Oregon Woman Convicted of Acting Insufficiently Traumatized
| December 4th, 2005An Oregon woman who says she was gang-raped by three men, has been convicted of filing false rape charges, because she failed to act “traumatized” enough. From the Oregonian:
After a day-and-a-half trial, Municipal Judge Peter A. Ackerman on Friday convicted the woman of filing a false police report, a class-C misdemeanor. Ackerman explained his decision, saying there were many inconsistencies in the stories of the four, but that he found the young men to be more credible. He also said he relied on the testimony of a Beaverton police detective and the woman’s friends who said she did not act traumatized in the days following the incident.
That’s appalling.
The Judge seems to believe that there is a typical way in which all rape victims act, and that if a woman fails to act that way, she must be lying. But that’s nonsense. There is no “rape victim script” that every rape victim follows. Essentially, this woman has been convicted of a crime for failing match the judge’s stereotype of what “legitimate” female victims act like.
Judge Ackerman has sent a message to rape victims in Oregon: If the judge doesn’t think you’re weepy enough, emotive enough, hysterical enough, whatever enough, then he might just convict you of a crime. There’s every reason to think an asinine ruling like this will deter rape victims from reporting rape to the police.
Shakespeare’s Sister, The Heretik and The American Street have more. UPDATE: See The Countess’ post, too. And a new post from The Heretik. And My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. And Once Upon A Time…. And Political Animal. And this stunning post at Shakespeare’s Sister. And Liberty Street. And Radioactive Quill. And Ded Space.
For a contrary view on this case, see Cathy Young’s post.
December 4th, 2005 at 8:09 am
Young woman files false rape charge?
Some bloggers are outraged over a story about a young woman from Oregon being convicted of filing a false police report in which she claimed she was raped by three young men. Bloggers falling into the outrage category include:
This comment was written by Accept No Substitutes.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 8:50 am
Unless there is more to the story than we have been told, yeah, it looks like a pretty appalling decision.
Of course, if there isn’t more to this, it is possible that Amp’s characterization of the ruling as asinine is overly charitable; the judge’s ruling may have been intentionally malicious.
In any case, in order to convict someone of filing flase rape charges, the burden of proof ought to be on the other foot than when someone is trying to convict someone of rape. That is to say, the city ought to have to prove that she was not raped (and moreover, that she genuinely does not believe she was raped, that is, that the charges were filed in bad faith) in order to convict her.
This comment was written by Glaivester.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 9:01 am
I know a woman who was sexually assaulted and went to court here in the UK. The defence also brought up “evidence” that she didn’t act “traumatised” enough afterwards for her case to be credible. The guy got off.
This comment was written by Winter.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 9:14 am
GIVE AWAYS
RAPE SURVIVORS HOLD a moral authority they would gladly give away if they could get back what is forever lost, what someone has forever stolen. Certain absurdities abide in a situation few would abide. Survivors who speak for victims
This comment was written by The Heretik.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 10:22 am
This makes me absolutely goddamn sick to my stomach. Literally nauseous.
THIS is presuming consent. Unless there’s a hell of a lot of evidence we don’t have, this judge has way overstepped the bounds of reasonable doubt, not to mention the bounds of common fucking human decency. He is an embarresment to me as a man, as a human, and as someone who tries to work within the system. Oh my god, this makes me angry.
So what are we doing? Petition? Protests? Is there any way to impeach a judge in Oregon?
This comment was written by anonymous.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 11:32 am
ampersand, if the judge had come to that decision based solely on the way the accuser appeared in court, i would agree with you. however, the article states that he made his decision based on the “testimony of a Beaverton police detective and the woman’s friends who said she did not act traumatized in the days following the incident.” if this were any other kind of case, or even the accused in this case, i do not think anyone would have a problem with not believing a person based on his or her behavior following the alledged act.
i saw a lot of this during th Jackson trial were people were saying th accuser did behave like a victim. the truth is that different person respond in different ways. it’s not like there’s some sort of manual given out when a person is assaulted telling them how to behave. that said, if seasoned officers and the person’s friends don’t see some sort of change, then it is valid to assume that something might not be right.
as for the ruling itself, the burden of proof falls right back on the prosecution, so nothing has changed. the same rules should apply in this case as they do in every other case. obviously there was something storng about their case, at least in terms of believability, otherwise there would have been no conviction. i also think it is absolutely fair to punish a person if she makes false accusations. not only does it ruin the lives of the people she accuses (whose identities were surprisingly kept secret), but it also wastes time and money.
i cannot honestly imagine that victims will be detered, especially if this is an instance of false accusations. the two are not the same, and this logic only works if you assume no woman ever lies about being raped.
This comment was written by jaketk.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 11:41 am
I included a link to another article about a similar case where the victim wasn’t believed, and was ordered to pay restitution. These kinds of cases will scare women out of filing rape charges.
Lots of victims don’t “act traumatized” after a rape. They detach and go numb. How is a rape victim supposed to act, anyway? I didn’t know there was a “real” way rape victims should act after they’ve been raped.
This comment was written by The Countess.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 12:24 pm
“that said, if seasoned officers and the person’s friends don’t see some sort of change, then it is valid to assume that something might not be right.
”
This is such bull, Jaketk. No, it is not valid to assume that the determination of whether or not a woman was raped should be based on *her* reaction to the rape.
I was raped over thirty years ago, at the age of 14. In the days following the rape, my reaction was anger at not only the rapists, but the helpful adults who questioned what I was wearing, why I was out of the house at 7:30 at night, etc. No, I was not traumatized. I was in fact catapulted into a lot of deep thinking about rape, and women’s rights. It’s one of the events in my life which has made me a feminist.
To even consider that whether or not a rape was committed is based on how “traumatized” other people think the victim was is not much further ahead than the days when a woman was only “really” raped if she’d been maimed or killed. The assumption then was that if she did not experience severe bodily hard, she must not have really fought the rapist hard enough, and therefore it should be assumed she consented to the sex.
Yuck.
This comment was written by Broce.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 1:15 pm
I’d like to learn more about this case. As it stands it’s totally outrageous, not to mention irrational.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 1:26 pm
Susan -
If you read my posts in this forum, from this one down you’ll have much more context. This is truly outrageous and I was go as far as to disbar the judge.
How do I post a URL here?
This comment was written by Méta.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 1:40 pm
Méta -
The way you posted a link was incorrect - I’ve fixed it this time, but please don’t try using BBCode here again!
In the future, please post links using html code. If you’re not sure how to do that, there are instructions here.
There’s also a link to those instructions just above the box where you type your comments in, so it’s always easy to find the instructions.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 1:48 pm
Thanks, Ampersand.
Believe it or not I was a web programmer in another life! LOL!
I read a lot of blogs but usually don’t comment on them, so I’m kinda new to this and this story made me come out of the shadows.
Thanks for your blog. Reading a man who is so unapologetic in his defense of feminism is really refreshing.
This comment was written by Méta.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 2:06 pm
Jaketk wrote:
What other examples of finding someone guilty of a crime because they weren’t behaving like an innocent person, would you approve of?
For instance, suppose that someone was found guilty of insider trading because her attitude while being questioned by police was arrogant, and the judge believed that people who are innocent of insider trading tend to be nervious and defensive, not arrogant. Or because the person immediately demanded a lawyer, and the judge believed that innocent people would wait to be charged before demanding a lawyer.
Would you find that a fair verdict? I would not. I think your assumption that it’s only for this one crime that I’d find this sort of behavior by a judge appalling is unjustified.
I made a point of not watching the Jackson trial in detail. My impression overall is that he was probably not guilty, but that’s not a particularly informed opinion.
You have a lot more faith in the US judicial system than I do. Although the system probably works correctly most of the time, there have been many examples of people being found guity of crimes based on very weak cases.
And yes, in case you were wondering, I do think that some false rape convictions happen. However, as far as I can tell, the typical false rape conviction is one based on a mistaken ID.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 2:07 pm
No problem, Méta. And thank you for your kind words. :-)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 2:09 pm
broce, few people who are assaulted walk away unchanged. most do have some noticeable change in their behavior, even if it’s small. detectives deal with a whole host of victims. if this woman’s behavior was completely inconsistent with what they were familiar with, like she behaved as if nothing happened at all, they were right to question her story. in any other kind of criminal case, they would do the same thing.
i spent the first 14 years of my life being physically and sexually abused, and watching it happen to my brothers and my cousins. not a single one of us responded in the exact same way, but every one of us was certainly changed by what happened. in my case, i don’t necessarily trust people, especially those in my perps’ age range. i question ideologies that were part of or caused the abuse, like feminism. and because of the attacks and insults i got for speaking up, i only share those experiences with other male survivors, which is one of the reasons i am being so vague.
i don’t behave “traumatized” by any means, but that does not mean i was uneffected. if this woman behaved as if she was completely unaffected, but did not have repressed memories, i think many detectives would be hesistant to believe her.
This comment was written by jaketk.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 2:16 pm
Jake, you’re mistaking cues that are appropriate for an investigating police officer to follow up on (maybe) for things that have weight in a court of law. How the victim acts is irrelevant in court. It might be relevant in the investigatory phase; “huh, she says he raped her but now she’s at his house and they’re laughing in the front yard” - leading to further investigation or focusing an investigation on particular things. (”He was sure nervous when I was standing next to that closet door.”)
It’s not relevant in court.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 2:32 pm
i don’t behave “traumatized” by any means
So it would be OK for someone to decide you were lying about your abuse, because you weren’t acting ‘traumatized’?
As has been said elsewhere, there is an awful lot missing from this story (hey, it IS the Oregonian).
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 2:45 pm
Ampersand writes:
i said nothing of approval, merely that no one would question it if this were a different situation. for instance, a year or so ago a 16 year girl ran out to a neighbor’s house screaming that her parents were murdered. the cops came and took her story and helped her out as much as they could. a few weeks went by, and as the cops investigated, the girl’s story did not add up. when they questioned her friends and family, they all mentioned that the girl’s behavior was odd. she did not grieve for her parents, or even want to attend their funeral. a few months ago, this girl was charged and convicted of first-degree murder, largely on circumstancial evidence and her inconsistent behavior.
i cannot imagine that most people would take issue with that. i did, but that is besides the point.
assume that a man is convicted of rape because he is callous and unsympathetic and his story is less credible than the accuser’s. this does happen, as most rape cases have little or no physical evidence. would you then consider it appalling if a man were convicted (and this is all that you know about the case) based on this?
i probably have less, considering my age and ethnicity, but in theory, the system could work if it were not so politicized and corrupt.
as for false accusation of rape, mistaken identity (which is amazing how blatantly racist it is) still lies in the hands of the person who made the positive i.d. that said, if the person admits to the sex, but says it was consentual, DNA evidence means nothing. it is still possible that many innocent men are in prison for a crime they did not commit.
This comment was written by jaketk.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 2:50 pm
Jake -
From Kevin Hayden who has known her since she was a baby.
Source further down, in the comments section.
This comment was written by Méta.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 2:53 pm
I wanted to add:
This sounds like she was “affected” to me. Living at half a dozen place in a year and dropping out of school isn’t “having your act together”.
This comment was written by Méta.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 3:06 pm
So it would be OK for someone to decide you were lying about your abuse, because you weren’t acting ‘traumatized’?
mythago, you missed the rest of the point: but that does not mean i was unaffected. if this woman behaved as if she was completely unaffected, but did not have repressed memories, i think many detectives would be hesistant to believe her.
in your example, am i behaving as if nothing happened/completely unaffected, or am i behaving as usual, keeping people at a distance, hiding physical pain, or remaining in uncomfortable situations so as not to appear rude?
and yes, you are right that we do not know everything about this case, so i would hope you are not assuming that she is innocent and the boys are guilty just because of the judge’s ruling.
This comment was written by jaketk.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 3:29 pm
am i behaving as if nothing happened/completely unaffected, or am i behaving as usual, keeping people at a distance, hiding physical pain, or remaining in uncomfortable situations so as not to appear rude?
Somebody else has decided that, in their opinion, you didn’t act ‘traumatized’, therefore you’re lying. A little presumptuous, I’d say.
so i would hope you are not assuming that she is innocent and the boys are guilty
The men (not “boys”–I’ve seen nothing to suggest they were juveniles) were not charged with any crime.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 4:11 pm
[...] Lots of other blogs are covering this as well. Alas, A Blog (thanks for the tip), Shakespeare’s Sister, Seeing the Forest, and Upsize This!. [...]
This comment was written by privilege judo » Blog Archive » judge gives green light for gang rape.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 4:55 pm
This is appalling. I am a person who is kind of nonconformist in emotions. I cry when I shouldn’t and I don’t cry when I should kind of thing. I’m glad I don’t live in Oregon.
This comment was written by Jessica.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 5:13 pm
I’m not going to speculate on precisely what happened, but it’s clear that her failure to act sufficiently traumatized wasn’t the only factor under consideration.
Although there’s no way of knowing how often it happens, it’s undeniable that women do sometimes make false accusations of rape; I myself have been a victim of a woman’s frivolous and malicious abuse of the law, although her allegations were much less serious, and I was just subjected to a bit of harassment by a sheriff. In light of the magnitude of the damages suffered by a man falsely convicted of rape (which may well include being repeatedly raped himself), I would argue that a false accusation of rape is a crime even more serious than rape itself. If she truly made the claim in bad faith, then a month in prison is far too light a penalty to pay.
Of course, I do realize that sometimes the evidence is too flimsy to make a clear call either way, and I’m aware of the problems associated with creating disincentives for actual victims to come forward. But I also think that it’s horribly unjust to allow those who try to ruin the lives of others through false accusations to get off so lightly.
I don’t have a solution to this problem. Do you? Under what conditions would you accept a conviction for false accusation of rape as legitimate, and what punishment do you think is appropriate?
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 5:28 pm
Considering that in this country the rule is “innocent until proven guilty,” I would like to see this judge’s evidence that she wasn’t raped.
I can understand an aquittal (more or less)—but there is a vast world of difference between an inability to prove something (to the standards necessary for conviction), and that something’s nonexistance.
So acting “traumatized” is now a requirement. First off, anyone who’s thinking about filing a false rape report is perhaps capable of acting? Secondly, what the fuck are they defining rape as? What are their criteria that makes it a crime? Not unwanted sex, apparently, nor deliberately making someone feel helpless and powerless, or selfishly using another person’s body for one’s own satisfaction, with its message about the respective worth of rapist and victim, or even causing physical injury, potential uncureable disease, or pregnancy—NOOOO, apparently the only thing that rape does wrong is making a woman cry, making her frightened, making her sad.
Translation: if the victim cheats the rapist out of the pleasure of destroying her, he hasn’t done anything wrong. Your own bodily autonomy, freedom of choice, equality, are all up for grabs so long as losing them doesn’t leave you crying your eyes out in the police station, the counselor’s office, at home, and of course, on the witness stand where your rapist can see you and enjoy seeing what he’s done to you.
And if this is the result of being unable to prove you were raped, how is one supposed to avoid an assault charge for defending oneself against rape? ‘Cause I’m sure attempted rape is even harder to prove.
This comment was written by Kyra.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 6:12 pm
Just nuts. How do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant knowingly told a falsehood when she filed the police report? This is just dead wrong. Is she appealing this?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 7:56 pm
“broce, few people who are assaulted walk away unchanged. most do have some noticeable change in their behavior”
Your proof for this contention, other than your personal experience? What makes *your* personal experience more accurate than mine?
“i don’t behave “traumatized” by any means, but that does not mean i was uneffected. if this woman behaved as if she was completely unaffected,”
But the article *specifically* noted that the woman did not act “traumatized” enough, not that she was totally unaffected. You’re extrapolating something from the story which is not there.
This comment was written by Broce.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 8:05 pm
How surprised am I that Cathy Young thinks that absence of proof of a rape constitutes proof that the victim was lying?
About as surprised as I’d be if someone informed me the earth was round.
This comment was written by Linnet.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 8:37 pm
While I’m hesitant to jump on a bandwagon involving any case based on its reporting in the media (the fake story of a man being convicted for trying to abort his girlfriend’s baby with her consent for instance), assuming the facts are as reported this shouldn’t remotely rise to the level of legal action. Insufficent trauma is a bizarre and inherantly subjective standard to apply for such a serious case. Presuming all victims will respond to an attack in the same manner is dangerous and unfounded.
Furthermore, the suggestion that a false accusation of rape is a more serious crime than rape is insulting belittling towards the reality of rape. False accusations of crime, and indeed most especially rape, are no doubt serious offenses that when sufficently proven do demand legal action. But to suggest that a false accusation is more serious than actual rape is profoundly male-centric to the point of utterly dehumanizing women. Indeed, it is an insult to all victims of rape, male or female, but the manner in which that opinion was offered made it very clear that it was women who ought to be marginalized while the male victims of false accusations be elivated above them. I’d be horrified and angry if I were ever false accused of rape. The notion would disgust me to my core and I take great care to ensure my actions are always beyond reproach. Being accused of such a crime would greatly offend me and everything I try to do in my life. But I would NEVER pretend that the offense against me was greater than that of the men and women who are raped. My offense would be precisely because I understand how grave and awful a crime this is. How dare any man wallow in such self-indulgence such that they would seek to belittle such a disgusting crime! I’ve known women who were raped. Some told of me of the attack years after, others only days. I know that the suggestion that a false accusation is worse than the crime done to them is bizarre and uncalled for. Its a serious matter, but do not pretend that the false accused are the “real” victims.
This comment was written by BStu.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 10:54 pm
Mr. Berg,
> In light of the magnitude of the damages suffered by a
> man falsely convicted of rape (which may well include
> being repeatedly raped himself), I would argue
> that a false accusation of rape is a crime even more
> serious than rape itself.
Why are you trusting the justice system to function correctly when the woman is on trial,
When you don’t trust it to function correctly when the man is on trial?
Also, bear in mind that just as a man falsely accused of rape is innocent and possibly suffers harm,
The woman who some man rapes is innocent and definitely suffers harm.
Rebecca
This comment was written by Rebecca Borgstrom.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 11:03 pm
(For reference: “possibly suffers harm” does not refer to possible conviction, but the fact that a rape accusation—particularly a false one—doesn’t even necessarily lead to a police investigation of the accused.)
This comment was written by Rebecca Borgstrom.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2005 at 12:07 am
BStu:
But I would NEVER pretend that the offense against me was greater than that of the men and women who are raped. My offense would be precisely because I understand how grave and awful a crime this is.
This isn’t about your feelings or whether or not you’d be offended. It’s about the devastating effects that a false conviction could have on your life. I don’t want to belittle rape. It’s a very serious and despicable crime. But in most cases it’s over quickly and leaves no lasting damage beyond psychological trauma.
Of course, this trauma may be severe and last for years. I don’t deny that. But when someone is convicted of rape–or of any serious crime–he has years of his life taken away. He will suffer trauma as well. If he’s particularly unfortunate, he may be raped in prison–perhaps more than once. When he gets out, the life he knew will be gone. He’ll be permanently branded as a rapist. The consequences of conviction of a serious crime are devastating and permanent. No amount of therapy can make up for having been forced to spend the better part of your youth in a cell.
If I had to choose, I’d rather be raped myself than be falsely convicted of rape. Can you honestly say that you’d choose differently?
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2005 at 12:10 am
Ms. Borgstrom:
Why are you trusting the justice system to function correctly when the woman is on trial, When you don’t trust it to function correctly when the man is on trial?
I’m not. I think I made it fairly clear (comment 25) that I have serious reservations about the practicality of creating a system which can punish false accusations with sufficient severity while not convicting actual victims or creating disincentives for actual victims to come forward.
However, I suspect that there are probably some cases in which the accusation can be proven false beyond a reasonable doubt. If so, the accuser in such should be punished severely, not only because of the damages the defendant might have suffered, but also because such cases cast doubt on the credibility of actual rape victims.
Also, bear in mind that just as a man falsely accused of rape is innocent and possibly suffers harm, The woman who some man rapes is innocent and definitely suffers harm.
You may disagree, but I don’t think we should draw much of a distinction between attempting a crime and successfully committing it. I think that attempted murder should be treated the same as successful murder, and I think that attempting to ruin someone’s life (or acting with reckless disregard for the fact that one’s actions might result in such) with a false accusation of rape should be treated the same as successfully doing so. So the fact that the truth may prevail and the accused may walk free doesn’t affect my opinions about how demonstrably false accusations should be punished.
