Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Slate's DoubleX Gabfest Hits Nail on the Head About Rape Cases
The DoubleX Gabfest (Jessica Grose, Kate Julian, and Hanna Rosin) nailed it in discussing rape. See here: http://www.slate.com/id/2297805/ The women were discussing the civil case Jamie Leigh Jones lost against KBR and what it means for rape reporting (approximately 16:30 into the podcast). They hit upon a lot of the topics that are typically covered, e.g., underreporting, binge drinking. We have different views on some of these matters, but the women tackled the issues thoughtfully and in good faith. They noted that the Jones and the DSK cases involved alleged victims who are problematic in terms of credibility. They noted that it's possible something happened but given the circumstances, for example, the Jones verdict seemed proper.
The most significant aspect of the discussion for the community of the wrongly accused occurs at approximately 22:50 into the podcast when one of the women noted that part of her was wishing for a "clean" rape case because it’s been so long since we’ve had one. She specifically mentioned Hofstra. (For the uninitiated, see here.)
Another woman noted that people seem to be so hungry for cases about men misbehaving, that these cases are getting blown way out of proportion -- they are turned into huge things where people are declared guilty before the trial has even started, which is really damaging.
Another woman noted that we seem to be weirdly in an era where district attorneys are jumping on rape cases. All of the recent high profile cases have been blown way out of proportion.
We agree.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
33 comments:
”…one of the women noted that part of her was wishing for a "clean" rape case because it’s been so long since we’ve had one.”
A woman wishing that other women would be raped (in with more clear-cut circumstances) – but still wishing for women to be raped!?!?!
Now, why would that be?
Oh, wait, there it is in the next paragraph:
”… people seem to be so hungry for cases about men misbehaving…”
Seriously, women are hoping for cases of men misbehaving that they’d gladly sacrifice other women just to see it happen?
Nice!
It’s good to know that woman truly are the better, more caring, more compassionate, more sensitive, smarter, funnier, more creative, blah, blah, blah, (gee, I hope I didn’t leave anything out) gender.
"one of the women noted that part of her was wishing for a "clean" rape case because it’s been so long since we’ve had one"
It's not that there haven't been any "clean" rape cases recently. I would describe cases of violent stranger rape with multiple victims by the same perpetrator -- what almost everyone agreed was the most common pathology up until the rape feminism of the Seventies -- as "clean". What we have not seen, and are not likely to see, are "clean" high-profile cases, because such cases depend on having either an aggressive attention-seeking accuser (eg. both Joneses) or an accused who is a highly successful man. Neither which is likely in true cases of actual rape. The problem is not that rape can never be proven, it's that feminists are desperate for an example that fits their purely ideological narrative of the privileged rapist. Yet their idea that rape stems from male privilege -- that it is a political tool used to oppress women and rapists are acting as political agents -- is patently absurd. Rapists are not privileged. They are not powerful. They are typically from the lowest rungs of society. They are most often mentally-disordered lowlife criminals -- the exact opposite of men who have what it takes to become rich and famous.
Anonymous - "Yet their idea that rape stems from male privilege -- that it is a political tool used to oppress women and rapists are acting as political agents -- is patently absurd."
Brilliantly stated! Great comment (the whole post, that is)!
Not at all how I read it, SLW. And I would bet every penny I have that's not what the woman meant. They are correctly bemoaning the fact that so many rape cases are blown into a cause célèbre, and they wish, for the sake of women who are actually raped, that this weren't the case. I could nitpick and find fault with various aspects of their comments, too, but that does not advance our agenda.
When people who have an entirely different perspective on life than we have posit that men are being convicted before the trial because of an improper desire to satisfy a public hunger to put men on trial for misbehaving, that's a good thing. Isn't that the primary message here?
"The problem is not that rape can never be proven, it's that feminists are desperate for an example that fits their purely ideological narrative of the privileged rapist."
That's way more than these women intended to say. They are concerned -- and, damn it, properly so -- that every high profile rape case exposes the woman as a liar. And -- read this next part carefully -- they are blaming it on district attorneys who are overreaching against men.
I love it!
Archivist - "Not at all how I read it, SLW. And I would bet every penny I have that's not what the woman meant. They are correctly bemoaning the fact that so many rape cases are blown into a cause célèbre, and they wish, for the sake of women who are actually raped, that this weren't the case."
