Thanks for your comments and concerns. I want to be very clear that this is not an area where I have any expertise or familiarity with the organizations involved, which is why I framed my post as raising my conflicting questions and concerns in trying to understand the various perspectives and organizations involved.

What I know of GEMS is that they serve an urgent need for services for young people who have been sexually abused for someone’s profit, needs that are not being met by existing New York State government services and needs that I would much rather see met through a court diversion program than a juvenile criminal facility. I cannot speak to any of the concerns you raise, and certainly find them concerning. Looking at their programs from the outside, however, I see their work as positive in comparison to the enormous shortcomings of New York’s current Office for Children and Family Services, some part of which would otherwise most likely be given responsibility for these young people.

The fact is that abused children shouldn’t ever need to be diverted from the criminal justice system, as they should never be treated as if they had committed a crime. To get to that point, however, will take a concerted and long-term effort to change our laws and the attitudes of our police and prosecutors and to establish widely available, appropriate services for sexually abused children. I will continue to work to learn more about the strategies activists groups are pursuing to change those laws and attitudes and to create fully safe spaces for all who need them.

Re GEMS: I really, really want to like the organization because I believe in the survivor leadership model. I’ve read Rachel Lloyd’s book, seen her speak, and spoke with some folks who have participated in the organization in some way. I value some of the things GEMS does, especially the fact they are able to provide housing to some girls and young women.

But I can’t support an organization whose clients primarily arrive there by court order or through diversion program. I can’t support an organization that refuses to serve transgender girls and young women, or to honor chosen names and identities of female-assigned transgender and gender-variant youth who are forced to be there. I can’t support an organization that displays girls in a documentary film that displays girls who were forced by the court to be there and were not told how their images would be used, or an organization that liberally describes, in a best-selling memoir, personal stories of girls and young women who have been forced to attend its groups without their permission. I can’t support an organization that often starts meetings with a Christian prayer when the participants are court-mandated to be there, and the “service” is funded at least in part by the taxpayers. I can’t support an organization that refuses to make referrals to other services when girls and young women need something they don’t provide themselves.

Human trafficking is characterized by three elements: 1. action such as recruitment, transportation, and receipt; 2. means such as force, fraud or coercion; and 3. purpose such as labor and sexual exploitation. GEMS’ reliance on recruitment through criminal justice system and its exploitative use of girls and young women in its media campaigns show eerie similarities to the operation of human trafficking enterprise. Further, GEMS’ denial of queer and trans identities among its clients and its refusal to make outside referrals (except for a few handpicked agencies) resemble emotional abuse and isolation tactic commonly used by the traffickers.

That the organization is led by a survivor does not excuse these problems. I know that there are people within GEMS that want to change its culture and make it truly respectful and empowering for girls and young women who need their services, but it has a long way to go. I just hope that people would look deeper into these organizations before praising them based solely on the positive appearance they promote on its website and other materials.

It is possible that some of them have actually raped someone.

It is also possible that some of them have been raped themselves.

Considering all of these possibilities (and many more) the question on the survey is abhorrent.

http://wellcommons.com/groups/trauma/2011/dec/14/survey-1-in-5-us-women-victims-of-sexual/

Also Bill, to compare joking about rape to joking about mugging is like comparing a joke about robbing a bank to a joke about lynching a black person. Do I make myself clear? Let me: One action has not been used to oppress millions of people, the other has. Got it?