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2005 at 1:06 am
In the past, I’ve volunteered as a crisis counselor, meeting with rape survivors in the hospital after an assault. I’ve seen many different reactions. Laughter and joking is just as “normal” a reaction as fear and tears. We all cope differently. Unfortunately, those of us who volunteer as advocates have to spend far too much of our time and energy correcting others in the ER who assume that somebody is fine or is lying simply because she copes in a way they find unbelievable.
Second, the threat of being accused of “false charges” is very scary just after a trauma event, so now women (especially in that area) who need to seek out help will pause. I’ve worked with clients in the past who were threatened with such action if they didn’t submit to evidence collection kits, and I’ve seen the fear and upset that causes. When you’ve gone through something like and assault, the threat of getting into legal trouble yourself is quite enough to motivate you to simply avoid talking to the police or going to the ER in the first place.
This comment was written by Virginia.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2005 at 1:09 am
“I don’t want to belittle rape. It’s a very serious and despicable crime. But in most cases it’s over quickly and leaves no lasting damage beyond psychological trauma.”
Excuse me, but WHAT THE F*** are you talking about?
Do you have any idea how ignorant such a comment is? Rape is a devastating crime that can* leave great damage to its victim and by extent her family and loved ones. Anyone who has known rape victims, who has read their stories or testimonies, who is familiar with rape survivors’ work, or who has read even a handful of studies on rape and its long lasting trauma can testify to that.
If you had been held down and nearly castrated at age 17, would you describe it as “oh, it was over quickly — all I have now is psychological trauma”???
Oh, and you write, “If I had to choose, I’d rather be raped myself than be falsely convicted of rape. Can you honestly say that you’d choose differently?”
If you could choose, then it’s not rape, is it?
Asshat.
*By the way, something that many women have pointed out on this thread is that women can also be angry, determined, resolved, numb, etc … and that the severity of rape’s effects, as well as how long they last and how difficult recovery is, varies a lot from woman to woman.
This comment was written by Linda Flores.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2005 at 2:43 am
Thanks Linda, I’ve pretty much been thinking ‘asshat’ with each more offensive post that has arrived from our Mr. Berg.
Kindly take your psuedo-psychiatric conclusions and shove them, sir. They are indeed most offensive.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2005 at 4:24 am
jaketk:
In what way was feminism an ideology that was part of or caused the abuse?
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2005 at 5:12 am
jaketk,
I was raped several years before I encountered feminism. Does that mean I have discovered the secret of time travel?
This comment was written by maureen.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2005 at 7:35 am
Jaketk: what does your experience as a male assault survivor have to do with systematic assaults on women’s veracity and personal experiences? If anything, I would think it would make you sympathetic. Strange how you use it as yet another bludgeoning tool to doubt what women have to say. Why don’t you come out and say it? Women are liars, right? Your assualt seems to give you unlimited rights to attack women… but when women criticize men and rape-by-males you seem to think we’re all feminazis out to castrate the world. Go figure.
That’s one of the big problems I have with men chiming in on threads about women being raped by men with their “well, men are raped too!” comments. Yes, men *are* raped too. And what-all does that have to do with how women define rape, define rape society, define how traumatized they are by it, prove that they were raped, ad nauseum? It’s like the men suing the battered women’s shelters… if you guys need safe space, don’t turn to our resources. Build your own. Similarly, if you feel that your rape equals and is comparable to the rape that women experience, fucking say that and share in the solution. But don’t be such a sexist prick as to use your rape to beat women down further. Your maleness does not sanctify your experience.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2005 at 8:44 am
Hey, news flash, the legal system doesn’t work perfectly.
That this case has aroused so much outrage, however, demonstrates that the larger culture is healthier than this judge (which, of course, isn’t hard).
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2005 at 9:44 am
Seems to me that the debate about which is worse, being raped or being falsely accused/convicted of rape, is kind of pointless. Both are horrible and have horrible consequences. I don’t see why advocates for either set of victims need to compete with the other for sympathy.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2005 at 11:41 am
“I would like to see this judge’s evidence that she wasn’t raped.”
No shit, this is what gets me most about this. It wasn’t that the police and prosecution decided not to go forward with prosecuting the men with rape because of insufficient evidence, but that they turned around and prosecuted her for filing a false charge because there was insufficient evidence for the rape. How in the hell does this pass any basic test of logic?
It also annoys the shit out of me that some people are somehow confusing not having enough evidence to be certain of rape with therefore having enough evidence to convict of false rape charge. It’s possible, certainly, for there to be evidence of a false accusation and therefore conequently no evidence for the false crime. There is a difference, however, between that and concluding, based on lack of evidence for the charge, that the accuser must be lying - beyond a reasonable doubt. And yet their case appears to be solely based on the lack of evidence for the rape.
RonF - yes you are right, but only because, since this an emotionaly charged subject, people are mostly talking about which victim hurt worse, rather than what hurts society more. It’s rather like the question of which is more important: ensuring that every person who has the right to vote is not prevented from doing so or making sure that there is no voter fraud? It partly depends on the scale, of course (are we talking about a few hundred people voting under dead people’s names or are we concerned with how easy it is to hack into electronic voting machines?). However, when the amount of each is neither overwhelming nor vastly disproportinate to each other, it’s also a fundamental value judgement.
Personally, even if false reports of rape were made in equal amounts to the number of rapes that were underreported, I would worry more about the latter. I think that a society whose own citizens fear coming foward when they have been victims of a crime has a more fundamental problem than a society where even liars feel safe going to the police with false charges. Now, if we had a problem of high convictions of false charges - either as a general rule or for a particular type of crime- that would be something else altogether, but the latter at least doesn’t seem to be the case.
This comment was written by Jenny K.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2005 at 1:59 pm
What Qgrrl said. >:
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2005 at 2:42 pm
I can understand if the judge didn’t feel there was enough evidence to convict the men of rape. After all, it should be a convincing case to convict someone of a crime, and perhaps there just wasn’t enough evidence to be convinced.
However, I’m surprised that the alledged victim was actually convicted of committing a crime. It certainly doesn’t sound like there was any convincing evidence on that front either. In fact, it sounds like both sides were just based on testimonies, and neither had anything really substantial. If that were the case, then it only seems that the suspects should be acquitted. The claimaint shouldn’t be fined just because she didn’t win the case.
It almost seems like the judge felt somebody needed to be convicted of something one way or another.
This comment was written by Dave.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2005 at 3:13 pm
Kenny> Well said.
I am stunned that this judge is on the bench. This case is so outrageous, as to make me wonder about his past ruling history. This might be the first time he’s overstepped both reason and logical authority, but I seriously doubt it. The guy shouldn’t be disgracing the bench, and should be removed from office asap.
Of course, I’d also be for public flagellation and feathering, but I know this isn’t humane treatment for a criminal.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2005 at 3:14 pm
If there’s more to this case than, “She didn’t act traumatized enough,” and, “I have a hunch that the boys are more credible,” why aren’t we hearing it? Why would it be omitted from a three-page newspaper article on a decision to convict a young woman of filing a false accusation?
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2005 at 3:35 pm
Kevin Hayden of the blog the American Street attended the trial, as he knew the woman for most of her life. He says the news story is accurate. In his blog and in comments in Shakespeare’s Sister’s blog, he says the police detective thought it was strange that she didn’t shower immediately afterwards, since rape victims “always” overshower. This, despite the fact that many people don’t do so afterward (numb, in shock, whatever), and are told not to, the better to get a rape kit.
Fucking hell. It’s telling how the presumption of innocence crowd that shows up whenever we have the gall to talk about rape and the rough treatment rape survivors get clam up in this case–except to say that of course there are false accusers! Oh, yeah. No real presumption of innocence here, nor is there any overwhelming evidence that she did indeed manufacture the claim.
I’ll bet you’d hear them yelping if it was a robbery charge that brought this about, though.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2005 at 3:51 pm
>>Kevin Hayden of the blog the American Street attended the trial, as he knew the woman for most of her life. He says the news story is accurate. In his blog and in comments in Shakespeare’s Sister’s blog, he says the police detective thought it was strange that she didn’t shower immediately afterwards, since rape victims “always” overshower. This, despite the fact that many people don’t do so afterward (numb, in shock, whatever), and are told not to, the better to get a rape kit. >>
Or simple depression.
That link won’t load, but I’ve seen his post quoted on this impromptu blogswarm. And it’s basic common sense: the evidence we’ve heard about is lousy evidence. If there were good evidence that in fact made up the judge’s motive, what reason would there be to omit it from any discussion?
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2005 at 4:28 pm
Actually, I was comment #5, and, if you’d read it, you’d see that part of what makes me so absolutely sick with fury here is precisely the lack of presumption of innocence. Susan (also, presumably part of the eeeeeevilllle “presumption of innocence crowd”) posted at #9, and called the entire case outrageous and irrational. Neither of us said a single goddamn thing about false accusers. Both of us condemned the case in no uncertain terms. Period.
Anyone who is accused of any crime deserves the (legal) benefit of the doubt. I don’t see any way that any of us, working from the evidence presented, can believe that this poor girl’s case satisfies the reasonable doubt standard.
Incidentally, far less than the “benefit of the doubt” standard leading to this, I think it’s fair to look at the belief espoused by some here that when a court finds someone not guilty, they’re saying “they didn’t do it.” If you actually believe that, then of course this conviction makes sense, but thankfully our legal system doesn’t (or shouldn’t, shouldn’t, isn’t supposed to) work that way. It’s not at all incompatible to say both that there’s a reasonable doubt that these men (not boys) raped her and to say that there’s a reasonable doubt that she lied.
Personally, and based just on the evidence I’ve seen, I don’t think there is a reasonable doubt that they raped her, but, of course, I haven’t seen all the evidence.
This comment was written by anonymous.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2005 at 6:31 pm
“I don’t want to belittle rape. It is a very serious and despicable crime. But in most cases it’s over quickly and leaves no lasting damage beyond psychological trauma.”
In what world is psychological trauma not damage? Psychological damage means the brain is functioning differently. When dealing with trauma, women’s Autonomic Nervous Systems are less likely to kick out the “fight” or “flight” responses and more likely to activate the “freeze response, where both branches of the ANS are activated at the same time - when that happens there is a sense where the brain is deliberately shorting itself out. Time sense is trashed. The connection between the body and the brain gets iffy. Emotions are muted. Because the hippocampus is depressed, memories are not processed normally. This is all well and good during the actual trauma; it helps the woman survive it - the problem is that quite often the brain’s still a little quirky once the woman is safe.
Since the memories didn’t get their time stamp from the hippocampus when they were created, if they wander into consciousness the woman relives the memories, without being able to tell they are NOT happening right now. The hippocampus never labeled them “past event,” and until that happens somehow she is still experiencing that rape every time she’s triggered. This is what people don’t seem to get. No, for many of us, it is not “over quickly.” We’re living there for a very, very long time.
And the fact that the brain doesn’t recognize the memory as a memory, reliving the event means that the brain is once again shutting down systems on you completely at random (until and unless you figure out all your triggers and quit developing new ones), which often leads to memory problems, which leads to problems on the job or in school. Funny how that works.
Not that everyone’s brain gets hit in the exact same way. Some people get hit by body memory, where you get to feel them touching you again even though you haven’t seen them in years. Some people dissociate, where one part of your brain or body decides it isn’t talking to rest for some reason. That one is often connected to sex - so fun to have sex when the more excited your body gets, the less your brain knows about it.
And since your body considers itself under threat so often, everything’s kicked into high gear. After two or three days of jumping at every little sound and flinching at any movement in the corner of our eye, some of us get a mite testy, which tends not to go over big with your significant other. Depression is not good when you’ve got little ones. Etc. Then there are the secondary issues - difficulties trusting, sense of foreshortened future, avoidance, social phobia, all that good stuff.
I am sorry, I do not normally get this sarcastic, but Good Lord! Anyone who thinks psyhological trauma is not significant lasting damage has never seen hide nor hair of the beast, and apparently is incapable of even imagining it.
From the information here, it certainly looks as if the woman in question is a fairly typical example of the “outward adjustment” phase (aka, denial), in some popular theory of rape trauma or other. But the idea that anyone with any knowledge of how things works would argue that women who’ve been raped all respond the same… Well, they may have been exposed to knowledge on rape trauma, but clearly nothing was absorbed.
This comment was written by shiloh.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2005 at 7:35 pm
Daran writes: In what way was feminism an ideology that was part of or caused the abuse?
My oldest aunt is a feminist. She was sexually abusive. All of her actions, she felt, were justified because she had been oppressed by “The Patriarchy.” Because I am male, and therefore a potential threat, her actions were merely preemptive, not unlike the Jessica’s Law. She felt I deserved it because I would probably do it to a woman, I needed to learn what it felt like (she actually said this, which is ironic since she knew what was going on between me, my brothers, and my father), and I would get over it. Most of what she said was akin to this: But don’t be such a sexist prick as to use your rape to beat women down further. Your maleness does not sanctify your experience, though much calmer and usually in a even tone. She never yelled at me, but in much the same way as the comment, what she did was okay because just by saying it hurt was “beating women down.”
Feminism provided her with the ammunition as my family is mostly male, and my grandfather could not have cared less about his daughters. Granted, as far as I know, neither of my biological aunts were treated anywhere near the way my grandfather treated his sons. I assume that because they were not the focus of the abuse, they felt neglected and latched on to a movement that allowed for such extremism. The irony is that many of the opinions my aunt has about men are shared by a lot of feminists. Even when I mention what happened, the ideas themselves are generally defended.
Q Grrl writes: What does your experience as a male assault survivor have to do with systematic assaults on women’s veracity and personal experiences?
I offered it only as a counter point to Broce’s comment. I am fully aware that my experience is considered irrelevant, fully-deserved, laughable and negligible here. As this is a feminist blog, I know better than to come here assuming I would get any sympathy.
BTW, I was not aware that state and federal tax dollars were “your” money. I think my foster parents “stole” a great deal of it.
This comment was written by jaketk.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2005 at 7:45 pm
Jaketk, I’m very sorry you were abused. It’s horrible what happened to you; no one should be treated like that, ever.
At the same time, please don’t accuse other posters here of saying that your abuse was fully-deserved, unless you can back it up with an in-context quote of someone here explicitly saying that your abuse was fully-deserved.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2005 at 8:00 pm
I myself have been a victim of a woman’s frivolous and malicious abuse of the law
So you had a bad legal experience involving a woman, and that convinced you that women are disproportionally hysterical and crazy? Do you think women have cornered the market on being frivilous and malicious, and misusing the law? Do you think rape is the only crime that’s subject to false accusations? If you honestly would rather be raped than be falsely accused of rape, then you are, to put in kindly, insane. It’s hard enough to get a rape convinction when there’s physical evidence, due to the “rape doesn’t exist and anyway, she asked for it” mentality of our society. Just ask those guys who sold the tape of themselves burning their unconcious victim’s vagina and sodolizing her with the pool cue; they were acquitted, she was “playing possum.” The chances of a false rape claim actually being prosecuted and leading to a conviction are very small. Yes, there have been some high profile cases of accidental misidentification, where either the victim wrongly identified her attacker or the police arrested the wrong suspect, such as the Central Park jogger case. However, is it really the victim’s fault that the police too often rely on unreliable investigative techniques? Should the onus be on the victim to track down, apprehend, and prosecute her attacker, or just to somehow verify that the police know what they’re doing when it’s outside her area of expertise?
This comment was written by MSN.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2005 at 8:13 pm
jaketk, your aunt is obviously mentally ill. There is no subset of feminism that I’m aware of that justifies child abuse of boys in the name of scoring one against the patriarchy. I’m sorry for what happened to you, but to try and claim that anyone outside of a mental hospital would consider your abuse deserved is unsupportable. Feminism does not “allow” for the extremism of mentally ill child abusers, and nor does believing that patriarchy is oppressive make someone an evil lunatic who’s getting ready to abuse a boy. Mentally ill people tend to pervert all kinds of ideologies to justify their behavior. If a child has been abused by a Christian who claims that he’s scourging the child of sin to please God, does that mean Christianity gave the child abuser the license and ammunition to abuse? Because if Christianity didn’t exist, this person would have lived a happy, stable, normal life and not abused any children?
This comment was written by MSN.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2005 at 8:27 pm
Ampersand writes:
My apologies, but I do honestly believe several posters here hold that sort of “you had it coming”, “oh, boo-hoo” view of male abuse.
This comment was written by jaketk.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2005 at 8:32 pm
Jaketk, I am genuinely sorry for what happened to you, and I can’t fathom what must have been going on in your aunt’s mind to believe that abusing you was justified because you were male; to treat any child that way is evil, as far as I’m concerned, and I personally, as a feminist raised by feminists, cannot imagine following the train of “logic” your aunt apparently used to arrive at the conclusion that it’s okay to hurt anyone.
But is it fair to say that feminism “caused” your aunt’s evil? She may have used arguments with a feminist overlay to justify her actions, but is that any different from male rapists who argue that their violence against women is justified because they were provoked to it? People who commit that sort of violence will do it, and they’ll justify it to themselves with whatever excuse they can think of.
I’m not sure whether you are actually saying this, but it sounds like you’re arguing that because of what your aunt did to you, the whole of feminism is implicated, including the movements that got women the right to vote, the movements that are still trying to ensure fairness in the workplace, the movement that is still trying to ensure fairness at home? And do you have any evidence that there are other feminists abusing male children - or anyone else - because of the “ammunition” provided by feminism? Did rapes and sexual abuse in general not occur before the feminist movement?
Feminism may have allowed one person to justify her own evil to herself and to you, and you have a right to your own reactions to this - but I think that to stereotype the entire movement because of it isn’t likely to be a helpful reaction, any more than it’s healthy to believe that because some men rape, all men will.
This comment was written by mangala.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2005 at 9:05 pm
MSN writes:
No, not really. She has no kids, no history of abuse, and has often joked about it, with less detail, with her friends.
Feminism does allow for extremism (that is, extreme points of view), so it is only logical that some people are going to take it more seriously than others. Writing them off as mentally ill denies that many people do things once part of a group or ideology that they would otherwise not do. This happens a lot with religious and political ideologies, and was quite frequent this past century. Many ideologies give people the springboard they need. Part of it is on them, but part of it comes from the ideology that reinforces those beliefs.
If the ideas behind a person’s acts are that you should punish your child, then technically Christianity has given the person license to punish their child however they see fit. More so, if those ideas are defended, then it is not the act of punishing the child that is wrong, just how far it was taken.
This comment was written by jaketk.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2005 at 9:47 pm
Bullshit.
Nobody has told you any such thing. We have told you that your abuse should not be a silencing tool to be used when women talk about a rape culture which has women as its primary– if not sole– subbordinate class. Using it as such is dirty pool. You accomplish nothing. You create no rapport between yourself and women who have been abused. You use it as a distancing tool and a means of guilt-tripping. You use it to draw attention to yourself as being somehow more special and more in need of nuturing than the women who are the primary focus of threads like this one. Small wonder that every feminist you run across isn’t weeping and tearing out her hair in a spasm of online “mea culpa.”
Nobody has said “boo-hoo” about your abuse. Several of us have said that your expectation of special deference from feminist women is crap, and a typical immobilizing tactic used by your fellow MRA’s.
And incidentally, jaketik, since you believe your abuser’s feminist beliefs have been so destructive to you, why –again– are you among feminists ? Surely all those righteous MRA practitioners could provide some newer, better model of saving abused men and boys ? Why don’t you ask them why they spend so much time harassing women’s shelters instead of spending their time and resources to help you on some alternate model that would be more to your liking ?
Oh, and there’s a definition for a person who strides into a space knowing full well that what they have to say will meet with mass dislike, and who makes a point of repeating those deliberately alienating words ad nauseum at every opportunity. I’ll give you a hint: It rhymes with “roll.”
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2005 at 11:08 pm
Ampersand:
I find it ironic that you quote “fully-deserved” without any context. In fact his words were
“I am fully aware that my experience is considered irrelevant, fully-deserved, laughable and negligible here.”
The context of course was that he was replying to Qgirl (Post 41 in this thread in which she accused him of “us[ing his abuse] as yet another bludgeoning tool to doubt what women have to say”, of considering that “Women are liars, right?”, that his “assualt seems to give [him] unlimited rights to attack women”, of “be[ing] such a sexist prick as to use [his] rape to beat women down further.”
And all without an in-context quote of him or a word of protest from other posters here or of rebuke from you. (Yes, I realise that you can’t read or respond to every post)
“Fully-deserved” is not justified by anything that I’ve seen written here, but I understand why he feels that way.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 12:04 am
You forgot to add that Q-grrl mentioned that it was horrid and her advice was to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Guess that didn’t fit in with your sanctimony though.
