We have recently written that so-called "victim blaming" is, at the very least, overstated. It is used as a convenient rationalization to support the claim that underreporting of rape is rampant (you know the shtick: rape is not reported due to the fear of victim blaming). When "victim blaming" is used with respect to women, it is usually of two varieites: it's a manifestation of the wholly non-controversial belief that you gotta be careful because there are criminals out there. (Now that's misogyny, isn't it?) The other kind of "victim blaming" isn't really "victim blaming" at all -- it occurs when the speaker (almost always a woman, by the way) doesn't really believe that a rape occurred -- the accuser was "asking" for it, literally.
I do believe it is rare when people know that a woman actually has been raped but insist on blaming the rape victim. At least among men, it would be considered insensitive in the extreme.
Far more common is the victim blaming of men accused of rape. If you doubt that, take a look at the blogs discussing the latest sexual assault accusation against two-time Super Bowl quarterback Ben Roethlisberger. He showed poor judgment. He shouldn't go to bars with young women. On and on it goes. Ben Roethlisberger went from being a gutsy, smart, champion competitor to a nitwit who needs to hide in his bedroom, swear off women, and live like a monk. Importantly, these comments generally assume Roethlisberger's innocence from criminality but nevertheless hold him responsible for the accusations. The comments barely discuss the accuser. She largely gets a free pass.
It's as if we're talking about humans beings who fail to take precautions by going near wild animals who can't help themselves but to attack.
But whether men are guilty of rape or women are guilty of false rape reporting, men alone are to be blamed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
18 comments:
two words.
"cognitive dissonance"
people will believe any old shit, as long as it sits easy with them and doesn't force them to confront their own beliefs.
I should fucking know...
by that I mean reconciling what my (known to me intimately for many years) FRAs did, with my picture of them up until that point.
I do believe it is rare when people know that a woman actually has been raped but insist on blaming the rape victim. At least among men, it would be considered insensitive in the extreme.
Among *some* men, maybe. Not so when a fraternity or a football team is involved. They have each other's backs and whatever they do remains secret.
He's a *two-time Super Bowl quarterback*?
So what. Look at Clinton, Edwards, etc. I can give you more names but I think you already know who they are.
Like Tyson said: *Nobody ever objected before*.
Thanks for the rush to judgment, Anon at 8:53. And don't insult our intelligence by insisting you didn't do that. Doesn't exactly fit with our the presumption of innocence so cherished in our jurisprudence, but to hell with that, right? Glad to hear you know more than the rest of us about the case -- because we know absolutely nothing other than this: Mr. Roethlisberger wasn't arrested, as lots of other males are in the face of sexual assault claims, and he's presumed innocent. But it's nice to know that someone out there is able to peer into his pair of crystal balls and discern guilt. (Excuse me about the balls comment if you aren't male -- you might just be a person of gender.)
Can main stream media outlets be held accountable for "Inflaming hysteria" when they publish false rape accusations as if they were real...and then when they are found out that they were in fact..."UN_REAL"..they publish just a little blurb about it.
It is this perversion of main stream media that is inflaming "Rape hysteria". Rape hysteria does give the "gender / Raunch culture" deviants a disproportionate amount of power over American politics.
Gender / raunch deviants will not complain about Rape hysteria at all...you see that's what empowers them.
You see they gain a disproportionate amount of "hysteria power" (NOT UNLIKE THE KLU_KLUX KLAN also rose to power on "Rape hysteria"
Easy for you to translate my post into a rush to judgement, but the truth is I made no personal judgement about his guilt or innocence, unlike the 8:33 or the 9:29. BTW, what is real interest in false rape claims? You declare yourself the voice of the falsely accused yet nobody has EVER heard your OWN connection. Why is that?
Gee, Anon 8:53 troll much? A wonderful exhibition of anti-male shaming tactics badly done. If you're going to do this try a little harder at least you can be unintentionally amusing.
@Anon 8 Mar 2010 8:53 / 9:44 PM
We've seen in many of these high-profile cases that the accuser was covering up for their own behavior or the accusers had become political tools of others seeking to ruin those in power. I think most men in organizations are moral and ethical and will defend their associates, and in this case team mates, because they are all too aware of the power dynamics and how easy it is to be falsely accused. Further, professional athletes know of the all-too-common public shaming that follows accusations. A man's exposure in scandal taps the public’s perverse sense of Schadenfreude regardless of his guilt or innocence: gender-feminists tend to use this to accumulate power and foment moral panic and hysteria. I have found it very rare, in my experience, that men will assign blame to victims of any valid and extant crime, but I also know that they do not willingly tolerate abuse of their names and reputations. The best way to resolve the moral and ethical dilemmas posed by scandal is to suspend judgment. Reasonable doubt, like mercy, should be afforded to everyone. We will never know "the truth" -- we will only have our perceptions of it and we should all learn to be watchful of our own biases and prejudices. It is in this way that we can approach equality, fairness, and justice in a rational manner.
