We could opine endlessly on the inequity of asymmetrical anonymity when it comes to rape accusers and the men they accuse, but a recent case in the news illustrates the inequity far better than we could do in the abstract.
The name of a navy lieutenant charged with sexually assaulting a sailor is being splashed all over the news while his accuser's name is withheld. The evidence seems to suggest that the woman and the man, her superior officer, did have sex, but the accuser -- who retains her anonymity in the news -- claims it was forced on her.
Note that the accuser had a boyfriend on the same ship at the time of the incident. We know that a very common reason to falsely allege rape is to cover up an illicit sexual encounter from a loved one.
But wait, it gets more interesting -- this is from the news report:
Greg McCormack, [the accused man's] civilian defense attorney, tried to cast doubts on the evidence and build a case that the woman was untrustworthy.
He noted that when she was 15, she filed a false accusation of rape with police in Texas, where she grew up.
Asked about that, the woman said she feared she was pregnant and told her parents she had been raped so they wouldn't be mad. A few days later, the truth came out, and the daughter and mother went back to police to withdraw the report. No charges were filed, she said.
McCormack also noted the woman lied about where she'd gone when supervisors realized she wasn't on the ship. (She told them she'd gone to her car to get some medicine for cramps.)
She lied to NCIS agents in the first interview when they asked whether she had any civilian jobs, McCormack said. (The sailor worked as a waitress and an exotic dancer at a Norfolk bar.)
Let us put this in perspective: a woman who just four years ago had falsely cried rape to cover up an illicit sexual encounter, a woman who had been an exotic dancer and who lied to the NCIS about it, a woman who told at least one other lie in the course of this investigation -- that woman is afforded blanket anonymity for life regarding a case where she might have falsely cried rape under circumstances similar to her previous rape lie. None of that matters. Her identity is guarded by the news media with the same tenacity that Clark Kent protects Superman's for no reason other than the fact she alleges she was raped.
But a navy lieutenant's once-good name is splashed all over the news for the world to titillate to the details of his humiliation based on nothing more than the aforementioned woman's say so. It is fair to assume that no matter what happens in this case, even if smoking gun evidence is uncovered to reveal that her claim is a lie, his life has been tarnished and possibly destroyed beyond repair, and there will always be some people who will assume that "something must have happened." He will never, ever regain the good name he once had. He likely will have difficulty getting a job and entering into a long-time relationship. This claim will trail him for the rest of his life like a ghost.
And, ladies and gentlemen, that would be altogether fitting if he is, in fact, a rapist. But the claim might just be false.
That is fair . . . exactly how?
Writer Rene A. Henry recently nailed it with this astute observation: "One . . . has to question why, when media report a charge of rape or assault, the name of the accuser is withheld but the name of the accused is made public. The accused is treated contrary to due process and is automatically considered guilty until proved innocent. The reputation of the accused is immediately tarnished, if not destroyed." Link: FIGHTING BACK: Does the Media Have a Double Standard?
Here is what the brilliant Alan Dershowitz once said on the subject. His is an interesting take -- he looks at the other side of the question, whether rape accusers should enjoy anonymity. I am the last person to try to argue with Alan Dershowitz:
"People who have gone to the police and publicly invoked the criminal process and accused somebody of a serious crime such as rape must be identified," he said. "In this country there is no such thing and should not be such a thing as anonymous accusation. If your name is in court it is a logical extension that it should be printed in the media. How can you publish the name of the presumptively innocent accused but not the name of the accuser?"
Mr. Dershowitz continued: "Feminists cannot have it both ways. They have persuaded us that rape victims should not be singled out for special treatment. Yet that is what many of them want from news organizations."
I believe that a strong case can be made that men accused of rape should be anonymous until conviction. I have gone back and forth on whether rape accusers should be named by the news media, but I now agree with Professor Dershowitz as to them.
If the names of rape accusers were publicized, it is fair to assume that at least once in a while, some hapless male who previously was falsely accused would see that his accuser is back at it, crying rape with respect to yet another man or boy, and that male could come forward to assist the current victim in his defense.
As it currently stands, it is likely that many rape accusers previously falsely accused other males but that many, if not most, of these prior false accusations never come to light in the investigation of the current rape claim because accusers are afforded anonymity and the previous victims simply don't know that the women who victimized them are at it again. They can't come forward to assist if they don't know about the latest claims.