I'm sure that you are correct. Mine was just a quick little snarky comment based on how one "wishing for" could be taken in regards to (future) rape cases.
And when I wrote it, I realized that's how it might read. In context, that's absolutely not what she meant. I mean, she actually mentioned Hofstra. I wish some men's rights advocates would talk about Hofstra more than they do.
Archivist, in response to Anon 12:14 - ”That's way more than these women intended to say. They are concerned -- and, damn it, properly so -- that every high profile rape case exposes the woman as a liar.”
Again, I assume you have the better “read” on their discussion and what they were trying to say.
Still, I really appreciated the anonymous posters comments as I see them as accurately reflecting what a significant number of woman and men (rape culturists, if you will) do believe. They are looking for that prefect fit of privileged rapist/oppressed victim. That’s why the Duke hoax resonated so well with so many of them – rich white guys raping a black woman – Perfect!.
Only, it turned out not to be true. So, the search must go on…
”And -- read this next part carefully -- they are blaming it on district attorneys who are overreaching against men.”
But that’s the allure of a “cause célèbre” case – a chance for self aggrandizement for DA who quickly “grabs the reins”. DA’s today (the head guy’s) are more politician than prosecutor – especially in larger jurisdictions. When a case grabs the headlines, the DA can either jump right in and show himself to be “on top of it”, or he can sit back and wait for the investigation to be properly completed – and face criticisms for his up-coming opponents about how he “failed to act” on the “big case”.
Acting quickly and aggressively can work out well for a DA in the political realm (it got Nifong from last place in a three-way to elected DA). And, being portrayed as not aggressive enough (especially WRT rape) can doom his prospects (here, in Colorado, former Weld County DA Ken Buck saw his formidable lead in his run for the US Senate turned into an election day loss based on news of his use of the term “buyers remorse” in (privately) explaining why his office declined to prosecute one “he said/she said” case that was otherwise not even “news-worthy”).
So, if a particular rape case Breaks big in the news, it’s almost too predictable that the DA will jump in with big promises of “justice”, even though doing so can get them burned (Cyrus Vance is likely not re-electable thanks to his “over-reach” on DSK). And yet, in many jurisdictions, rape cases are likely to see the highest rates of being declined for prosecution (of course, there’s a more involved discussion of why this tends to be the case).
slw, that's the difference between an elected district attorney and an appointed federal prosecutor, don't you think?
Archivist - ”slw, that's the difference between an elected district attorney and an appointed federal prosecutor, don't you think?”
Yes and no. They are different in that a US Attorney does not have to face re-election, so they tend to be more insulated from the demands of press and public in how they chose to address certain crimes or certain cases.
But, the simple fact is that most of them are “chosen” for referral to the president for consideration by the Senators representing a state based on their “position” within their political party. Going back a number of years, my wife worked for the US Attorney Office under two different appointed US Attorney’s; one a Democrat fresh off a failed bid for the US Senate, and then a Republican who had been a “rising star” who was serving as the State Attorney General when he was nominated for US Attorney.
The position can well be see as “political spoils” for those well-placed to receive them
In essence, they were also mostly politicians, who did their campaigning for other offices.
Oddly, in my wife’s estimation of the job performance of the two, she, as a staunch Republican actually thought that the Democrat who came a non-prosecutorial background did a better job than the Republican who was a long-time prosecutor and then the state Attorney General.
However, unless it occurred on Federal Land (a national Park, for instance) or an Indian Territory, the US Attn isn't likely to even see a rape case, let alone over-reach on it.
Archivist - ”slw, that's the difference between an elected district attorney and an appointed federal prosecutor, don't you think?”
Gee, I just went and posted a response, then (finally) realized that I was answering a question you didn’t ask, and failing the answer the one you did ask.
Yes? The fact that US Attorney’s don’t face the prospect of have to run for office does effectively insulate them from public being able to “steer them by either praise or condemnation.
Had you asked the question as being should DA’s be appointed rather than elected, I’d have agreed that it would be far better that they be appointed. Perhaps in a system like that used here for judges – appointed by the sitting governor, then standing for retention every second or third election cycle.
