Someone left an anonymous spam comment on my post “Duke Rape Case: The Danger Of Screaming No Rape” on my home blog and I rejected the comment since it repeats many myths and distortions about allegations about rape, and those who report being raped.
However, for the same reason I rejected it, this comment is worth analyzing. First, I know it was a spam comment because I’ve seen variations of this comment before. From reading the full comment, I believe this anonymous person is male and therefore will refer to him as a he.
I find it telling that he posted as anonymous rather than giving his name. He’s willing to make accusations, but isn’t willing to take ownership of those accusations or his personal motivation. Ironic considering his condemnation of false accusations.
Here’s the opening:
False accusations of rape destroys lives (Whether accidental or malicious)
This is an allegation rather than a fact which in many cases are clearly false (Tucker Carlson was falsely accused of rape and his life wasn’t destroyed) and it manages to slip in the idea that many girls and women who say they’ve been raped are delusional. He isn’t saying that false allegations can destroy lives and that omission of the word can is not by chance.
By the recommendations made later in this comment (which will be included in part 3), the commenter is willing to destroy the lives of rape victims to help men avoid being convicted of rape.
Rape is a horrible crime, and anyone who commits it should be punished to the full extent of the law.
Here we get the standard disclaimer given by all those who attack rape victims — alleged and proven — meant to give the person a free pass to recommend changes that help rapists avoid being punished to the full extent of the law and which harm real rape victims.
This is a very hot and emotional topic, but we must not get so emotional that we lose our objectivity, and create laws that condemn the falsely accused.
Here we get the implication that anyone who disagrees with him has lost objectivity and that he is being purely objective (not a rapist or anyone who was ever or could ever be accused of rape) and nothing he does harms or condemns real rape victims.
His implication is that detachment from the pain of rape is good. Viscerally understanding rape and caring passionately about justice for rape victims is bad and should exclude people from talking about rape laws and the enforcement of those laws.
Once the accusation is made, the “accused” is assumed to be guilty by just referring to the “accuser” as a “victim”, and not as an “alleged-victim.” This attitude colors the public’s, police, and juror’s perception as “victim” versus “the accused”; thus implies guilt.
I find it interesting in this claim about the power of semantics that he says calling someone a victim is wrong while leading with the word “accusation” rather “a report of rape.” We are supposed to use “alleged victim” but he uses “accuser” which has definite negative connotations and implies her guilt.
The bottom line seems to be that word choice can be used to color perception, but only when it favors the defendant at the expense of rape victims or alleged rape victims.
Part 2 will include an analysis of his statements about the number of false rape reports and part 3 will include an analysis of his positions on rape trials.
(crossposted at my blog, Abyss2hope)
Note: Comments are limited to feminists or those who can be respectful of feminists and their efforts to fight sexual exploitation. If you want to excuse or minimize the behavior of those who harm others, make the person exploited responsible for their own exploitation, call those who label their experiences rape liars, or tell us that we should be focusing on more important issues, please do so elsewhere.