It’s not often that the American media will take interest in Canadian current events, but in the case of Russell Williams, they did. Williams was a high-ranking military officer in the Canadian Air Force, held in high regard by those around him. His job came with immense responsibility and with that, intense psychological screening, perhaps this is why his story caught the eye of public interest. In a police interrogation, Williams eventually confessed to two murders, multiple sexual assaults, and over eighty counts of break and enter.

After watching two true crime documentaries covering this story, one done by CBC, a Canadian company and one done by CBS, an American company, the differences were palpable. Although they used much of the same footage and even had the some of the same experts speak, the information was framed in a different way. I thought that the American 48 Hours Mystery seemed much more dramatized and less genuine. I went into far less detail, instead, jumping right into the drama of a police interrogation and the extent of his crimes. Both versions of Williams’ story had the police interrogation broken down by a veteran police interrogator who seemed a little over-zealous, but the footage in “Name, Rank, Serial Killer?” made him seem somehow more enthusiastic. This, along with the framing and leading questions asked to the audience made it slightly more sensational than its Canadian counterpart.

The Canadian version of this documentary, “Above Suspicion” had a different take on the story. Although shorter in length, it seemed to be more drawn out, building up to the conclusion of his conviction and providing much more detail along the way. The interviews of the victims were more thorough, containing more specific details. Although less outright dramatic, the “Above Suspicion” told a much better story than “Name, Rank, Serial Killer?”, the American documentary. These two documentaries were obviously both a bit sensational and dramatized— they are going to try and make it as entertaining as possible— I think that the impact wasn’t quite as damaging as it could have been.

It is strange, however, that the Canadian coverage contains more detail. Canadian laws about media coverage concerning criminal trials are generally much more strict than they are in America. This begs the question, how much do we really need to know about criminal trials and the accused’s actions? The answer… nothing. We don’t ever need the specific details that we often end up getting. The public wants to be kept informed, and when that’s done the right way, it builds trust in the system. However, if it’s done the wrong way, it creates bias and mistrust. I think Canada’s laws are sensible, not releasing information that the defendant wants to be kept private and being minimal in their details. In the case of Russell Williams, the rules were bent a little bit, and I don’t think that’s right. The law should remain consistent, even when a story is popular.

In this particular case, it was lucky that Williams decided to plead guilty. The information released to the public was definitely prejudicial and could have (maybe it still did, though not as much) biased his trial. There was certainly bits of information released in the documentary that didn’t necessarily add to the context and were likely mentioned just for the shock factor. Obviously, the content could be uncomfortable or triggering for some people, but many things are and it is our own responsibility to filter these things out if we don’t want to know about them. However, when there’s a huge picture in the newspaper, that’s hard to avoid and definitely unnecessary.

Casey Anthony was a young mother accused of murdering her two year old daughter, Caylee. The circumstances around Caylee’s disappearance were suspicious enough to spark public interest in the investigation and trial. The proceedings were highly publicized, with cameras in the courtroom as well as reporters tweeting the details. The public became increasingly involved in her case, discussing details and sharing opinions online. Popular opinion was that Casey Anthony was guilty. So naturally, when the jury found her not guilty, people were shocked.

Media coverage of criminal trials comes with little benefit to the criminal justice system. It keeps the public informed, but at what cost? The information presented by the media will often lead people to make assumptions and have preconceived notions about the guilt of the defendants. Especially during the reporting of criminal trials like Casey Anthony’s, the media doesn’t take an unbiased point of view. A prime example of this is Nancy Grace’s coverage of her trial. She takes an outspoken, very opinionated perspective on events, and is responsible for much of the public frenzy concerning the trial.

Nancy Grace claims it is her right to speak her mind, which is true, but just because you have the right to do something doesn’t mean you always should. I personally think that the media should remain neutral in their reporting of criminal trials. They should disclose all of the relevant details with no ulterior motives and allow the public to form their own opinions. However, that isn’t where the money lies and isn’t likely to happen. Shows like Nancy Grace might be taking advantage of their sway over their audience, but it is also the viewers’ responsibility to consume media responsibly.

The negative media coverage that Casey Anthony got won’t leave her soon. When the public comes to the conclusion that someone is guilty, it is an exercise in futility to try and change their mind. We tend to stick to our biases, even when they can be proven wrong. When media coverage and social media informs and fuels these biases, it can ruin innocent people’s lives. Casey Anthony will be forgotten eventually, but it won’t likely be soon. Emotion makes us hold onto things for longer, and people were definitely emotional about this case. Nancy Grace’s “reporting” stoked the public’s already present anger and added the the memorability of the case. Casey Anthony will most likely always have to live under the scrutiny and judgement of others.