That way, truly bad actors could still be removed, yet the temptation to play to the public could be greatly reduced.
I disagree: these women have totally (to use one of their favorite words) missed the point of all of the bad rape cases.
It's not that "Something may have happened but she just couldn't prove it." It's that ThERE IS AN ARMY OF FALSE RAPE ACCUSERS ON THE LOOSE.
They repeatedly refer to these serial false accusers as "the victims." THEY ARE NOT VICTIMS; MEN ARE THE VICTIMS.
That said, it is nice to see that women are taking the first baby steps toward understanding all of the horrible things that feminism has done to us over these past 50 years (and to them, also), even if they fail to attribute these problems to feminism. In another 50 years they might even evolve to the point that they stop referring to serial false rape accusers are "imperfect victims."
Yeah, well, I wish that more men's rights advocates would take such "baby steps." These women nailed it by summing up the problem in a way not enough men's rights advocates have shown themselves capable of doing.
All due respect.
A bit off-topic, but also from Salon:
http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/08/02/male_rape
More of the MRA/Manosphere influence leaking out into more lefty media?
Archivist: It just pisses me off that they discuss these issues in such a way as to imply that the real victims -- the falsely accused -- don't even exist, and that false rape accusations are only problem in that they make it harder for "victims to come forward."
I understand your point of view, though; after all, at least they acknowledge that *some* sort of problem (which they incorrectly refer to as "imperfect victims") exists. You are, after all, used to reading the opinions of feminists, which often literally have no relationship to reality at all.
3:30: again, I didn't read it that way. They agreed that the verdict in the Jones case was entirely proper -- but the verdict doesn't mean it couldn't have happened, or that it was a definitive "false" claim. They also bemoaned the rush to judgment by overreaching district attorneys. Their premise is that rape is a serious problem, and we all need to respect that. One of the woman referred to the piece from Salon last year where it was found that 8-10 percent of all claims were false. I don't agree with assigning a narrow range like that since, really, no one knows (and the actual number may be higher), but the woman who raised it suggested that this was huge number of false claims. Another woman incorrectly added that other crimes were just as high (that was the only major factual error -- no evidence for that).
I've always said, folks, you can be concerned about rape and still see the problem of false rape claims. These women, in that podcast, did exactly that. To assume or suggest they don't care about male victims of false rape claims is an atrocious assumption for which there is no evidence.
Archivist - "I've always said, folks, you can be concerned about rape and still see the problem of false rape claims. These women, in that podcast, did exactly that."
Well I, for one, will consider this a sign of an improving public understanding of the issue(s) of FRA's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JmOmkeizII
I think, if anything, the public's attitude toward false rape accusations is getting WORSE, not better. We were better off back in 2005, when the world's most famous false rape accuser was being called a LIAR (even though most of the blame was diverted to the prosecutor, and there was no outrage that no charges were filed against her).
Now we have somehow stumbled into the consensus that in spite of overwhelming evidence that a woman is a serial false rape accuser who is just out for some poor Frenchman's money, we must continue referring to her as "VICTIM."
This is a titanic step in the wrong direction.
Basically, if there is still a one in a hundred trillion chance that you really were raped... you were raped. Which leaves the false accused forever labeled as, "Maybe rapist."
Nick S - ”Yeah, you would think that women would be relieved to know that in most of these cases, no rape actually occurred.”
While I would agree with Pierce that the women in the podcast in question where not taking such a position, I couldn’t help but notice that the casual way in which they “wished” for better scenarios did seem to fall in line with what has been noted many times here on prior occasions – namely, that many within the SGI certainly seem to care a great deal more about being able to (successfully) prosecute men than they do about the actual victims.
Anonymous - ”We were better off back in 2005, when the world's most famous false rape accuser was being called a LIAR”
It does seem as though we see a “spike” in (public) understanding around such obvious and sensational cases (I assume you are referring to Duke, but cannot be sure since that took place in ’06), but I still believe that even though that understanding seems to dissipate, the underlying “back of the mind” knowledge continues to increase with each and every such incident/understanding spike. We have no way (yet) of measuring just where such a “baseline” of understanding lies, but I believe that if we could have measured it over time, we would be able to see an upward trend occurring between the spikes.