Anyways, I call bullshit as well, Alsis. There is nothing in this persons posting that gives any inkling of trying to be part of a group-think that collectively shames and abhors abuse, but instead wants to point the finger of blame on feminists because of a lunatic aunt who claimed to be a feminist (umm bullshit), and an abusive father.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 12:07 am
My response in the first paragraph was to Daran, Bean jumped in between the posts, so I wanted to clarify that.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 12:26 am
“Feminism does allow for extremism (that is, extreme points of view), so it is only logical that some people are going to take it more seriously than others. Writing them off as mentally ill denies that many people do things once part of a group or ideology that they would otherwise not do. This happens a lot with religious and political ideologies, and was quite frequent this past century. Many ideologies give people the springboard they need. Part of it is on them, but part of it comes from the ideology that reinforces those beliefs”
With all due respect, bullshit. How does feminism “allow for extremism”? What the hell does that even mean? I’m sorry, but that makes no sense. You need to define your terms. Yes, people do things as part of a group or ideology that they would otherwise not do, sure. Once your aunt was indoctrinated into the cult of feminism and saw everybody else sexually assaulting male children, she had no choice but to do it too, or be written out of the in group. If only your aunt had never heard the word “patriarchy,” nothing bad would have happened to you.
Sorry to disappoint you, but an “extremist ideology” that lets us know things like rape is bad and equal pay is good isn’t the same thing as a mind control cult. Sorry to disappoint you again, but even before scary feminism came to change us all from nice, normal, well adjusted citizens to “doing things we wouldn’t already do,” like child abuse, we already knew that rape and unequal pay were bad! Feminism didn’t make us angry or help us figure out what our problems were, we knew them already. All it did wqas help us to figure out that there might be some solutions (child abuse not among them).
“If the ideas behind a person’s acts are that you should punish your child, then technically Christianity has given the person license to punish their child however they see fit. More so, if those ideas are defended, then it is not the act of punishing the child that is wrong, just how far it was taken.”
Yeah, that’s the point. Nobody says that the idea behind Christianity is that you should punish your child. Well, okay, a few small sects of child abusing lunatics do, but that invalidates your “point,” because there are no sects of feminists who think child abuse is okay. It’s crazy to say that Christianity is to blame for child abuse, because 99% of Christians do not use Christianity to defend child abuse, just like no feminists use feminism to condone child abuse. But according to you, if you defend the “ideas” of feminism, like “rape is bad” then you are somehow defending child abuse. This makes no logical sense, and it’s thuggish, as when you told someone that because she made a point about feminism that has nothing to do with child abuse, she’s basically a victimizer, because your aunt, who abused children, said something similar. By the same token, my neighbor was assaulted by someone who told her “Jesus Christ wants you to be a good girl.” So by your definition any parent who has ever uttered that phrase to their children is an abuser. Also by your definition, when you say that we’re condoning child abuse, I could say that you’re inciting rapists and abusers to attack us, because people who condone child abuse are bad people and deserve to be punished, thus you wouldn’t care if we got attacked, therefore you’re condoing rape. That would make no sense, but neither does anything else you’ve said here.
This comment was written by MSN.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 2:06 am
Sorry to post twice, but a better analogy would be that by your logic, or Jerry Falwell’s, ie, Feminism is a scary dangerous extreme ideology that causes women to leave their husbands, kill their children, become lesbians, and destroy capitalism, well gosh, wouldn’t it be a good idea to kill feminists? After all, it would be self defense. This evil corrupted creed turns them into killers and abusers, so we just have to kill them before they kill us! Now, I have to (hopefully) assume you wouldn’t actually defend anyone who killed a woman and tried to weasel out of it by using this excuse, I was driven to kill by sheer fear and hatred of matriarchy, I had to defend myself, like you say, my actions were merely preemptive. Because people have free will, and that’s just nuts, it makes no sense.
This comment was written by MSN.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 2:33 am
I’m sorry if I sound sanctimonious. I don’t think I am being sanctimonious, but I expect that anything I say is going to sound that way to you, and I’m not sure there’s anything I can do about that.
With respect, I have not forgotten to mention anything. Q-grrl does not appear to have said anything about it being horrid in this thread. (If I’m mistaken about that, can you quote please, but I’ve read through her single post several times, and I’m not seeing it) If she’s said this in some other thread, then I’m not aware of it.
But let’s take it as read that the did say that, meant it sincerely, and that he read it. Has it ever occured to anyone that it might sound sanctimonious to him?
However, this is a side issue to the point I was making. Ampersand did not take jaketk to task for failing to say that someone’s abuse was horrid. Ampersand said that jaketk said that … (to however many levels of “said that” indirection we need) jaketk’s abuse was “fully-deserved”.
And I agree, that nobody has said or implied this in any way in this thread. I did not say that Q-grrl said that his abuse was deserved. I said that Q-grrl said several other things that, to my mind, are every bit as offensive as “fully-deserved”, and did so, without any quote or justification that I can see.
Since Q-grrl made her post, a couple of other people have taken up the “you’re bludgening women” call. (Posts 45,60, and 62 Do you need me to quote them?) And I still don’t see a quote or a justification for it.
I don’t accept the premiss that your groupthink does this. And I’m asking you as politely as I can to take your own advice in the “how not to be insane” post, and think, seriously about what I’m saying. In particular, when you read those comments between 6 and 40 by jaketk and in reply to him, what do you see? And when you read the posts from 41 onward, what do you see? Because what I see is a polite conversation - with disagreement and emotion on both sides - that fell apart from 41 onward.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 3:28 am
That wasn’t actually my advice, Daran, and as good of a friend as Amp is, I don’t particularly agree with it on all levels, anyways…
The group-think I refer to is the collective ideology that rape is wrong every-which-way you look at it, and attempting to victim blame, or create scenarios in which women collectively are somehow just as responsible for rape (they simply aren’t, no matter how much people want to assert it) is not acceptible. Instead we have people like Jaketk coming in with really offensive finger-pointing, and feminist blaming, and you coming in with the resounding ‘oh look, aren’t I ever so reasonable as I point out just how irrational and mean these feminists are’, all the while exhonerating yourself from any underhanded argumentative tactics (*read: I expect anything I say is going to sound that way to you). You’re seeming to expect folks to go easy on people who are using some rather nasty silencing tactics to undermine a very serious issue. I don’t respect that, nor will I shy away from a vile argument that’s been prettied up to try to sound reasonable.
To me, I’ll take a strident and forward Q-grrl any day over people who attempt to cushion or obfuscate less than generous observations in mealy-mouthed small talk or academic snobbery. It might not be pretty, but it’s salient and true, and it doesn’t allow for the sorts of discussion hijacking that seems to be so commonplace with the topic of rape.
Anyways, back to the subject of the judge and young woman. That’s what really counts here, and it deserves our focus and serious attention.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 3:58 am
Daran wrote:
For the record, I quoted without context is because my response to Jaketk appeared about an inch below the bit I was responding to, and therefore anyone reading my post would have read the original context about a second beforehand.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 7:10 am
Basement Kim wrote:
Yeah. :o Sorry.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 8:10 am
Anyways, back to the subject of the judge and young woman. That’s what really counts here, and it deserves our focus and serious attention.
Yep. It strikes me how often these threads that focus on WOMEN and the violence we have to deal with get derailed. Seriously–I have yet to see a thread where some guy didn’t turn it into a thread about him, or do something to derail it. Anything is preferable to talking about violence, and how it affects WOMEN, and how it is that WOMEN are the main targets of DV and rape. Better to silence and shame us beatches, many of whom have dealt with this.
Sheesh.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 8:27 am
Anonymous–did I mention you? No, I didn’t. I was talking about the fact that every time we talk about rape (and I’ve been posting here, blogging, and posting on the net in general for years), we get people accusing us of being against the presumption of innocence. Even though we aren’t.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 8:28 am
Does anyone know of any further reaction in Oregon to this ruling? Is this judge subject to re-election? (Some are, some aren’t.) This man does not belong on the bench, in my opinion, unless there are a lot of facts I don’t know. At least there is room for seriously questioning his judgment.
Someone in the local area - we in California can’t help you out much - needs to mount a local campaign to have this creep recalled. That’s going to be much more effective than any amount of outrage.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 8:45 am
Ah, my apologies, then. Since Susan and I have, within the last week, been part of a large and ongoing conversation here that dealt primarily with the presumption of innocence, specifically in a context in which the presumption of innocence and the ‘reasonable doubt’ standard lead to an outcome that most people here (myself included) found less than optimal, I figured your comment was a swipe at that conversation, and at me and her. I’m still not sure who else, specifically, the ‘presumption of innocence’ crowd you were referring to was supposed to be, but I’m willing to accept that it was a general statement, and not intended as a personal attack.
And yes, I understand your frustration. Every time I talk about the presumption of innocence and the standard of reasonable doubt, I get people accusing me of being pro-rape, anti-woman, and “presuming that all women consent to sex with any man any time.” Even though I’m not.
This comment was written by anonymous.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 10:01 am
In reference to how jaketk uses his narrative regarding his abuse, he *indeed* does use it in this space to demonize feminists and women. He blatently refuses to call his aunt mentally ill. Why? Because in some part of his mind, it is easier to hold onto the world-view/personal view that his experience of abuse means that all feminists are out to hurt all men. This is highly problematic. In many ways. One, it stifles important discourse here (which is, on average, what happens when men refuse to talk about women who have been raped by men and want to focus on men who have been raped, even if that isn’t the topic). This happens almost every time — yet strangely these same men don’t openly discuss male on male rape or the rape of men by women. They piggyback their stories onto women’s, not in an act of solidarity (strangely enough), but in an attempt to discredit women’s claims about how rape and rape culture shape their lives. The second way that this is problematic is that it mirrors, but does not accurately reflect, feminist class based analysis of men’s social roles in a patriarchal society. Men’s Rights folks think that what feminists are doing is the same as them: throwinig personal anecdotal evidence into the mix to shore up weak opinions/politics. This thinking serves to blinker these men against the decades (and centuries) of solid feminist theory and politics. It reduces feminism down to the rants of an insane female relative who abuses male children.
If all that feminists wanted was a feel-good pat on their individual backs, well then the MRA’s view of the world would make a lot of sense. We could then sit back in a miasma of PC guilt and let yet another man put us in our place with his personal trauma. We could deny the reality, yet again, of our own rape stories and rape experiences because of course men get raped too! We could even more importantly TOTALLY IGNORE THE MEN WHO ARE RAPING WOMEN and create a false playing field or status quo in which rape has equal social significance for men and women.
And then guys wonder why I say that all men benefit from rape. You know who benefits from jaketk’s rape? Not his aunt, although she did in her own sick way. Men benefit from jaketk’s rape. Especially male rapists, but more close to home are those good guys that can use his rape as a spring board to escape their own bad socialization.
Yet because jaketk can’t wrap his head around this, he gets used. Time after time. And always will. His is the rape that endlessly evolves — and which he uses against women’s narratives when they are trying to dissect the very rape culture that grows stronger out of his violation.
Am I sorry he was raped? Hell yeah. Am I doubly sickened that it was a woman and his aunt? Strangely yes. I don’t get it. I don’t get the desire to overpower and harm in that manner.
But I refuse to let him use it in a destructive manner against women.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 10:06 am
bean writes: But to blame all feminists for the abuse your aunt put you through is doing exactly what you claim women (particularly feminists) do to men.
I do not blame all feminists for anything. This is like saying because you think there are elements within Islam that allow for violence against women you think all Muslams are rapists. I have not personally encountered any religions or faiths that condone violence against women, yet I do not assume that none exist.
I do not hate feminists, so your point is moot. My logic is that if the black community allowed for the rape of women, we should probably question that. Ironically, this is the feminist position. I think it is appropriate to question certain feminist attitudes as well.
I do not think all feminists are abusers, so again, I fail to see your point.
This comment was written by jaketk.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 10:27 am
Kim (basement variety) writes:
To me, I’ll take a strident and forward Q-grrl any day over people who attempt to cushion or obfuscate less than generous observations in mealy-mouthed small talk or academic snobbery.
I am continually astounded by how little I disagree with Qgrrl in many areas. The fact that some men are abused or have been raped is a problem that needs a solution. However, finding a solution for that should not be a zero-sum game with finding a solution for women being raped.
In fact, the two should feed off of each other, showing that rape is mostly about power, not sex. It demonstrates to me that the focus should be on people abusing power.
One of the things that I think turns off some people from feminism is a perception that some feminists think that men are specifically and uniquely deficient, and that women are not. To my mind, it’s more simply about power.
People who have power tend to abuse it; power in the world for most of it’s existence has hinged on the ability to exercise physical dominance; men, therefore, have had power more than women. In a post-industrial age, the power relationship is less dependent on physical strength. This means that women are more able to oppose abuse, helping to fuel the rise of feminism. It also means that the incidence of abuse by women is likely to increase. The latter doesn’t cancel the fact that there’s abuse by men and that it needs to be solved. It simply means that there’s an increase in a problem that hasn’t happened as much before in history (abuse by women), and that it needs to be solved as well; that abuse, while often expressed differently by the two sexes, occurs; and that we are more likely to solve both problems if we focus on the true cause, instead of setting one against the other.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 10:33 am
i have an idea, i’ve been thinking about it since i read about this case - are there any rape emergency rooms in any states/counties/whatever? and if not, don’t we think we need them? i mean like a rape clinic…where they only treat victims of sexual assault/abuse… isn’t it obvious that rape victims are treated badly when they go to the emergency room, often are not given the info they need (plan B)…wouldn’t it make since for women to start demanding emergency rooms dedicated to sexual assault? maybe an offshoot of planned parenthood or an office that would be open 24/7…they would be far more sensitive to the victims, might be able to get more detials on the crime, women might feel safer reporting a rape if they knew they would be treated with kindness and compassion by their investigators and nurses/physicians. idk, i was raped a long time ago..some things you just never get over all the way - i still prefer female docs to men…i just wonder how many females would report the rape, get checked out - better evidence collecting by specialists (higher conviction rates) if they knew the docs would be females…idk..i think we need to do this…it could be a rape specialist(s), men who have been raped could come in and be treated, maybe seperate doors for each side…idk…we need to make it easier for women to seek help in a safe and secure area with concern and compassion, especially while feeling violated and vulnerable. any ideas? i have heard too many horror stories of rape victims being treated like crap by the hospitals, sanctimonious nurses, an uneducated legal system and an under trained police force. i think this would be a solution…if every major city in every major state had this set up…some might have to drive to get there, but wouldn’t it feel good to go somewhere where you felt safe, cared for and like someone was fighting for your rights, especially after such a violation…i mean with the amount of women who are raped each year, shit…each day…it could treat and educate…it isn’t like there wouldn’t be a demand…started by women, run by women, male specialists for men/boys who have been raped…
This comment was written by DD.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 10:56 am
one addition, the rape clinic should have enough rooms so that if a victim is afraid to return to their home or apt, they would have a safe place to stay, at least for 24-48 hours…
This comment was written by DD.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 11:18 am
You mean like these?
Emergency accommodation is also available if the victim fears returning to her own home.
This comment was written by Spicy.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 12:06 pm
Q Grrl writes:
No… I do not believe she is mentally ill because it is a common excuse for abuse. I know it is easier to accept that women only abuse if they are mentally ill, but many people who are abusive do so just because they can, with no mental illness or drugs. You do not assume every rapist is mentally ill, but if I do not think my aunt is mentally ill, I hate women and feminists? Besides, it is not as if I blamed her for anything. I merely stated what happened and why she did it. I accept full responsibility, so there is no point is claiming I blame feminists for anything.
Wrong again. One, I would never mention my abuse for any sense of solidarity on a feminist site. That is expressly the reason I have never gone into detail. It would be the equivalent of posting about a hang nail on a thread about murder. Two, my experience discredits nothing other than the myth that women cannot abuse. Outside of that, stating that I reacted by shutting down and pushing people away, not by sobbing uncontrollably, demonstrates that there is a difference in the way people can respond to assault. Nothing more, nothing less. It was a non-issue until you decided to attack me for “beating down women.”
I am already aware that mentioning my experience promotes and facilitates female rape. But for the sake of argument, yes I realize that my experience promotes the “rape culture.” I would remove myself from the equation if I could, but I possess too much cowardice to do so, and my friends and siblings would be hurt if I did. I have no desire to hurt anyone, so until I can distance myself from them further, or someone else does it for me ( I would not stop them), I unfortunately have no choice but to remain. My apologies.
That is kind of you to say, but you will understand if I doubt your sincerity after the last page and a half. It is fine if you do not honestly believe those things. As I said, I offered it as a counter point, not as an attempt to steal sympathy away from real victims.
This comment was written by jaketk.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 12:08 pm
yes, do we have this in the US? i have heard of aftercare shelters, but none that actually do the rape exam and fill out paperwork…i think in the US, you go to ao hospital first, and then they refer you to a rape group. i want something that would actually do the exam, gather evidence, perhaps have laisons with the police department…idk, there is too much lacking, we need to identify the gaps, from education to treatment and come up with some solutions, if women are the primary targets, WE need to come up with solutions. it is shocking to me to read about some of the men on the juries and the judges themselves who see a women semi concious and find her a willing partner…horrible…i think unless you have been raped, you really can never understnad what it does on a physical, mental and emotional level. you just can’t. i will never understand when someone says it was *just* rape - rape can take years to work through, and even then, the lingtering fear, the remembrance that any one stronger than you can, well, basically do anything they want to you, that never goes away. ever. the remembrance that your spirit is the only thing you really have as a woman, that your body can be, in essence, taken from you. idk. i have always said: RAPE - ripping away part of my essence/existence…idk..solutions, solutions. i wish we would have a damn war on violence instead of a war on drugs, at least that way violent offenders might have to serve their full sentences.
This comment was written by DD.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 12:33 pm
there may be a couple. i think los angeles has something similar to this where a different group of people handle the victim than the regular staff. i think part of the reason it has not been done that often in the states is because of concerns about the method of the exams, gathering of information, and perhaps what would be sent to the police. the hospitals are responsible if the victim leaves, or if evidence is lost or tainted. i am not sure if the same legal standards would apply your suggestion, though it would be wise for hospitals to have staff trained to deal with such situations.
This comment was written by jaketk.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 12:53 pm
>> Two, my experience discredits nothing other than the myth that women cannot abuse.
Funny, Jaketk, you are the *only* one talking about that. I’ve not seen a single poster here *ever*, not just in this thread, make the claim that women cannot abuse. I see you saying feminists think this, but I’ve never seen a single feminist make that statement.
In other words, this one’s all in *your* head.
This comment was written by Broce.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 12:57 pm
jaketk writes: “Two, my experience discredits nothing other than the myth that women cannot abuse.”
Except that no one here is promulgating that myth. No one here supports that. So, when you inject our experience vis-a-vis discursive tactics in threads that have nothing to do with whether or not women can abuse, you *do* discredit what women are saying about the rape they experience at the hands of men. You bring up a rhetorical red herring each time — not because its true that women abuse/rape, but because it has no relevance, in the context in which it is presented, other than to disrupt the discussion of the rape of women perpetrated by males.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 3:08 pm
Susan;
Amp wrote an email to the judge yesterday to get a copy of his statement. All this is going down in Beaverton, but I know (at least in our house) we are all pretty well disgusted with what we know of the case, and hopefully will get more information soon.
Jake;
The problem as I see it is that you’re trying to pull in the aspect of feminism as part of the abuse, as if it’s something that anyone other than your abusive and to my way of thinking mentally ill aunt rationalizes her poor behavior. It’s insulting to feminists to drop her on our laps as if she’s a monster we somehow created. As for the question of her sanity - I think abusers aren’t firing on all cylinders, be they man or woman. I expect it’s not considered ‘mental illness’ universally or even generally, but to me, it’s mental and it’s ill. It’s not HEALTHY, RATIONAL or RESPECTFUL decision making. And pretty much I’d say to any abuser out there that lurks, ‘you’re crazy in the head brutha/sistah’.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 4:12 pm
Funny, Jaketk, you are the *only* one talking about that. I’ve not seen a single poster here *ever*, not just in this thread, make the claim that women cannot abuse.
And I did not make the comment suggesting that anyone did. Q Grrl stated that I only mentioned it to prove women don’t get abused. But my experience proves nothing outside of that it can happen. That is all it demonstrates.
I know you feel attacked for me stating that, but it is all in your head.