Discussion of ongoing trials and investigation on social media has little benefit to the criminal justice system. It can be beneficial to the people talking about it, as they can develop analytical skills and become more informed about the criminal justice system. However, it is rare that social media discussion leads to incriminating or vindicating evidence in a trial. This is due to the fact that “evidence” on social media can be easy to fabricate, and identities are always genuine. However, social media is a place where many are comfortable sharing their personal lives and stressors— especially on seemingly anonymous platforms, like Reddit— criminals might sometimes share incriminating details on social media that could lead to their conviction.

Everything that the public is seeing, the lawyers have also seen. When a verdict has been made, there usually is a sound reason for it. There are many rules as to what constitutes proper evidence of guilt, and if there is not enough proof, however damning the circumstances might seem, there won’t be a conviction.

Media coverage of criminal trials also has the potential to incite vigilantism and distrust of the system. When highly publicized trials don’t go the way that certain individuals wanted, they may feel like the system has failed and could even try to take the law into their own hands.

We like to see people get what they deserve. Whether that be rude people getting a taste of their own medicine or criminals being convicted for their crimes. When we feel above other people, we get a good feeling. This is one of the things that draws some people to crime filled media; seeing others in bad situations can make us feel better about ourselves. In the Casey Anthony case, we see just this. People were excited because they thought she would be found guilty, so when she wasn’t, they were equally angry and felt robbed of their justice. We just have to remember that biases can be formed, and justice is not something that should be dispensed on a whim.

Colton Harris-Moore, or “The Barefoot Bandit” ran away from a halfway house when he was 19, beginning a crime spree of thefts and break-ins that included multiple planes, boats, and cars. As his crimes escalated and he continued to evade the police, the media coverage of his story increased and he began to garner a fan-base that viewed him as a sort of Robin Hood type folk hero. However, did Colton Harris-Moore’s actions really live up to this reputation?

It’s safe to say that Colton Harris Moore was not just the average kid criminal. He was able to evade law enforcement for over 2 years, all while stealing cars, boats, and planes and breaking into multiple homes. While this is true, he was also less than deserving of his folk hero status, though it’s understandable why some might see him this way. When someone like him— he’s a bit of an underdog— is able to pull off the things that he did, it’s hard not to be impressed by him. However, recognizing his intelligence is not the same as idolizing him as a person. Still, many people might look up to him (if he can learn to fly a plane, imagine what I could do!).

A folk hero is just that: a hero of sorts. It seems clear to me that Colton Harris-Moore didn’t have any selfless intentions. Nobody was benefiting from his actions but him, and many were hurt by them. The people who thought he was doing good were only reveling in losses of others, they were not benefited in any way. The “steal from the rich, give to the poor” narrative that some attributed to him was simply untrue. Many of his crimes were against people who weren’t wealthy. That being said, he was reported to have left money at a veterinary clinic, but the signed note he left makes me wonder if it wasn’t purely an act of compassion (I’m sure he did care about the animals, but he also liked the attention he was getting). And while I don’t think Colton Harris-Moore set out with the intention of becoming a folk hero, he certainly didn’t seem to shy away from this characterization of himself.

His folk hero persona was ideated by his fans on the internet. People became aware of Colton Harris-Moore through the media coverage of him, but the internet allowed his fans’ fascination with him to grow in the midst of like-minded people. By reporting about his folk hero status, the media played a part in perpetuating it, but without the talk of fans online, his story would have been much different. Moore took advantage of his newfound fame, craving the rush that came with his game of cat and mouse with the authorities, and added fuel to the fire, taking and posting pictures of himself online and leaving messages at crime scenes signed with his alias “The Barefoot Bandit.”

The story of his victims was never really explored in the documentary about him. When they did speak, they seemed to be the ones more empathetic towards him than critical of him. If I was a victim of him, although I might not have suffered any great material loss, I think that the psychological trauma involved with someone breaking into your home can be hard. Just because he didn’t take much doesn’t mean that people weren’t affected.

I also notice that the documentary shows a lot of his actions without providing his motivation. They briefly touched on his childhood by asking neighbours about him, but all that was really said was that he had a bad childhood and an alcoholic mother which, while it allows us to empathize with him, doesn’t fully explain his criminality. This fact, coupled with the animation of certain events, makes him seem a lot more adventurous and a lot less sad.

