Ben Roethlisberger's rape accuser Andrea McNulty has offered to settle her lawsuit against the Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback if he admits raping her, apologizes, and gives $100,000 to the Committee to Aid Abuse Women. According to USA Today, Roethlisberger has rejected the offer, which his lawyer called "bizarre." Roethlisberger previously filed court documents in the case from his accuser's coworkers "saying she had bragged about having sex with the NFL star and joked about being pregnant."
I write this post for all the men standing around the proverbial office water cooler opining with cold detachment about the merits of the this high profile lawsuit. No doubt most of them will voice the opinion that the suit appears to be meritless, and they might even venture an opinion that it was foolhardy for Big Ben to put himself in a situation where such an accusation could be made.
The one thing men will not do, except for a few of us, is discuss the case in the larger context of men's rights, and that's a travesty because this case is a cautionary tale for male vulnerability to rape lies that all too often destroy lives with sudden and callous efficiency.
Just to put this in perspective, the usual cackling hens who find misogyny oozing from every crevice, not to mention the male useful idiots who side with these misandrists any time any woman accuses any man of anything, have already jumped into the fray and declared this case as but one more example of women's oppression at the hands of patriarchy (despite all their twisting and pounding to the contrary, "patriarchy" is a code word for "men"). Jaclyn Friedman, for one, swooped in and noted that as soon as McNulty made her allegation, "as reliably as thunder follows lightning, the sports misogyny apologists boomed onto the scene. You know the ones -- would-be or former jocks with Peter Pan disease, women desperate to be one of the guys, or who dream of being Gisele Bundchen to the next Tom Brady. . . . And whenever it's suggested that a sports practice or athlete harms women, they jump into action with whatever excuse is handy: It's all in good fun! It's just part of the game! It could have been worse! He would never do that! She liked it! She's just after his money! Can't anyone take a joke?"
Ms. Friedman's examples are, of course, typical feminist straw persons. While there may be some foolish people who uttered things of that nature, there are likely far more people ready to believe that the Bush administration was behind the 9/11 attacks. If, for example, a member of the Obama administration made the latter assertion, the left would chide anyone who dared suggest that such view was representative of anything wider than one uninformed, foolish opinion. (And, gee, that's just what happened with Van Jones, isn't it?) Yet Ms. Friedman's examples are supposedly indicative of rampant, unrestrained misogyny.
Ms. Friedman, for those who don't know, wrote a book with the lead blogger of feministing dot com that, among other things, had the balls (excuse the male terminology) to say the following about the Duke Lacrosse case: "We may never know exactly what happened that night, but the media dialogue and political opportunism that followed made clear the reality of black women reporting on rape and the subsequent manipulation of their stories for political gain." J. Friedman, J. Valenti, Yes Means yes!: Visions of Female Sexual Power and a World Without Rape at 155 (2008). For those of you who might have been servicing the space shuttle the past several years, this is revisionist history beyond Biblical proportions. We do know what happened in that house that night: three innocent young white men were falsely accused of and charged with rape, solely because they were white and deemed to be privileged. That is the story of Duke Lacrosse, and the attempt to transmogrify it into a tale of black female subjugation at the hands of "privileged" white men is akin to making the case that Hilter tried to save the Jews or that Ronald Reagan lost the Cold War.
So, seriously, in light of her take on the Duke case, what should we expect from Ms. Friedman when she talks about the Roethlisberger case? Ms. Friedman and her ilk can't see beyond their gynocentric worldview that Mr. Roethlisberger might just be innocent of these claims (and the evidence filed in court to date is fairly overwhelming in suggesting that he is not liable). Nor can they see the pain of a man or boy falsely accused of rape. This reminds us of what Catherine Comins famously said about men falsely accused of rape: "They have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them." In fact, a lot of people who don't look at things through a gender lens, much less a gynocentric one, think that Mr. Roethlisberger is being unfairly prejudged a rapist in the court of last resort, the court of public opinion, while his accuser remains anonymous in the Steelers' hometown newspaper. Steelers nose tackle Casey Hampton summed it up: "I know how the world is. In today's society, if anybody says anything, you're guilty until you're proven innocent." But, hey, why should we expect a feminist to see things from the perspective of a man or boy accused of rape given that, you know, he's a member of the oppressor class and all?
The Roethlisberger case isn't about misogyny or women's rights; it isn't about female subjugation; and it isn't about a supposed "rape culture." It's about how any man or boy, even those deemed by society to be "privileged," are uniquely vulnerable to the most vicious lie possible -- a lie that often destroys lives and sometimes causes men and boys to kill themselves and to be killed -- simply because they were born male. And it's about how society allows even lying female accusers to have their way with the innocent, so long as they are male, simply because rape has been improperly gender politicized and the public discourse on this issue has been wrongly misappropriated by a radical gender feminist sexual grievance industry that -- yes, let's come out with it -- hates men.
The Roethlisberger case is about men's rights. Too bad most men don't realize it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
87 comments:
Great one, Pierce.
It's also about the truth -- that key value which America has abandoned, preferring "sensitivity."
McNutty knows she can't win at this point, the evidence that she is a liar is overwhelming. She also knows that he'll never settle -- why would he expose himself to criminal charges by falsely confessing?
It's all lies and empty posturing. This nut belongs in jail.
She is a heroine with feminists.
"A women would never ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever lie about rape!"
That's why. It makes me sick.
"a radical gender feminist sexual grievance industry that -- yes, let's come out with it -- hates men."
Glad to hear someone finally say that. When all is said and done, that's the bottom line.
Of course they hate men. If it wasn't for their constant spew of anti-male, rape hysteria propaganda they would be out of business, so it pays to hate men.
Has there been actual documented evidence from reliable sources to suggest that McNulty's lying or crazy? And no I'm not saying he's guilty or that she's absolutely telling the truth. I'm just trying to get the facts.
One thing that bothers me personally about cases like this is how everyone rails on the allegded victim before the evidence is made public. I wouldn't be so quick to throw out Ms. Friedman's examples or her article. She's not so much focusing on the people themselves as she is our culture, especially the sports culture. She's not applying it to the entire male population.