4:53: And, indeed, some radicals actually feel that way. But that's not this case, and we hurt our message when we assume anyone concerned about rape must feel that way. We will never have any credibility.
We are going to be deciding whether to allow comments when we launch our revised page after Labor Day. I'm leaning to "no" and this thread might make up my mind for me. That's not a threat. FIRE doesn't allow comments.
Frankly, in the past few months especially I've started to realize that our message is too powerful to coat with a patina of snark. The stories, and the injustices, speak for themselves. And, guys, I am weary of having mainstream publications contact us for help and not mention us in their stories. This issue is mainstream. This site deserves a bigger audience. To be lumped in with sites that advocate having no relations with women, and that talk about "game" all the time (whatever that entails) hurts what I'm trying to do; it hurts the falsely accused. So do comments that can't look at things with nuance. When I'm done doing what I'm about to do, my numerous detractors are going to fear this site more than they ever dreamed possible because I'm going to prove to everyone that this is a mainstream issue.
Not to take too much credit, but do you really think Salon et al would have all come out with that 8-10 percent figure last year if it weren't for this site? Seriously? After years and years when everyone repeated the two percent lie? We're having an impact, but we ought to have a greater impact.
4:51: On the DSK case, we've had great pieces by Naomi Wolf -- one of the biggest of the big name feminists, Dershowitz, Roy Black, and of course Cathy Young. No mainstream publication aside from Newsweek seems to be in her corner. The NY Post has skewered her. And the women on Salon have no sympathy for her.
Archivist - ”I've started to realize that our message is too powerful to coat with a patina of snark.”
Point taken.
”Not to take too much credit, but do you really think Salon et al would have all come out with that 8-10 percent figure last year if it weren't for this site?”
I wouldn’t doubt it.
I’ve long held that the apparent improvements in the way PD’s seem to be addressing rape claims (not always arresting first, investigating both accused and accuser, reporting when they uncover an FRA rather than sweeping it under a rug) coinciding with the creation and growth of this site (surely) cannot be a coincidence.
In 2008, almost every account of an FRA included the arrest, “perp walk”, intimate examination of, and/or the exhaustive interrogation of the falsely accused prior to the FRA being exposed. Now, most of the accounts are of “police having their doubts from the start”, FRA’s uncovered with no innocent men being arrested, and even some frank explanations of the perp’s motives in making an FRA. And, even the press seems less reluctant to be putting out stories about FRA’s.
If not this site, what else could have driven such changes?
Meant to include that we are even seeing more recognition of the real victims, both in the press and from the bench.
No other forum has been so consistent about beating the drum for the real victims of FRA's than has this site.
That those victims are increasingly acknowledged is, I believe, yet another testament to the effect this site is having.
There are a hell of a lot of controversial issues when it comes to men and women, but at its core, this ain't one of them. Almost everyone recognizes the injustice of a false rape claim. And if the entire universe of victims consisted of the folks we talk about here, that would be enough to justify our advocacy. We can reasonably assume the number is far greater, and if it really is 10 percent (or higher) that's a massive number of folks being ignored.
I think that lots and lots of people fail to see any injustice in a false rape claim. If they do see it then why do they tolerate and even enable obvious false rape accusers (i.e., the ones who have done it before)?
6:22: everyone's entitled to his opinion.
Archivist, I'd like to chime in and agree with not having comments after the relaunch. This site is way too important in opening peoples' eyes to a subject that's already a complete uphill battle already. No matter how wrong may be, it will always be judged by the worst comments, which enables people to rationalize discounting the problem. There are infinite other places where people can comment endlessly on the subject.
Anon at 7:44: I think you are correct. We are capable of having great comments but, overall, they reflect poorly on us.
It's not that "Something may have happened but she just couldn't prove it." It's that ThERE IS AN ARMY OF FALSE RAPE ACCUSERS ON THE LOOSE.
I recently watched a talk show host lament that he hadn't suceeded in convincing Bristol Palin that she had been raped.
He later openly appealed to her to reconsider, since, after all - in CALIFORNIA her sexual encounter would have been considered rape.
I couldn't help but wonder how many accusations his "urging" will spawn.
This isn't just a bunch of wach a doodle women coming out of the wormholes to make false accusations.
It's an open invitation.
Post a Comment