April 12, 2006

Bracing Against the Inevitable

In comments to the previous post, Darleen Click writes:

Jill just ASSUMED these guys were rapists. Hey, privileged white guys, black woman QED.

I didn't touch the Duke case from the git-go precisely because it just smacked of the worst kind of politics, but when DNA evidence came out and suddenly DNA wasn't "important" any more, then it got to me. No presumption of innocence for these guys, even when court ordered tests come back showing NO LINK to the victim. At a minimum, 44 lacrosse team members are NOT rapists, but you'd never know that listening to Nancy Grace on CNN for crissakes.

Rape is not a football game where we tout up the winners and losers in a court case and high five each other for another win for "our side".

I'm interested in justice. It's one of my hot buttons. And justice is served up to individuals, not groups.

Some of the blogsphere got rightly slapped around for the over-the-top nasty stuff said about Jill Carroll. The MSM in the Duke case needs the same kind of slapping around.

I'm doing that thing I said I don't usually like to do--promoting something out of the comments and writing a post about it. I'm not doing it to eviscerate Darleen; I'm doing it because she gave me a good jumping-off point.

I went back and looked at all the posts at Feministe to see if Jill had really "just assumed these guys were rapists." For primary-source fans, those posts are:

Gender, Class, Race, and Rape

More on the Duke Rape Case

(Even) More on the Duke Rape Case

Don't Read This.

Those Duke Boys Just Needed a Dose of Chivalry

Boys Will Be Boys

I'd have to conclude that you could certainly look at the whole mess as Jill assuming these guys were rapists. I don't see it that way. I see it as Jill assuming the victim to be credible.

There's a subtle difference there, but it's worth noting--because we generally don't assume rape victims to be credible, we as a society. The first thing we tend to do is look for ways to discredit her (and I say "her" because most rapes are perpetrated by men against women). Was she out late? Dressed wrong? Working in the wrong profession? Going places she shouldn't have gone?

Jill, and others who have blogged about this, are not wrong to focus on the racial makeup of the case, because it invites more, not less, opportunity to discredit the victim.

"Oh, she's playing the race card."

Which is why I find Darleen's Jill Carroll reference so interesting--because Darleen compares Ms. Carroll to the Duke University lacrosse team members, not to the unidentified rape victim. And yet, I just read this last night:

In case I'm incoherent, my main point is not that Jill Carroll was a saint or that she wasn't against the war, but only that she was a victim. Hostages are the victim and terrorists are the bad guys. In the middle of a crime, one does not attack the victim, you go after the criminal. That's all.

. . . and I was struck by the similarities.

Just not in the way Darleen was.

In the middle of a crime, one does not attack the victim, one goes after the criminal. Wow. Sounds so simple put like that.

Why can't we start doing this with rape?

What I get out of the posts about this case is a sense of bracing against the inevitable. The very first comment at the very first post on the subject at Feministe encapsulates it:

Well we know what is next don’t we. She is black and working as a stripper so she is obviously a whore and everything that happened is her own fault.

Whereas the Lacrosse are hard-working hero jocks who could not possible rape anyone.

And here's what disgusts me: The right did a shitty job of proving that commenter wrong.

So, that black woman said, “No,” eh? First, she’s in a profession where she’s expected to do tricks for clients. Second, she’s walking into a house full of young, drunken athletes, who happen to be white. Third, she called the police and complained once; then she went back, but then left. And then she went back again! That’s a peculiar way of saying “No,” it seems to me. These racist black people just want a role model victim, with mistreatment wreaked upon the weakest of the weak: the black woman. All she has to do is cry, “rape by white male!” and she rules the world.

Weak? How about “strong” – as in a strong manipulator?

But she had to have the money, right? She just has to feed those children, pay that tuition, rent, car payment, and books. She’s not on welfare, scholarship, or assistance of any kind? Well, whatever she does receive may not cover her expenses. That’s quite possible.

But, exotic dancing—and then to cry “abuse”? This may be pushing victimhood beyond reason.

