that work with survivors of domestic and sexual violence, but not nearly enough places that work with perpetrators of sexual and domestic violence. Men need to create these spaces, and better yet, create spaces where they can discuss with other non-perpetrators ways they might develop perpetrator-y tendencies, before they actually get to perpetrating. Something like.....a Men's Resource Center, informed by feminism, and for the betterment of men and women and everyone outside and in-between! HUZZAH!


*Some places the 1-in-3 statistic has been published:


Fisher, B., and J. Sloan III (1995). Campus Crime: Legal, Social and Policy Perspectives. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas.

Koss M.P., Dinero, T.E., Seibel, C.A. Stranger and acquaintance rape: Are there differences in the victim's experience? Psychology of Women Quarterly. 1988:12:1-24.

Malamuth N.M. Rape proclivity among males. J Soc Issues. 1981;37:138-157.

Why Does SHAC Need to Know?

by Mariya Stangl

So, a few days ago I was in SHAC to get an annual women's health exam and I was asked to fill out an intake worksheet asking me different questions about my health. Most questions were pretty standard but there were a few questions that I didn't feel comfortable answering and wasn't quite sure how they related to my exam. There were a couple that I didn't answer but the one that stood out the most was a question that asked me to fill in every bubble of the people I'd had sexual contact with, male, female or both. I asked my doctor about why some of these questions were relevant to my exam and she responded with a generic answer about how SHAC is concerned about the overall health of it's students and that these questions were aimed to discover to the overall health and wellness of it's students. Which is a perfectly good answer but I still don't understand why they would need to know who I was being sexually active with to determine my health. Especially since the most highly infected population with HIV is no longer single gay males, but married heterosexual females. That is the only explanation I could come up with and it still doesn't make any sense. Of course there was a disclaimer at the bottom of the sheet that said I didn't HAVE to answer any questions that made me uncomfortable (and I didn't) but I was still asked the same questions by my doctor, who also claimed these questions weren't for insurance or survey reasons. I want to know why, specifically, I was asked this particular question and if there isn't a good answer I would like to move to get this form reconstructed for the peace and wellness of PSU students who do not feel comfortable disclosing this confidential and often times difficult information.

What do you think about SHAC asking its students about the gender of their sexual partners?

Eyes Wide Open: A Woman's Work

by Talia Jae

I began my training today with the new Women's Center advocates. Great first day. Everyone is really enthusiastic, excited and eager to contribute to the conversations. That is wonderful in my opinion. We discussed a lot of housekeeping stuff and what the women's center does, as well as what feminism means.

Bell Hooks says, "Feminism is a movement to end sexism." We took a look at what that means. Issues such as body image, sex, parenting, work, wages, marriage, childcare, etc... are on the list of women's issues that we see a lot of oppression through sexism. This list spawned a lot of discussion around what these particular issues might mean and how they are used as a form of oppression to women.

Three of the words stuck out to me in particular. Work, Parenting and Childcare. I am a mother of two small children and a wife. I am also a student and an employee/coordinator. I embody many roles in my life. The combination of parent and employee is a tough one though, for women. When you are partnered and both parents work outside of the home it makes childcare difficult. Childcare is insanely expensive anyway and arranging it to fit your particular needs is another obstacle. This requires a lot of juggling between the parents.

I know from many women's experiences, including my own, that when the mother has a job as well it is often seen as expendable. What I mean is this; when my child is sick and needs to come home from school it is completely expected that I will be the one to leave work and pick them up. When childcare cannot be arranged I am the one to stay home for the day. If childcare is too expensive then it is assumed that the woman will stay home and care for the children while the man goes to work.

Now by no means is this the rule. There are many households with many unique situations and struggles of their own. I am just touching on society's traditional view of marriage, children and parenting roles. Why is it that the woman is expected to drop her work and run home if need be? If a man were asked to do this more often than not it would probably come as a shock to them. Women's work has always been seen as expendable, less valued, underpaid or not paid at all. After having children this really became apparent to me.

We women are not treated as equals to men. Sure, we have come a long way in the last hundred years but lets not ignore the work that still needs to be done. The more we acknowledge society's oppression the more we can work against it. Lets stop assuming these roles we have been boxed into and start talking about why the box is there.

I, for one, am getting claustrophobic.

Staff Submission: Call it what it is

Call it what it is:

This morning on OPB, I heard a story about a man who shot and killed a civilian woman working at the Fort Lewis PX, then shot himself. The reporter cited the woman's mom, who told investigators that the shooter was the woman's ex-partner, that they had broken up seven months ago, but that he "wouldn't let her go" and "threatened to kill himself". This clearly illustrates the fact that this was a domestic violence fatality. Despite this information, the reporter said that investigators are not clear on the "motive" for the killing. The words "domestic violence" were not used once - and checking the New York Times and the Oregonian, neither paper is naming this as a domestic violence fatality.

The WSCADV Fatality Review Project cites recent separation as a significant factor in domestic violence fatalities: "In at least 47% of the homicides committed by a
domestic violence abuser in Washington state, the victim had left, divorced, or
separated from the abuser, or was attempting to leave or break up with the abuser at
the time of the murder. In a Florida study, 60% of the women killed were separated or
in the process of leaving"

They also found that "firearms were the most common weapon used in domestic violence homicides" and that homicide-suicides "comprised a significant portion of domestic violence homicides."

Stalking behavior, threats of suicide, recent separation, and gun ownership - all red flags for lethality within the context of domestic violence. I hope the investigators name this situation for what it is, and that the media follow suit - we can't effectively support survivors or move forward in ending domestic violence if we don't acknowledge how lethal it can be.

PSU: Capstone Creates Sexual Assault Awareness PSA

The previous SheSheet incarnation at wordpress still lives.

The old SheSheet can be found at this location: http://www.wrc.pdx.edu/shesheet/wordpress/

Eyes Wide Open: Will the dominant one please stand up?

by Talia Jae Potter

I have joined twitter... I caved in. I am finding it quite interesting because, instead of using it as yet another social network, I am following news media that is unbiased and groups or people who discuss topics that are close to me.

One such person I added admits to being a feminist man and thinks strong, driven women are great and likes to be the submissive one in the relationship. I don't know this guy but he does have some interesting points to make. So we struck up a conversation about dominance in relationships....

His opinion was that women deserve to be the dominant leader in the relationship and for a lot of men this is attractive. He states that gender roles are an issue and media peg holes us into stereotypes. I agree somewhat with him but asked this....

"Why does there need to be a dominant person in the relationship?"

His response was that women who are natural leaders and men who are submissive are a good match. I guess I can see how this is true. Two highly competitive leaders in a relationship could get ugly when it turns into a competition for success. It could also be a power-house couple.

But in reality wouldn't a relationship with two EQUAL partners be best? Idealistic at best but it seems to me that there is this strong push, on both sides of the topic, for one or the other gender to dominate, leaving the other to submit. Relationships are full of moments where one person may take over and the other backs down but I would like to think that equals, no matter the gender, sexuality, etc.., would be the most successful in their partnership.

This whole dominance vs submission argument reminds me of another hot topic: Why does there have to be good vs bad?

Why can't we just be......