My Kid Would Never Do That: Stranger Danger, was meant to demonstrate just how vulnerable kids are to ploys from strangers that could lead them to harm. In the show, an actor was hired to play the role of a man who was working on a reality TV show who took their picture and asked the children for personal information including their names and addresses first, and an ice cream man who would offer the children free ice cram and offer to show them the inside of his van second. They definitely accomplished their goal of showing parents the danger that strangers pose to their children, as most of the kids went along with the man— although a few did refuse him.

However, like any media production, the first priority of Dateline isn’t keeping children safe, it’s making money. They frame the situations in a way that provides entertainment while also offering it as a sort of educational parenting tool, giving parents advice on how to protect their children. What this show seems to overlook though, is that the main threat to children isn’t coming from strangers with elaborate ruses set up. Only about 0.1% of missing children have been abducted by a stranger. So, when it comes to keeping children safe from abduction, the focus shouldn’t be on “Stranger Danger.”

Rather than focusing on specific scenarios— because there will always be new ones— teach kids to trust their instincts, even if they know the person. They should learn that just because they know someone or just because someone is an adult, doesn’t mean they should trust them. Even “Stranger Danger” doesn’t seem to work well. Can you really blame 8 year-olds for not standing up to someone at least 3 times their age and twice their size? It’s clear that , although they know they shouldn’t trust strangers, they don’t know how to safely get out of the situation. I think that kids often don’t get the message because rather than the lesson being focused on how to get out of bad situations safely and listening to their instincts, the lesson is just focused on not to trust strangers.

While a lot of kids listen to this message, it’s also pretty clear that some of them don’t fully understand what a stranger actually is. One of the kids said, “He could have been a stranger!” After their encounter with the ice cream man. People who seem to be in a trustworthy position (like an ice cream man, acquaintance, or people in uniform) tend to not be seen as a dangerous person to many children because they don’t seem like a stranger.

Overall, Dateline used many techniques, however misleading, to capture the attention of their viewers. The emotion of the parents and the “reality” aspect of the show likely helped viewers form an emotional connection with the people on screen. As well, the situations and commentary by an expert make the program informative, and probably prompted a lot of parents to have another conversation with their children about “Stranger Danger.”

The ‘Highway of Tears’ is a stretch of highway in northern BC, famous for the many women that have gone missing in its vicinity. Officially, the RCMP report 18 victims, however, locals suspect there are many, many more, the majority being of aboriginal heritage.

Although aboriginal communities have been trying to being more attention to the indigenous women who go missing near Highway of Tears, nearly almost all of the CBS 48 Hours Mystery on the Highway of Tears was focused on two white women. This could be because, at the time, Madison Scott and Loren Leslie were the most recent victims. However, in a documentary whose purpose is to report on the Highway of Tears, there should have been more focus on all the victims. What’s even more strange is the fact that Madison Scott—who is the focus of nearly half the documentary—isn’t even an official victim of the Highway of Tears. It is clear that the reporters wanted to tell her story, the mystery of her disappearance and the circumstances around it make for an enthralling and emotional story, but it’s doubtful that none of the other women would have the same impact.

The fact that the majority of this documentary focuses on two white women only serves to reinforce the aboriginal communities’ belief that racism is playing a part in the government and media’s response to the missing women. While it is doubtful that the reporters who put together the 48 Hours Mystery documentary were trying to be discriminatory, they knew what would sell to their audience and went with that, rather than trying to challenge the status quo.

True crime shows attract the attention of many. We all have a sense of morbid curiousity, and we seek to understand the “why” behind the unfathomable acts we see. They offer a different perspective on the violence and gore that is often glamourized on fictional programs. They play on our fear of violent crime without putting us in any real danger, and they allow us to get a behind the scenes look at how our justice system works, sometimes giving us the chance to play detective. Although appealing to many, it seems the primary audience for true crime shows is women. The main reason for this being that women are often themselves victims of the types of violent crimes portrayed in true crime, watching others go through dangerous encounters gives them a sense of power and control over their own situations. The more they know about crime, the safer they feel.

True crime garners the attention it does for many reasons, but mainly because the people watching are getting something out of it. Whether that be information about how to stay safe or about how investigations work, an emotional connection with the victims, something to theorize about with friends, or simply entertainment—because violence is entertaining.