If we can save even a few innocent males from prison by releasing the names of rape accusers, then all the other rationales for anonymity of rape accusers must give way.
In addition, while eliminating anonymity might discourage some women from making actual rape claims, we suspect it would discourage even more women from making false rape claims.
So the only fair result is to name rape accusers in the news media but to withhold the names of men and boys accused of rape unless they are convicted.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
30 comments:
My false rape accuser was also a serial false rape accuser. Why not?? every time she made a false rape acussation, she got a little bundle of cash, and even if the police proved she was lying, the womens rape crisis center gave her the cash anyway.
Men who do not answer to gender feminist cultural hysteria should demand these ???crisis centers??? need to be audited to see how much cash they have doled out for false rape accusations. Oh, i forgot, you won't get very far, for these ???crisis centers??? have a policy of cooking their books, no man can look at these books because honesty is a patriarchal concept.
I think BOTH accused and accuser's names should be withheld until after the case is determined for the following reason:
TRUE rape victims simply would not come forward.
If YOU, as a male, were raped, would YOU under ANY circumstance come forward knowing it would be publicly announced? Your 80 year old grandmother raped by an insurance adjuster in California? Your 11 year old son raped by the church youth minister everyone loves and trusts so much?
YOU know you would never want someone you love exposed to public titillation and speculation.
Grandma shouldn't have opened the door to a stranger? The kid is probably just trying to get attention?
The idea is for JUSTICE to prevail - not to further traumatize true victims.
I have always advocated EQUAL treatment for both accuser and accused.
BOTH subject to questioning. BOTH subject to polygraphing. BOTH histories and priors examined.
E Q U A L sensitivity and presumption of innocence is needed - NOT humiliation and public exposure for both.
Enough with 'rock star' prosecutors, judges, sheriffs or investigators getting promotions and votes -hitting the jackpot- at the expense of either victims or criminals.
Not all hotlines are evil. When my son was falsely accused, I called a rape crisis hotline and asked how an 11 year old girl could be raped over 14 times, and still be virginally intact.
The woman who answered said "I might get in trouble for telling you this, but there is an organization called VOCAL you should call.
VOCAL wasn't able to save my son from his fate, but they help save my sanity and guided us through the nightmare we were thrown into.
Sgt. Mom, I respectfully disagree. The invalid premise that many fall back on is that the accused and the accuser can be treated "equally" for justice to prevail. That is simply not the case. They can't. The rights of the innocent must always and everywhere trump the right of a crime victim to see his or her assailant punished in order for justice to prevail. In the rape setting, since the '70s and until recently, there were very few persons speaking up for that critical principle.
There are valid reasons for affording anonymity to rape accusers, but the valid reasons for eliminating anonymity for accusers are greater.
True, eliminating anonymity for accusers likely would discourage some women from coming forward with actual rape claims. But it would also discourage women from coming forward with FALSE rape claims. We suspect more women would be discouraged from reporting rape lies than actual rapes if anonymity were removed.
But this does not end the inquiry. We know that there are many serial false accusers. We don't know HOW many because most false rape claims are never charged, record keeping is hit-or-miss, depending on the jurisdiction, etc. As it is now, when a serial false accuser lodges a rape claim, her previous victims never hear about it, so they can't come forward to aid the police in their investigation or to help the current defendant in his defense.
Wouldn't we want our police to know that a rape accuser makes false rape claims with regularity?
As a taxpayer, I sure as hell would. As someone concerned about the falsely accused, I sure as hell would.
I think it's time we started to show far greater respect for the old Blackstone formulation that it is "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." Nowhere is that more important than in the rape setting, where rape lies are so easy to tell and the consequences are so devastating. Currently we are saying, "jack up rape convictions at all costs, the innocent be damned." And as I demonstrate here time and time again, anonymity is just one of many recent double-standards designed to make reporting rape and convicting rapists easier.
That is all well and good, but when we do things to make reporting rape and convicting rapists easier, there is a moral imperative to watch out for the innocent men and boys who may be wrongly accused -- because we've also made it easier to accuse, to jail, and to convict the innocent. The problem is that very few people are at all concerned about that.
I, for one, would be much happier to see your daughter's rapist go free in exchange for your son's freedom from his rape ordeal than to see both your daughter's rapist AND your son be jailed. In fact, it is no contest. I hope you feel the same way.