Don't get me wrong, you make some good points. But almost whenever anyone famous - especially an athlete - is accused of a crime, before the evidence even is presented, people jump on the victim condeming, victim-blaming bandwagon. And there is a difference between questioning the victim and victim-blaming by the way.
Question: is a victim of a crime besides rape named, or is it only in rape cases in which the victim isn't named?
"Glad to hear someone finally say that. When all is said and done, that's the bottom line."
I agree that's the bottom line, Norm. I didn't write that lightly. The persons driving this debate aren't the young women who are driven, who are insisting on equality with men. The persons driving this debate are angry, they've got a huge chip on their shoulders, they are usually lesbian, and most of them do hate men. That might seem an incredible overstatement to some who are not well versed in this area, but there is no other explanation for it when you consider their loony toons writings. And trust me, I wish it weren't so, but it is.
Renee, only in rape is the ALLEGED victim not named.
I could start writing and not stop until tomorrow at this time in response to your post. Let's just focus on a couple of things: "She's not so much focusing on the people themselves as she is our culture . . . ." Yeah, yeah, yeah -- the MALE driven culture. That's horsehit of the worst kind. She's talking about MEN, and we need to be honest.
Anyone familiar with Duke lacrosse knows that for MONTHS the three young defendants were widely considered guilty. Spend a month reading KC Johnson's blog if you don't believe me. No question or doubt about that, and it's not a point open to debate. Until that case surprised the shit out of MEN, most men in America were willing to believe the media when it reported a "rape." When that case turned EVERYONE'S expectations on their head, a hell of a lot of men woke up and realized that this sort of thing goes on.
Her examples are bullshit. The reason people are siding with Roethlisberger in this case is that the news reports give every indication that she's a gold digger.
BIG WOOPS lol! Ny conputer was acting funny and lagged
And now it looks like I can't type lol.
I never said that the culture was male driven. I was focusing on the mindset whenever there's a case like this.
As for her examples, like I said McNulty may be lying, but you can't deny that you see similar examples constantly whenever a case like this is made public.
Like I said, it seems that almost whenever an athlete is accused of rape and whenever a woman dares to bring up a rape lawsuit publicly, she's considered guilty of lying or is deemed "crazy," "delusional" or "money hungry" before given any legal proceedings whatsoever.
Renee - "Has there been actual documented evidence from reliable sources to suggest that McNulty's lying or crazy?"
Did you miss the part about HER friend giving a sworn deposition about her having bragged about having had sex with Roethlisberger, and even hoping that she was pregnant?
Now, where's some proof, any proof that McNulty isn't lying and just trying to shake down her former lover? Did she give a sworn statement to police? [Of course, we know that she did not - since she never reported being raped]
Did any of her friends give a sworn deposition that she had told them of having been raped?
There is apparently nothing more than her word, and her demand for $440k. But, I assume that since she a woman, that's good enough for you?
Like I said, it seems that almost whenever an athlete is accused of rape and whenever a woman dares to bring up a rape lawsuit publicly, she's considered guilty of lying or is deemed "crazy," "delusional" or "money hungry" before given any legal proceedings whatsoever.
For good reason-- that's always the case!
Can anybody think of a single credible rape accusation made against a star athelete in recent years? I sure can't.
Renee - "Like I said, it seems that almost whenever an athlete is accused of rape and whenever a woman dares to bring up a rape lawsuit publicly, she's considered guilty of lying or is deemed "crazy," "delusional" or "money hungry" before given any legal proceedings whatsoever."
Renee,
What about the flip-side? You know, that part about the man being assumed guilty in the press and by the public, his good named ruined, without even so much as a trial in which evidence is presented to support his guilt?
Can you say Kobe Bryant?
"As for her examples, like I said McNulty may be lying, but you can't deny that you see similar examples constantly whenever a case like this is made public."
You do Renee, and let's go alitle deeper into just what a "a case lie this" is. This is a case of a woman selecting an athelete as a target of a libelous smear and a lie that in fact looks very much like attempted extortion. This is exactly that same as when that lying little peice of white went after Kobe Bryant, accusing him of rape after she had sought him out in his hotel room at 10:00 at night. A stock standard Mayella right out of To Kill A Mockingbird.
Why she wasn't hung up by her lying tongue to die is a mystery to me. Well, no it's not, noat at all.
they specifically target atheletes, first for a glamorous free ride, and then when they egt tired of that, for these kinds of attacks.
And there is no possibility that McNutty isn't lying. Rape victims don't sit around in bars bragging about having screwed their rapists. That just doesn't happen.
There is also no possibility that she isn't insane. Sane people don't go to a shrink to help them get over relationships with imaginary people.
my opinion
Renee - "And now it looks like I can't type lol."
Not to be mean, but rather because you usually do better...
But, it seems to me that in this case, it hasn't been your typing that let you down - it appears that you forgot to think this one through. It has only been quite recently that a woman targeting an athlete or celebrity would even be doubted in the least. I think you can thank Kobe Bryant's debunked accuser for that.
Plenty of us ended up with egg on our faces over that one - we assumed that he MUST HAVE RAPED HER, why else would she have gone to the police?
Well, then it turns out she was the town slut, bragged to others about baggin' Kobe, had sex with other men soon afterward; and even the DA didn't want to go forward.
Now, we know better than to EVER take a woman accusing a famous person at face value. We now know that odds are she's lying, and looking for money. Don't forget about the women recently found to be trying to blackmail Rick Patino using a false rape claim.
Sorry Renee, you really stepped in it this time. Go clean your shoe off.
"I never said that the culture was male driven."
I know you never said it -- that's the implication.
". . . but you can't deny that you see similar examples constantly whenever a case like this is made public."
I can and I do deny it, and I follow this area very closely. Exhibit "A" -- Duke Lacrosse, the most widely discussed, and covered, false rape case ever. And I have another example I will post tonight -- just came down in the news today.