Clearly, the creators of the 48 Hours Mystery felt that focusing the attention on Madison Scott and Loren Leslie would be more appealing to their audience than focusing on the native women. Perhaps they felt that Madison Scott’s and Loren Leslie’s stories were the most likely to get their viewers emotionally engaged in the story—if their audience is made up of mainly white women, then they could be the ones they identify with the most. Also, the fact that Loren was only 15 likely struck a chord with most audiences. However, the depth with which they reported on their stories far outweighed the rest of the victims of the Highway of Tears. Intentionally or not, the message they conveyed was that certain victims were more important than others.

Scooby-Doo is a children’s cartoon about a gang of ambiguously aged, amateur mystery solvers. While travelling around in their brightly coloured van, they stumble upon mysteries— usually involving evil spirits, curses, and monsters— that they take upon themselves to solve.

The gang is made up of five characters: Shaggy Rogers, Fred Jones, Velma Dinkley, Daphne Blake, and Scooby-Doo. In most adaptations— though it has gotten better in the more recent ones— each member is characterized in highly stereotypical way. Fred is the “man” of the group. He is the leader and doesn’t have much of a personality past this he formulates the plans for how to catch the bad guys and decides the groups when the gang splits up. Velma is the smart one, she always just so happens to know the right— and often oddly specific— facts that the gang needs to solve the mystery. Daphne is the pretty one, which is somehow a personality trait in her case. She likes to point out the obvious “clues” like: “Hey, gang, look at this giant footprint.” And is often the damsel in distress. Shaggy and Scooby serve as the comic relief. They are in a perpetual state of hunger and are frightened by almost everything they encounter. Usually, they will accidentally stumble across a clue while running away and sometimes they will even be responsible for the villain’s capture, though it’s never intentional.

The characters’ cliched personalities serve as the punchline to almost every joke. Shaggy and Scooby are hungry and eat a lot or they run away from something completely non-threatening. Velma looses her glasses and apparently, she is legally blind without them. Daphne isn’t the subject of many jokes, but her ability to get herself into danger is sometimes made fun of. Fred is probably the least joked about of the gang because his character is generally pretty serious. However, the portrayal of every character differs depending on which adaptation you’re watching. The first version of the show, Scooby Doo, Where Are You? is very different from newer versions like Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated.

In many adaptations, the police don’t really seem to care that there’s a group of amateur mystery solvers trespassing and breaking into places at night. In fact, they usually don’t appear at all until the end of the episode when the gang has caught the monster. The exception to this is in Mystery Incorporated where the police captain seems to have it out for the gang because it’s the police’s job to catch criminals, and although it is definitely true that a group of teenagers shouldn’t be hunting down monsters, his character is villainized.

The gang also seems to solve the mystery by connecting clues that don’t actually make much sense. Rather, when I watched the show, I would guess who the villains were by who seemed the creepiest. Usually, I ended up being right. They almost always acted very suspiciously, and I always felt very smart when I guessed correctly even though it took almost no brainpower of any kind.

In the beginning of the show, the characters were likely portrayed a certain way that fit with the status quo at the time, while also being exaggerated to add some comic relief. The creators probably thought Fred made an ideal leader because he was ‘manly’ and that Daphne and Velma were accurate portrayals of different types of women. As time went on and our views about people became less stereotypical, the exaggerated personalities of the characters became more about humour and most of the gang developed characteristics beyond their stereotype. The stereotypical personalities of the characters work because the audience that the show is aimed at, young children, find it funny.

The way that villains are characterized also works to make the show more fun for kids to watch. If the viewers think they can ‘figure out’ who did it, then it becomes more entertaining because it gives them a sense of gratification. In reality, you would not be able to solve a mystery by meeting one person and thinking they seem suspicious, but it makes it more fun if you can. The villains are also generally pretty dumb. They rise to silly taunts by the gang, and fall into traps that include cages being dropped on them, being scooped up into nets, or Shaggy and Scooby accidentally catching them. Again, this just adds entertainment value to the show, it’s funny to the viewers when the villains are stupid, so they make the villains stupid.

While the kids who watch this often just find the quirks of the characters and the stupidity of their enemies funny, it can be harmful to see such a stereotypical portrayal of things. As a kid, you often find role models in your favourite movie or TV characters. Since the roles that the characters play are so confining, a kid might feel that they also have to fit into that role. A young girl watching the show might feel she has to choose between being smart and being pretty, and a young boy watching the show might feel he has to either be strong and manly or else end up being the comic relief.