This comment was written by jaketk.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 5:04 pm
bean, resentment takes effort i would rather not spend. it also would mean that i hold her responsible for what happened, which i do not. there is little sense in blaming a person when it was my actions that caused it to occur in the first place. still, even with acceptance of responsibility for what happened, i am not going to pretend it did not happen because it makes you uncomfortable. while it is easier for you to believe no feminist would ever do such a thing, that does not change that it occured. so i am sorry, but that is not something i am going to do.
interestingly enough, i never said feminism caused my aunt to do anything. i said she used it as justification, that it (i believe) acted as a catalyst for and contributed to her behavior, and that her views are consistent with most feminist views. your issue is not her views. those you actually agree with it. it is merely that i take issue with them. while i doubt she would visit a site like this, i do know you would never realize how seriously she takes the issue of women’s safety or male violence if she were to. again, those are views you agree with. you agree that something should be done about them, even if it requires forcing people to change their views about women. you would do so with words, and sometimes by berating those who disagree. she would do so by enacting the violence on them. same views, different method. again, if this makes you uncomfortable, i am sorry, but i am not going to pretend that every other ideology in the world has people to who go too far except feminism.
This comment was written by jaketk.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 5:22 pm
Go for it, folks. We need to act, not just talk, if we can. We need to do what we can to get this creepo off the bench. God alone knows what he’ll do next time.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 5:29 pm
Hey, maybe a letter even from a Californian will help. What harm can it do? Keep me posted.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 6:38 pm
First of all, jaketik, you greatly misunderstand what the feminists here have written about rape culture if you seriously believe that understanding how it works makes any feminist “comfortable.” It takes quite a lot of arrogance on your part to crow that we all just float along in little bubbles of comfort, and that we desperately need someone like you to run in and puncture said bubbles for us.
Second of all, I doubt you are sorry one bit, or you wouldn’t be carrying on as just one more “Women-do-it, too,” version of the Energizer Bunny. You didn’t want to be abused, and your aunt abused you anyway. You know that the women here don’t like your diversions and your false acusations , and yet you persist in them anyway. In fact, it seems to me that far more feminists on this blog have told you that they believe your personal abuse stories and are sorry for your experience than vice versa. That is, I have seen countless threads about rape and abuse perpetrated by men against women that were deluged with men whose first priority was exonerating themselves from any acusations of rape and abuse. Saying kind things to the women who were trying to tell their stories and learn from them was decidedly on the back burner for those men, if it was there at all.
Maybe you should sit back and think about that for a spell.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
>>I know you feel attacked for me stating that, but it is all in your head.
Wow. That’s a leap. No, I don’t feel attacked. I feel a tad astounded that you made the comment in the first place. There *is* no myth that a woman cannot abuse, except in your mind.
Please provide a citation from a reputable feminist source, or heck, any reputable source, claiming that women cannot be abusers.
This comment was written by Broce.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 8:42 pm
>>And, again, other than your aunt, show me any feminist theory that says abuse is okay, against anyone. Again, your aunt was an abuser
What’s interesting to me is that Jaketk claims on the one had that his aunt (who I assume is a feminist) used feminism as justification for abuse, and on the other, that feminists think women cannot abuse.
If feminism supports abuse by women, how can it at the same time hold the view that women cannot abuse? There is a problem of logic here.
This comment was written by Broce.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 10:46 pm
I don’t think the judge will have made a media statement as such. He will have handed down a judgement, which is maybe what you meant. That judgement will be part of the court record for the case, and by default, open to public inspection, but it not something that the court would disseminate.
But is it really wise to dig this stuff up? Are we really doing any favours to the individuals in this case - both the woman and the men - to expose every last detail of this sad affair to the blog and media circus? I mean, look at what happened in the Bryant case.
It will probably happen anyway. I expect we’ll soon know her name, home address, mobile telephone number, bra size, and just how many different men’s sperm were found on the swab. But do we really want to be a part of that process? I know I don’t.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 11:14 pm
You’re right Daran, judgement is exactly what I meant to say, but the proper word eluded me when I initially wrote the post you quoted from. Suffice it to say that as I gathered my toddler and newborn up to go grocery shopping, I somehow faltered in my academic vocabulary prowess. Thank goodness you caught that, else I think nobody would have understood what I meant! *gathers her tongue from her cheek before moving onwards*
Anyways, being that myself (as well as Amp, Bean and Alsis) all live in Portland, right near where the judgement took place and the judge resides, I’d say it’s in our best interests to know, yes. I can’t see the logic or rationale behind accepting what seems like and very well could be a judgement that was based soley on how victimized a woman acts after being victimized as not only a measure for the guilt of the accused, but also as a measure for the veracity of her accusation.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 11:47 pm
Jaketk:
You say you did something you take full responsibility for. And that you don’t blame your abuser. But that your abuser used feminism to justify the abuse. And that feminism didn’t cause her abuse, but was the catalyst for and contributed to her actions (a contradiction in that alone). And that her views are consustent with the views of most feminists. And “i am not going to pretend that every other ideology in the world has people to who go too far except feminism.
Wow, dude. I don’t mean to berate you at all by saying this, but that’s a mass of contradictions, and claims with no supporting evidence beyond your own opinion. As well, to say you won’t “pretend that every other ideology in the world” has extremists, but feminism does seems consistent with a lack of information about human behavior.
Just so you know, EVERY ideology has some fanatical adherents, including feminism amd liberalism. There’s no pretense in being aware of that.
But sympathy not being your motive, you are clearly trying to make your points accepted. And they seem so unclear, contradictory and unfocused that it’s nearly impossible to get what your point is. If you aren’t blaming feminism as the cause of your woes, you are clearly charging feminists with shared view that men should be abused for being men.
Others, especially Bean, have addressed things you’ve said quite well. But unless you know all feminists or post links to some research supporting that statement, you should note that numerous feminists on this blog dispute that contention. Out of dozens of (active and passive) feminists I’ve known, I can count the male bashers and extremists among them as less than a dozen.
Your abuser may be ill or mean or spiteful, but her views are not mainstream in any ideology I’m familiar with. I think the contradictions suggest you could benefit sorting this stuff out with a counselor.
You’ll not likely find any satisfactory answers to the pain you endured or the pain she inflicted here. I think it’s important that you get it sorted out and in a better forum for addressing it, which a good counselor can provide.
This comment was written by Kevin Hayden.Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2005 at 12:03 am
Thankyou so much for your post Shiloh. It was both apposite and enlightening.
This comment was written by seranvali.Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2005 at 12:39 am
Jaketk , who are these “real victims” you keep talking about? And what do you mean that you take responsibility for what happened to you? I’m trying not to get pulled into this argument, which seems to be going nowhere, but my background is in psychology, and many of the things that you are saying raise huge red flags. As bean said, there are no actions that a child can take that would in any way justify their being abused, or “cause” the abuse to occur. I cannot recommend strongly enough that you get some therapy. You are in no way responsible for anything that happened to you as a child. The abuser is the one who is responsible, and if there really is a Hell I’m sure that they have a special circle reserved for those who harm children.
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.Also, I know this is obvious to everyone else here, but…there is no branch of feminism which believes that child abuse is hunky-dory, or an appropriate response to the problem of patriarchy. Your attempt to generalise from your own experience with one clearly disturbed and evil relative to some idea that feminism promotes child abuse makes no sense.
Think of it this way. My mother was sexually abused by her father. He was a soldier in the British Army, and very proud of his involvement in WW2. He certainly felt that he was owed gratitude and deference as a war veteran, and was not shy about letting people know that he felt that way. Should I assume from this personal experience that all WW2 veterans are abusers, or that the British Army is encouraging or enabling child abuse, or providing the justification for it? That would be ridiculous. My grandfather was a horrible man who used whatever excuses he could come up with to try to justify his crappy behaviour. Your aunt sounds very much the same. Your implication that feminism is somehow responsible for her behaviour makes no more sense than my hypothetical about the Army. Bad people will attempt to justify their behaviour by any means necessary. If we allow them to do so we are letting them off the hook and not forcing them to shoulder the blame for their own actions, which is in fact where the blame really belongs.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2005 at 12:43 am
Back to the actual subject of this thread…this judge should be disbarred. Since when are judges or police officers considered competent to assess what the “proper” response to trauma is? Have they had any specialised training in psychology? No? Then they are not in a position to be making this kind of call. And the fact that one of the reasons the cop gave for feeling that the victim was not credible was that she didn’t return his phone calls quickly enough? Give me a break. Having someone not answer your calls is annoying, but it’s not grounds for charging her with a crime. What an asshole.
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2005 at 1:37 am
I agree we shouldn’t be coming to any conclusions based solely on what a newspaper article says, especially when there’s nothing in that article to suggest that the judgement was based solely on anything. The wording was “relied on the testimony”, which doesn’t imply that other testimony wasn’t considered or even also relied on. I’ve read a few legal judgements in my time, and they invariably go into every single factual and legal point in excruciating detail.
I take your point about having a legitimate personal interest, given that it’s your local police and courts. I considered trying to find the records myself using PACER, but decided against it, for the reasons I gave in my earlier post. (I’ve only used PACER for Federal court judgements and don’t know if it even covers the State courts.)
By the way, I came across this comment
Napoli is filing an appeal in the next few days. Due to the arcane system in the City of Beaverton, there is no court transcript or audio recording of the court proceedings. Beaverton is not a “court of record”. Therefore the girl is entitled to an appeal and the case will be tried over again from square one, in Washington County court.
If that’s true, what was the point of the Beaverton trial in the first place?
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2005 at 1:38 am
To others:
Was the ‘then-girl-now-woman’ troubled prior to the rape? That depends on the definitions you use. I could relate various life incidents which some would say “possible sign of trouble” and others would say “pretty normal stuff that occurs in the confusing time of adolescence when you’re ready or wanting to be an adult”. There’s been no clear red flags that are definitive of the former concern.
More aberrant behaviors were observable post-event along with more emotional distress. For her privacy concerns, I won’t be relating many specifics. Anyone wishing to sort out her emotional distress and their foundations should submit their psychiatric credentials to support their theories, instead of their own biases built upon their own experience.
I never expected it’d be easy to get a conviction against the men simply because in a three-words-against-one situation and lacking signs of the more brutal rapes that people want to see to be convinced.
But, in choosing to prosecute the young woman, one would assume she was aggressively pursuing their prosecution. In fact, the complaint of the lead detective was just the opposite: she wasn’t in touch with him enough, and that caused him to project that she wasn’t acting like typical victims.
Other than the first month or two after the rape, she was not pursuing counselling. What she pursued was employment, socializing with friends, and a love relationship she could depend on, all fairly normal pursuits in anyone’s quest for survival. Was she a druggie? No. An alkie? No. Criminal record? None.
A very smart student, her physical health woes caused absences that caused her to fall behind in school. Post-rape, she dropped out, but planned to return, catch up and graduate with her class.
She just wanted the whole thing to go away, to be over forever. After they charged her, when a family member took her to the Sexual Assault Resource Clinic, she was angry immediately afterward just because telling them made her re-live it. She came to appreciate their support of her afterward, which mainly consisted of them accompanying her to each court appearance.
Now consider, these are people used to working closely in alliance with the police. Her attorney, a former prosecutor, has knowledge of what kind of prosecutions are the norm. Both were shocked by the prosecution, and surprised by the outcome. That alone should be indicative that something was different about this case.
Unfortunately, I didn’t see that difference presented in evidence. The lead detective was received as the most credible witness, though the evidence was all circumstantial (except the words he recorded of others, which is recorded hearsay) and open to interpretation.
So the bottom line is that it appeared the judge merely made his best guess. The standard of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ hardly seems to have held sway.
The witnesses against her: two detectives, the three men who raped her, the girlfriend and girlfriend’s mother that she was living with at the time of the assault, and another former acquaintance who offerred opinions from a remote perspective.
Two of those people were the very people who convinced her to report it! By the time they were interviewed by the detective, the girlfriend was saying it ‘didn’t seem like a real rape to her’, because the girl wasn’t acting how she thought a rape victim would act. I’m sure there are plenty of 17 year old experts qualified to pass such judgment. Uh-huh.
The girlfriend’s mother was a piece of work. She provided the alcohol the victim had that night, which she stole at the grocery store she worked for, and other adults who’d visited the victim there noted the mother always was mildly inebriated. About a month after the rape, the victim was supposed to move out to make room for the return of the mother’s boyfriend. He was getting out of prison after being convicted of molesting his own daughter.
How much credibility should she be granted regarding another sexual assault victim? The judge cited her and her daughter, and the detective, as the ones delivering his justification to convict.
Setting aside the question of whether the guys were guilty - as they weren’t going to be prosecuted and that was a given many months before this trial - the word of those people she spent two months living with was granted too much credibility in my opinion. Which basically left the detective, who pointed out minor discrepancies, advanced theories of what motivated her, and ultimately prevailed in convincing the judge that his own judgment was sound.
As a result, unless she wins on appeal, she won’t be eligible for any victim’s assistance - be it counselling for rape or emotional woes. The men, even if falsely accused, were free from prosecution well in advance of that trial. They gained nothing from it beyond the opportunity to file for civil damages against her future wages when she’s employed again. Were she truly guilty, without counselling, with exposure to jail inmates and a fresh debt burden against her, what incentive or disincentive then exists to repeat the crime at some future date?
Well, I’d guess, if she doesn’t pick up new antisocial skills from her cellmates, I’d guess she’d not report any real or imagined rape, or if she did, she’d leave out any details that show herself in any unfavorable light. More likely, though, she becomes a permanent target of rapists because this one conviction will forever invalidate her word.
And what if - as I believe - she’s innocent? Then someone will have a big chip on their shoulder and will counsel other victims to avoid the justice system. And cutoff from that system, what options will be left to her should she be a victim of any future assault? Other than escape, her only remaining option would be to kill her attacker(s).
Thus, either way, I don’t see what society gained, the men gained, or she’s gained. I see great potential for worse difficulties for her and for society down the road.
But I didn’t raise the issue to argue all the possibilities. I argue from an unshakeable belief in her innocence and that the evidence against her is so weak that the longterm risks of a wrongful conviction make no sense at all.
Reasonable doubt should have held the day. Justice cannot be psychic or perfect. This woman’s educational goal was to pursue a Master’s in Public Administration. I can only wonder how the court anticipates she’ll become a productive public servant if she feels the administration of public justice has betrayed her completely.
This comment was written by Kevin Hayden.Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2005 at 4:31 am
Some potentially useful addresses for raising hell:
Beaverton City Council comment form:
http://www.beavertonoregon.gov/council/comments.cfm
Beaverton Mayor’s email:
mayormail@ci.beaverton.or.us
Beaverton Municipal Courts:
courtmail@ci.beaverton.or.us
Beaverton City Attorney:
cityattymail@ci.beaverton.or.us (City Attorney Alan Rappleyea)
Not sure who at the state level to contact.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2005 at 4:44 am
City Attorney Alan Rappleyea is Ted Naemura’s boss, and presumably had the power to stop this prosecution from going forward.
Personally, as well as seeing both Ted Naemura and Peter Ackerman fired, I would like to see negative coverage of this case be the top google link for both of them. I’m willing to bet that both of them have political aspirations, and Ackerman has a private law practice, and I’d like to see all of that hurt by them being firmly linked to this gross and intentional miscarriage of justice. Alan Rappleyea had less directly to do with this case, but he could use some tar as well, particularly given that this case is part of a pattern of abuse by his department and not merely a unprecedented miscarriage of justice.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2005 at 8:06 am
In addition to the steps Charles has outlined above, I would strongly recommend pushing to make the Beaverton court a court of record. Leaving a paper trail in legal proceedings is always a good thing, I think.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2005 at 12:00 pm
I’m wondering how relevant that question is anyway.
Rapists are in some ways like wolves. Wolves do not attack the strong, healthy caribou, the ones who can defend themselves. Not while they have any choice. They pick out the weak in the herd.
Thus also rapists, often. Sometimes a rapist will attack a strong woman, but often they choose the weak, the troubled, the confused, simply because it’s easier. And afterwards they can say, “Well, she was troubled anyhow.” Like that’s an excuse.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2005 at 2:27 pm
That is really bizarre. It’s a criminal hearing that could result in jail time, and they don’t even have a damn court reporter taking the proceedings down?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2005 at 2:43 pm
Well, starting the wheels turning locally, I sent out heads-up information to my local parenting groups. Considering making a post on the Portland CraigsList forums as well. Interesting, by the way that the question of why on earth tax dollars were spent on a case that a case that had no clear red flags of false accusation and was circumstantial at best, but not bother to prosecute the preceding case of the actual accusation of rape.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2005 at 4:18 pm
and was circumstantial at best
Just a pedantic note here, but in legal terms “circumstantial” doesn’t mean “weak” or “bad” evidence.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2005 at 7:08 pm
God damn, pedantic indeed. The nit-picking over legalese is getting a bit irritating lately. Circumstantial evidence is of course a valid form of evidence, but it doesn’t make it ‘better’ or ‘good’ or ‘best’. Many people, myself included, find circumstantial evidence to be less convincing than other types, especially with regards to basing an entire case around it.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2005 at 8:25 pm
Many people, myself included, find circumstantial evidence to be less convincing than other types
Like eyewitness evidence?
And y’know, when you’re talking about a LEGAL ISSUE such as, oh, a court ruling, I don’t see that it’s so awful to use LEGAL TERMS appropriately. Silly, pedantic me.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2005 at 8:49 pm
Yeah I agree with Mythago. It’s important for us to be precise when discussing these things, especially in a case like this where a * judge* acted so irrationally. If we want to confront him and his colleagues, it helps to use the right words. When people with expertise step in and make corrections in these threads I find it educational, not pedantic.
My understanding of a circumstantial case would include something like, a man’s fingerprints were found in a dead woman’s apartment, he had been turned down for a date with her the previous week, he was inexplicably absent from work the next several days, and bought a $1200 TV the next week (whereas $1200 was missing from the woman’s wallet and his salary is paltry.) In that case, there’s no murder weapon, no eyewitness (though those are notoriously unreliable, but anyways), and it’s possible that he could have left the fingerprints when there for a legit purpose (say they were coworkers or neighbors) but yet, the case is pretty damning against him in the eyes of most–including myself.
This case against the young woman in Beaverton? It’s not even circumstantial. It seems to me it’s almost pure speculation–something usually banned in court, I thought. There’s no apparent indirect evidence that she fabricated the charges or would have even had a motive to do so–no evidence of bribes or payoffs, for instance. The only “evidence” is the opinion of a couple of very unreliable bystanders that the woman wasn’t acting like they personally would expect a rape victim to behave. Convicting on this basis isn’t like a circumstantial case. It’s like convicting someone because their neighbors think they act like a stereotypical murderer, or fining them for tax evasion because their father in law doesn’t think they act like a typical taxpayer.
This comment was written by Lilith.Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2005 at 9:11 pm
circumstantial evidence
n. evidence in a trial which is not directly from an eyewitness or participant and requires some reasoning to prove a fact. There is a public perception that such evidence is weak (”all they have is circumstantial evidence”), but the probable conclusion from the circumstances may be so strong that there can be little doubt as to a vital fact (”beyond a reasonable doubt” in a criminal case, and “a preponderance of the evidence” in a civil case). Particularly in criminal cases, “eyewitness” (”I saw Frankie shoot Johnny”) type evidence is often lacking and may be unreliable, so circumstantial evidence becomes essential. Prior threats to the victim, fingerprints found at the scene of the crime, ownership of the murder weapon, and the accused being seen in the neighborhood, certainly point to the suspect as being the killer, but each bit of evidence is circumstantial.
See also: evidence
Link to source
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2005 at 10:19 pm
Silly, pedantic me.
Silly? Not so much. Patronizing? Ding. Ding. Ding.
The lead detective was received as the most credible witness, though the evidence was all circumstantial (except the words he recorded of others, which is recorded hearsay) and open to interpretation.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).This is where I based my conclusion. The person who said this (Kevin) knows the woman and was as I understand it in attendance for most of the proceedings.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2005 at 11:06 pm
BritGirlSF, you agree with the concept of a rape culture. That is to say, we live in a rape culture. By this you mean specifically that the less than equal views our society has towards women allows for rape. You do no think (I assume) that our culture literally says, or honestly condones, rape, just that the view of women as weaker or the view of men as needing to be dominant could certainly lead to such an act. In other words, the views that are held, though never explicitly stating “go rape women,” could act as a catalyst for some men to rape, i.e. those men might be inclined to commit such an act if this view of women is taken to the utmost extreme. Outside of the rape culture element, there is no blame, just a mentioning of what can happen if such a view were taken far too seriously. That is precisely what I think happened with my aunt. She latched onto feminist views about women, men and society, and took it to the utmost extreme and then acted upon those thoughts. Granted, I pushed her further towards it. Still, nothing changes that she agrees with the above premise, though how she would handle it would be far different. Again, there is no blame. I simply accept that I am responsible for my actions, the consequences of those actions, and the actions caused as a result of those actions. I dislike what happened, but I have “blamed” no one for it. I start my courses in criminal psychology next spring, so I am well aware of how that sounds.