Just this morning my son's attorney told me it would make no difference in my son's case if his accuser recanted her story.
He accepted an Alford plea. An Alford allows you not to admit guilt, but is considered a guilty plea anyway. His alternative choice was 6 years in prison.
An Alford plea cannot be appealed.
IF his accuser WERE to come forward with the truth, SHE would be prosecuted for lying, and he would still be unable to appeal his conviction.
OK, folks. This was a dumb little kid who wanted to attend a party. She accused at her mother's encouragement - her mother is a serial accuser.
Just to publicly say "I lied" is huge. H U G E.
Some have gotten enough courage and moral backbone to do it.
Only to be prosecuted for lying.
They get shut down and silenced by those who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, and that isn't a GENDER issue - that's blood on everyone's hands.
So. Where's the incentive to recant?
There is none.
My son - along with his brother, sister, parents, grandparents, friends, wife, and children will forever be tainted, stained and punished for this one cruel lie that can never be undone.
Sgt. Mom, thanks for sharing this in such a caring, articulate way. The most emails I get are from mothers of sons falsely accused. Most are heart-wrenching, and even worse, the only thing that I can tell them is to spend whatever it takes to get the best attorney they can find.
Recantations generally need to be made before conviction but can be a basis for overturning convictions, at least in some jurisdictions.
Frankly, I think my son would willingly go to jail to prevent 10 guilty men from continuing to rape.
That's the true irony of this whole thing - he's the last man standing who would have harmed a woman.
At age 55, I remember all too well the 'good old days' when as a woman I feared driving alone late at night. I feared appearing to be 'too friendly' or dressing too attractively, knowing I would be told "it's your own fault" or "You had it coming" if I somehow slipped up and 'caused' myself to get hurt.
I remember the advice to "just relax and enjoy it".
I was raised by a father who always blamed it on the woman. The Taliban had nothing on my Dad.
I served in the military with convicted rapists who were given the opportunity to join the military instead of going to prison.
I respectfully and sincerely disagree with the notion that rape is rare. I've had too many close calls myself.
I really don't want a return to 'the good old days'.
I want accountability in those who wield power. I want justice to be justice for all.
None of us are safe without it.
First, I am not aware of any legitimate evidence that rape is rampant. Rape is too common, but if it were as common as the numbers tossed out by sexual assault advocates, and if every male were punished for all such alleged "rapes" -- listen to this carefully -- every high school and college in America would see its male enrollment plummet. Every family, on average would lose at least one male to prison, and we would need to more than double the number of prisons currently operating in America. That's based on THEIR numbers.
If you believe that's an accurate picture of rape in America today, we have nothing more to discuss. It is nonsense, and it is insulting to an entire gender, with all due respect.
Of course rape is a problem. But unfortunately, Sgt.Mom, we are stranded in an era when feminists insist that innocent men "must be part of the solution" regarding the imaginary rape epidemic, or they are somehow rape enablers. Young women, on the other hand, are exempted from any responsibility whatsover. They can drink and engage in sex play with men they don't know as much as they please and then if there is a miscommunication, why it "must" have been rape -- and the male, and men in general, "must" have been at fault because, well, that's the woman-as-victim metanarrative that they've fed us. A rape culture concocted out of whole cloth. Innocent males are shamed into thinking THEY must end this imaginary rape culture (even though they, like your son are non-rapists -- and even though they CAN'T stop it, only the rapists and the women who put themselve in danger can stop it), but innocent females can behave in ways that put them at risk of criminal sexual assault -- and if anyone chides the females, they are "victim blaming."
Right. The "good NEW days" for feminists. Women need not be careful any more. This is empowerment -- "Rape me, so I can blame men!"
Now what you need to know is that legally, or by any standard of common sense, it usually isn't rape. The test is whether a reasonable person in the male's situation would have understood that the woman was a willing and able participant in the sex act -- assent, manifested by word or conduct and it need not be verbally "enthusiastic" (sorry feminists, that's bullshit). Being there is often indicative of an invitation for sex play. Drinking, too. And not fighting, but going along, is generally assent unless there is phyisical force. It is generally not rape.
When my grandmother warned me not to walk in a bad neighborhood and I did, and ended up getting beaten up (true story), I didn't accuse her of being like the Taliban when she said, "I told you so." I knew she was right, because there are criminals out there.