Although there are parts of Scooby Doo where the characters defy their stereotypes, the message doesn’t always strike the same way with older viewers and younger ones. For instance, in Scooby-Doo! Frankencreepy, Daphne is cursed to loose the things she values most which is her looks— a fact that is unsurprising based on her character— by gaining weight and getting frizzy hair. Later, the message is meant to show that looks aren’t everything and that her friends are what truly meant the most to her. However, to a young girl who looks up to Daphne, who is horrified by her looks, might take away the message that although loosing her looks isn’t Daphne’s biggest fear, it is still one of them, which makes it a fear worth having.Older kids and adults might not see the damage that portraying these types of stereotypes can have, because they have the ability to brush it off, but young kids don’t have the same critical thinking ability needed to see through the stereotypes. They might just take these characters to be accut=rate portraylas of “grownups.”

Stereotypes aside, Scooby-Doo does help children understand crime in some ways. At the end of each episode, the gang will unmask the villain and Velma will usually explain how they figured it out. These rationalizations about why the villains did what they did and how they got away with it help young people understand that criminals always have a motive to commit crime.

I decided to track the media that I would consume from 10:00 am on April 21 to 10:00 am on April 22. I estimated that I would consume 8 hours of media— which I thought was high, but I was surprised to find that I actually consumed 9 and a half hours of media. Most of the 9 and a half hours were spent on my phone: 7 hours were spent reading eBooks, 30 minutes were spent on a workout app, 30 minutes were spent messaging people, 20 minutes were spent on Reddit, and 10 minutes were spent on Safari. I also used my laptop to do schoolwork for about 30 minutes, and “watched” Netflix while reading for about 3 hours. I don’t think my math adds up here, but it’s just an estimate.

I tend to multitask during certain activities. While watching Netflix I was reading, but it was less “multitasking” and more “reading with background noise and occasionally getting distracted.” I also will sometimes multitask when I’m doing my schoolwork, but I try not to.

I tend to consume media throughout the day, I don’t “binge” it at a specific time. However, I think this is unusual for me. When I had to physically go to school and had other commitments, I would definitely “binge” when I had spare time.

Looking at the time spent consuming media, I spent about 8 hours consuming mainstream media and about 1 hour consuming user created media. This doesn’t surprise me at all. I probably used to consume a lot more user created media, but I’ve been trying to spend less time on social media platforms, and instead use my time more productively.

I try to have time each day where I “unplug” and spend time away from technology, but I think that it’s getting very hard for me. Many of the things I do in my free time now use some form of technology. For instance, I could read a real book, but the eBooks I read are much cheaper, I also use an app that has workout routines on it, I generally like listening to music or a podcast while I walk, and now even school requires using a lot more technology.

I find that my willingness to “unplug” depends a lot on how I’m spending my time online. If I’m scrolling through social media because I’m bored, it isn’t hard to convince me to do something else. I’d probably get bored and start doing something else on my own. But if the reason I’m spending so much time “plugged in” is because I just downloaded a new book and it’s really good, then I’m much more likely to spend way too much time on my phone. This definitely can affect my productivity throughout the day, especially when it comes to things that I have a hard time motivating myself to do otherwise, like schoolwork.

Murder is not common in Canada. In 2018, there were only 651 murders nationwide. Compared to a whopping 16,214 in America, the likelihood of being a murder victim in Canada is very low. However, uncommon as it is, there have been 20 serial killers and 52 incidents of mass murder in Canada.

One such serial killer is Bruce McArthur, a homosexual man in his sixties described by most who knew him as kind, friendly, and caring. McArthur came out in the nineties, seperating from his wife and moving to the Church and Wellesley neighbourhood in Toronto, dubbed Toronto’s Gay Village for its historical tolerance of the LGBTQ community. He owned a small landscaping business and also worked as a mall Santa. In 2001, McArthur was charged with the level 2 assault of a male sex worker, but avoided prison and later managed to have the incident removed from his record. Beginning in 2010, men began to disappear from the Village. Police were looking into the disappearance of Skandaraj Navaratnam, but did not suspect murder until 2012. In 2013, the police linked his disappearance with two other missing persons cases. The victims were all middle aged, immigrants, and gay men of South Asian descent. McArthur was found to have a connection to two of the missing men, but was released after questioning; there was no evidence against him.

In 2017, another person went missing, this time a white man who had much deeper connections in the community. Friends raised public awareness about his disappearance and the public inaccurately connected many other disappearances, suspecting a serial killer. Police looked for links between the previous three missing men, Andrew Kinsman, and Selim Esen; the newest missing persons. However, there was no evidence yet that suggested a serial killer.