And if there is indeed a Hell, I am certain I am far more deserving of it than my aunt.
This comment was written by jaketk.Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2005 at 11:20 pm
Ms. Flores (Comment 37):
Excuse me, but WHAT THE F*** are you talking about?
You know, I’ve never really understood the point of masking. Everyone knows what you meant, and replacing “UCK” with “***” doesn’t make it any less vulgar. If you want to swear, go ahead, but don’t do it and pretend you didn’t. This “F***” S*** is silly.
Rape is a devastating crime that can* leave great damage to its victim and by extent her family and loved ones.
Absolutely. When I said I didn’t want to belittle rape or the psychological damage it causes, I meant it. But being convicted of a rape you didn’t commit, and, as a result, spending several years in prison with violent criminals and being branded for the rest of your life as a rapist, also has a devastating effect on the victim and his family and loved ones.
The difference is that the rape victim is free to try to go on with her life. It’s a lot harder to do that from inside a prison cell.
If you had been held down and nearly castrated at age 17, would you describe it as “oh, it was over quickly–all I have now is psychological trauma”???
Yes. Better to be traumatized and whole than traumatized and castrated. Likewise, it’s better to be traumatized and free than traumatized, imprisoned, and branded as a violent criminal.
Oh, and you write, “If I had to choose, I’d rather be raped myself than be falsely convicted of rape. Can you honestly say that you’d choose differently?” If you could choose, then it’s not rape, is it?
Sure it is. Maybe you’ll understand if I rephrase it so that the victim is a woman. Suppose I approach a woman in a remote location, point a gun at her, and tell her that if she doesn’t have sex with me, I’ll throw her in a cell with a bunch of violent criminals for several years and force her to register as a sex offender when she gets out. She thinks it over for a while and agrees to have sex with me.
That’s rape, isn’t it?
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2005 at 11:32 pm
Brandon and Ms. Flores, I don’t see any point in a “which suffering is worse” competition. Surely we can all agree that being falsely accused of rape is horrible, and being raped is horrible, without needing to rank them in order of horribleness.
In any case, I’d discourage both of you from continuing this line of discussion, as in my experience it never leads anywhere fruitful.
Kim (bv!) and Mythago, please cool it down a few notches.
Daran, please use html to create links, if possible, rather than posting long “raw” URLs. Or use tinyurl, if you’d prefer.
Thank you to everyone for being patient with my sucky moderation skills. I’m sorry if I gave offense. As always, my moderation is by necessity “random spot check”; I apologize for the inherant unfairness created by this system.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 8th, 2005 at 12:51 am
She started it! (jk - fine, I’ll stop :) )
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
December 8th, 2005 at 12:59 am
Granted, I pushed her further towards it. Still, nothing changes that she agrees with the above premise, though how she would handle it would be far different. Again, there is no blame. I simply accept that I am responsible for my actions, the consequences of those actions, and the actions caused as a result of those actions. I dislike what happened, but I have “blamed” no one for it.
You’ve said that you blame yourself a few times, and I’m gathering from your description of what happened there are some things you’ve left out. Out of curiousity, if you don’t mind answering to kind of help frame your example a bit better; How old were you and how old was she when this happened? Did you or she initiate the sexual relationship? How did you ‘push’ her to act in this way? Do you regret that it happened and looking back would you change what happened? Do you feel you had no choice in what happened?
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
December 8th, 2005 at 1:18 am
I disagree with the last statement. It’s not that the public’s perception that “such evidence” is weak. Rather, the case is that the public uses the phrase to mean “weak, inconclusive evidence”. It is in this sense that we should interpret Kevin’s remarks, but we should also try to educate each other that often, words and phrases have a formal meaning which is different from the one we’re familiar with.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 8th, 2005 at 1:33 am
How it’s been written, I had gathered it to be a sexual relationship of some sort. And lest we get bogged down in more pedantics, I used relationship as one would use it without color, but instead to describe a particular type of association between the two, which could have included lack of consent or abuse, not as in they were lovers. Regardless, I’m still curious to understand the nature of the relationship if he is fine with discussing it. If not, no problem, but I’m trying to sort out his perspective and rationale for the defense of his aunt that he offers.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
December 8th, 2005 at 3:30 am
MSN (Comment 55):
So you had a bad legal experience involving a woman, and that convinced you that women are disproportionally hysterical and crazy?
No. My point is only that women sometimes dishonestly manipulate the legal system to hurt men or to protect themselves (e.g., a teenage girl who gets pregnant through consensual sex may allege rape to hide her sexual activity from her parents).
Do you think women have cornered the market on being frivilous and malicious, and misusing the law? Do you think rape is the only crime that’s subject to false accusations?
No. But we’re talking about rape, and men don’t accuse women of rape very often. I would make a similar argument for many other crimes (i.e., a false accusation is as bad as or worse than the crime itself). I do suspect that false accusations may be more common for rape than for many other crimes, for two reasons. First, it’s often difficult or impossible to distinguish between rape and consensual sex on the basis of physical evidence. And then there’s the fact that emotions tend to run strong on both sides where sex and dating are involved. Heaven hath no rage…yada yada yada.
If you honestly would rather be raped than be falsely accused of rape, then you are, to put in kindly, insane.
I didn’t say that. I said I’d rather be raped than falsely convicted. I’d choose accused and acquitted over rape.
The chances of a false rape claim actually being prosecuted and leading to a conviction are very small.
I made no claims about the frequency other than that it’s greater than never. And I’m very skeptical of anyone who claims to know how often false convictions are obtained, because I can’t think of any plausible way to measure it. If you know of any research on this topic, I’d be very interested in hearing about it.
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
December 8th, 2005 at 4:18 am
jaketk
“Writing them off as mentally ill denies that many people do things once part of a group or ideology that they would otherwise not do.”
Actually, that could also considered a form of mental illness: mass hysteria.
“Part of it is on them, but part of it comes from the ideology that reinforces those beliefs.”
If you replace ideology with ideological group, I’d agree with you. That is, after all the point we make about patriarchy and rape culture - that people do things they may not otherwise do because of cultural pressures. However, neither this, nor mass hysteria, absolves individuals of their responsibility towards their fellow citizens, most especially with regards the most vulnerable members of society - which includes children. I may blame the patriarchy, but that doesn’t mean I can’t also hold individuals criminaly responsible for their actions, and it does not justify your aunt, or anyone else, commiting criminal acts.
“If the ideas behind a person’s acts are that you should punish your child, then technically Christianity has given the person license to punish their child however they see fit”
Christianity hasn’t done anything, although it’s possible for a church (or The Church) to contribute to the abuse. Patriarchy, after all, is a collection of people, not just attitudes. It’s a system rather than a cohesive group, but to be system rather than just a bunch of opinions, it needs people that support it.
“I know it is easier to accept that women only abuse if they are mentally ill, but many people who are abusive do so just because they can, with no mental illness or drugs.”
Actually, men who abuse children are often referred to as mentally ill as well and the idea that anyone who commits extreme child abuse is mentally ill in some way is more of a liberal view of crime than a feminist view of abuse.
“…if I do not think my aunt is mentally ill, I hate women and feminists? ….I accept full responsibility, so there is no point is claiming I blame feminists for anything.”
See, it’s the fact that you don’t blame your aunt that (in addition to other comments) is causing people to assume you blame feminists (not the fact that you don’t see her as metally ill). You taking the blame upon yourself is not an acceptable answer to us. We understand that victims often blame themselves and absolve their attackers - we see it all the time in rape. That is why so many people have disagreed with you on you sharing the blame, much less taking it all upon yourself. But the fact that you haven’t really explained why you feel this way has left us at a dead end as far as that argument is concerned, and so we shift our focus to the ideology that you assert played a role in the abuse, because that is all that is left.
“my experience discredits nothing other than the myth that women cannot abuse.”
Qgrrrl wasn’t saying that your experience itself discredits anything , she was arguing that your manner of sharing it does . Not because “It would be the equivalent of posting about a hang nail on a thread about murder.” That is just plain wrong. How the hell can I, as someone who has never been raped, claim that you, who was abused as a child, are the one with the “hang nail?” It’s because, since you don’t claim solidarity with women who have been raped and instead assert your experience as an exception to the rule rather than another form of it that your story, as you are telling it, discredits women’s experiences. There doesn’t need to be a conflict between my experiences with sexism and your experiences with abuse - they both relate back to issues of power and control and how patriarchy places adult masculine men above everyone else, even if other circumstances contributed.
“I am already aware that mentioning my experience promotes and facilitates female rape. But for the sake of argument, yes I realize that my experience promotes the “rape culture.””
You are either seriously mistaken about what feminists believe or just seriously mistaken. Mentioning your experiences does not promote female rape. Child abuse in any form, by any gender, contributes to the idea that might makes right, and since (despite RonF’s good point about how things are changing) women are, on average, weaker in terms of both physical strength and status, this view primarily benefits men, and benefits all rapists. Your experience benefits rapists, your testimonial of it, depending on how it’s done, can have quite the opposite effect. Likewise, your experience does not promote rape culture, it is evidence of it.
“your issue is not her views. those you actually agree with it”
Well, we obviously don’t agree with her that child abuse is ever justified.
“you agree that something should be done about them, even if it requires forcing people to change their views about women. you would do so with words, and sometimes by berating those who disagree. she would do so by enacting the violence on them. same views, different method.”
No, it’s not. That’s like saying seduction is the same as rape. Or that assault is no different from debate. Bodily autonomy is one of the fundamental beliefs of feminism. I can see how some people may call themselves feminists and engage in acts of violence - people are inconsistent all the time. But rape is never justified by feminism (without being inconsistent), violence (against people) is never justified by feminism - except in cases of self defense - and child abuse is never self defense.
“Outside of the rape culture element, there is no blame, just a mentioning of what can happen if such a view were taken far too seriously. That is precisely what I think happened with my aunt.”
Actually, there is blame - and that is for the people who take such views to heart and those who do not work to change things. (Not always criminal blame - but moral failings, surely). Which is why people are taking what you are saying as to mean that you blame feminism. To say that you see feminism in a way that is analogous to how feminists view rape culture, and then turn around and say that no one is to blame, doesn’t really make sense. (That is what you are saying, right?)
This comment was written by Jenny K.Report this comment to the moderators
December 8th, 2005 at 6:32 am
Right, Bean. The Dougal case, that’s been so extensively discussed here, for example, was almost entirely circumstantial. If you’re (not Bean. I mean the royal ‘you’) someone who felt that the case against him was a good, strong, one that should have gone to trial, you probably believe in the use of circumstantial evidence.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 8th, 2005 at 8:58 pm
Berg,
I think it’s interesting that we’re discussing a conviction (woman convicted of making false reports) for which we’ve seen no evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that such a crime was committed (i.e. the prosecution would have had to prove that the rape did not occur in order to prove she made it up), and we’re discussing how much more difficult it may be for some rape victims to come forward now. And in the midst of this, some are talking about how “women get raped too” and “women sometimes falsely accuse men”.
Yes, this does happen. But why can’t women talk about the oppression of women, which is overwhelmingly how it goes, not the other way around, without dudes coming along and saying “but men get it too”?
Oh, and my use of F*** is not to prettify the fact that I’m swearing — it’s out of respect for whatever rules the owner of the blog may have to follow, and it allows people to more easily re-post to other places and blogs without having to edit it themselves.
This comment was written by Linda Flores.Report this comment to the moderators
December 8th, 2005 at 11:44 pm
Linda, I can’t help with reposting on other forums, but on “Alas” feel free to say fuck as much as you’d like.
Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck!
;-)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 9th, 2005 at 12:32 am
Linda:
There’s nothing stopping you from creating a women-only space where the topic of discussion is restricted. But why should you expect to be able to do so here, where such restrictions aren’t in place?
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 9th, 2005 at 1:15 am
Actually Daran, most of the moderators (if not all) would prefer that as well. It’s Amp’s final say, but as a general rule, thread derailment and hijacking in such a manner is frowned upon.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
December 9th, 2005 at 6:37 am
Jenny K:
Of course I agree with the last part - from “that people do” onward.
I don’t think you can separate the ideology from the ideological group. If the ideology is that “men are responsible for all the world’s ills”, then that’s an ideology which will tend to lead its adherents into hating men. Now that hatred will play out in many different ways, from the extreme hatred and violence expressed by Valerie Solanis to the Rape Crisis Centre that refuses to serve men.
The problem with the idea of the ‘Patriarchy’ is that there’s no ideology and no discernible group of adherents. The word is effectively synonymous with ‘men’. I’ve never heard of a Rape Crisis Centre that refused to serve patriarchs.
Rape culture is a similarly vacuous idea. You could just as well talk about the culture where is any problem which is widespread and generally hidden. There’s no reason to single out rape.
It’s the explanation/excuse dichotomy. Solanis’s history of abuse may explain her violence, but doesn’t excuse them. However the judgement that an abuser is mentally ill is regarded as an excuse by society, if only a partial one in some cases. (And it is right that society does.)
Indeed so. And some abusing men undoubtedly are mentally ill, as are some abusing women. And jaketk’s may be one of them. The issue here is surely not whether she is or she isn’t, but the demand, by Q grrl and others, that he acknowledge it (Comment 75 etc.). Just imagine the reaction there would be against me if I responded to a female abuse survivor’s disclosure by demanding that she acknowledge that her male abuser was mentally ill or by asserting that if she didn’t she was “bludgeoning” men. (Comment 41, etc.)
I should have thought it was obvious. Every time a feminist says that men are responsible for rape, they are blaming him for his own abuse. If a feminist says “Men benefit from jaketk’s rape.” (Post 75), then his own brain is going to fill in the second line of the syllogism “jaketk is a man, therefore…”
Do I really need to spell it out? Feminism makes him feel like crap. So he turns that accusation back on feminism, which makes you feminists feel like crap. The moral difference is, feminism is what feminists do. It’s a voluntary choice. Male is what a man is. There’s no voluntary about it.
“Tell us how you feel, so long as you don’t make us feel like crap by telling us that we’re making you feel like crap.”
But that’s the message he gets from feminism. Do a Google search on the phrase “violence against women”. I get 7,940,000 hits. Not every one is a feminist source, but it has been driven by feminism. Now do the same for “violence against men”. I get 83,200, which comes as a surprise to me, because the last time I tried this exercise there were less than 5000. Looks like the MRAs are beginning to make an impact. but it’s still tiny in comparison. Every survey on violence confirms that men suffer more violence than women, yet for all the attention it gets, it’s a hangnail.
It’s feminism which declares that he is an exception to the rule: Feminism doesn’t say to female survivors that they’re responsible for rape, or that they benefited from their abuse.
He is an adult masculine man, and the ‘patriarchy’ isn’t putting his needs above anyone else’s.
I agree that there doesn’t need to be a conflict. For several years during the early nineties I was a member of a small survivor group for both sexes. (I am not a survivor myself.) Every year consistently about one quarter of the number of contacts we got were by or on behalf of male survivors. There was no friction between the male and female membership, because everyone was treated with respect. (Of course there was friction between individuals; that’s true of single-sex groups too.)
That’s bullshit. The most powerful and abusive man on the planet is GWB, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with how much he can benchpress.
“you agree that something should be done about them, even if it requires forcing people to change their views about women. you would do so with words, and sometimes by berating those who disagree. she would do so by enacting the violence on them. same views, different method.”
No, it’s not. That’s like saying seduction is the same as rape. Or that assault is no different from debate.
It’s interesting that the language of assault has been used about him in this debate. He’s the one “bludgeoning” women according to you (plural). Strangely, I haven’t seen him criticise “women”. His criticisms have been directed at feminists.
The front cover of Amnesty International’s member’s magazine does not invite me to “Imagine a world without violence against people”. Nor does the postcard they exhort me to send, condemn violence against people. of course I’d like to see an end to violence against women. I’d like to see an end to violence against everybody. But I object to the exclusive focus upon women.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 9th, 2005 at 6:53 am
Dunno how that bold got in my last post. It wasn’t there in the preview.
Kim (bv):
I guess Ampersand is not particularly interested in having that kind of echo chamber, but that’s his business. As I said, there’s nothing stopping you from creating your own forums and running them how you wish.
I don’t agree that the thread has been derailed or hijacked. I see it as a bit of topic drift, that’s all, but the question of whether feminism caused his abuse, and how it makes him feel like crap would appear to be on-topic for the blog as a whole, and there’s no other story where it would be better placed.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 9th, 2005 at 8:57 am
No, it’s not - that’s a misunderstanding common to people who criticize feminism without knowing what they’re talking about. Wikipedia’s definition is okay for a starting point:
Since there are about ten bazillion feminists in the world, I’m sure you could find one or two who simply define patriarchy as “men,” but that’s not how the word is typically understood by feminists. As Allan Johnson (author of a feminism 101 textbook used in many WS classes) writes, “Racist isn’t another word for ‘bad white people,’ just as patriarchy isn’t a nasty code word for ‘men.’”
Indeed; we could, for instance, use the term “materialist culture” to describe those aspects of society which encourage materialism, or “pro-family culture” to describe aspects which support families, etc. I don’t see what’s wrong with that.
The reason feminists single out rape to talk about “rape culture” is that those aspects of society which encourage rape are aspects we’re particularly eager to change. That’s hardly an unreasonable thing to want to do.
Nor do I find focusing on violence against women reprehensible. It doesn’t mean that other problems are acceptable, just that it’s not useful or possible to focus on everything at once. There’s a lot of awful things in the world, and people aren’t obliged to give equal focus to everything.
There are people out there who focus on violence against men, and on kinds of violence that happen mostly to men (bullying of boys, rape in prison, murder by strangers, etc). I don’t find that objectionable either.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 9th, 2005 at 9:07 am
This doesn’t matter everywhere, but when posting on "Alas, a Blog" you should leave a blank line before the <blockquote> and after the </blockquote>. This will prevent that mysterious bold effect from appearing.
Regarding thread drift, it’s one of those things that’s not objectionable in any individual thread taken on its own, but becomes objectionable when it becomes a pattern over many, many discussions of violence against women. I hope there’s a middle ground between “no thread can ever drift into a dicussion of how men are hurt, too” - which I think wouldn’t be good - and “pratically every discussion of violence against women has to become a venue for putting feminists on trial for not caring enough about men, or for making men feel bad,” which isn’t good, either.
So it’s acceptable for people to commit thread drift, as long as they don’t commit the exact same thread drift on thread after thread after thread. And it’s also acceptable for posters here to criticize other posters for thread drift. Both are allowed.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 9th, 2005 at 10:03 am
this case technically falls into the “weak circumstantial evidence” bin. the only thing that is evident, unless there is something that has been deliberately left out of the papers, is that it is possible that she lied. there is no physical evidence, so everything is based on whether or not her story is considered credible.
personally, i dislike circumstantial cases because of how easy it is to take the person’s behavior, image, or whatever, and use that as a reason for conviction. this happens in a lot of circumstantial cases, and i am sure it has happened in a lot of rape cases.
the only thing that bothers me about the arguments made on this thread about the current case is that if the accused has been convicted with the same lackluster (or lack of) evidence, there would be little issue. it is unfortunate that the burden of proof for the prosecution can be as low as “it’s possible X did it,” but it is. until we decide to change that, it will still be possible for prosecutors to gain convictions with zero evidence.
This comment was written by jaketk.Report this comment to the moderators
December 9th, 2005 at 10:27 am
Kim, i was 4, maybe 5. that would make her either 33 or 34. i had no interest in having sex with her whatsoever. i simply did as i was told. what happened was unfortunate and i did not like it, but what is done is done. regret changes nothing. it stopped once i hit puberty, as my father stepped in. it was more of a gesture of keeping me to myself than anything else.