But of course, when a male tells a female to be wary of sexual CRIMINALS, well, the world, and men, and fathers, and the military -- are all "unfair" to women.
You don't want to go back to the good old days when women lived in fear? Again, it was a fear of your own invention -- more likely manufactured by parents who didn't want their daughters pregnant out of wedlock to boys that they knew. Most innocent people assaulted are and have always been MALE -- a new book by the Feministing blogger puts the number at 150% more innocent men than women. That's how it is now AND in the "good old days." But I don't hear males living in fear or blaming society for it.
And if you remember "relax and enjoy it," I remember hearing from a Vassar VP that the pain of a false rape claims "is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared" men. Nice, eh? Tell THAT to your son! False rape claims are GOOD for men.
I want rapists to be punished, too, but NOT at the expense of the innocent. And that's what's happening. Your son is where he is because it's too damn easy to make false rape claims.
women are not getting raped behind every closed door, like the new gender feminist rape hysterics would have the public think.
The only way to the truth, is to break the gender feminist / law enforcement misinformation Alliance. Until the first perversion of the truth is corrected, fighting the gender feminist war on man will be futile.
My son is where he is because it was politically prosperous for BOTH genders. Males are just as culpable as females in this.
It is not my contention that rape is rampant - it IS my contention that it certainly is not 'rare'.
Before you go into a blind rage on me, please listen -
Evil is certainly not gender specific. Men and women BOTH are good and evil in varying degrees of EQUAL measure.
I know people say 'but women don't rape', so therefore, men have some special monopoly on that particular evil.
Not so. Bear with me while I flesh this out...
I believe false accusations are the female equivalent of rape.
Any one care to disagree?
A false accusation is rape.
IF anything, a false accusation is by far, worse.
Power. Anger. Control. They say that's the impetus of rape.
Sounds like the motivation for a false accusation, as well.
No study will ever be conducted in MY lifetime, but if accurate awareness and numbers were kept, the number of true rapists are probably close equal to the numbers of false accusers.
I became a bible reader while my son was in jail. I never realized how most of the Psalms are about false accusations. This is nothing new...there is nothing new under the sun...
I have a son living the life of the falsely accused. He is branded for life as a register sex offender from the very young age of 16.
There is nothing in this world that can sear my soul more than reliving the day he was surrounded by deputies, handcuffed, and taken to jail while his accuser sat there grinning in triumph at me.
I am able to put my anger and bitterness aside enough to at least try to be fair to BOTH genders.
As I have myself said to angry 'victims';
I would rather be raped, than falsely accused of rape.
I would rather have been robbed than falsely accused of being a thief.
I would rather my child be molested than falsely accused of molesting...
The Judge that ruled in my son's case was able to maintain his position by ruling favorably to appease his 'court watcher' gaggle. He was a man. He knew right form wrong. He did it to benefit himself.
My son's accuser tried to back out of the accusation. The prosecutor threatened to prosecute her mother if she did. The prosecutor is now a high ranking official, featured as a heroine in a recently published book.
Do I want to beat up and humiliate some little girl or do I want to go after Judges, prosecutors, LE and others who are feeding off the innocent?
Your comment is fine except for the part where you suggested I was going into a blind rage. I suspect you will find that I am the most rational, not to mention articulate, blogger on this issue in the United States.
I think you and I could make good allies.
sgt mom asks
Do I want to beat up and humiliate some little girl or do I want to go after Judges, prosecutors, LE and others who are feeding off the innocent?
scott says, I'm the survivor of a false rape acussation, and i would still prefer to go after the perverted officials..DA, and law enforcement that enabled her to lie, rather that the liar herself.
Scott, you and I are on the same page. Follow the money
Pierce, you have no idea what an ally you have in me.
sgt mom, please let you're son know he is not alone, it will be very, very, comforting for him to know others have been through this, and maybe even mention this site to him.
thanx.
Being there is often indicative of an invitation for sex play. Drinking, too.You see Pierce, I have a problem with this. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for taking respondsibility for one's safety. But what exactly do you mean by just "being there"? I know that if I'm just "being there" on a date, it's not an automatic invitaton for sex play unless both me and my date want it to be. And if I choose to drink at a party or over at a friend's house, it's not an automatic invitation for sex. Guys should be expected to have a little something called self-control and consideration.