In any event, if a woman is raped, instead of filing a civil case that will NOT protect the public from the so-called rapist, she needs to go to the police and press charges. Even if this woman wins, her "rapist" is still out there to terrorize other unsuspecting golddiggers -- er -- victims. Why, on earth, are women supporting a woman in this PRIVATE dispute that doesn't do anything to protect the public?
Because they're fools. Andrea McNutty is far less credible than even Kobe's false accuser, and by the time this is over there will be no doubt whatsoever about Ben's innocence. There are smart false accusers, and there are stupid ones (although they're all vile).
slwerner,
Did you miss the part about HER friend giving a sworn deposition about her having bragged about having had sex with Roethlisberger, and even hoping that she was pregnant?
Is this documented or proven or is this more like word of mouth?
But, I assume that since she a woman, that's good enough for you?
Ha! Why would that be good enough for me?
What about the flip-side? You know, that part about the man being assumed guilty in the press and by the public, his good named ruined, without even so much as a trial in which evidence is presented to support his guilt?
That's bad as well...and?
Anon,
For good reason-- that's always the case!
ALWAYS!? You're kidding right?
Jim,
Those are only two cases. You can't automatically apply this to a whole separate incident of an alledged rape by an athlete without first considering the evidence. That's the whole problem.
Pierce,
I can and I do deny it, and I follow this area very closely. Exhibit "A" -- Duke Lacrosse, the most widely discussed, and covered, false rape case ever. And I have another example I will post tonight -- just came down in the news today.
Those are only two. And I can only think of two or three more. Should that apply to every single case of alledged rape by an athlete? That's an example of what I'm talking about.
Any you know what? I say this very seriously based on careful study: most of them do fit those categories.
And the problem is that people based that on any other case that's made (or will be made) public whether through the media/community without first looking or waiting for the facts and evidence.
Not sure if this needs to be said, but it seems like whenever I have a different opinion on something, that automatically means I'm supporting false rape accusations lol. Anyway, I don't support that of course and Pierce made some good points, but what I posted is just something else that bothers me as well.
Renee, every case needs to be examined on its own merits, but generally, rape claims are instantaneously believed by most people. That is incontrovertible fact. It is why I have this blog.
slwerner,
I think that I've thought this through. I'm not siding with McNulty or anything. I'm just against how people who come forward to press charges or have civil lawsuits against athletes are automatically lying without any proof. Just like how the athletes are automatically seen a guilty.
Well, then it turns out she was the town slut, bragged to others about baggin' Kobe, had sex with other men soon afterward; and even the DA didn't want to go forward.
First of all, I have a problem when people use "slut-shaming" to discredit someone. That's not to say that the part of her bragging about having sex with Kobe or other men afterward are included. But simply saying that she's a slut as proof of her lying is really...well...wrong.
Pierce,
Renee, every case needs to be examined on its own merits, but generally, rape claims are instantaneously believed by most people. That is incontrovertible fact. It is why I have this blog.
Point taken.
But simply saying that she's a slut as proof of her lying is really...well...wrong.
A slut isn't automatically a liar, sure. On the other hand, a woman who is promiscuous may in some situations be far more likely to consent to sex than a nun, so her sexual mores can be relevant. In and of itself it is not decisive.
What matters is whether or not she's a degenerate liar. That question is always appropriate.
All this about 'presumption' concerning 'alleged' false accusers is bullshit. McNulty has not been charged with anything, so she is not an 'alleged' anything. Roethlisberger is the one who was charged, so he is entitled to presumption of innocence. That is how the law is designed.
Presumption has nothing to do with McNulty. Renee is merely arguing from the standpoint of "we should generally believe women, and when we doubt them, we have to 'prove' our doubt, or give her the benefit of the doubt about our doubt", or some crock of shit. All that is NOT APPLICABLE - it has no validity.
Doubt is doubt is doubt.
Excuse me, I don't mean Rothlesberger was charged as a criminal. The point is that the burden of proof rests with the offence. McNulty is the offence, she is accusing him of a crime. Her side has to prove he did it. There is no burden on him to 'prove' anything about her. The fact that he is seeking evidence that she lied in no way implies that there is such a burden on him.
That is my understanding of logic in law, correct me if I'm wrong, legal-minded people out there.
And let's not confuse these celebrity cases with the way ordinary men are treated by our courts. These sports stars has enormous resources and fans; the average man can't afford a defense and gets ground up by the system. Prosecutors need no evidence whatsoever to put a man in jail prior to trial, and it can easily take a year for him to get his day in court. The system will not pay his legal fees no matter how obvious it becomes that she was lying all along, and the liar never has to worry about being held accountable.
have, no has, sorry.
Norm,
Renee is merely arguing from the standpoint of "we should generally believe women, and when we doubt them, we have to 'prove' our doubt, or give her the benefit of the doubt about our doubt",
No, I'm not. And why the emphasis on "women". All I'm saying is 1)Don't jump to conclusions and instead base whatever you believe on the actual facts and evidence of the case itself and 2)We should refrain from automatic victim-blaming, slut-shaming, etc. whenever someone press charges or files a civil suit against an athlete or celebrity.
Slut-shaming? You mean like saying that the Duke boys were horrible drunkards who deserved to be convicted just because they hired strippers? And I know, so many women are going to prison because of "slut-shaming."
A further example of "slut-shaming": allowing women to terminate a pregnancy, while forcing men who don't want the child to pay more than he can afford for twenty years, and putting him in debtor's prison if he can't pay. That's what I call slut-shaming. Meanwhile the woman is allowed and encouraged to behave any damned way she pleases.
Though i see where you're coming from Renee.
I believe that the spirit of the legal system SHOULD lead us to doubt.
Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
I do agree that with sports stars there are a lot more people backing them than the average man, all those fans (fanatics) who have invested parts of themselves in the player could never see wrong in him.
However, it still stands that we should START with doubt then move on to weighing the evidence. Purely because it is impossible for a person to ever be truly neutral and what is morally considered the "correct" middle point of doubt and certainty will surely change as social standards change. Sitting to one side, never changes.
