The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has an editorial in Sunday's paper regarding the audio and video interviews and other information released this week in the Roethlisberger case. In a city that, we are told, has turned it's back on Roethlisberger and would prefer that he be traded, the editorial describes the inconsistencies in the accuser's narrative, and notes: "It is hard to believe that a jury could have concluded that her testimony was credible when . . . she answered at one point that she was 'not sure' whether she'd had sex with Mr. Roethlisberger."
While no one can say for certain what happened, and while some people will assert that merely because charges weren't brought "doesn't mean he didn't do it," it seems more accurate, and more just, to state that Mr. Roethlisberger was likely the victim of a false rape claim, one of the worst things that can happen to a human being.
While we were about the applaud the Pittsburgh newspaper for having the courage to admit the accuser's narrative is the legal equivalent of steaming horseshit, the editorial continues: "Most of the lessons from this abhorrent incident are for Mr. Roethlisberger, who must . . . repair his reputation."
That's where they lose me. Clearly, the incident has revealed that Mr. Roethlisberger can be, and apparently often is, a jerk. Not just when it comes to women, with men, too.
But a terrible, vicious crime, the apparent false rape claim, not only has been downplayed, it's been completely ignored.
An illustration will underscore the problem. Suppose Mr. Roethlisberger were a famous female athlete, Ms. Roethlisberger, and suppose it appeared likely she'd been raped, but that the evidence supporting the rape also revealed information that she's a world-class jerk. Would the rape be ignored in favor of reporting the information showing she's a jerk? Or would the information showing she's a jerk be swept under the rug due to fears it would detract from "the real story" about the rape?
Would the rape of a famous female athlete be used to highlight the purported vulnerabilities of women in a hypermasculine culture?
And how many in the mainstream media would dare suggest that it is Ms. Roethlisberger who needed to learn lessons from the rape?
And how long would it take NOW to organize a massive protest if a newspaper suggested Ms. Roethlisberger needed to learn lessons from the rape?
We all know the answers to those questions. Then, tell me: why is it different when the genders are reversed and the victim has been falsely accused of rape?
The media coverage of and the public's reaction to the Roethlisberger case -- where the victim is treated as the real criminal who is "lucky" he wasn't charged, and where the likely false rape accuser is nowhere vilified and is treated as the victim -- underscores that our society is perfectly happy to tolerate false rape claims and doesn't think they are that big a deal.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
It is not only a perversion of our legal system that has enabled and fostered the current "false rape culture", but the overall gender feminist / law enforcement misinformation Alliance that builds a prejudice against the innocent...IS ALSO UN-CONSTITUTIONAL!!
As a falsely accused, I have a lot of sympathy for Rothlisberger in regard to the claims made against him. I also consider that if he had been to football what Tom Hanks or Paul Newman were to acting, he would be receiving a lot more support. So much depends on reputation and public image -- he should guard those things with his life (as should we all.) It is difficult enough to live in this world when an entire class of people have the power to destroy a reputation with an uncorroborated word).
Right, Anon at 10:19. It is unfortunate that we need to advise our young men that their reputations can be unfairly destroyed by another, and that it is up to them -- not the false accusers -- to insure that doesn't happen.
"that it is up to them -- not the false accusers -- to insure that doesn't happen."
Let's not blame the victim. In many, if not most cases, there is nothing that the falsely accused could have done differently. Even refusing to have sex with the accuser is no prevention, as rejection is a common motive for false accusations.
Anon at 11:34: that's exactly the point. Bingo. We are doing precisely what women would scream about if the genders were reversed and the victim had been raped.
But we are not blaming the victim when we tell someone to watch out for the evildoers. It's not thei innocent guy's fault, it's just reality.
Apples and oranges comparison.
Men who behave as world class jerks are frequently falsely accused.
Not so with women.
" Ms. Roethlisberger" dressing as a slut, getting drunk and going home with Mr. Goodbar, or walking down deserted alleys in dangerous neighborhoods after dark and being raped twice would indeed make people speculate that she needs to learn some lessons (privately, of course, "slut shaming" is pretty underground).
Mr. World Class Jerk has been "falsely accused" TWICE now.
T W I C E.
Not once.
T W I C E.
Rape or falsely accused me ONCE shame on YOU. Rape or falsely accuse me TWICE...well...
When I hear anyone of any gender claim they are victim of the same crime multiple times when they haven't taken preventative measures, call me 'victim blamer" all you want - my sympathy vote is cancelled after the first time.
Hey, stoopid. Maybe God's trying to tell ya something.
"Men who behave as world class jerks are frequently falsely accused."
Maybe. But what about a guy who has consensual sex in college, gets falsely accused, no-billed, and then goes on to become a lawyer and a pillar of the community and then finds himself the victim of a vindictive, borderline personality disordered client? It's entirely possible to not be a jerk and still be accused multiple times. The moral of the lawyer's story is: no good deed goes unpunished.
As has been said: a charitable, compassionate, and wise personal character and popularity will not prevent one from being accused. In fact, those very things may make one a target. So, one does not need to be a jerk to lend verisimilitude to a false rape claim. Under feminist jurisprudence: One need only be accused. Once someone is falsely accused, the current cultural trance emphasizes that a lifetime of sacrifice, community service, and good deeds mean absolutely nothing -- especially to those gender feminists and others that demonize and hate men and boys.