...we are stranded in an era when feminists insist that innocent men "must be part of the solution" regarding the imaginary rape epidemic, or they are somehow rape enablers.Actually, I don't see it like this at all. I think it's all about encouraging men and women to work together on this issue. It's a general idea in society that men don't view rape as that serious of a crime, probably because of the whole stereotype concerning men and sex. Or they view it as a woman's issue. It's not about innocent men but everyone working together. Kind of how you all think that women should be concerned about issues surrounding men.
Again, it was a fear of your own invention -- more likely manufactured by parents who didn't want their daughters pregnant out of wedlock to boys that they knew.To me, it was fear out of society's invention. Throughout the years, girls and women were taught that only the women who didn't "act womanly" were one of the reasons why they were raped or in other words, they were "asking for it". In some ways, the fear of rape was used to keep females "in line".
" It's a general idea in society that men don't view rape as that serious of a crime"
Being a male survivor of rape as a child, I see it as a serious crime. I am one of the many minimalized, ignored and,forgotten victims. I see your point. I just wanted to let you know there are many of us men out here who understand how serious the crime of rape is. I also know how equally serious false rape accusations are.
Sgt Mom, I think the voices of more mothers of the falsely accused need to be heard. Who else knows a young man,or women, than their mother? I know of only one, our Father in Heaven.
Sgt Mom, you are correct. False rape accusation, as well as all other false accusation, are just as evil or worse as the crime one is wrongfully accused of itself.
" Just this morning my son's attorney told me it would make no difference in my son's case if his accuser recanted her story.
He accepted an Alford plea. An Alford allows you not to admit guilt, but is considered a guilty plea anyway. His alternative choice was 6 years in prison.
An Alford plea cannot be appealed. "
This is where , in my opinion, the system is committing not only as injustice to persons falsely accused but, a crime in and of itself.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv26n3/v26n3-7.pdf
Though the U.S Constitution does not directly address plea bargains, in my honest opinion, they can be considered by the person(s) who may have been coerced into accepting a plea bargain, part of their unenumerated rights as mentioned by the ninth amendment.
" The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment09/
http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-09/index.html
" Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions. "
James Madison
sweetebonyrose said: "But what exactly do you mean by just 'being there'?"
I meant it can be a factor among the surrounding circumstances to manifest consent. You go to a guy's bedroom after you've both been drinking and acting flirtatious. Innumerable cases involve such scenarios. It's very difficult to understand what the woman -- assuming she's not incooherent from alcohol -- intended aside from heightening the romance, and virtually no jury will convict for rape absent unmistakeable injuries because in most cases she did intend to heighten the romance regardless of her ex post facto regret. So, yes, in that instance, "being there" is a factor in the surrounding circumstances that will be taken into account. In many other cases, being there means nothing.
"I don't see it like this at all. I think it's all about encouraging men and women to work together on this issue. It's a general idea in society that men don't view rape as that serious of a crime, probably because of the whole stereotype concerning men and sex."
Again, I don't make this stuff up. I wish you were correct but I am merely repeating things we've reported here. Feminists tell men they must be part of the solution, they talk of rape continuums and seek to shame men who engage in even conduct that has no relation to rape, but they refuse to encourage women -- who have much greater ability to prevent rape than do innocent men -- to take measures to prevent rape. As for men not taking rape as seriously, this is a feminist myth. Men are the ones who exact vengeance for rape in story after story after story that we report here. Men are the ones encouraging women to be careful -- not feminists. Feminists tell women to do whatever the hell they want because "it's the men who must stop raping." Correction, it's the RAPISTS who must stop raping. Only a tiny percentage of men rape, and innocent men cannot stop them, regardless of this feminist myth that insists men can control "their kind."
"Fear of rape was used to keep women in line."
More accurately, the fear of getting pregnant was used to keep women in line because it's not a good idea until the woman is ready.
Sweetbonyrose,
You might look into the prevalence of rape in lesbian relationships. Then get back to me on the "men don't take rape seriously" BS.
From where I stand, it seems that Feminism is ignoring this as it doesn't fit into their metanarrative that "only men rape, and only women are victims".
Putting all the onus on men is dishonest and sexist. I don't rape. I have no responsibility to govern the actions of those who do.