Slut-shaming? You mean like saying that the Duke boys were horrible drunkards who deserved to be convicted just because they hired strippers
I understand the main idea of what you're saying, but based on how "slut-shaming" is used, this example is not considered one. I fail to see the connection unless the Duke guys were considered "sluts".
A further example of "slut-shaming": allowing women to terminate a pregnancy, while forcing men who don't want the child to pay more than he can afford for twenty years, and putting him in debtor's prison if he can't pay. That's what I call slut-shaming.
Once again, based on how slut-shaming is used, how are these examples? Now you're just rambling. Yes, these are problems (even though I'm on the fence about abortion) - they just have nothing to do with "slut-shaming".
Your example also conflicts with each other. A guy who doesn't want the child may want the woman to have an abortion. And if it is his child biologically, doesn't he have some responsibility to his child? But yeah, the child support police can be harsh.
Veldan,
I agree. It's just...I don't know...some of the reasoning behind that doubt that bothers me.
Renee - "Once again, based on how slut-shaming is used, how are these examples?"
Okay, Renee, I'll type slowly , ans use smaller words in the hopes that you might "catch-on".
What IS meant by "slut-shaming" is when a woman's promiscuous behavior is used to embarrass her, to humiliate her, to defame her, and/or as a tactic to control her behavior.
Now, just how you got to this (slut-shaming) from my pointing out that Katelyn Faber (Kobe's accuser) was well know as a highly promiscuous young woman (yes, I said "slut" - but not to attempt to shame her, but rather to describe her behavioral patterns prior to her encounter with Bryant).
So, let me restate my earlier points so that that "slut" word won't entice you into chasing down any rabbit-trails:
When the news of the accusations against Kobe Bryant came out, many of us (men/myself included) assumed that it was probably true.
[hopefully you got that without any misunderstanding; so, moving on...]
However, when information started to leak out that Katelyn Faber was well known for her promiscuity, and that not only did she attend a party at which she bragged openly about having had sex with Bryant, she then went on to have sex with other men (I think it was three) after that party - all before going to the police with her claim - we (speaking for us duped men) started to realize that it was more likely than not that NO RAPE HAD actually occurred.
[See, I didn't say slut, nor did I try to interject any slut-shaming - so, you shouldn't get that confused this time...right?]
It was because of this case that some of us - but, not (unfortunately) the public at-large began to view accuser of celebrities with suspicion.
Please note that you were just plain dead-wrong about that crap about "..almost whenever an athlete is accused of rape and whenever a woman dares to bring up a rape lawsuit publicly, she's considered guilty of lying or is deemed "crazy," "delusional" or "money hungry" before given any legal proceedings whatsoever."
That still only happens in limited quarters - were men are becoming increasingly aware of just how devious women really are. The main-stream media certainly did not go after McNulty -at all! They mostly still refer to her as the "victim".
Come on Renee, get a clue on this.
but based on how "slut-shaming" is used, this example is not considered one. I fail to see the connection unless the Duke guys were considered "sluts".
So in other words, "slut-shaming" is only slut-shaming when a woman is being scolded for her behavior, never for when a man goes to a strip show or otherwise lawfully uses his penis the way nature intended. But as you said, that term was meant to be used by feminist whiners, not MRAs who are attacking double standards and female privilege.
The difference, of course, is that when morons judge the Duke boys based only on going to a strip show as opposed to a woman being judge for being slutty, the boys end up being falsely convicted while the girl just has her ego dented.
"We should refrain from automatic victim-blaming, slut-shaming, etc. whenever someone press charges or files a civil suit against an athlete or celebrity."
So...when was the last time the media or anyone else that counts blamed the victim??? Unless you were around in the early 70's or something, your honest answer should be, "one out of 1,000 times."
You know, it really is tiresome when feminists and their sympathizers keep dredging up the same old bullshit ad nauseum, like these supposed past attitudes as if they still exist today. It really does boil down to your own pride in your victimhood. And, in the long run you are shooting yourself in the foot, because if there's one thing that will accelerate the demise of feminism, it is people not wanting to hear a noisey, whiney broken record any more.
They want us to believe that we're still living in the 1950's, when some people still disapproved of women sleeping around. That's all over, although male politicians are still ordered to resign if they're caught behaving the same way.
We used to live in a society that was judgmental toward both men and women, and now the second half of that has been completely eliminated but not the first.
slwerner,
And once again, I'll type slowly and use smaller words in hopes that you might understand period.
In which case, you may not have typed slowly enough for you to notice...well...I'll leave for you to see for youself.
Anyway, that exact quote that you used was taken from a response to an Anon's post in which he/she connected slut-shaming to abortion of child support.
I know what slut-shaming is. That's why I pointed out that the poster used poor examples and that it seem he/she didn't know what the phrase meant.
Now about what YOU actually said.
A woman's past sexual habits should not come into play in a rape case. What matters is what happened that night or day. I'm all for the fact that she bragged about having sex with Kobe and others afterward being used as evidence, but there's a danger using a woman's past sexual behavior as evidence. It follows the old-school, stereotypical (and perhaps misogynistic) belief that REAL rape victims don't have casual sex or behave in a certain way. It's related to the archiac idea of how a REAL woman should behave.
Please note that you were just plain dead-wrong about that crap about...
I think not and I do indeed have a clue. The fact of the matter is that it happens. You didn't deny that in and of itself.
That still only happens in limited quarters - were men are becoming increasingly aware of just how devious women really are. The main-stream media certainly did not go after McNulty -at all! They mostly still refer to her as the "victim".
Even if that was true, I still believe that you shouldn't jump to conclusions by using the reasons I stated. It's normal and ok to have doubts though. Just don't jump to conclusions in doing so. Same thing applies to the other side as well.
I know what slut-shaming is. That's why I pointed out that the poster used poor examples and that it seem he/she didn't know what the phrase meant.
You're full of shit. I know exactly wtf "slut-shaming" is supposed to mean. It's just any judgmentalism directed at a woman having promiscuous sex, and it 100% applies to men in all of the situations mentioned.