While investigating Kinsman’s disappearance, police found a link between him and McArthur. This discovery led to the finding of McArthur’s van, which had traces of blood in it that belonged to Kinsman and Esen. After McArthur’s arrest, police were sure that there were more victims. They searched the properties that he had done landscaping work for as well as his own apartment and found evidence of six other victims. Their skeletal remains had been recovered inside of planters. Police looked for any connection between McArthur and other cold cases linked to the village but found no evidence of his involvement.

McArthur was motivated by power. He seemed to have a “type” as most of his victims were of Middle Eastern or South Asian descent, and his dating apps made it clear that he was looking for men he could assert his dominance over. Several men who had been sexually involved with McArthur described his violent tendencies. It is hard to place whether McArthur was a hedonistic lust killer or a power/control killer. Hedonistic killers who murder for lust are sexually motivated and find gratification in harming their victims. Often these murderers will mutilate or dismember their victims and can be necrophiliacs or cannibals It is clear that he was sexually motivated and took pleasure in dominating others, however, with little physical evidence it is unclear what was done to the victims before or after death. Power/control killers attempt to compensate for their feelings of inadequacy by dominating their victims. The primary motive for this type of killer is not sexual, the killers wish to exercise complete control over their victims. Often this includes torture and dismemberment. It is probably more likely that McArthur was a power/control killer because sadism is less common.

Since these murders, there has been a lot of resentment among certain communities. Many feel that the police only took the case seriously once a white person went missing. In response to these incidents, Haran Vijayanathan set up a safety program that tries to ensure that disappearances of vulnerable people get reported to the police within 48 hours.

In December 1989, Mark Lepine brought a rifle into the École Polytechnique de Montréal, killing 14 women and then himself. In the weeks prior to the incident he had bought a gun and wrote a suicide note; he had planned for his death. Lepine entered a classroom on the second floor and ordered the men to leave the room. He shot the remaining 9 women, killing 6 and injuring 3. He then moved on and killed 8 more women throughout the building, harming 4 men and 10 other women along the way. After his rampage, he turned his weapon on himself.

Lepine was motivated by revenge. The suicide note found in his pocket claimed that feminists had ruined his life and had a “hit list” of 19 women he wished to kill. He fits the category of a mission oriented killer. He was a misogynist and targeted women because he deemed them less worthy than men. He wanted to “send death to the feminists.”

Luckily in Canada, serial murder— and murder of any kind— is highly unlikely. However, there will always be people who wish to harm others. While stopping these people forever is highly unlikely, there are measures we can take to deter them or stop them as soon as we can. Gun and weapon control plays a huge role in controlling homicide rates. Weapons make a killers job much more convenient. As well, trying to reduce the vulnerability of people who live high-risk lifestyles is also a way to deter killers. Often these people will not be reported missing, and this makes them an easy target for people who wish to kill. Homeless shelters can do this, providing a safer place for vulnerable people to stay, and making it more likely that someone would notice if they were to go missing. While there are many things we can do to reduce homicide rates, if someone is determined enough, these countermeasures would not stop them, but they will increase the likelihood of the murderer being caught.

How can sexual behaviour be socialized in males. Are males who commit sexual assault are “hyper-masculine”? Why and where do men learn “hyper-masculine” behaviour?

Statistically, men are far more likely than women to commit sexual assault, and an influencing factor on this is the way they are raised. Males are often taught to be strong, aggressive, assertive, and dominant. Conversely, women are taught to be passive, friendly, dependent, and submissive. Men who are raised with these expectations will often become hyper-masculine. Hyper-masculinity emphasizes the stereotypical male personality traits like aggression, emotional absence, physical strength, loose sexual morals, and hyper-masculine men will often view violence and danger as manly and exciting and they will have a callous and disrespectful attitude towards women. Men who commit sexual assault are hyper-masculine by definition. They often believe that they are simply taking what they are owed, because they believe that women are there for their sexual pleasure. Sexual assault is not uncommon, with about 20% women having experienced sexual assault, so this suggests that a huge proportion of men exhibit hyper-masculine behaviour. It is obvious that most parents don’t decide to raise their boys with the hope of them becoming sexual assaulters, so why do so many men become sexual assaulters?

The article “The Conversation You Must Have With Your Sons” suggests a reason. Many parents don’t have a conversation with their sons about what constitutes rape and why it is not okay. They often don’t have a conversation about the way sex is used as a male status symbol, and can be shameful for females, and they don’t explain why sex shouldn’t be viewed this way. It’s awkward, and parents never want to face that their children could grow up to hurt others, but it’s clear that many do. Often these kinds of conversations are had with daughters, but parents will unintentionally reinforce the beliefs that can lead to sexual assault. Parents warn their daughters to be careful and try to keep them safe by giving them advice on how to look and act, unknowingly reinforcing the victim-blaming attitude that many people hold and the shameful nature of sex to women.