Let me give an example. I'm white. I live in chicago. I don't head to certain sections of this city, simply because I would put my life in danger just by stepping foot there.
Yet, here we are, saying that women can go anywhere, do anything, and they bear no responsibility for putting themselves into a situation where something bad will happen.
I understand you can't protect yourself, all the time, from something bad happening, but you can certainly minimize the blatant risks. Modern Feminism has convinced women that they don't need to worry about, or take measures to protect themselves.
My god, we teach children not to cross the street without looking both ways, don't get in a car with a stranger (even though that is less likely to happen than someone the child knows doing something bad to them), Don't run with scissors, etc.
So why is it that women are so incapable of taking any precautions to protect themselves?
Sgt. Mom,
Yes, Law enforcment officials at all levels need to be held accountable for this kind of garbage. The question I have is....... HOW?
And while I think they bear a good part of the responsibility for pushing forward on bogus charges, there wouldn't be anything to push forward if someone hadn't started the ball rolling by making the false accusation. I understand, that once the report is made, it's up to police and prosecutors to move forward, but I'm genuinely curious as to what you think can be done to change the current system?
I am not knowledgeable enough about the system is even begin to guess how to 'change' it.
Those who do have this knowledge have agendas and sacred cows they aren't willing to relinquish.
There are so many varieties of false accusations it's mind boggling. I can't begin to address all of them.
From my own little perspective, I would like to see rape shield laws modified to show any and all prior accusations.
I'd like all parties to be polygraphed. This would be the death knell of polygraphing, however - it'll never happen as long as a buck is to be made.
I think medical information of both parties should be presented. My son's accuser had a highly contagious bacterial infection he likely would have contracted - she lied and denied it. Medical confidentiality covered her tracks.
I'd like some sort of amnesty for recanters. The downside is true victims could be high pressured to recant - how to avoid that I don't know.
The entire accusation process should be handled as intelligently and sensitively as humanly - humanely - possible.
I think a good place to study this is male prison rape, the most underreported crime for good reason. IF studies can successfully be done to fairly and honestly bring justice in that case - it could be applied to the 'outside' world.
...but this is my 'mom' perspective on rocket science...
Those seem like a very good start. I would add one more thing, that I think would be the most important aspect of any case:
Anonymity for all involved until a conviction is obtained. The idea currently that proven false accusers, by and large, retain their anonymity, while the falsely accused don't, is vile.
I would add as well, that I don't think the MSM should be allowed to report on any crime until a conviction is obtained. They taint the process too much, mainly because they don't report anymore, they editorialize. It's too bad the MSM doesn't have any ethics left.
I absolutely believe both parties should receive equal treatment.
I originally found this site by googling 'polygraphing both parties'.
There is an archived discussion about polygraphing both accuser and accused.
Some person nicely explained that 'the victim' is likely to fail because they are so traumatized.
...as if being falsely accused of rape ISN'T traumatizing enough to cause one to fail.
I would so dearly LOVE just once for a 'he said she said' case to polygraph both parties.
What if they both pass?
What if they both fail?
It will never happen, but boy...I'd love just once for it to happen...
Sgt. Mom, VAWA now forbids requiring polygraphs of rape accusers. Men accused of rape, and men on sex registries, must either take them when asked or risk doing prison time.
The funny thing is that gender feminists say that police officers are biased against and don't believe rape accusers, yet they refuse to allow the police to use polygraphs, despite the fact that police use them for every other type of crime. The trauma of a rape is somehow "different" than the trauma to a guy working in a convenicence store who has a gun put to his head and is beat by a robber. Rape is "worse." And of course it is "worse" than a false rape claim that ruins the lives of men and their families.
The more I read about their arguments, the more dishonest I find them to be. Some of them are -- dare I say it? -- evil.
Putting all the onus on men is dishonest and sexist. I don't rape. I have no responsibility to govern the actions of those who do.Wolfboy69, it's not about governing that actions of others. It's about being more aware of the issue along with not falling for the myths and the whole victim-blaming thing. For example, when blacks were fighting for equal rights and against racism, white people also helped out in the cause. You say that feminists should consider men's issues as well, so since rape hurts everyone, isn't that a huge incentive to be involved? And about the whole "men don't take rape seriously thing", you rarely see any documentary or tv special about male rape victims. I'm not saying that men aren't concerned about rape or that there aren't male rape victims, but you can't deny that it's society itself that paints rape as a "woman's issue".