Scott Peterson was convicted of murder in large part because the court decided to allow his porn channels in as evidence. PERFECT example of "slut-shaming," and you are a total hypocrite if you think that a "rape victim's" sexual history is irrelevant while a male defendent's is. Watching porn has NOTHING to do with whether or not you committed a violent crime, but in our lopsided, anti-male society male sexuality, not female, is demonized and even persecuted.
Anon,
So in other words, "slut-shaming" is only slut-shaming when a woman is being scolded for her behavior, never for when a man goes to a strip show or otherwise lawfully uses his penis the way nature intended.
COMPLETELY wrong. Your hatred of feminists is getting in the way of reasoning and reading comprehension. Slut-shaming can apply to men as well. It's just that the examples of abortion and child support had nothing to do with slut-shaming at all. In the case of the Duke boys, based on the definition slwerner posted, I don't see that much of a connection.
But as you said, that term was meant to be used by feminist whiners, not MRAs who are attacking double standards and female privilege.
LOL, where did I say that? That was a reason for that term being coined whether you like it or not.
Norm,
So...when was the last time the media or anyone else that counts blamed the victim??? Unless you were around in the early 70's or something, your honest answer should be, "one out of 1,000 times."
You must live under a rock or in denial. I admit, you don't see it really in the mainstream media, but look around you in some of the articles, blogs, websites that are online. Those attitudes still exist today whether you like it or not.
It really does boil down to your own pride in your victimhood.
Ha, I am not a victim of anything nor do I take pride in the supposed victimhood. But seriously there are times in which I see said victimhood in a few comments, especially when they put words in my mouth, assume that I'm insulting men/praising women, etc.
Anon(s),
Scott Peterson was convicted of murder in large part because the court decided to allow his porn channels in as evidence. PERFECT example of "slut-shaming," and you are a total hypocrite if you think that a "rape victim's" sexual history is irrelevant while a male defendent's is.
OH GOODNESS, where did I say that slut-shaming is ok when applied to males??? NO WHERE! Once again, another person making getting emotional, making assumptions, and putting words in my mouth when they don't agree with my opinion.
I even said this:
Slut-shaming can apply to men as well.
And no, porn in and of itself should not be used as evidence.
We used to live in a society that was judgmental toward both men and women, and now the second half of that has been completely eliminated but not the first.
I wouldn't go that far as to say that any judgment on women's sexual activities is entirely eliminated, believe me. Whenever I've seen discussions on sex, it still focuses on girls and women. And lets be honest, when it came to sex, society was MUCH judgemental towards women than men. But that's a whole different topic.
COMPLETELY wrong. Your hatred of feminists is getting in the way of reasoning and reading comprehension. Slut-shaming can apply to men as well. It's just that the examples of abortion and child support had nothing to do with slut-shaming at all. In the case of the Duke boys, based on the definition slwerner posted, I don't see that much of a connection.
You're telling me that slut-shaming can apply to men, but I just told you that slut-shaming can apply to men. You're confused.
And obviously child support and prejudging the Duke boys had everything to do with slut-shaming. A man can't be allowed the same reproductive rights that a woman gets and the Duke boys were presumed guilty because EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT NOTHING GOOD EVER COMES OUT OF A PENIS. Male sexuality is eeeeeeeeeevul!
And no, porn in and of itself should not be used as evidence.
Not unless it's illegal porn. But I've seen it used against male and female defendents, along with dildos/vibrators, etc. Why? Because we all know that sex toys cause murder.
Renee said...
"One thing that bothers me personally about cases like this is how everyone rails on the allegded victim before the evidence is made public."
You can rest assured there are an unknown number of people who are railing against the accused.
Andrea McNulty has offered to settle her lawsuit against the Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback if he admits raping her, apologizes, and gives $100,000
===============
If she was supposedly raped, why didn't she go to the police? I can't find anything to suggest she even went to the police yet.
I say she is a gold digging liar.
http://www.falserape.net/
http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20080324.php
You're telling me that slut-shaming can apply to men, but I just told you that slut-shaming can apply to men. You're confused.
No you're confused. You or another Anon accused me of NOT applying it to men, when I did no such thing. You must not have read that comment of mine before you posted or at the time I first mentioned that slut-shaming can apply to men, your post wasn't there at the time.
And obviously child support and prejudging the Duke boys had everything to do with slut-shaming. A man can't be allowed the same reproductive rights that a woman gets and the Duke boys were presumed guilty because EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT NOTHING GOOD EVER COMES OUT OF A PENIS. Male sexuality is eeeeeeeeeevul!
I'm sorry, but you're just not getting it.
"What IS meant by "slut-shaming" is when a person's promiscuous behavior is used to embarrass, humiliate, defame, and/or as a tactic to control his/her behavior." (Edited by me)
Based on that, how are the examples you stated relate to the definition of slut-shaming, besides perhaps the Duke boys asking for strippers? But even then, noone focused or critized that fact that they hired strippers(that may be slut-shaming). And that in and of itself isn't promiscuous behavior so.....
And what reproductive rights are you talking about? When I think of female reproductive rights, I'm thinking of being able to have an abortion, access to birth control, etc. Perhaps you're talking about a say in the decision to have an abortion. But again, how is this slut-shaming?
Like I said, guys can be slut-shamed, but you're grasping straws with these examples.
Anonymous said...
And let's not confuse these celebrity cases with the way ordinary men are treated by our courts. These sports stars has enormous resources and fans;
True
the average man can't afford a defense and gets ground up by the system.
I have to agree with you.
Prosecutors need no evidence whatsoever to put a man in jail prior to trial,
I feel inclined to agree with you on this but, benefit of doubt cited,few prosecutors are alike. There may be a few (such as the wife of one of the administrators on this site). It is logical to think that beacuse there are predatory (defense?) lawyers out there, there are predatory prosecutors out there as well. Of course reasonable suspicion based on witness/victim testimony, amongst many other things, can make a good substitute as evidence.