There's too much to be disgusted by here, and Jill already did a fantastic job of taking this apart. But I'd like to focus on the last two paragraphs, because if you can look me in the eye and tell me most conservatives wouldn't be just as quick to demonize the woman had she been receiving government assistance--if you want to tell me conservatives don't get all up in arms about welfare mothers and the welfare state and the way the gub'mint coddles Those People all the time, then only two possibilities exist: Either we inhabit completely different dimensions, or you're full of shit.

I know that most of the conservatives I know consider FrontPage magazine the redheaded stepchild of conservatism. I see very few bloggers on the right ever source it, and there seems to be an unspoken consensus that Horowitz's enterprise suffers from a bad case of the crazy. (Side note to liberal bloggers: Most of us don't read Townhall that often, either. I think you're their biggest fans.) Nonetheless, it says something to me that we'll stay quiet about columns like this one while asking "the left" to "purge the moonbats." Something about a beam in one's eye, you know?

One difference, one very obvious difference, between Jill Carroll and the unidentified rape victim, is that in Carroll's case we had evidence immediately that a crime had occurred. We had evidence immediately regarding who committed it. We don't have that in this case, and in that sense, Darleen's point is valid: It's wrong to presume to know, in advance, who did what.

But I believe also that there are vast differences of degree between players being suspended and undergoing a criminal investigation, and a woman being called a lying, manipulative slut who deserved what happened, if anything happened; besides, she wanted it to happen, she was asking for it by working as an exotic dancer, she's clearly just using these poor, innocent boys as a meal ticket--dear God, if we're not to presume anything, then that includes not presuming she's lying. That means something may well have happened to her, and that means that now, on top of the original humiliation and degradation, conservatives have heaped on this woman additional scorn and debasement. Where the fuck are the family values in that?

In the middle of a crime, one does not attack the victim, one goes after the criminal.

That's all.

P.S. I didn't want to have to spell this out, but I'm not a big fan of the ad hominem around here, unless someone is such a prick as to tempt me beyond resistance. However, I'm the one who decides who's that much of a prick, because I rule with an iron fist, don't you know. So snark against Darleen on your own blog. I know you've got one. Thanks.

UPDATE: Before anyone else suggests I am making this case into a political banner, let me cite the words of a student present at Nifong's conference at Duke the other day:

"I'm angry at two groups, and the Duke lacrosse team isn't one of them," said North Carolina Central senior Shawn Cunningham, a political science/criminal justice major. "I feel sorry and pity for them.

"Who I'm angry with first of all are those who choose to blame the victim. (Applause.) The second group I'm also angry with is all these people with cameras and all these people with notebooks, because the press has disrespected this young lady. (More applause.) They have minimized my sister to a stripper and an exotic dancer. ... You don't identify her as a mother, you don't identify her as a student, you don't identify her as a woman." (Standing ovation.)

That, right there, especially (but not only!) where I have added emphasis, is my issue. Not identity politics, not collectivization, not rape culture.

I cannot possibly be any more clear on the subject and, from here on out, I'm not even going to try to be--I'm just going to assume you're either unable to read, or engaging in hackery.

I have a longstanding policy of doing my level best to ignore dishonest hacks. I can recommend it. It is very good for the pursuit, and even the occasional achievement of, serenity.

Posted by Ilyka at April 12, 2006 10:47 AM in f is for feminism
Comments

Wait, who the heck is this David Yeagley guy? How is he "the right?" Why not just say Yeagley did a shitty job? And how can we "purge" people we've never heard of? I mean I don't go around lefty blogs checking out who they're slagging today, so for all I know, he might be the poster boy for idiots in their crowd, but with as much reading as I do, I haven't once heard of him. But we certainly *do* flush out the loons, or at least try to. (Case in point: Debbie the Skank Schlussel, just as a recent example. Michael Savage is another. And look at that WaPo blog mess. Anyway, just off the top of my head.)

And about government assistance vs. working as a stripper--I'm scratching my head at this. I just haven't seen other people saying the crap Yeagley is saying. He's full of shit, and I don't know anyone who'd say strippers/prostitutes/whatever ASK FOR it. I sure as hell wouldn't. There's a big difference between putting yourself at greater risk than others, and DESERVING violence. (I consider "she asked for it" not so different from "she deserved it.)