These views that women need to make it their responsibility to not become a victim of sexual assault are coming from a place of love, wanting their children to be safe. But in the end, it is simply strengthening the culture around sexual assault that causes women to feel shame and blame themselves, and it reinforces the idea that women should be more passive, and try to avoid standing out.

Parents who teach their daughters to protect themselves are hardly going to stop; there will still be men out there who will seek to take advantage of them. So how can parents affect the safety of their daughters in a non-harmful way?

Why do we place blame on the females for being raped, rather than making the men who are raping them take full responsibility? No one is trying to raise a son who will be capable of committing a sexual offense, yet it does still happen. So how can parents reinforce a healthy sexual attitude in their sons, rather than putting responsibility on and creating a shameful attitude in their daughters?

Rather than having the “don’t get raped” conversation with girls, teach them that sex is not shameful and that their enjoyment is what is important, and that their consent is something that should be respected by others. Teach girls that they should not judge men by their sexual experience, that men should also not be judged for their sexual experience, and that male consent is just as important as female consent. Rather than having the “don’t get raped” conversation with girls, we should be having the “don’t be a rapist” conversation with boys. We should teach them that it is absolutely unacceptable to force themselves on others. Teach them what constitutes consent, and how important it is to listen to it. Reinforce in their minds that shaming women for having sex is not okay, that women are not sexual objects and should be respected, and that sexual experience should not determine their self-worth. Let boys know that the same thing can happen to them, that they can be sexually assaulted by women, and that they should not be ashamed by that either. We need to take the blame off of the victims and start putting it on the perpetrators.

This article by The Globe and Mail points out that colleges and universities are the setting of far too many sexual assaults. Young people are away from the supervision of their family, are often without many friends to rely on, and exposed to large amounts of drugs, alcohol, and partying. Men will often take advantage of women who have had too much to drink, purposely get them drunk, or even drug them in order to sexually assault them. A study done by a scientist at the Women’s College Hospital found that over 64% of victims of sexual assault had been intoxicated in some form.

Colleges and universities have taken extensive measures to try and reduce sexual assault on campus. However, as has been pointed out by the author of a Queen’s newspaper article, these measures have put responsibility on those who would be targeted. The emergency lights that should be pressed in dangerous situations, the services that offer to walk people back to their dorms at night. There no measures being taken that target the source of the problem: those who wish to sexually assault others. Colleges and universities are trying to solve a problem without focusing on the cause of it. Sexual assaults are not caused by women walking home alone, they are not the result of having no way to find help. Sexual assaults are caused by sexual assaulters. Women can’t stop themselves from being sexually assaulted, but men can stop themselves from sexually assaulting.

We see victim-blaming all the time, it has become so normal that victims will often begin to think that way to. Women are taught to be careful about what they wear, how they act, and to always be cautious around men; so much so that many women will blame themselves for drawing the unwanted attention of men.

The harassment of women due to their clothing and appearance is far too normalized. This can be clearly shown by this Times article about young, school-aged girls who report being catcalled and fetishized because of their school-mandated uniforms. When did it become normal for grown men to sexualize young girls? However, many women are used to this treatment, they accept that they will be judged for what they are wearing, by both men and other women. We tell women that it is their responsibility to dress in a way that won’t attract attention, and we allow men to think that women who dress a certain way are “asking for it.”

Sexual assault is a result of the socialization of men, and preventative measures that don’t focus on the victim need to be taken. If we continue to place responsibility in the hands of the victims of sexual assault, it will never get better. The trauma for victims of sexual assault becomes worse when they feel that it was up to them to do something differently, when really, people who commit sexual assault are never warranted in their actions, however they may have perceived the situation. Boys need to be taught how to treat women and how to have a positive and healthy attitude regarding sex, rather than parents assuming they already know. Our problem lies in the way we push gender stereotypes on children, strengthening the characteristics that we expect in in them. We teach men to behave in a “manly” way, and we teach women that they will often be treated as less than men.