This comment was written by jaketk.Report this comment to the moderators
December 9th, 2005 at 11:02 am
Amp wrote:
Well, nobody with common sense would, right ? They would know that violence begets violence, and that the more aid you can provide to an abused boy, the more likely he is to mature into someone who does not consider violence against others an appropriate solution to his own pain. Likewise, nobody with common sense would object to the work of women-only DV shelters (again, this is a misnomer anyway, as bean has gone into great detail about the circumstances under which shelters will accept male children;It’s not as if there is a blanket rejection of all male children who are seeking help alongside their mothers). Those who don’t want children –including male children– abused should be applauding all efforts to break the cycle of abuse. Funny how often that doesn’t happen.
jaketik continues to insist that he is responsible for his abuse at the hands of his aunt, which seems key to his continual conduct in these threads. He feels as if he could have prevented his abuse and failed– that it is strictly a personal matter. The women who champion DV shelters don’t treat abuse as a personal matter to be dealt with in isolation. Perhaps this is the crux of jaketik’s objection, which doesn’t make it anymore distressing to watch in action.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 9th, 2005 at 11:02 am
any “less.”
Bah. >:
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 9th, 2005 at 11:51 am
Alsis39, honestly, and not to sound condescending, “me thinks the lady doest protest too much.” If you would stop attempting to turn every post I make into an attack on women, then you might actually begin to understand my point of view. I accept that you do not think that highly of me, but considering you do not know me, you should not presume to know what I think about my experiences. Such a thing could be taken as a sign of conceit, I am sure that is not your intent.
Jenny K writes:
As I have been told countless times by feminists that no one blames all men for rape, your statement is an interesting contradiction. Still, the fact remains that views in and of themselves are harmless until a person acts upon them. And the acts that follow vary from person to person. Since my view is only that there are elements of feminism that can lead to such extremism, there technically is no blame. The only way this actually becomes a problem is if you start from the position that feminism is beyond distortion and corruptibility. I think many here want me to blame feminism, as it is the easiest means of writing me off. The problem is that my experience puts people in the precarious position of having to save face before doing so, hence the reaction you have seen.
This comment was written by jaketk.Report this comment to the moderators
December 9th, 2005 at 12:07 pm
I understand your point of view perfectly, jaketik. Doesn’t mean I have to like it, agree with it, or consider it helpful to the women who frequent this space.
To me, it’s very simple: The powerless party in a blatant exercise of power-over relations accomplishes nothing by berating himself or herself as if that power-over relationship was a relationship of equals. It’s counterproductive, both to the survivor and to others around him/her.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 9th, 2005 at 12:08 pm
P.S.– I hope your “protest” comment is not some snide attempt to acuse me of abuse. If so, I don’t, I haven’t, and you’re out of line.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 9th, 2005 at 12:32 pm
“I don’t think you can separate the ideology from the ideological group. If the ideology is that “men are responsible for all the world’s ills”, then that’s an ideology which will tend to lead its adherents into hating men.”
I was making the distiction because he is arguing that a feminist did something to him in part because of her beliefs, but doesn’t seem to be able to seperate the person from the beliefs. They are two different things. Ideologies can still be dangerous, and they can carry the blame in the non-technical sense of the term, but you can’t put ideologies on trial - just people - even if you sometimes use their ideologies as evidence of motive. Ideas are only as dangerous as what people do with them - to do harm even bad ideolgies require that people adhere to them. Plus, all ideologies require that their adherents have social connections in order for it to flourish. Focusing on the ideology rather than the people who promote it doesn’t make sense to me.
“I should have thought it was obvious. Every time a feminist says that men are responsible for rape, they are blaming him for his own abuse.”
It is, but that doesn’t make it the only response - or even the most logial or accurate assemsment of the arguments - that was why I was trying to clarify the points more. You could say similar things about racism and being a part of the dominant group. I don’t find anything contradictory in the statement that, as a member of the dominiant group, I can be a victim of racism, and that racism benefits the dominant group, including me. Even if racism has hurt me, personally, more than it has helped me, even if a particular act of racism did not directly benefit anyone but the racist, every act of racism indirectly benefits the dominant group by perpetuating the idea that judging others based on race is acceptable.
“And jaketk’s may be one of them. The issue here is surely not whether she is or she isn’t, but the demand, by Q grrl and others, that he acknowledge it (Comment 75 etc.). Just imagine the reaction there would be against me if I responded to a female abuse survivor’s disclosure by demanding that she acknowledge that her male abuser was mentally ill or by asserting that if she didn’t she was “bludgeoning” men. (Comment 41, etc.)”
You are actually conflating two different arguments. (you aren’t the only one to do so but again, my point, whether well done or not, was to seperate them out). We have three possible groups to immediately blame for jaketk’s abuse: jaketk, his aunt, and feminists. The first is ludicrous (and yet the one he himself seems to be taking). The second is obviously true (and yet the one he refuses to blame). The point of the mentally ill responses is to argue that she is the one responsible. Jaketk himself sees this as giving her a pass, which is a valid criticism of the argument; but that does not change that the intention, ill-conceived or not, was to blame the aunt, not not blame the aunt. The question is not whether jaketk sees his aunt as responsible because she was mentally ill, but who he sees as responsible and if he considers his aunt mentally ill.
” So he turns that accusation back on feminism, which makes you feminists feel like crap.”
“”Tell us how you feel, so long as you don’t make us feel like crap by telling us that we’re making you feel like crap.””
The issue is not that “he makes us feel like crap” but that it isn’t terribly productive to point out the obvious when no one is arguing otherwise. The point is not that his arguments need to coincide with ours. His arguments about ideology, while I disagree with them, are relatively on topic. They may also be insulting at times, but they are still more productive than arguments of, say, which individual has suffered more. However, his claim that the mere existence of his abuse not only denies the existence of patriarchy, but that that is why we disagree with him, is not only something I disagree with, it’s counterproductive because it’s so obviously illogical. And what Amp said about repeated thread drifts - something Qgrrrl did refer to.
“It’s feminism which declares that he is an exception to the rule: Feminism doesn’t say to female survivors that they’re responsible for rape, or that they benefited from their abuse.”
Not because it’s not possible for women to benefit in an indirect way from abuse done to them (white female victims of racism still benefit in a non-direct way from racism, even if they are the ones being discriminated against) but because women are not the dominant group. The responsibility thing is a bit trickier. Jaketk was a child when this happened, so none of us actually think he is in any way responsible. An adult, however, that does not actively combat the “ism” that the group he/she belongs to benefits from, could conceivably be seen as indirectly contributing to the problem when that “ism” is turned aginst them - but in an indirect moral way, not in a criminal way. In that same sense, I see women who accept patriarchy having some responsibility in its continuation even though I think that they (like many men) are as much victims as they are part of the problem. Admitting moral responsibility for a cultural phenomenom and the acts that result from it is not the same as assigning criminal, or even moral, responsibility for an indivual act.
“He is an adult masculine man”
In this particular case, he wasn’t when he was abused, thus my argument. Even if he had been - again see racism.
“the ‘patriarchy’ isn’t putting his needs above anyone else’s.”
Last I checked he still benefits from stuff like being less likely to be swindled by a repairperson, less likely to be subjected to catcalls, etc. The indirect benefits that a man gains from sexist abuse that he is subjected to may not, in any conceivable way, outweigh the suffering it causes, but the suffering doesn’t make all the benefits from the perpetuation of sexism go away, either.
“That’s bullshit. The most powerful and abusive man on the planet is GWB, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with how much he can benchpress.”
I’m sorry, you are saying that the power GWB - flight-suit wearing, brush clearing, “we will bring our enemies to justice” GWB - weilds is completely unrelated to (the public’s perception of) his physical prowess?
“Strangely, I haven’t seen him criticise “women”. His criticisms have been directed at feminists”
Actually, his criticisms seem to be directed at feminism. But, in any case, he isn’t being accused of criticising women, just making it more difficult to help women - thus the argument that he is hurting us. I never said bludgeoned because, to me, he sounds more confused than angry, but I can see the metaphor because his arguments along those line tend to shut down conversations on how to help women.
” I’d like to see an end to violence against everybody.”
I agree - but as discussed in another thread recently (I think it was here, actually) I think that the fact that men are more likely to be victims of violence is a result of the patriarchy and sexism as well, and so focusing on the gendered aspects of violence is necessary to combat both types of violence.
This comment was written by Jenny K.Report this comment to the moderators
December 9th, 2005 at 12:34 pm
Jaketk,
While it’s true that feminists don’t blame all individual men for rape culture, we do hold individual men who rape responsible for the rapes that they commit, rape culture or no.
And by the same token, we will hold your aunt responsible for the abuse that she subjected you to, regardless of whether you do. Because we recognize that the abuse of the powerless by those with power is unacceptable, be it by men of women, or by adults of children.
This comment was written by Jakobpunkt.Report this comment to the moderators
December 9th, 2005 at 12:38 pm
Especially when there are enough people berating the powerless party already. What’s with authorities in the Northwest blaming rape victims these days? At least 7 out of 9 decided the girl in the following case isn’t to blame for her rapes, but wtf about the other 2?
Court rules girl not responsible for sex with teacher
December 9, 2005 12:00am
Source: Associated Press WorldStream
Olympia, Washington.
A 13-year-old girl cannot be held at fault for having sex with her teacher, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday, rejecting a school district’s argument that it shouldn’t have been sued because the girl was partially responsible.
In its 7-2 ruling, the court dismissed the defendant’s assertion that the girl consented to the relationship.
“The child, in our view, lacks the capacity to consent to the sexual abuse and is under no duty to protect himself or herself from being abused,” the ruling written by Chief Justice Gerry Alexander said.
The court ruled that criminal laws protecting children from sexual abuse apply equally in civil cases concerning sexual abuse.
The girl was an eighth-grade student in 2001 when the sexual relations occurred with a 26-year-old teacher, Steven Diaz. Diaz was arrested and entered a modified guilty plea.
The girl and her family accused the Royal School District and Principal Preston Andersen of negligence for failure to supervise and for negligent hiring of the teacher. Under state law, it’s criminal for a teacher or anyone else in a position of power, like a priest, to have sexual relations with anyone under the age of 18.
The court wrote that in the particular civil case before it, “a child under the age of 16 may not have contributory fault assessed against her for her participation in a relationship.”
The district and Andersen argued that contributory fault applied because the girl “had a duty to protect herself against sexual abuse but failed to do so.”
In dissent, Justice Richard Sanders wrote that school officials tried to intervene, but that the girl allegedly lied about the relationship, “thwarting the school district’s efforts to protect her.”
“Children should not be allowed to take advantage of the school’s duty by forcing it to pay damages for injuries invited by the student or injuries which the district could have prevented but for obstruction by the student,” he wrote.
Attorney Robert Crotty, who represented the family, said that in sexual abuse cases, there’s pressure put upon the victims to not talk about what happened.
“Sexual abuse by its very definition is cloaked in secrecy and cloaked in lies,” he said.
Crotty said the case now goes back to federal court, and the school district’s attorneys will not be able to bring up any claim that she has any contributory fault.
This comment was written by Samantha.Report this comment to the moderators
December 9th, 2005 at 12:51 pm
“As I have been told countless times by feminists that no one blames all men for rape, your statement is an interesting contradiction.”
How so? I deliberately said rape culture - which is a social phenomenom - not sexism, and I thought it was prettly clear I meant feminism as a collection of ideas (which is how you seem to be referring to it as, my bad if I misread you) - not feminism as a social movement. Are you sure you aren’t confusing “not all men are rapists and/or supporters of patriarchy” with “people who don’t fight the patriarchy are in no way responsible for its consequences” ? You’re claiming I’m disagreeing with the former rather than the latter, which isn’t true.
“I think many here want me to blame feminism, as it is the easiest means of writing me off. The problem is that my experience puts people in the precarious position of having to save face before doing so, hence the reaction you have seen. ”
No, as I stated already, as we completely disagreeing with you that you are in any way to blame for abuse you suffered as a child means, and that your aunt is not, - and so we are left with only your comments on feminisms role in your abuse to discuss. It doesn’t help that you have made it clear that you think feminism has more inherent problems than your average ideology - that is what we object to.
This comment was written by Jenny K.Report this comment to the moderators
December 9th, 2005 at 3:48 pm
Jaketk;
Well that being answered, I’m going to have to stick with my original feeling and say I think your aunt is definitely not quite firing on all cylinders. I’m extremely sorry for what happened to you, and quite honestly I read what you said, and then considered your words of how you feel like you were partially responsible for it and feel extremely sad and angry at the notion. I have a baby and a toddler. At no point will I -ever- agree with you that a child is somehow ‘responsible’ for adults victimizing them. Your aunt was a pedophile and an abuser.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
December 11th, 2005 at 5:50 am
Jenny K:
Well, the people who “promote” feminism are feminists. I don’t see much difference between criticising feminism and criticising feminists.
I do.
I’m not arguing that it’s contradictory. I don’t agree with it for several reasons. I don’t agree with the proposition that there is a dominant group, rather there is a hierarchy of overlapping groups with a complex interacting web of dominance. I don’t agree that the dominant groups benefit from racism, they suffer a smaller disbenefit, but it is still a disbenefit, the world would be better for almost everyone without racism. Finally I distinguish between racism, which is practiced openly, and child sexual abuse, which is generally a secretive affair, at least in the west. Individual acts of racism, openly committed, do indeed “perpetuate the idea” within society in general, while individual acts of CSA in secret can only “perpetuate the idea” to the victim, and this is not a benefit.
I have another quite separate objection. True or not, it’s a crappy thing to say to a survivor. Here’s an analogy: It’s generally true that people don’t always act wisely in respect to their personal safety, and consequently sometimes they suffer injury (whether accidental or perpetrated by another) that might have avoided had *the victim* acted otherwise. This is just as true for rape as it is for any other injury.
But no matter how applicable that might be to any individual survivor’s experience, focussing upon how their behaviour might have contributed to the rape is a crappy way to respond to the disclosure.
Two other possible groups are “men” and “women”.
Well, in so far as feminists are blaming it on “men”, jaketk is included. It is ludicrous, but it’s hardly surprising that he’s internalised it. It’s what his aunt told him and it’s what ‘you’ (i.e feminists) keep telling him.
“Women are not responsible for abuse”. That’s another one of ‘your’ messages that he’s internalised.
I’m sorry, I just don’t buy that. Society regards mental illness as tending to absolve a person of responsibility, and with good reason. In order to behave in an ethical manner, a person needs to be able to observe the world as it is, make moral judgements, and control his or her actions. Different mental illnesses play out differently, but to the extent that they impair any one of these faculties they absolve responsibility.
I’m not particularly interested in a critical analysis of jaketk’s views. It’s obvious to everybody except him (and it may be obvious to him too) that they’re incoherent. Equally obviously to me - and far more interesting - is that many of his feelings about himself and his aunt mirror what feminism says about men and women generally: Men are responsible; women are not responsible. Men are bad; Women, if they do bad things, are mad, (Comment 63 for example: “a lunatic aunt [...] and an abusive father.”, my emphasis. Nobody is demanding that the father be labeled mad.)
Well, you have me baffled. I don’t recall anywhere in this thread him saying anything about his abuse denying the existence of patriarchy, or anyone (prior to this post) having a problem with that. Please cite.
What he did do, is introduce his experience to support his proposition that people are discernably changed by abuse (comment 15), and therefore that the lack of discernable change is therefore evidence of lack of abuse. This, surely, was on-topic. Of course, anecdotes don’t prove generalities, but they are nevertheless generally regarded as admissible in debates like this. At the very least, they indicate what informs our opinions.
I don’t agree for reasons given earlier, but even if true, it’s still a crappy thing to say to a survivor.
By the way. Several years ago, I was an administrative worker for a small survivor group for men and women. We suffered a lot of hostility from some female-only survivors groups. In one case, when we sent two female survivors to a conference, a vote was taken to see if they would be even admitted.
So what was that about?
As an initial matter, feminists do not blame “men who do not actively combat patriarchy”. They blame “men”. Sometimes they blame “all men”.
I agree that there’s a moral duty to oppose injustice and -ism. I do not agree that there is any particular duty to oppose the -ism that benefits the group to which you belong, because the very act of drawing lines to define groups is an -ism. As a practical matter, most of my activism has been to the benefit of disadvantaged white women. White because I’ve always lived in predominately white areas. Women for a lot of different reasons, not least of which is that it is actually a lot easier to help disadvantaged women than it is to help disadvantaged men. And this is because society is structured to make that so. Feminism has been very successful in that respect.
I don’t mind my activism benefiting disadvantaged women. I help those I can reach. It they happen to be women, so be it. But I object to the structures that make it harder to reach men, and to the ideology which supports this.
Last I checked he still benefits from stuff like being less likely to be swindled by a repairperson, less likely to be subjected to catcalls, etc.
And more likely to be imprisoned, to suffer violence, to die in a work-place accident, and so on, but all this is irrelevent, since the need under discussion is his need for help with the aftermath of his abuse. He’s a lot less likely to get it because he is male.
Feminism perpetuates its own unsavoury brand of sexism.
That’s a demonstration of vigour, of health. It has nothing to do with the 30% or so extra upper-body strength men typically have over women. Margaret Thatcher gave similar demonstrations.
As I’ve already observed, I don’t see much difference.
He sounds hurt to me.
I don’t see that. From what I can see, the “insufficiently traumatized woman” issue has been discussed at length
Nor can I see that he was to blame for the firestorm that ensued. He said (comment 15) “i question ideologies that were part of or caused the abuse, like feminism. and because of the attacks and insults i got for speaking up, i only share those experiences with other male survivors, which is one of the reasons i am being so vague.”
There’s no attack there on any individual. No attack upon “women”. No reason not to ignore the comment, if you don’t want to discuss it, or politely respond (as I did) if you do. Q grrl’s response in comment 41 was, frankly, shameful. There’s your bludgeoning. There’s your attempt to silence.
Except that we don’t see a focus on the gendered aspects of violence. We see a focus on violence against women. And violence against men is not a different “type” of violence. Prick us, do we not bleed?
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 11th, 2005 at 6:26 am
Ampersand:
I can’t make a judgement about patterns across many threads. When I look at jaketk’s comment 15, then on a balance of probabilities basis, I don’t see a deliberate attempt to disrupt the thread. That’s a judgement call, of course.
I also know that I wasn’t trying to disrupt the thread with comment 39. I was genuinely curious about his remark. His comment 53 was responsive to me and to Q grrl. Everything he has said since then has been responsive to what was said to him. I did not expect or want the firestorm that followed and I doubt jaketk did. He just refused to be silenced. I was, and indeed still am angry at the way he has been treated here, because I too have seen a pattern across many interactions with feminists/ism of the victim-blaming of male survivors.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 11th, 2005 at 9:19 am
First of all, I never said anything about “deliberate attempts” to do anything. You’re trying to make intent the issue, but I wasn’t talking about intent at all. Just because a pattern isn’t intentional, however, doesn’t mean that it’s not a problem.
Second of all, you’re trying to back me and the other feminists here into a catch-22 where the only way we can defend ourselves from your accusations is to point out the ways that Jaketk - not just in this thread - has repeatedly (but not always) been belligerent and aggressive towards feminists, to counter your “feminists pick on male victims for no reason but that they’re anti-male bigots” implication. But if we build a case critiquing Jaketk’s behavior, you’ll use that as evidence of our “crappy” behavior towards him. As I said, a catch-22.
I’ve never been sure how to respond to Jaketk when he brings up his past abuse in a debate. He uses his past abuse as a debating tool to attack feminism, not just in this thread but also in past threads, iirc. (I’m not saying this is necessarily Jaketk’s intent, but it’s certainly the effect). On the one hand, as you say, having a discussion about how patriarchy benefits men as a class is a lousy thing to do with a man who has been so screwed over as an individual. It’s for that reason that I haven’t often engaged Jaketk in these debates.
But then again, I always wonder if that view isn’t condescending. It’s not as if Jaketk happened to be talking about his abuse in a neutral environment and us evil, man-hating feminists shoved ourselves into his discussion; Jaketk has deliberately sought out an environment in which feminists were debating about rape-related issues, and he brought up his abuse in a way that bolstered his debate position. Treating him and his arguments with kid gloves because he (like many people here) has been victimized is, one could argue, insulting to him. Q Grrl was rude in a way that hurt the thread’s discussion (and she knows I’d rather she not behave that way on “Alas,” it’s something she and I have discussed at astounding length in the past and reached an “agree to disagree” space on), but she was also honest in her anger, and didn’t treat Jaketk as a delicate flower.
I’m honestly not sure which is the better way to react when Jaketk brings up his abuse in the way he did. On the one hand, it seems cold and unkind to respond to someone’s story of abuse in a debate; on the other hand, Jaketk knows that this is a feminist-run forum, not a therapy for survivors forum, and presumably debate with feminists is what he’s seeking. Since I can’t see which way is best, I’m not about to go blaming people for picking one way or the other.
