The "Gun's Don't Kill People..." Chorus in a World Where MSM Can't Donate Blood

One thing we can count on since the events of Charleston, SC is a renewal in the gun-control debate.

No doubt you’ve heard about the recent act of terror committed by Dylann Roof.  What you might be unaware of is that for his birthday he received money which he used to buy a gun. Yes, the gun itself was not the gift.  The gun, which he used to murder 9 people, was purchased before the act of violence, but after two arrests earlier this year.  Both charges were misdemeanors, however due to the nature of the behavior and the proximity to the date of purchase, both should have been factors in the sale.  A misdemeanor still goes in your record for at least two years.

Does anyone else think it’s a little absurd that you could be arrested twice, and then less than 6 months later go out and buy a gun? 

If not, you should. 

Not because you ought to feel one way or another about gun control, but because the ability to buy a gun this close in proximity to two arrests is inconsistent with how our government and how we as a people handle public health risks.

Let me break this down.

First of all, regardless of your stance on how guns should be regulated, we can all agree that gun violence is a public health issue.  By that, I mean that the frequency of violence in our communities causes injury and death can be addressed and solved through education, community changes and programs.

Consider then how we handle another public health risk, HIV/AIDS.  One of the many intervention that our government uses to prevent the spread of HIV is by not allowing any man who has ever had sex with another man from donating blood.  A policy, that has just been reviewed by the FDA and upheld, bars gay men and other men who have had sex with men from donating blood in an effort to limit HIV transmission.  Participating in a risk activity even once is enough to prevent an entire group of people from donating blood for their entire life.

Stop and reflect on this world we live in.  Our government, and many individuals, believe that it’s too risky to let a man who had sex with another man in 1978 (a year into the beginning of the AIDS epidemic) donate blood.  Yet, I could be arrested for a drug charge, and a trespassing charge (which involved me dressing in all black and making strange comments) and buy a gun a few months later.

Perhaps you think that the punishment doesn’t fit the crime; being a drug user doesn’t imply that you are going to be a murderer.   Well, having sex with a man doesn’t imply you are going to get HIV… but the government still seems happy with making that assumption, with some deal of public support.

For so long now, the chorus “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” has been shouted over the debate.  In many ways it’s a chorus of individual responsibility: most gun owners are responsible people, we shouldn’t limit access to guns simply because a small portion of individuals used them irresponsibly.

Applying this same logic to blood donation and you get the opposite of FDA Policy.  The policy does not seem to value the individual responsibility of men who have sex with men and instead holds the entire group responsible for (yet to happen) deliberate contamination of the blood supply.  Worse yet, this injustice is committed in the face of technology that can easily test the blood for HIV, eliminating the risk of anyone HIV+ donating blood without knowing their status.

Just as blood donation is a potential avenue for HIV transmission, guns are an avenue for violence transmission.  The only difference between is that we need blood, blood saves lives.  Yet we shrug off blood shortages and say “bring on the guns!”  An entire population is barred from saving lives due to a preventable risk that could have happened 37 years ago while another population is allowed access to ending lives regardless of obvious risk factors that happened days ago.

Review: "Efficacy of Sexual Assault Resistance Program for University Women"

By now you may have heard of the new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine: “Efficacy of a Sexual Assault Resistance Program for University Women”.  The study finds that women who attended a sexual assault resistance program reported about 50% reduced incidents of rape during follow up.

 

You might have heard about this study by some article claiming that “teaching women self-defense is the best method to reduce rape”.  This is untrue.  From a public health perspective, the best method to prevent any kind of public health problem is one that not only addresses the problem but also addresses it equitably, justly, and with respect to the population it is targeting.  In this case, teaching women self-defense and skills to identify potential assailants does prevent them from becoming victims (key word *them*), however it does not prevent perpetrators of sexual violence from committing rape.

 

The study itself admits that this is a flaw, but leaves open the possibility that this strategy could be used in conjunction with programs that seek to educate men (largely the perpetrators of sexual violence) about how to talk to/stand up to friends and be active bystanders.  However, is it likely that schools would implement both programs?  Everything costs money, and given that schools have a responsibility to protect their students, it seems possible that when trying to decide which expensive program to implement they would go for the one that prevents the most rape.  Administrators are not public health experts (always).

 

There exists an important distinction between saying “women who attended the program reported 50% reduced incidents of rape” and “the program reduces rape victimization by 50%”.  The program itself doesn’t actually prevent rape, but rather insures that participants aren’t the victim of rape.  Now, let’s consider three facts:

1.      There is no reason to expect that the number of any potential rapists at any of the schools changed (increase or decrease).

2.      The control and intervention groups existed on the same campus, meaning that some group of women at University X had the training, and others at University X had the control.

3.      Many perpetrators of sexual violence are repeat offenders.  According to the work of David Lisak, many college aged rapists are responsible for an average of 6 total rapes.

It seems quite possible then that the rapes that would have happened to the intervention group simply happened to the control group.  Thus the actual frequency of rape may not have been affected (the authors don’t seem to make a specific reference to the total number of rapes that occurred on campus during their study).   