Here in Tennessee testimony from a female victim or " victim " is often enough proof for a grand jury to indict.
and it can easily take a year for him to get his day in court.
or two years,maybe more
The system will not pay his legal fees no matter how obvious it becomes that she was lying all along, and the liar never has to worry about being held accountable.
Sep 9, 2009 7:12:00 PM
Anonymous said...
have, no has, sorry.
No problem. IMHO, you made good points.
Pierce Harlan said...
Anyone familiar with Duke lacrosse knows that for MONTHS the three young defendants were widely considered guilty. Spend a month reading KC Johnson's blog if you don't believe me. No question or doubt about that, and it's not a point open to debate. Until that case surprised the shit out of MEN, most men in America were willing to believe the media when it reported a "rape." When that case turned EVERYONE'S expectations on their head,
There were lots of people who wanted those young men found guilty for reasons of their own. When those men were cleared, it was a HUGE slap in the faces of those who out of whatever prejudice(s)/bias(es)were gunning to see them destroyed. Where are those who persecuted these young men now?
"a hell of a lot of men woke up and realized that this sort of thing goes on."
A hell of a lot more NEED to wake up!
If she was supposedly raped, why didn't she go to the police? I can't find anything to suggest she even went to the police yet.
Well it's not unheard of. Considering how so many believe that most rape accusations are false, those who were actually raped are afriad of coming forward out of fear of persecution, victim-blaming, and all the mess that comes with a trial. Not saying this applies to McNulty, but it's not uncommon.
As to why anyone would file a civil suit instead of a criminal one, the link to the website on the bottom explains it well.
Now I know how you all feel about this website, so I'm not expecting much. And I know you'll just love the title. But the topic gives good reasons as to why someone who was actually raped might go for a civil lawsuit. Not saying McNulty isn't a golddigger, but perhaps in other cases someone filing a civil suit shouldn't always be automatic proof that someone is a golddigger.
Why the Charges are Civil
http://www.ajc.com/sports/prosecutor-134575.html
Veldan said...
Though i see where you're coming from Renee.
I believe that the spirit of the legal system SHOULD lead us to doubt.
Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
I do agree that with sports stars there are a lot more people backing them than the average man, all those fans (fanatics) who have invested parts of themselves in the player could never see wrong in him.
However, it still stands that we should START with doubt then move on to weighing the evidence. Purely because it is impossible for a person to ever be truly neutral and what is morally considered the "correct" middle point of doubt and certainty will surely change as social standards change. Sitting to one side, never changes.
I agree with you. Thank you. I also applaud what you have said. Very well put and stated.
"You must live under a rock or in denial. I admit, you don't see it really in the mainstream media, but look around you in some of the articles, blogs, websites that are online. Those attitudes [victim-blaming] still exist today whether you like it or not. "
Now that your tantrum is over, can you answer the question? give me a f'rinstance, then prove it is emblamatic of a wide-spread 'attitude'.
If I'm under a rock, then you're on an asteroid in the Andromeda galaxy.
"You must live under a rock or in denial. I admit, you don't see it really in the mainstream media, but look around you in some of the articles, blogs, websites that are online. Those attitudes [victim-blaming] still exist today whether you like it or not. "
Now that your tantrum is over, can you answer the question? give me a f'rinstance, then prove it is emblamatic of a wide-spread 'attitude'.
If I'm under a rock, then you're on an asteroid in the Andromeda galaxy.
Not sure why that came out twice. Also, I should have said 'symptomatic' instead of 'emblamatic'.
Renee, you said a rape victim's sexual past should not be considered relevant in a rape case. Do you think a man's or boy's sexual hisory should be an open book, even an open and exploited book as it is now?
Norm said...
Not sure why that came out twice.
an echo. Maybe it needed to be read twice? No sarcasm intended, just humor
Victim-blaming only occurs in cases of false accusations. Nobody ever says "she deserves to get raped for wearing that skimpy dress" any more. Anyone who says otherwise is full of shit.
Anonymous - "Nobody ever says "she deserves to get raped for wearing that skimpy dress" any more. Anyone who says otherwise is full of shit."
Ironically (or, maybe not), the suggestion that a woman "deserved to be raped..." almost always is first brought up by a feminist (incorrectly) suggesting that it is what men will be doing.
We men, generally, almost NEVER are the ones who suggest a woman deserved to be raped for any reason.
If, and when, it IS ever suggested, it will like-as-not be coming from a woman.
@Renee – WRT your Sep 10, 2009 12:54:00 AM post (and supposed refutation of my assertion of you mis-use of “slut-shaming), in which you claim:
” Anyway, that exact quote that you used was taken from a response to an Anon's post in which he/she connected slut-shaming to abortion of child support.”
Sorry, Renee,
There is a document history herein. A quick search of this document will reveal that the first instance of the word “slut” was in my Sep 9, 2009 5:28:00 PM post (about Kobe’s accuser).
The very next usage was by YOU in your Sep 9, 2009 5:56:00 PM post, in which you specifically quote my statement (using that word), then IMEDDIATELY follow that quotation with this:
” First of all, I have a problem when people use "slut-shaming" to discredit someone.”
You see, Renee, you were NOT using it in response to someone else bring up abortion and child support. Review this for yourself – the evidence is quite clear on this one.
[Sorry to everyone else for getting off-topic, but I felt Renee was being disingenuous in her supposed refutation of my comments to her, and I want to set that record straight.]
On the other hand, we have recently had trolls come in here and suggest that to avoid false accusations, we needed to "keep that weenie in your pants!"
In other words, if you are falsely accused of rape, it's because you're a male slut who was asking for it.
Listen to me closely: a civil suit is about money. Period. It is not about protecting women. The damages at issue in this case are NOTHING to Ben Roethlisberger. Trust me, he'd pay it just to put it behind him if it weren't for the stigma. This woman is not seeking to help women; she's seeking to help herself.
Pierce Harlan - "Listen to me closely: a civil suit is about money. Period. It is not about protecting women."
Precisely!