In the Law and Order episode we watched, the effects that the assault had on Harper were illustrated right after it had taken place, and six months later. There is a great difference in Harper’s character six months after the attack takes place. When the police try to find her six months after her attack, we learn that her relationship has ended, she has started working out a lot, she sleeps with her shoes on, she’s moved apartments, the way she dresses and decorates her apartment differently, and her attitude towards the detectives has changed. In the beginning of the episode, she is determined to do all she can to bring her assaulter to justice. She sits through hours of questioning and comes as soon as she hears that there is a chance to ID the man. However, she becomes discouraged when she finds out the man they had was not her attacker. She also gets frustrated when the detectives question her use of marijuana, feeling as if they are suggesting that she could have just been paranoid or partially at fault for the attack.

Six months later, when the detectives find her at her new apartment, she is unwilling to ID the man that they have brought in, even though they are certain it is her attacker. She claims that she has gotten over what happened, but her actions and behaviour clearly suggest otherwise. She had become scared and angry, worried that it could happen again, but she was too afraid to face how she was feeling and lived in denial. Even her outward appearance had changed. Her clothes were neutral toned rather than colourful as they had been before, and she cut her hair. Even her apartment was decorated very sparsely, and din’t look like as much of a home as her last apartment had. Once she agrees to ID the man, and finds that she can’t, she breaks down. All of the emotions she had been holding in for the past six months come out. Harper’s story clearly demonstrates that the trauma that comes with being a victim of violent crime does not leave, even after going through therapy.

The Guardian article: “Stanford sexual assault case: victim impact statement in full” demonstrates the real-life impacts of sexual assault on a victim. The woman describes the incident, from going to a frat party, to waking up in the hospital, being told she had been assaulted. She felt confused and violated, describing the feeling as she showered as “not wanting her body anymore.” She didn’t want to tell her boyfriend or her parents that what happened; all she knew was that she had been found behind a dumpster. She was worried that if she saw their reaction, it would make her even more terrified. She tried to forget about it, but it was still eating at her, and she couldn’t eat or sleep, and she began to isolate herself. The way she learned what had happened to her was through an article. One day while she was at work, she came across an article that detailed exactly what had happened. The article included a statement by the man who had assaulted her. According to him, she had liked it. She learned about her assault from the news because she had no recollection of it, and felt that no one would listen to her because of this. She was told that she couldn’t say she didn’t like it, because she didn’t remember it. This destroyed her.

She soon learned that her assaulter was prepared to take this to court. He had hired an expensive legal team, and seemed to be willing to go to great lengths to invalidate the victim. She was told to prepare in case she didn’t the case, but she said she couldn’t do that. He was guilty. She was also told that because she couldn’t remember anything, he was going to be able to say anything he wanted, and there would be no one to contest it. She felt powerless, weak, and helpless. She was constantly being reminded that because she didn’t remember, her testimony was dismissable.

Rather than taking time to heal from her asssault, she had to dedicate her time to remembering it in as much excruciating detail as possible.She was forced to undergo questioning in court that felt degrading. With questions like “Would you ever cheat?” and others with the intention to undermine her integrity. She felt attacked, as if they were saying “She’s an alcoholic,” and, “she wanted it.” She was being blamed and re-victimized in the courtroom. Her assaulter claimed she had consented to everything that had happened. Eventually, the trial came to a close, and he was convicted as guilty.

In her response to her assaulter’s statement, she had this to say: “My independence, natural joy, gentleness, and steady lifestyle I had been enjoying became distorted beyond recognition. I became closed off, angry, self-deprecating, tired, irritable, empty. The isolation at times was unbearable. You cannot give me back the life I had before that night either. While you worry about your shattered reputation, I refrigerated spoons every night so when I woke up, and my eyes were puffy from crying, I would hold the spoons to my eyes to lessen the swelling so that I could see. I showed up an hour late to work every morning, excused myself to cry in the stairwells, I can tell you all the best places in that building to cry where no one can hear you, the pain became so bad that I had to tell my boss I was leaving, I needed time because continuing day to day was not possible. I used my savings to go as far away as I could possibly be.” She described the state of fear she now lives in, explaining that she can’t sleep in the dark anymore, she can’t go for walks alone anymore, she’s afraid to go to social events that involve alcohol, she feels like has lost her independence— she always feels the need to be protected, and is unable to relax. The sexual assault never left her, even after the trial was over.

There isn’t much that can be done to lessen the impacts of crime on victims. Once they are victimized, their experience can never be undone. However, we can support victims through their trauma by providing services for them such as emotional support;to help them work through the psychological impacts of being victimized, guidance through the criminal justice system; to help reduce their feeling of re-victimization, and access to financial aid; to help counteract the financial toll that being a victim of crime may have had on them.