Seriously, I don't get why you assume everyone who's piled on this girl is automatically conservative by default. There are plenty of politically agnostic and "liberals" (heh) who might say the same thing as well. You're painting all conservatives with the same brush, and you KNOW that doesn't fit.

In the middle of a crime, one does not attack the victim, you go after the criminal.

One thing though: we KNOW the kidnappers are who they are, and we know she was held hostage. We don't KNOW those asshats at Duke are criminals.

Look, I'd be happy to see all rapists be put before firing squads aiming straight at their genitalia. I wouldn't bat an eye. BUT...I wouldn't do it without a fair trial, either. Innocent until proven guilty--even when we hate it. And I don't think these punks are any more credible witnesses than the alleged victim, I'm just saying despite my initial thoughts that "yeah, they probably did it," I'm not so sure any more. I'm not saying they didn't do it, I'm just not saying they did.

One more thing to ponder: Do you suppose if the girl had gotten gang-raped in her own neighborhood, where ever that is, this case would have gotten the attention is has? That's where the charges of the coverage being racist sorta doesn't quite wash with me. It's getting coverage because of who these twerps are, and they are the accused, not the complainants. What about all the other women who report rapes? It could be argued that the media is too eager to vilify a bunch of rich white boys, compared to the Joe Schmos who are accused of rape. But I'm not arguing either way about it, it's just a thought.

I'm not trying to pick holes in your argument as much as you might think I am. It's just my two cents. I haven't even paid much attention to the whole thing, anyway.

Posted by: Beth at April 12, 2006 01:56 PM

Way to ignore the paragraph in which I explicitly acknowledge that FrontPage mag's not exactly a leading light of conservatism, Beth.

Hey, you know something? Democratic Underground's not exactly representative of mainstream liberalism, either. Good thing no one ever goes after them! It's not like anyone ever made a fucking blog career out of it!

But okay, that's tu quoque. Back to my point: Readers of Feministe expected this woman to be dragged through the mud. Guess what? SHE WAS. And not just by Yeagley--or did I miss the part where anyone, ANYONE AT ALL on the right, told Muslihoon to shut up and sit down when he said the woman should be prosecuted for filing false charges? (Crumb, but I tire of linking that!) Okay, there's no DNA match; from that we should go straight to "Clearly, the bitch is lying?"

Talk about a rush to judgment! Just once I'd like someone BESIDES ME to note that when Muslihoon became a rightwing blog celebrity for converting from Islam, he unfortunately retained all Islam's rotten women-hatin' cultural proclivities--and NO ONE MINDS OR OBJECTS TO THAT because, yay, he really stuck it to those Islamofascists, huh? He's on our side now! Let's have a party!

Fuck him. He can go back home to have his head chopped off for all I care.

One thing though: we KNOW the kidnappers are who they are, and we know she was held hostage. We don't KNOW those asshats at Duke are criminals.

That's you. Here's me!

One difference, one very obvious difference, between Jill Carroll and the unidentified rape victim, is that in Carroll's case we had evidence immediately that a crime had occurred. We had evidence immediately regarding who committed it. We don't have that in this case, and in that sense, Darleen's point is valid: It's wrong to presume to know, in advance, who did what.

So we disagree on what, then?

Posted by: ilyka at April 12, 2006 02:20 PM

I'm totally with you on the update (and the rest of the post, of course).

What continues to bother me is that "innocent until proven guilty" is a phrase that we apply to criminals and their vicitms pretty much across the board, unless it comes to rape cases -- at which point the situation often turns into "innocent until proven guilty" for alleged rapists and "lying until proven truthful" for
alleged victims.

Well, that and the number of people who think that bloggers (feminist bloggers, especially, the harlots) can try, sentence, and execute alleged criminals on the internet.

[Ilyka says: I posted this on Lauren's behalf from an email I had from her. Is anyone else having site trouble? Okay, maybe this isn't the best place to ask that question . . . but, well, gimme a holler if you are. Can't think how else to handle it right now.]

Posted by: Lauren at April 12, 2006 02:48 PM

Further, Beth, re: My use of "the right"--I guess we kicked out Rush Limbaugh too, huh?