If not for the "principle" of the matter, Roethlisberger could easily have afforded the price to make the suit go away. But, then, like Kobe, he'd be stuck with the "guilty-by-virtue-of-payoff" tag.
Kudo's for him for standing his ground. And kudo's to her friends for swearing out depositions as to her behaviors.
Her "case" is cracking, and she's lowering the bar ($100k to charity and an admission) to try to save face, because it's becoming clear that her chance of winning in court are a lot less likely due to her own friends depositions.
The item Renee linked, while pretending to suggest otherwise, makes it abundantly clear that it's all about the woman getting "paid".
MENS REALITY QUIZ #2
Q: Why would any woman knowingly falsify a rape?
A: Because she can.
Norm,
Tantrum? PLEASE, you wish.
When a woman cries rape, a football code turns itself into a fortress
This mainly focuses on alcohol and specific groups of men. But some of the ideas that they have follows the victim-blaming mindset.
Sexually Aggressive Men's Responses to a Date Rape Analogue: Alcohol as a Disinhibiting Cue
This is a link to an article about a man being convicted of raping prostitutes at knife point. Check out what the defense attorney says:
Jury finds man guilty of raping prostitutes
Of course there are guys who think "OH, you can't rape prostitutes!". As if being raped at knife point constitutes as sex.
Mainly, as public rape cases or rape period, look at the comments under articles or videos. It's all about being aware of what's going on and looking beyond mainstream media.
And this article is really telling. It's not directly related to the topic at hand, but mindset of the boys in question are problematic and in some instances may go too far. And no I'm not condoning getting drunk.
Teenage boys say it is acceptable to pressure girls into sex
If I'm under a rock, then you're on an asteroid in the Andromeda galaxy.
Ha! Cute, real cute. But I disagree.
"Jim,
Those are only two cases. You can't automatically apply this to a whole separate incident of an alledged rape by an athlete without first considering the evidence. That's the whole problem. "
Renee, of course that's right, at least on the surface and as a generla principle.
But this is how even one anaecdote can actually describe an entore environememtn:
Small-town Alabama in 1901. You observe a white man and a black woman approaching form opposite driections. As the man gets close, the woman steps off the sidewalk into the street.
Obviously this is only one case, but the fatc that it occurred at all, even once, menas that the entire cultural and even legal environment called for and enabled it.
The same holds true in these cases where opportunists are targeting atheletes with flimsy charges. They are doing it because they are being enabled.
Anon,
A slut isn't automatically a liar, sure. On the other hand, a woman who is promiscuous may in some situations be far more likely to consent to sex than a nun, so her sexual mores can be relevant. In and of itself it is not decisive.
What matters is whether or not she's a degenerate liar. That question is always appropriate.
I tackled this before in my later comments. The only time a woman's sexual history should come into play is her activities that night/day if it occured at the same time as the alledged rape, happened right after the alledged rape, etc. Past sexual history in and of itself shouldn't be used as evidence. What matters is, like you said, whether she was lying or what happened that day.
Anon,
Renee, you said a rape victim's sexual past should not be considered relevant in a rape case. Do you think a man's or boy's sexual hisory should be an open book, even an open and exploited book as it is now?
No, and....
Slwerner,
Sorry, but first of all, this has nothing to do with the first use of the word "slut" (where did you even get that from). Once again, this quote:
Once again, based on how slut-shaming is used, how are these examples? Sep 9, 2009 10:57:00 PM
...was a direct response to what Anon posted, not you. (Sep 9, 2009 7:31:00 PM and Sep 9, 2009 7:32:00 PM). Next I responded to what YOU posted. Your reasoning stating otherwise (Sep 10, 2009 10:12:00 AM) has nothing to do with the conversation between me and Anon.
I think you're all starting to get a wee bit off-track.
Yes, there are reasons that a rape victim might file a civil suit. I still doubt her.
And yes, a lot of male sports stars are accused of rape. Andrew Johns here in AU recently had a 7-year old claim go to air on public TV, ending in a suspension from his television role. Brett Stewart also faced allegations of rape.
It happens too often.
The False Rape Society Disclaimer:
The frequent poster "Renee" does not and never has supported this website or any victim of false rape. She continues to use this website with the primary intent of provoking its supporters into an emotional response by attempting to dispute facts and disrupt normal on-topic discussion. To prevent any further interaction, please refrain from responding to any current or future posts from the username "Renee".
Jim,
Ok I can see your point. But, using your example, I can point out cases of victim-blaming, slut-shaming, a victim's outfit as evidence against her, and have those describe aspects of our cultural environment. Something others hear don't agree with.
It's just very damaging to any victim who dares press charges against an athlete. It'll probably discourage her to come forward or any other victims of rape.
------------
For those of you who think that victim-blaming only happens in cases of false accusations or that victims being judged on what they wore doesn't happen any more, I give you the case of Lindsay Armstrong:
She couldn't take any more
Rape trial suicide prompts review
Then there's also Bill O'Reilly. Now this may not directly relate to what I'm talking about but it's telling:
O'Reilly: Rape, murder victim was "wearing a miniskirt and a halter top. ... [E]very predator in the world is gonna pick that up at 2 in the morning"
And no, I'm not saying it's ok to get drunk, and wander around alone. But the victim should not be held responsible for the actions of another nor blamed for "inciting" the criminal.
Anyway....
Pierce,
About civil suits, what about in the case of Nicole Simpson's family? When I gave the link, I wasn't really applying it to McNulty's case. Just pointing out why someone would file a civil suit. I doubt in ALL cases it's about money.
Renee,
you need to go back and read my original question of you - I said, when was the last time anyone who counts (like the media) engaged in victim blaming? All you have done is cite cases where some commenting individuals such as other athletes have asked questions or made statements along that line.
They don't count any more than some girl who says, "well, he looks guilty - I can tell he raped her!", or "she is my friend - I just know she would never get drunk!"
Wait...actually, I'm wrong...those latter statements do count - in courts of law! (also they are not decried by the media, whereas the ones you cited are. Case in point? Some of your examples.)