 

It is also worth noting that his potential displacement could skew that data to make it look like the intervention is more effective than it actually is.  Say for instance that the true number of sexual assaults on campus without an intervention is something like 25%.  However, with the introduction of the intervention, the number is displaced for the experimental group onto the control group.  The researchers assume that the control group at follow up is similar to baseline, but with displacement the rate rises.  Thus the control group follow-up and thus assumed baseline is 30%.  Thus any intervention’s effect is magnified.  As I read the study, I find no reference to the number of reported rapes per year per institution.  According to 1 in 4, roughly 5% of womenreport surviving rape or attempted rape at college every year.  The study found that among the control group, 9.8% experienced completed rape.

 

Let’s say that again, because its important.  We would expect 5% of women who receive that status quo to experience rape or attempted rape (more inclusive).  The study found that almost 10% of women during the study period experienced completed rape (less inclusive).

 

Now take this information and applying it to our previous conversation about what colleges tend to or are able to do.  Is a college likely to implement a 4 session program for all women on campus?  Maybe, but if not, there could be a huge displacement issue.

 

I think the idea of empowering women to protect themselves against violence is a good one.  And while the jury is still out in terms of its efficacy, I believe it is clear that resistance programs are not the equitable, feasible, or just response to the problem of sexual violence.  

Trade Chat: A World of [Warcraft] Opportunity

I've been a long time advocate of engaging men in sexual violence education in "unlikely places".  And by unlikely places, I'm really talking about places where we don't feel like notions of violent masculinity exist, when, in fact they do.  For whatever reason, the gamer community or the greater "geek" community in general is never the target of interventions addressing masculinity or sexual violence.  However, if you've ever found yourself in Trade Chat ( a World of Warcraft chat room), ever read a comic book, or ever heard of GamerGate, you'd know that the men in this community are fantastic targets for some education.

World of Warcraft would be a phenomenal venue for some sort of online intervention meant to address rape culture, pro-rape myth attitudes, and unhealthy masculinity.  For starters, approximately 6.6 Million of the over 10 million World of Warcraft subscription belong to people between the age of 16-25.  According to a survey from 2004, 84% of World of Warcraft players were male, although the proportion of female players has likely risen since then.

So we have a community of 6.6 million young men and women sharing a virtual world.  And in that world, we have rampant sexism.  In my own opinion, the sexism in World of Warcraft does not actually come from the game.  The game boasts several strong female characters (Sylvanas Windrunner, Tyrande Whisperwind, Jaina Proudmoore all come to mind).  WoW does fall prey to the "scantly clad women fighting demons" thing.  Basically, if you are playing a female character, you might find your armor to be a little more revealing.

The true sexism in World of Warcraft comes from it's players.  As in any community, the problem isn't actually with the entirely of the population, but rather with a  small and loud minority.  WoW is no different.  Spending time in a servers trade chat reveals that each server has their own "troll", someone who appears more often than others, usually saying things to get a rise out of other players.  While these "trolls" may not personally believe what they say, the act of trolling with, say a comment about how women belong in the kitchen perpetuates sexism regardless of it's intention.

The asset of World of Warcraft as a potential intervention site is its cultural importance.  Just this week, World of Warcraft was inducted into the video game hall of fame alongside Tetris, Super Mario, Doom, Pong, and Pac Man.  That's right, like it or not, WoW has had as large an impact on culture as these other iconic games.  So WoW really does have a lot going for it; a fictional universe that unlike so many others has strong female characters, a high number of young men, and huge cultural relevance.

Its not hard to imagine how bystander strategies might be adopted from college campuses to the streets of Stormwind City. Bystander intervention is not necessarily about jumping in to stop a rape in progress, but about training men to stand up to their friends and teammates who are making jokes about rape, or belittling the experiences of rape victims.  Interventions through World of Warcraft could reach millions of young men and women across the world in a way that very few social media campaigns ever could.  Moreover, given that World of Warcraft carries such a significant weight in gamer and in overall pop cultural, the effect of some intervention could be seen beyond the game itself.

Now, of course there would be challenges.  The most important being how do we get people to listen to us?  While colleges can deny funding to groups unless they undergo training, there is no way to make people listen to education around sexual violence during a time they probably use for escapism. A thought that comes to my mind would be training and employing some sort of "reverse troll", who says things to get a rise out of those hold negative attitudes.  While this is not a traditional method of education, it would fit within the bounds of the WoW trade chat universe.  Another possible strategy would be to increase WoW's mature language filter to include words like "rape" if it doesn't already.  A final possibility would be to encourage popular raiding guilds or e-sport teams to support healthy masculinity.

I think that this could be an incredibly effective strategy at reaching young men across the world.  As our world becomes more digital, we should be expanding our message to reach a digital audience.  World of Warcraft could be a phenomenal research tool for Public Health professionals on how to improve behaviors and attitudes online.  Currently, we are letting this opportunity slip through our fingers.

If you have any other thoughts, comments, or suggestions for strategies, feel free to post them in the comments below.