I don’t think every feminist here has been a perfect saint, of course; but I think the feminists here have acted in human and understandable ways, and that most of the feminists on this thread are trying to find the difficult balance between debating with Jaketk and trying not to be insensitive about his history of abuse. I see flaws in how some feminists here have acted, but I blame that on the difficulty of the situation, not on the anti-male bias you’re implying all feminists share. And, frankly, I don’t think your “jaketk and I are blameless in this thread, only feminists ever do anything wrong” attitude is accurate or truthful.
Finally, I think the way you’re responding to Jaketk’s abuse - using it as a debate tool to prop up your pre-existing bias against feminists - is morally dubious. It’s one thing for Jaketk to use his own history as a debating point; as difficult as I and others here find that to deal with, I can respect that his history has left him scarred and that perhaps coming here and blaming feminism - as incoherent as that argument seems to me - is something he feels is helpful to him in some way. Under the circumstances, blaming him for using what is clearly an unfair debate tactic seems petty.
But you don’t have that excuse; you’re just using Jaketk’s history in order to give you an advantage in a debate. That behavior is at least as questionable as anything the feminists on this thread have done.
[Edited for typos and clarity.]
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 11th, 2005 at 11:49 am
Ampersand, the only way it honestly becomes a catch-22 is if you hold my statements to a much higher standard than your own. If I am given the same treatment as other posters, then there will be no issue.
Assuming that what happened to me can be classified as “rape,” it would be logical that I would offer my experiences on such threads. You are, in fact, discussing rape, so my experiences would have something to do with that. Perhaps it is considered an attack on feminism because I am male, blunt about it and offer it as a counter point to situations being discussed. In terms of this thread, I offered it only as a counter point to illustrate that I did not react in a traumatized manner, but I was still affected, not as an attempt to discuss any part of it. It was only when specifically asked about it that I answered, and even then I was rather vague.
Many female victims have used their experiences as a debating tool here. Broce, in fact, did so on this thread. The only difference is that you agree with those opinions. In terms of your statement about a catch-22, this is honestly the only way you would be caught in one, by having two different standards, one for female victims and one for males. If it is truly an unfair debating tactic, then it would have to be unfair across the board. If it is not, and understanding the response I will get just by mentioning what happened on this site, it would seem prudent to reserve the mention of my experiences for instances where they act as a point/counter point to an argument, not as an attempt at therapy, support, sympathy, or otherwise.
While posters have responded in (what you feel is) justified anger, I understand Daran’s point. He sees a difference in the way my experience was responded to, even when I made no attempt at attacking anyone, and I was responding specifically to his question. It would appear, either from casual glance or closer inspection, that the anger has more to do with the connection I feel exists between my aunt’s political views and her actions than what her actions were. That could certainly be read as anti-male, regardless of intent. That, I think, is the point Daran is making.
If he chooses to use my experiences as means of countering an argument made here, considering the same has been done in the reverse, I would suggest that it is only fair.
This comment was written by jaketk.Report this comment to the moderators
December 11th, 2005 at 12:24 pm
Jaketk, if I held you to the same standards I held other posters, I would have banned you a while ago.
No, it’s considered an attack on feminists because you use your experience to attack feminists and feminism. For example:
That’s something you said about feminists, and you related this to us being feminists. You didn’t say it based on people here having actually said anything that justified your insinuations; no one here has said that what happened to you was deserved, laughable or negliable. And no one here has said anything half as mean about you as what you’ve said about the other posters here.
I am really sorry for what happened to you. But sympathy for you doesn’t obligate us to take abuse without responding. (And it’s not like this thread is the first time you’ve ever said hateful things about feminists.)
No one’s treating you differently because you’re a man. Any other poster here, who came here and attacked feminists the way you’ve done since before this thread, would be treated the same - even if the poster was female. (Actually, if anything I’d say that the large majority of posters on this thread have tried to be nice to you - nicer than many other anti-feminists have been treated by the posters here).
What you’re complaining about isn’t that we’re not treating you like other posters. We are treating you like other posters. But you’re determined to see anti-male-prejudice, regardless of how we actually act.
[Edited to clarify my thoughts.]
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 11th, 2005 at 1:12 pm
Daran wrote:
It’s quite clear that white people in general benefit from racism in some ways. If you send equally-qualified whites, blacks and hispanics out applying for jobs, the whites will on average have an unfair advantage; how is that not a benefit?
However, particularly regarding sexism, I agree with you that there’s an overlapping system of benefits and debits, so that both sexes are in some ways advantaged and in some ways disadvantaged by sexism. At the individual level, it’s all up for grabs; there are men who have, on balance, suffered horribly due to sexism, and women who, on balance, have benefited. But at the overall social level, I think it’s clear that the system, while not making all white straight men happy, does tend to put white straight men at the top of power hierarchies in unfair proportions.
I say “particularly regarding sexism” because I think that men probably suffer more from sexism than whites do from racism, the rich do from classism, etc.
I also think that saying “all men have benefited from rape,” as some radical feminists do, is a highly theoretical analysis that becomes embarrassing - in fact, ghastly and offensive - when the man being addressed is himself a rape victim, and ought in such circumstances be dropped.
I don’t recall that anyone’s focused on how Jake’s individual behavior might have contributed to his rape (apart from Jake himself). On the contrary, most posters here who have addressed that matter have emphatically said that the Aunt is to blame. That’s certainly my view.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 11th, 2005 at 1:42 pm
Ampersand, given Q Grrl’s comments, and her ability to continue to post after making them, I seriously doubt that. There is a very clear difference in the way you reacted to what I said and the way you reacted to what Q Grrl said, and how you have reacted when others have made similar statements towards me and other males in such a fashion on other threads. However, while I consider it unfortunate, I understand your reason for the difference, though I disagree with it. As we are not going to agree on this at all, let’s agree to disagree and drop it.
This comment was written by jaketk.Report this comment to the moderators
December 12th, 2005 at 1:23 pm
I think that both of you (Amp and Jaketk) need to go back and read what I wrote. No where did I attack jaketk personally. No where did I throw in ad hominem’s. I stated, in my two posts (yes! only two on this thread!) what I had problems with in jaketk’s use of his rape narrative. I was specific and thorough in my criticism. I again would hope that the content of my criticism would be critiqued rather than any alleged style of writing (is that what you were alluding to Amp?) or to any misinterpreted assumptions of other posters.
I have very, very specific complaints about how jaketk utilizes his narrative in this space and how he uses it as a tool against women and feminists. I do not have a problem per se against jaketk’s beliefs or his abuse. But that is *most* obvious from what I have written.
In a thread discussing a woman who didn’t act traumatized enough (!), we have a man attempting to hold the entirity of feminist theory and politics responsible for his aunt’s actions. It is quite plausible to read this as an attempt to one-up women’s trauma and reactions within a rape society. That is not a far reach at all. Especially when it is an established pattern vis-a-vis this particular poster and threads about men raping women.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 12th, 2005 at 4:26 pm
I know i’m a little late in the discussion, and i haven’t read all the comments yet (155!) but all this talk about rape and false accusations is sort of disturbing me. Especially brandon who said he would rather be raped than falsely accused of it. This is absurd. If you were accused, (falsely or otherwise), chances are you WOULDN’T go to prison, or even trial. Also, clearly we have a bigger problem with rape than false accusations. You could take a vote on this blog alone asking who has been raped and who has been falsely accused of it, and u would see what i’m talking about.
and this quote
“But in most cases it’s over quickly and leaves no lasting damage beyond psychological trauma.”
makes me sick. You state that someone going to prison is then always known as a rapist, but the same happens to a victim if she goes to court. (just look at Kate Faber). Often she is stimitized and hated in her community, or even has to move away, or change her name. And if the rapist gets off often he will be angry and then you have to live in fear he’ll come back and rape you again or otherwise hurt you. You are blamed for the crime, and if you’re raped MORE than once, it’s even worse. Also, the psychological trauma doesn’t only affect the victim, but the victims future partners. (at least it has with me. there are certain things i can’t do sexually that i would like to with my partner w/out having a panic attack) rape can destroy a life, just as much if not more than being falsely accused (that is if ur accused and go to prison).
And where is your evidence for this statement?
“it’s clear that her failure to act sufficiently traumatized wasn’t the only factor under consideration.”
As for jaketk,
This comment was written by Casey.“Alsis39, honestly, and not to sound condescending, “me thinks the lady doest protest too much.” If you would stop attempting to turn every post I make into an attack on women, then you might actually begin to understand my point of view. ”
well, first of all, clearly you WERE trying to sound condescending, and every post you make HAS been an attack on us.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 12th, 2005 at 5:18 pm
What Q Grrrl said. I’m wondering if it’s possible anywhere to have a discussion on men raping women without the feeling that women are being “one-upped”.
No offense to you, Amp, I think that’s more of a universal dynamic of how this topic is too often discussed with men and women. Women’s concerns on issues such as rape and DV are secondary to that of men’s feelings about being called on sexism. That is what living under patriarchy does to both genders.
(I’m still shaking my head at the reality that 60 women at the local state university were raped, including many “stranger rapes” on the mostly unlit campus. When they were the ones being raped, signs went in certain spots where I guess lights and emergency phones were too expensive to place, warning women not to walk alone in these places, to avoid them at night. B/c patriarchy teaches that women should be restricted from certain places at certain times for their own “safety”.
Well, all that changed when one man was sexually assaulted, by other men while he was running at 10 pm on the track. Not that this attack was any less horrible to this individual than those involving the woman(though he appeared to have been spared the oft-accusatory inquiries into WHY he was running alone late at night), but it was the attack against the man which led to street lights being erected and emergency phones being set up where they hadn’t been before. Sixty women’s safety and well-being weren’t worth that much attention.)
That and the oft-repetitive “what about men?” mantras are why I mostly read threads like this one and say little. I’m a bit weary, at this point.
not to say this thread hasn’t been interesting, but also, deja vu.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
December 12th, 2005 at 7:54 pm
Q Grrl wrote:
I was indeed referring to the tone of the post, not its content. Its content, tone aside, I thought was mostly spot-on.
However, I think where you and I disagree is, I think style makes a real difference. Style, imo, is a form of content. However, I don’t want to get into a big discussion of that on this thread.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 13th, 2005 at 2:03 am
Casey:
Brandon did not say that. He said that he would rather be raped than falsely convicted, (comment 34). This is at least the second time he has been misread in this way, since he addressed the same point in comment 125.
I don’t think it absurd that a person may not be prepared to take that (unquantifiable) risk.
I guess that you would see no falsely accused people.
This blog of course is about as unrepresentative sample as you could get, and too small anyway. I bet if you asked who here is a rapist, you’d get a zero result too, but I wouldn’t conclude from that that rape was rare.
If you look at communities which might reasonably be judged to be sympathetic to those falsely accused of rape, my experience is that not more than a handful of make such disclosures. I consider this to be an indicator that false rape accusations are relatively small in number, though not conclusive, and I wouldn’t dignify the observation with the word ‘evidence’.
Against that, you have a very small number of very limited studies that indicate rather high incidence of FRA.
I groaned inwardly at that too, when I read it. It certainly reads as though he was dismissing the trauma suffered by victims. However, reading the whole of his post, I don’t think he meant to be dismissive.
[...]
The only evidence we have about anything to do with this case is the story in the Oregonian and Kevin’s comments. Neither has said that this was the only factor under consideration.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 13th, 2005 at 12:09 pm
How is “but in most cases it’s over quickly and leaves no lasting damage beyond psychological trauma” NOT dismissing the trauma of rape victims? “Sorry, bitches! Prison time trumps your little five-minute rape experience! Get over it! Move to the back!”
Honestly. There’s a lot to be said for context, but there’s a fuck of a lot MORE to be said about THINKING ABOUT THE IMPLICATIONS OF WHAT YOU SAY BEFORE YOU SAY IT.
This comment was written by Mary.Report this comment to the moderators
December 13th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
>>The only evidence we have about anything to do with this case is the story in the Oregonian and Kevin’s comments. Neither has said that this was the only factor under consideration. >>
Actually, apart from the judge’s hunch that the woman seemed less credible than the accused, which isn’t evidence at all, that _was_ the only factor under consideration: testimony to the effect that she did not seem like a typical rape victim.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
December 13th, 2005 at 3:19 pm
Ok, you are right, I misread it. I suppose I was probably mostly reacting to
“But in most cases it’s over quickly and leaves no lasting damage beyond psychological trauma.”
which I think is way too dismissive of victims, not matter what he was INTENDING. I agree with what Mary said.
I also think comparing rape to false convictions really won’t work, it’s apples and oranges. But I stand by my statement that rape is more common than false convictions for rape and is a bigger problem.
This comment was written by Casey.Report this comment to the moderators
December 14th, 2005 at 8:48 am
Q Grrl, “sexist prick” is an ad hominem. i think you should go back and read what i actually wrote, not the views you would like me to have. you in fact made your reply (#41) prior to me even commenting about my aunt’s views (#53). it is regrettable that some people consider the mentioning of those experiences as an attempt to “one-up” women, as sexism, and offensive. and it is sad that some would use women’s rapes as a tool against male survivors who speak about their experiences. however, it is truly unfortunate that the message you send to male survivors is that silence is the best virtue, whether it was your intent or not.
This comment was written by jaketk.Report this comment to the moderators
December 15th, 2005 at 11:20 am
“sexist prick” was descriptive of your behavior — it was not meant to discredit your argument but to point out how you use your argument. No ad hominem.
The message I send male survivors of rape is this: don’t be a sexist prick and use your rape to one-up yourself in regards to women. Your experience does not prevent me from calling you out on your sexist beliefs and practices.
Get used to it jaketk.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 15th, 2005 at 12:24 pm
And we’re still on the feelings and experiences of a man, instead of the ramifications of misogyny and rape culture on rape survivors, the overwhelming majority of whom are girls and women.
I’m glad to see that the feelings and experiences of WOMEN have been so highly regarded. You know, this thread being about the unjust conviction of a RAPE SURVIVOR, and the fact that the overwhelming majority of rape survivors are girls and women. But don’t mind me. Us silly beatches count for nothing.
/sarcasm
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
December 15th, 2005 at 1:07 pm
Leaving aside Jaketk’s particular example, Sheelzebub, do you really think that because women and girls are the majority of rape survivors, it’s never appropriate to talk about the feelings and experiences of male rape survivors on threads about, or relating to, rape?
(Also, women are only the “overwhelming majority of rape survivors” if you don’t count men who are raped while in prison. Women are, as far as I can tell, the majority of rape survivors, but the number of male rape survivors is also distressingly high).
I don’t think women’s experiences ought to be discounted or ignored; but I don’t think men’s experiences ought to be, either, when we’re talking about male rape survivors. It ought to be possible to talk about male rape survivors without implying that “silly beatches count for nothing.”
Again, all of this is leaving aside Jaketk’s particular example. I think it’s possible to object to Jaketk’s posts without endorsing a general “male survivors can never be the focus” policy.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 15th, 2005 at 1:19 pm
Wow, Amp. You’re really missing the bulk of our criticism aren’t you.
We’re not talking about men not being able to talk about rape. We are ***specifically*** talking about a man who repeatedly uses his rape narrative in an inappropriate and harmful way. And we are also talking about a general trend that happens when such narratives are introduced in this manner. Jaketk is not the only man who does this. I would bet that 95% of the rape threads right here at Alas! have been derailed or attempted to be derailed in exactly the same manner.
No one has **ever** said that because women are raped by men that men can’t talk about their expereinces. However, when the majority of the men who have been raped use that experience to belittle women instead of the build solidarity, it becomes highly suspect.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 15th, 2005 at 1:37 pm
Q Grrl, as I ‘ve already said, I agree with nearly all the criticisms you make of Jaketk on this thread, although I disagreed with the tone. However, the specific post of Sheelzebub’s I was responding to put its critique in general terms, rather than as a specific critique of Jaketk’s approach.
Yes, I agree this happens all too often, and that the pattern is a problem. (Although the majority of the people who do this are MRAs who don’t claim to be rape or abuse survivors themselves.) I already argued that the general pattern formed is a problem, earlier this thread, so I’m not sure why you think I’m unaware of this.
I wouldn’t assume that Jaketk represents “the majority of men who have been raped” or abused. But otherwise, I agree with your point here.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 15th, 2005 at 1:43 pm
Honest to god, I’m still working on the tone. It might take a reincarnation, or two.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 15th, 2005 at 2:34 pm
Um, I’m working on the tone thing too, but I’ll give it my best shot. It’s hard to harness the anger of a life’s worth of sexism, both genteel and otherwise, but we get pretty good at playing at it after a while.
I thought the deja vu was getting rather thick in here. So the discussion of female rape survivors is deflected once again by a man using his experience as a survivor to flog us with, because after all, we’re not really talking about what is important here.
Just like, DV involving women, often turns into a discussion about how feminists oppress male survivors of DV by not putting them first, when they push for DV shelters.
So, now women are in the position of derailing the original discussion further by proclaiming that we support male survivors of rape. Well, that should go without saying. ALL survivors of rape should be supported, male or female. But that’s different than the dynamics of this thread, which apparently are that the only way women can REALLY support male survivors is to step aside on a discussion involving the rapes of women and do what we’ve been socially condititioned to do since the birth of patriarchy, put men’s needs first. If someone wants to use his experience to berate us with, we should just dispense with our discussion of issues involving ourselves that even in feminist space(and I think ALL feminist space or space involving discussion of women’s issues has been prone to this, all over the Net at one time or another which I think is part and parcel of the culture of the patriarchy that all spaces ultimately belong to men ahd their concerns) are of minor consequence compared to the realities of being men.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
December 15th, 2005 at 3:29 pm
Rape has victims of both genders, all ages, economic levels, education levels, and races. Rapists come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and genders. All rape survivors need to be supported regardless of the particulars of their particular attaker. And, I put child abuse in with rape, because of the lasting psychological trauma that it causes.
I, as an activist, would like to put rape survivors first. And I would like to do so without the descriptors.
I am not trying to derail the thread, but I would like to discuss things so that ideas can be shared. My own personal experiences aren’t relevant to the discussion, and so I won’t share them here.
I still believe that violence begets violence, and hatred begets hatred. Is it any wonder that rape is as prevalent as it is when the whole of our society often “shoots first and asks questions later”? I honestly believe that if we work on solving our cultural acceptance and promotion of violence then the prevalance of rape will also fall.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
December 15th, 2005 at 7:46 pm
Leaving aside Jaketk’s particular example, Sheelzebub, do you really think that because women and girls are the majority of rape survivors, it’s never appropriate to talk about the feelings and experiences of male rape survivors on threads about, or relating to, rape?
I reread my post to see where I said that men who were raped should never talk about their experiences. I haven’t seen that. I did write that the feelings and experiences of a man have apparently trumped the feelings and experiences of women, and discussion of rape survivors (the majority of whom are female) and misogyny. I stand by that.
And frankly, I’m not going to leave aside Jaketk’s particular example, as he’s the reason why I posted my comment in the first place. It wasn’t as if he posted about his experience as a way to share it and support women who’ve been through it. Context is key–he used his experience to bash and belittle women, and to derail the thread. Who’s been dominating this thread, exactly? Who’s getting the attention and energy? That’s been Jaketk. Not women, not the female rape survivors who’ve posted here or read the thread.
(Also, women are only the “overwhelming majority of rape survivors” if you don’t count men who are raped while in prison. Women are, as far as I can tell, the majority of rape survivors, but the number of male rape survivors is also distressingly high).
Frankly, one rape survivor of any gender is a distressingly high number. But to answer your prison rape assertion–women in prison are raped, too. It’s not as if sexual violence stops for us once we’re incarcerated, so I’m not convinced that male prison rape = not an overwhelming majority of female rape survivors.
And that’s not to say that sexual violence against men isn’t important, but I’m getting bone tired of threads about issues that intimately affect women–hell, threads about specific cases of violence against women–getting derailed with tactics like the one Jaketk’s used.
If Jaketk had merely posted about his experiences, you’d have heard nary a peep from me. But that’s not the way it went, or the way it goes in general in these discussions. I have yet to see a thread about rape, or DV, or abuse, or any women’s issue not get derailed into a thread about a man’s feelings, a man’s outrage that we aren’t doing enough for him, or a man’s decision and judgement that we are being insensitive because damn it, we’re talking about women and how dare we. So you’ll hear some tone from us some of the time because we are fucking tired of the equivalent of “Oh! Look! A pony!” or “Oh! Look! You’re being mean, stop talking about you and talk about me! Me! Me! And how awful you women are!” as a way to deflect and derail a thread about women.