Anon,
The frequent poster "Renee" does not and never has supported this website or any victim of false rape.
Lol...this again...
I have a different opinion and I automatically don't support false accusations.
Sonja,
Yeah it had gone a wee bit off track. If people think I do it on purpose, I don't. I just share my two cents and sometimes I don't entirely agree on something. Then other posters try to discredit what I say, and it goes on from there. Sometimes a few of the rebuttals are so ludicrous that I HAVE to respond to it lol. But anyway....
P.S,
Actually it just dawned on me, you are using the word 'victim' even in cases where nothing has been proven yet, such as in the Roethlisberger case...you are presupposing the girl is in fact a victim. That is one of the very mentalities we talk about on this blog.
I am surprised to find myself arguing with a person who has such a pre-existing bias. Usually I dismiss that type person out of hand.
Renee (still trying to shove the same BS) - ” Sorry, but first of all, this has nothing to do with the first use of the word "slut" (where did you even get that from).”
It’s embarrassingly simply, Renee. You go to the top of the document/web page, and use the browsers “find” function (different terms for different browsers) to look for the word.
I used it at Sep 9, 2009 5:28:00 PM, you responded to it (suggesting “slut-shaming”) at Sep 9, 2009 5:56:00 PM .
Your ”...was a direct response to what Anon posted, not you. (Sep 9, 2009 7:31:00 PM and Sep 9, 2009 7:32:00 PM). Next I responded to what YOU posted. Your reasoning stating otherwise (Sep 10, 2009 10:12:00 AM) has nothing to do with the conversation between me and Anon.” proves my point.
If you look at a CLOCK, you’ll find that 5:28 PM & 5:56 PM come well before 7:31 PM & 7:32 PM on the same day (Sep 9).
Norm,
Well there's Bill O'Reilly for one. Enough said lol. And no I can't think off the top of my head examples of the media or anyone who counts engaging in victim blaming. But how many times does the media entirely represent and reveal what really goes on in our culture underneath the surface. You all have touched on that yourself in regards to men's issues. It's not about looking for anything. In my experience, it can be pretty blatant.
Slwerner,
I'm tired of your own BS and an embarrassing lack of comprehension. And yes I do know how to use the "find" function.
I responded to your topic suggesting slut-shaming and then I responded to Anon's comment about it. Both were different comments saying different things about slut-shaming and I responded to each one. Why are you trying to make it seem like in me responding to Anon, I'm responding to you. As the old saying goes..."This is an A and B conversation"...or something like that. I responded to your own comment.
The End. If you still don't get it too bad.
Renee is having a hard time understanding that her concept of "slut-shaming" can and often does apply just as easily to a man as to a woman, even though subconsciously she can't let go of the belief that it only applies to women.
She denies that is the case, and then goes back to proving that it is. And when all else fails she just insults our intelligence and insists that she's right, even though she's obviously wrong.
That's why the disclaimer posted above should be honored. ;)
We men, generally, almost NEVER are the ones who suggest a woman deserved to be raped for any reason.
If, and when, it IS ever suggested, it will like-as-not be coming from a woman.
You'd be surprise.
Renee is having a hard time understanding that her concept of "slut-shaming" can and often does apply just as easily to a man as to a woman, even though subconsciously she can't let go of the belief that it only applies to women.
Looks like either you did not read a single thing I posted or you lack comprehension. I have said that men can be victims of slut-shaming. I have never said that it applies only to women. Clear enough for you?
She denies that is the case, and then goes back to proving that it is. And when all else fails she just insults our intelligence and insists that she's right, even though she's obviously wrong.
What are you talking about lol? Obviously YOU'RE wrong. I'm not proving that ONLY women go through slut-shaming. If a woman being slut-shamed is related to what we are discussing, I'm going to bring it up, and many times the subject at hand involves a female alledged victim.
Norm,
Are you talking about the articles I posted? And even then, I didn't even type the word "victim" in that post. Anytime I use the word "victim", it's in general and not about a specific case. I'm just talking about actual victim. You freely use the word "victim" when general speaking about those who are falsely accused of rape. Except in one instance, I've said "alledged victim" in my comments.
I'm not presupposing anything or have pre-existing bias.
Seriously, it's like a few of you are grasping straws or just making up stuff that you think I said to be used as a rebuttal against my opinions.
Renee,
"Well there's Bill O'Reilly for one."
okay, if you want to call that victim blaming. But now answer the rest of my original question - hopefully, without changing the subject this time: how is that 'incident' indicative of a widespread attitude?
Bill O'Reilly trashed defendents and their lawyers for years, claiming repeatedly that no one would ever settle a lawsuit or accept a plea-bargain if they weren't guilty.
Then he was shaken down for millions by a woman who basically accused him of raping her OVER THE PHONE, and he couldn't wait to settle for millions.
As usual, Renee wants to change the subject from men being sent to prison for decades for things they didn't do to the worrisome possibility that the town sleep-around might be disapproved of by the town minister. But at least she has her priorities in order.
You all have touched on that yourself in regards to men's issues. It's not about looking for anything. In my experience, it can be pretty blatant.
"In my experience." Wow, what convincing evidence. A woman's subjective impressions always outweigh anything else.
A woman's subjective impressions always outweigh anything else.
And you all don't do the same?
What about this quote?
"We men, generally, almost NEVER are the ones who suggest a woman deserved to be raped for any reason.
If, and when, it IS ever suggested, it will like-as-not be coming from a woman."
How did he come up with that conclusion if that wasn't in some way based on personal observation.
As usual, Renee wants to change the subject from men being sent to prison for decades for things they didn't do to the worrisome possibility that the town sleep-around might be disapproved of by the town minister. But at least she has her priorities in order.
This isn't even worth a response it's so off the mark.
Norm,
I've already answered that question. You can even look to Jim's post and my response to it for even more of an explaination.
Renee,
please give me the day and time of a post above where you answered that question.
This isn't even worth a response it's so off the mark.
That's exactly what you're doing! Everything you've said on this thread is "off the mark."
Post a Comment