I think that the moral of the Rothlisberger story is:
If you can't be good, be lucky!
We'll see if it happens again. For his sake, and all other popular athletes, I hope not.
Anon at 4:51: tell us, would you prosecute the false accusers?
P.S. Don't you think the girl and her friends knew Roethlisberger had been accused of rape, so they figured their story would be plausible because of that?
Anon@4:51, the difference between a woman who is raped in part due to her own lack of care, and men being dragged through the legal system due to false allegations is that rape is something that a deviant individual does while punishing innocent men is something that society's collective institutions do.
As a society, we cannot always protect every individual from every risk or every bad person that may exist. But we can ensure that our collective institutions do not systematically persecute the innocent.
There is a difference between sins of omission and sins of commission. If the state is not there to protect every crime victim, that is at worst a sin of omission. But if the state starts persecuting innocent people that is a sin of commission.
It is true that we all have to live in a world where there are risks and dangers that we cannot always be protected from, and that this may force people to alter their behavior or even restrict their freedom somewhat. But there is no reason society's collective institutions should compound those risks any further by adding another risk factor (legal persecution of innocents) to the equation.
We can't perfect human nature to eliminate evil individuals and ensure they never harm anyone. But we can manage our institutions and processes to at least ensure they function to a reasonable standard.
Now, it is no doubt true that Roethlisberger's lifestyle makes him a bigger target for false rape claims. The fact that he has been falsely accused twice is not just bad luck. But if the system was not designed to encourage false accusations and take action based on them, this would not be such a problem.
So why should Roethlisberger or others like him be forced to alter their lifestyles simply to avoid being persecuted by the system?
The views of Anon@4:51 are a good example of authoritarianism's useful idiots.
Whenever there is an abuse of power or destruction of rights, people are more willing to accept it if they believe that it will only impact on unpopular individuals or groups, and that the average citizen going about their business will not be adversely affected. For example, whenever governments are pushing through some new law that erodes civil liberties it is invariably sold to the public on the grounds that it will only be used to target the usual suspects and low-lifes, and that the average law-abiding citizen will not be too inconvenienced.
The problem is that over time these measures invariably start to affect more people, and those who accepted them in the first place have created a rod for their own back.
Essentially what Anon@4:51 and others like him are doing is taking a gamble that they are unlikely to fall victim to the system, and that disproportionately people who they consider to be morally inferior or whose lifestyles they disapprove of will be more likely to fall victim. So hey, let's shrug our shoulders, say 'all's fair, people get what they deserve', and go about our business.
It is a dangerous illusion to assume that only bad people will fall victim to a bad system, or that one can turn a blind eye to certain people being destroyed by it without creating wider damage to the rest of us. As I say, those who adopt such a mindset are really creating a rod for their own backs and will deserve the tyranny they get.
It's a shame that those of us who knew better will have to live with it too.
Anon @4:51 -
I believe whole heartedly that Michael Jackson was innocent of child molestation charges, and was falsely accused.
Twice.
He did not alter his behavior the first time, and it bore the same result - again.
Do I believe laws should be changed so that Michael Jackson and other innocent kiddie cuddlers shouldn't have to alter their behavior?
No I don't. Doing so would only make it easier for true pedophiles to get away with it.
Roethlisberger's "lifestyle" isn't so different from hundreds of other men in his position, yet hundreds of professional athletes are not "targeted" for false accusations - much less multiple ones.
Even Mike Tyson was only accused once (and YES, I believe that was a false accusation). If ANYone was a target for multiple accusations - it was Mike Tyson.
There are world class jerks in all walks of life, and every lifestyle that never get falsely accused.
Women even love them for it.
Roethlisberger isn't one of those guys.
To answer your question, no. I don't believe the law should be changed so Roethlisberger doesn't have to worry about his 'lifestyle' being criticized for having sex with drunken women in public toilets.
If the man is guilty he must be punished.
If the man is innocent... he must be punished.
He has a penis. He must be punished.
12:36: okay, so lots of men bang dozens of girls without being falsely accused -- therefore the ones who are falsely accused should be thrown under a bus? That sure is logical.
I suppose the same "logic" could apply to the Duke case.
"Even Mike Tyson was only accused once"
That is not true. There were a number of frivolous rape accusations after he got out of prison. I specifically remember one case of a maid who had Gloria Allred representing her.
I also think there should be a law that any side Gloria Allred represents is automatically wrong.
What laws is it you propose to change so Roethlisberger doesn't have to?
To whoever said Mike Tyson was innocent & only accused once. No he wasn't: Arlene Moorman, Robin Givens & an unnamed women in Las Vegas have also accused him of rape. LaDonna August, Phyllis Polaner and Pam Pinnock have also accused him of sexual assault. He also got violent with 2 women in Albany & 2 women in Washington who turned him down, he has a long history of violence & sexual harassment, he fondled Teddy Atlas' 11 yr old niece, he said he likes to hurt women & make them bleed during sex, 2 witnesses said his victim was scared & in shock after leaving him & 2 experts who examined Desiree Washington testified in her favor.
Its an insult to genuinely falsely accused people who would never rape anyone to call Tyson innocent.
Post a Comment