And what Radfem and Qgrrl said. Deja vu and all that. It does get tiring. I suppose I should have been more specific in my post, but I figured that anyone reading the thread would have gotten the context of what I was saying.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
December 15th, 2005 at 7:57 pm
Sheelzebub, I wasn’t clear that “a man” meant a specific man (Jaketk), not a generic man. Sorry for the misunderstanding on my part, and I agree with your criticism of Jaketk’s approach.
Regarding prisons, even if women and men were equally likely to get raped in prison, the fact that there are far more men than women in prison would mean that many more men would get raped. Plus, from the research I’ve seen, I think that men in prison are more likely to be raped.
Regardless of all that, however, it’s clearly true that rape of female prisoners is a significant problem. For both men and women in prison, the sad fact is that almost no one in the US gives a fuck what happens to them, which makes rape and abuse pretty much inevitable.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 15th, 2005 at 9:27 pm
Mendy, most rapists are men. Most rape victims are women. It doesn’t affect “ALL” people to the same degree. Either you haven’t been reading or you’re not paying attention.
We can’t even talk about one single fucking rape case of a woman without a bunch of rape apologists whining about men and trying to obscure what’s actually going on.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 2:57 am
Ginmar,
I am not a rape apologist. And as far as the original post: I think it is horrendous and I was one of the first that posted that the judge in question should be removed from the bench.
I have read every comment made on this thread, and it has been very enlightening indeed.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 3:37 am
Mendy:
Nor am I, and I find the characterisation objectionable and offensive.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 5:08 am
Ampersand:
This is not true.
Stop Prisoner Rape has been giving a fuck since 1980. Currently it gives a fuck about both male and female victims; I believe, (but do not know for certain) that it has always done so. Stephen Donaldson, its late president was the first person to even attempt to quantify the problem in his highly speculative “Preliminary Statistical Look”.
Amnesty International gives a fuck about female victims both in the US and elsewhere in the world. Other than a gender-neutral concern about the role of prison rape in the spread of HIV, (bizarrely categorised under “Children’s Rights”) Amnesty does not appear to give a fuck about male victims.
Human Rights Watch gave a fuck about female victims in 1996 and again in 1998. However it wasn’t until 2001 that they gave a gender-neutral fuck. (The report - about prisoner on prisoner rape - is only about male victimisation because their gender-neutral notices received no responses from or about female victims.)
It wasn’t until 2003 that Congress got round to giving a fuck, when they passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PDF) which is gender-neutral. [irony]but as it’s obviously going to benefit men more than women, this is clearly an illustration of the high priority the patriarchy puts on looking after its own.[/irony] The first Government statistical survey (on reported sexual assaults behind bars) was published last year, Two national victimisation surveys are scheduled for next year (PDF), and it probably won’t be for another year or two that the data will be available.
Then we’ll finally have a reasonable idea of just how much prison rape there is in the US to give a fuck about.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 6:32 am
Sheelzebub:
And why is that? Go look at the first sentence of the quoted paragraph again. He’s getting the attention and energy because you and other feminists insist upon giving it to him.
Hey, that’s ‘disrupting debate’. At least it is when we do it.
I’m not either, but that’s only because nobody has been counting male victims. The national Violence Against Woman survey estimates that about 300,000 women are raped annually. Donaldson’s figure for men, which is really little better than a guess, is 242,000.
If we accept those two figures, then the number of female victims is greater, but not overwhelmingly so. But the figure for men could easily be an order of magnitude or more too high. Or it could be an underestimate. Nobody knows.
Not to Amnesty it isn’t. You won’t find a page like that about sexual violence against men on their website. And there’s a reason for that. Feminists have been very successful in pushing their women-only agenda into the mainstream.
In this case, the tactic was Ampersand’s. He introduced the subject of prison rape to rebut the claim that women are the “overwhelming majority of rape victims”. However the inevitable result of this is that we’re are now discussing prison rape. If Jaketk or I had done that, we would be facing charges of ‘derailing discussion’.
What’s the alternative here? Only allow statements to be rebutted if you can do so without mentioning men’s interests? Forbid topic-drift in such directions?
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 9:54 am
Daran,
The Bureau of Justice Statistics keeps statistics on both females and males who report that they are victims of rape.
I’m sure we could have a fascinating conversation about how male rape victims are oppressed by sexism, because they are. But that isn’t the conversation we’re having today. What Sheelzebub said about conversations about women’s rights being derailed. On this thread, we are trying about one female who was disbelieved because, according to the source we have, she didn’t “act traumatized”and what that all means.
Think about how women are supposed to act traumatized. How we are supposed to cry, break down, become irrational, need support, not want sex, fill in your stereotype of a female rape survivor here. And some women do react that way. But women who don’t cry aren’t believed. Because it is unfeminine not to cry. Women who don’t report immediately aren’t believed, although most women delay reporting. After being raped, some women start having a large number of casual sexual affairs with men. Instead of adopting the Victorian “touch me not” prudery that is expected, they are instead what our culture would call promiscuous. And so they are disbelieved.
We think that women are physically weak, but we ask women who tell us they are survivors why they didn’t fight back. Some of the reason for that question is self-protection–we want to think she could have stopped it by fighting back, because then we, or our sister/daughter/mother/girlfriend/friend could stop it by fighting back. We want to think it is her fault, because if it isn’t her fault, then it could happen to us, too, which is a terrible thing to think. We want to think it is because she took some risk that we don’t take. She wore something “slutty.” She went somewhere “dangerous.” And I say “we” because I’ve done some of these things myself, and I know I’m not the only person who has. But I’m trying to change, and I think it is important that everyone else try to, so that we can look at rape cases on the merits, instead of on our biases.
So what range of behavior do the posters on this thread think is normal for a typical rape survivor? Do you think it is even a good ideal to talk in terms of “typical” or “normal”? Do you think our culture does a good job of supporting rape survivors? Where there is a lack of support, what does this have to do with sexism? With assumptions about “appropriate behavior” and the initiation of consensual sex? With whatever else you all think is relevant to the conversation?
Let’s please talk about this, because I want to hear what everyone has to say. Because I can bet you’ve all got answers that would never occur to me, or that might help me figure something out.
This comment was written by Ismone.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 1:16 pm
Ismone:
My last post was the second of two lengthy consecutive posts. The first was stuck in the moderation queue when you wrote your reply, presumably because it has a large number of links. (It’s been passed now.) The post you could see was therefore missing necessary context.
The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports do not include male rapes. The National Crime Victimisation Surveys do and the National Violence Against Women Survey did indeed record both male and female rape, but neither of them survey prisons. the methodology of the NVAWS in particular was designed to effectively measure violence against women and is likely to underestimate the incidence of violence against men.
The BJS will conduct the first national survey of sexual violence in prison next year.
I don’t see that we are restricted to having one conversation.
So aren’t some women who do.
I know all this. I have spoken to scores, possibly hundreds of survivors over the years, most of them female. I’d say that I’ve heard it all, except that I know that the next person will likely prove me wrong.
I’ve done it too - I’m painfully aware of that. :-( But hopefully not recently.
I don’t think “normal” is appropriate, because of the implied value judgement.
I usually say that rape victims typically feel devastated by the experience, which I base upon what I’ve read about rape, and what survivors have told me. That’s not a statement about behaviour, though. I’m also aware that there’s a selection effect in operation. Survivors who are not devastated are perhaps unlikely to talk about it to me or present to rape crisis centres etc. Nevertheless, I have spoken to a very small number who have indicated that it had only a minor effect upon them, and I consider that to be just as valid a response, albeit not typical.
No, I think it does a lousy job. I think rape crisis centres, etc., do a fairly good job for women. (Not perfect, though.) The service for men varies from as-good-as-for-women to non-existent. I consider the very notion of gender-apartheid in this important service to be abominable.
Lots, I would say.
Linda Flores said in her footnote to comment 37: “…that the severity of rape’s effects, as well as how long they last and how difficult recovery is, varies a lot from woman to woman”. From man to man too, but one pattern that I’ve noticed is that the best predictor of how quickly (or not) a survivor of either sex will recover is how they are treated the first time they disclose, whether it be the day after the assault, or a year later. If the response is supportive - if they are believed - then they have the best chance of a relatively quick recovery. If the response is hostile, then chances are they may still be suffering decades later.
That’s a “typically”, though. No survivor should be made to feel that they “should have got over it”, no matter how long its been. Nor is recovery ever permanently out of reach. I know a woman who had an epiphany over the course of three days some twenty years after her rape.
So “believe the survivor”, then. Uncritically. Not because every rape claim is true, (I have no idea, nor any way of telling, how many rape claims are false), but because you risk harming someone if you don’t.
But there’s a problem with that. In the context of a police investigation/criminal prosecution, you also risk harming someone if you do. Ideally the criminal process should first and formost eliminate the actually innocent suspect/defendant as quickly as possible, convicting the actually guilty is a secondary consideration. The failure to convict the actually guilty is far less serious that then false conviction of the actually innocent. The welfare of the defendant during the process should be the next priority, and the welfare of the complainant should come forth. Why that order? Because the complainant, unlike the defendant should be able to withdraw from the process without penalty (which, of course, is precisely what didn’t happen in the case under discussion).
If there are ways the criminal justice system could be changed to be more supportive of rape survivors without negatively impacting the other three priorities, then I’d be in favour of them. What is not appropriate, is the ‘typical’ feminist focus exclusively upon ‘believing the (female) survivor’ and increasing rape convictions without any apparent regard for the welfare or rights of (male) suspects/defendants or consern about convicting the innocent. For example, Sheelzebub just presumes that the men in this case are guilty (comment 165), and that’s not an uncommon reaction. Another example is the promulgation by feminists and rape activists of the myth that “women don’t lie about rape”, and it’s associated 2% false rape accusation rate canard, which is now so widespread that even the police cite it. See Greer (PDF) for a scholarly analysis of the source and propagation of this myth and its consequences.) It is particularly ironic that it appears on so many webpages devoted to debunking rape myths.
So yes, “believe the survivor” in a therapeutic context (which includes informal disclosures). In the context of a police report, I can see no way of squaring the circle. I can see no way of fairly investigating rape allegations and preserving the rights of the accused without engaging in a thoroughly critical, and perhaps hostile, investigation of the complainant’s claims.
I do agree, however, that the complainant’s post-alledged-rape behaviour is of little, if any, probative value, and should be excluded from consideration. This is true whether or not she appears to be traumatised.
I have always been willing to talk to the topic. What I am not willing to do is accept restrictions about what I and other dissenting voices can or cannot raise when talking about the topic. I also object to the attacks upon us when we do.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 4:58 pm
Exactly. And that’s not likely to change any time soon.
At least we can still ponder the issues that greatly affect us as women in our own heads, even if we can’t discuss them for five minutes before the “what about the men” mantra begins.
That said, in reality, why does there have to be a typical way for a rape victim to behave? Who really made those rules? Because who ever did, apparently defined what the crime of rape was as well. There’s a hundred different ways women can react afterwards.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 5:15 pm
Not to sound rude here (ha! see what I did there? classic male tactic! now I plan on being totally rude), but as I grow older and more entrenched in my feminist ways, I’ve learned to really just stop including men in feminist conversations altogether. No exceptions. There are some delightful pro-feminist men who I can talk TO about feminist topics, but our interactions are better characterized as “I lecture, he agrees with me.” I can’t involve a man in a DISCUSSION about rape/DV/abotion/what have you without it devolving into some discussion of how bad MEN have it. This way, of course, they can keep the focus of the surrounding women on them, which is of course where it belongs, and the women end up getting nowhere. It’s really a fascinating phenomenon, when you think about it–that the dominant status of men relies so heavily on the reinforcement of their own victimization. You would feel sorry for them if that wasn’t precisely what they’re wanting and expecting. So you end up getting angry at them instead, and that only serves to feed the fire some more–LOOK, FEMINISTS DON’T APPRECIATE THAT MEN GET RAPED TOO, DOWN WITH THE LOT OF YOU, YOU HEARTLESS BITCHES INTERNATIONAL. It’s a fine racket. How can feminists exploit it?
This comment was written by Mary.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 7:09 pm
So ignoring those that would derail the thread, how should the posted case have been handled? What could have been done differently (and something different should have happened)?
I am actually interested in discussing the above case as it relates to women, because the discussion should prove fruitful in examining my own beliefs and views.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 11:55 pm
Mary–Sorry you’ve had such bad luck w/men not being willing to listen. I’ve been fairly lucky, I’ve found it is easier if I’m talking to only one or two at a time. Also, I may be dealing w/a younger generation. I’d come up with some pretty good numbers showing it was much more likely that a man would be raped himself than be the victim of a vindictive reporter. That really made a couple of my friends stop and think. Plus the ones with sisters who have a good relationship with them tend to understand better.
Mendy–My take on this whole thing is that the some investigators don’t really understand rape, which is why they expect a stereotyped reaction, and also they worry more themselves about men being falsely accused, because fear of rape isn’t real to them. While I was in the military, they showed us a training tape known as the “Seattle Tape” used to train police officers about how to deal with rape survivors. The police officer walks his (small) audience through this scenario where they, a police officer, are forced at gunpoint to blow a male suspect who gets the drop on them. It is very graphic, and somewhat hard to hear. He makes the offender so disgusting that trust me, no one would want to blow this guy even consensually. Then he talks about the aftermath. The second-guessing about what else he could’ve done to control the situtation. Why did he go back into that alley without backup? Then, to make it worse, other police officers start coming up to you, telling you that they’ve heard you’re gay and you’d previously shown up at this alley for trysts with this man, and you’re just making it up because you’re embarrassed that you’re gay and blowing this other guy. By the end, both the audience on the videotape, and the mostly male audience I was a part of, was in the grip of horrified silence. They GOT IT.
I don’t think it is just men who have a problem getting it, though. People are surprised to learn that most rapists are intimates or close friends, or at least close acquaintances (roughly 2/3.) The courts started really changing their tune of the sufficiency of evidence for rape and resistence requirements fell out of favor, after a study was done that showed that women who resisted were much more likely to be badly hurt (I have reasons to doubt that study, but it is old and I haven’t gotten the chance to review its methodology. The best advice I’ve gotten, about preventing attacks and getting through them, is to trust your instincts.)
And, as I mentioned above, victim-blaming allows us to keep up the illusion of control. If it is the victim’s fault (not that she was “asking for it” but that she could’ve avoided an “obvious danger”) that means I am capable of protecting myself.
Another aspect of sexism at play here is the assumption that we women are responsible for men’s reactions to us. If he gets turned on, it is my fault for dressing the way I do. And boy, have I bought in to that. I hate the looks, comments and responses so much that I tend to bury myself in large T-shirts, loose-fitting jeans and just overall ugly. I enjoy dressing in a feminine manner until I get an overreaction. I don’t mind being looked at, even sexually, but there are lines. So, if I’m responsible for a man’s response to how I dress, that implies that I am “responsible” for how he might misconstrue my friendship, my behavior on a date, or my dancing as a come on. Even if I say it isn’t, its as though his reading of the situation controls. I’m not saying we have no obligation to communicate, but when wires are crossed, I think it is assumed to be the woman’s fault.
Daran–I think you have a number of very perceptive things to say on the subject, and your experience with survivors (although more extensive than my own) certainly mirrors it. My question to you is, if the first person to hear has to uncritically believe, what about the police? What if they are the first (or nearly the first) to hear the story from the person claiming to be a survivor? I would take what you say a step further–I think that the police should always treat the survivor as though they believe him or her. Maybe there needs to be a higher-up decision maker who decides if a case goes forward, but you don’t have to call someone a liar just because a prosecution doesn’t come out of the case. Oh, and regarding the earlier study you posted, I did read it, but unless it says how many of these women accused a specific man, I would treat them as false reports (an attention-getting, poor me gambit), which are quite different from false accusations.
I was also concerned with the study author’s/police officer’s unwillingness to believe certain women who had slept with “friends” of theirs. I think they would have a strong incentive to pretend it was as false report due to pressure from other friends. I’ve had friends who’ve been raped by their “friends.” A lot of them do not report, one woman even though she was drug raped.
This comment was written by Ismone.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 4:40 am
Isomone:
Thank you for your response to my question. Part of the reason I have such a difficult time with these issues is that I wasn’t socialized to have “rape fear” or to believe that I am personally responsible for a man’s reaction to me. I still carry those feelings with me today, and when a man catcalls, I call him on it.
I do believe that more needs to be done to illuminate the preavalance of aquaintence rape, and that the definition of rape needs to be clarified so that everyone in the criminal justice system is aware of what actually comprises rape.
On a side note, I was told by a very dear friend of mine that teaches self-defense classes that unless the attacker was armed then fighting back is a good thing. Her thoughts were that the more you fought the more evidence that was left on both you and the attacker. Her thinking was more physical evidence=better chances for prosecution later. I think that is interesting in and of itself.
I was sexually assaulted when I was much younger, and my instincts told me that if I fought he would most likely get frightened off. My instincts proved correct, and though I reported there wasn’t a trial. My attacker to a plea bargin to a lesser offense.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 9:23 am
Mendy,
I’d heard the same thing about fighting back–that it often prevents the attack. So without reading that study that the courts got all fired up about, I’m guessing the results might be skewed b/c someone who keeps attacking although the woman is fighting back is particularly violent/depraved–the study probably didn’t include non-completed assaults.
I’d never thought about the physical evidence part of it. Your friend has a good point.
I think that it is wonderful that you talk back to the catcallers. I’ve gotten to the point where I do too, but I still feel somewhat guilty and avoid dressing in a feminine manner. (And I’m not slamming my parents, I honestly don’t know where I got the attitude from.) I hope I will be able to raise my children to be confident enough to respond to the situation you do from day one.
And if VD or anyone else tells me that “date rape isn’t real rape” I may well slug ‘em. Especially if it is on a date. B/c then it won’t be “real battery.” Not that I would date VD if he were on the market.
This comment was written by Ismone.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 7:17 pm
Isomone:
I hope one day you find the strength to dress however you like without considering other’s reactions. I dress however I like. Sometimes that is more feminine and sometimes it isn’t. But, I seem to get more negative male attention when I wear my motorcycling clothes than when in a miniskirt and heels. I don’t understand that anymore than I understand why men think that catcalling is attractive or wanted. I don’t object to the occassional brief whistle every now and again, but some of what I’ve heard is truly obscene.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
February 10th, 2006 at 6:10 am
[...] As for the case that Schlafly refers to, there doesn’t seem to be anything online about it from trustworthy sources, so I lack enough information to comment. But as Scott points out, it’s clearly not the case that our judicial system automatically believes women - and sometimes, unjustly, it’s just the opposite. NOTE: This comments thread is reserved for feminist, pro-feminist, and feminist-friendly posters only. If you suspect you wouldn’t fit into Amp’s conception of “feminist, pro-feminist, or feminist-friendly,” then please don’t contribute to the comments following this post. [...]
This comment was written by Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Phyllis Schlafly: Punishing Spousal Rape Like Rape Is Malicious.Report this comment to the moderators
May 18th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
[...] On the other side of this issue is the diminishment of male victims as a political tool. Many advocates who claim to want to prevent violence are often the first to minimize the impact of abuse on males and deny males the opportunity to speak openly about their experiences. Often they resort to statistic dropping, stating that the overwhelming majority of abusers are male, denying the prevalence of male victims, and often depicting male victims as nothing more than sexists or rapists in waiting. Instead of acknowledging males as equal victims, they often resort to framing the discussion along the lines of gender. This not only draws the discussion away from considering the male experience as just as horrific as the female experience, but puts the male victim in the rather uncomfortable position of having to defend his abuse and defend his support of women, both of which are ludicrous and despicable. [...]
This comment was written by Toy Soldiers » The Invisible Boy.Report this comment to the moderators
April 30th, 2007 at 1:29 am
[...] Once Upon a Time, Liberty Street, Radioactive Quill, Ded Space, My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, Alas a Blog, Trish Wilson, I Blame the Patriarchy, Brilliant at Breakfast, Pam’s House Blend, The Green [...]
This comment was written by Shakespeare's Sister.Report this comment to the moderators
July 6th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
[...] more on this one, go to Alas (a blog) for a comprehensive roundup of resources. Also worth reading: Raper’s Delight, Parts I and II (from Twisty of I Blame the Patriarchy) [...]
This comment was written by Smite Me! [.net] » Blog Archive » These Colors Don’t Reason.Report this comment to the moderators