By the way, if you want examples of true victim blaming, here is a little something called The Rape of Mr. Smith
You go to a guy's bedroom after you've both been drinking and acting flirtatious. Innumerable cases involve such scenarios. It's very difficult to understand what the woman -- assuming she's not incooherent from alcohol -- intended aside from heightening the romanceWell if she ends up yelling "No" and "Stop" or fighting him off, I don't know how much clearer she can get, unless the guy was too drunk himself. My thing is, if a girl is by herself (as she intended) passed out on a bed drunk, a guy (especially if he's sober) shouldn't feel entitled to do whatever he wants with her body. In many stories of rape, the victim is held responsible for the actions of another. Because he's a guy and "boys will be boys", society doesn't expect him to take responsibility for his own actions in regards to sex. It's like if a drunk person, walks onto an empty highway and a sober driver purposely hits that person. The victim isn't held responsible for the actions of the driver. What it comes down to is that idealy a girl/woman should be free to be drunk just like any other guy and not be raped.
Here's the thing though. A girl can take every possible percaution in regards to her safety and still be raped. I think that feminists aren't saying that women can do anything they want to and not think about their safety. It's that they shouldn't be partly blamed for their own rape due to a laspe in judgement. Think of the "Just World Theory".
How about this. Take a guy who forgot to get new batteries for his smoke detector or better yet, he doesn't even own one and he dies in a fire. Is he to blame for his own death? Not sure this is a good example but oh well.
*Sigh* Once again I have gone completely off the topic of the original post. Sorry.
Warning: this post contains a phrase that many consider objectionable. If coarse language offends you, I wouldn't recommend reading any further.Yes, bad things can happen. Welcome to the world. But since something like 95-99% of "rapes" are of the acquaintance variety, either the person raped didn't really know who he/she was with, or was complacent about thier safety.
you rarely see any documentary or tv special about male rape victims. I'm not saying that men aren't concerned about rape or that there aren't male rape victims, but you can't deny that it's society itself that paints rape as a "woman's issue".I'm aware of 2 documentaries that were produced on this. Both times that they were set to air, NOW raised such a fuss, they were pulled and never saw the light of day. What would be the reaction if men organized as a group and screamed to get a documentary about women being raped pulled?
My thing is, if a girl is by herself (as she intended) passed out on a bed drunk, a guy (especially if he's sober) shouldn't feel entitled to do whatever he wants with her body.And he shouldn't be able to. That is rape. But that isn't what the majority of cases are about. They are about consent. Gender Feminism says that consent must be "Enthusiastically given", whatever that means (yelling "I'm going to have sex with this person", in a crowded room I guess). But consent doesn't have to be verbal.
Add to that, that you can have two people, after having been drinking, have sex. According to the "rape industry", she isn't able to give consent because she has been drinking, but he can, and it is considered rape. Nice double standard. Shouldn't she be charged with rape as well? He was drinking too, so he can't give consent by thier definition.
Yes, women can take precautions and still be raped. But it significantly lessens the chance. And that is what the law is for. But drunken sex, unless one of the parties is completely incoherant/passed out, isn't rape.
I saw a phrase on Amy Alkon's site that summed it up very nice (Warning, that this contains swearing):
Don't fuck drunk.
The only problem is, that only men are currently being held to that standard. Not women.
As long as no one forced the woman to drink, and no drugs (date rape) were involved, then it is just a drunken one night stand, not rape.
And regret isn't rape. By any standard.
Oh, and yes, if he doesn't take even the most basic of precautions, and dies in a fire, then he is responsible.
""
The more I read about their arguments, the more dishonest I find them to be. Some of them are -- dare I say it? -- evil."
My daughter pleaded with tears streaming down her face to be polygraphed. The cop just kinda laughed and said it couldn't be done.
I can't help but wonder just what the outcome of that polygraph would have been.
She sat in the back of the court room at her brother's hearing after the Judge angrily denounced the defense attorney for submitting his polygraph results(as requested in the pre sentencing evaluation), again tears streaming, asking Why? Why is everything SHE said believed and nothing I said believed?
I have heard more than one attorney mention "the evil of today's court climate..."
Sgt. Mom, I have to say yours and your son's story makes me feel ill.
Post a Comment