As AfOR and I (as falsely accused people) both know: people very seldom stray outside of their moral comfort zones and examine their own beliefs. It's easy to say "shoot the bastards!" that is until the gun is pointed at YOU.
Since being falsely accused, I have been studying all aspects of the issue of false accusations and
the process by which they are adjudicated. Establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is the centerpiece. For those legal scholars out there, I have been reading this book:
The Origins of Reasonable Doubt: Theological Roots of the Criminal Trial (Yale Law Library Series in Legal History and Reference) (Hardcover)
http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Reasonable-Doubt-Theological-Reference/dp/0300116004/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
As the Editor's comment says:
"The rule as we understand it today is intended to protect the accused. However, historically, the original concern was to protect the souls of jurors. In Christian tradition, a person who experienced doubt yet convicted an innocent defendant was guilty of a mortal sin. Jurors fearful for their own souls were reassured that they were safe, as long as their doubts were not “reasonable.” Today, the old rule of reasonable doubt survives, but it has been turned to different purposes. The result is confusion for jurors, and a serious moral challenge for our system of justice." In a less religious context, we should be careful of how we wield shame lest it returns to us and give everyone who is accused "the benefit of the doubt."
As to your other comments, and in defense of Archivist, he has told of his connection, but apparently you haven't taken the time to read the site in its entirety. You may want to do that (and I hope you do).
You know that if this girl that is accusing Big Ben is totally lying she will get no punishment for it.
False accusations happen seemingly daily to famous men.
No one cares what they put Big Ben through because he is a guy.
But what do you think would happen if someone would falsely accuse oprah or diane sawyer of raping their 3 year old little girl and either of these women had to go through what a guy goes through when falsely accused.
I bet you would see false accusations be a federal crime and have a minimum of 20 years in prison without parole and sex offender registry for life.
Anon at 5:09: this comment should be REQUIRED READING here. Excellent.
Anon at 6:48: I agree. The tumult caused to male lives is not appreciated. The same thing happens to female teachers falsely accused -- the feminists willingly sacrifice them because they are few in number and since to defend then would create a double-standard when they gladly see men dragged through the mud.
Funny, come to think of it, I've never heard a single feminist bemoan the reputational harm to either the presumed innocent or the falsely accused when it comes to rape claims.
"I bet you would see false accusations be a federal crime and have a minimum of 20 years in prison without parole and sex offender registry for life."
It would have to be broken down by the gender of the accuser and the victim of the false accusation. Male accusing a female falsely would get life; female accusing a male falsely would get 6 months probation. Male on male would get 20 years and female on female would get a year's probation.
It seems that Roethlisberger has now been asked to give a DNA sample, possibly indicating that he did, in fact have sexual contact with the woman claiming that he assaulted her.
I looks as though many in the MSM are quickly assuming that this is a strong indicator that he raped the women, as it seems most of them are not bright enough to have considered that it may well be a matter of completely consensual sex, turned at her whim into something more sinister.
As if a man of Roethlisberger's status would have to stalk a woman into a public restroom and force her to have sex.
Anyway, one brighter ray of hope comes from this exchange:
CBS "Early Show" co-anchor Harry Smith asked former prosecutor John Q. Kelly:
But could it be that Roethlisberger is being targeted here?
Which got this response:
"Well, sure. You've got a lot of different things that can happen in these situations. First of all, look no further than (false rape allegations against the) Duke lacrosse team, what happened to them. So, you can't jump to conclusions. But you might have a woman who overreacted, she might have been rejected by Roethlisberger and she's getting even. Attention seeking. Consensual activity that she was embarrassed about afterwards. Or maybe she's looking for a payday. We've seen them all play out in the past."
On the more recent thread, I postulated that either the embarrassment or the payday angles might well be in play. It was a pleasant surprise to see his alluding to not only those two possibilities, but even some others; and he plainly speaks of FRA's, and even cites The Duke Rape Hoax. Nice!, very nice.
Geez, botched the link - again!
DNA Key in Sex Case Vs. Roethlisberger?
Will the third time be the charm? Or, just strike three
DNA Key in Sex Case Vs. Roethlisberger?
slwener, it doesn't matter ... just lean over here and kiss me you fool =======
Anonymous - "slwener, it doesn't matter ... just lean over here and kiss me you fool ======="
I'm thinking you might be too drunk to be able to give knowing consent.
it's a verbal thing lol
it's called "she said, she said, she said"
Post a Comment