Posted by: ilyka at April 12, 2006 04:22 PM

I don't really disagree, but I do have a few...nits to pick, I suppose. First, the part you have bolded in the update quote: she also tried to run over a cop a few years ago, and she could very possibly be a member of Mensa for all I know; the reason she's identified as "The exotic dancer" is because that is how she gets tied into this story. Not in a "She asked for it" or whatever sense. If she had been dropping off her kids for daycare at the frathouse, she'd be called "The mo*ther (stupid spamfilter) of two"; if she was going over to drop off notes, she'd be identified as "the student", but she was going over there to strip, so she's the stripper. But having said that, it would be nice to get away from that descriptor and just use "The woman" or "alleged victim"; because I agree that constantly refferring to her as a stripper does tend to dehumanize her and deligitimize what she has alleged.

Also, with respect to: "But I believe also that there are vast differences of degree between players being suspended and undergoing a criminal investigation, and a woman being called a lying, manipulative slut who deserved what happened...etcetc" The only group that has had anything actually happen to them, though, is the Lacrosse team (which, of course, is as it should be). The woman has been called some pretty nasty names (especially in the blogosphere, but in the media at large as well); then again, so have the Lacrosse players ("rapist" and "racist" come to mind; the second is probably accurate with at least some, the first is still up in the air) in very public forums before there was any evidence either way. I'm sure I could find more graphic stuff if I really dug around, but really, how much worse do we need to get than simply branding forty some odd men as rapists because three of them might be? That is neither better nor worse than that stupid-ass frontpage article.

I guess we're just looking at it a bit differently. I don't assume that the woman is credible: I assume I don't know any of these people so they're all equally credible (or, because I'm a pessimist, none of them have any credibility until proven otherwise).

Posted by: francis at April 12, 2006 11:04 PM

One difference, one very obvious difference, between Jill Carroll and the unidentified rape victim, is that in Carroll's case we had evidence immediately that a crime had occurred.

There is quite good evidence in the Duke case, too, that a crime has occurred. The doctor and nurse who examined the victim immediately after the crime found injuries consistent with sexual assault.

No, we don't know who assaulted her, but we know she was assaulted.

Posted by: Therese Norén at April 13, 2006 12:10 AM
I don't really disagree, but I do have a few...nits to pick, I suppose.

Y esto es por qué me gusta a ti, Francis--because you don't come into this with an agenda; you simply note what doesn't sit well with you.

Also, you read what I write and deal from that. Shit, can I clone you?

the reason she's identified as "The exotic dancer" is because that is how she gets tied into this story

Point: We, and I mean both-sides-of-the-aisle we, ought to know by now that the flip side of being beholden to a deadline, as journalists and copy editors are, is that you don't have time for the nuance.

Aside:

she'd be called "The mo*ther (stupid spamfilter) of two

Yeah, remind me to take a look at the mu.nu spamfilter. I like how we let everybody on mu.nu use it with abandon, don't you?

But having said that, it would be nice to get away from that descriptor and just use "The woman" or "alleged victim"; because I agree that constantly refferring to her as a stripper does tend to dehumanize her and deligitimize what she has alleged.

Right, and that's where I run smack up against my also-I-want-a-pony side: Wouldn't it be nice if . . . ?

I'm sure I could find more graphic stuff if I really dug around, but really, how much worse do we need to get than simply branding forty some odd men as rapists because three of them might be? That is neither better nor worse than that stupid-ass frontpage article.

And here you have my sympathies only because I, also, do not want to research every single thing written ever-ever-ever about this case, and then cite it as evidence.

Hell, I tried to tonight. I ran the Technorati. All I got were a bunch of sports-centric blogs and, to their credit, most of them were of the mind that they didn't know WHAT to think. You know, I can deal with "I don't know what to think; the jury's still out." Maybe what I should clarify is what I can't deal with:

--I can't deal with knowing that I've bought several of David Horowitz's books, and he's using whatever-fraction-of-a-cent of the proceeds to pay some hater like Yeagley. Horowitz's whole thing, in the books of his I've read, is that he isn't a bigot and he isn't a sexist. Yeah? Actions speak louder than words, David.

--I can't deal with knowing that Rush Limbaugh's comment that "just slipped out," i.e., his instinctive reaction when discussing the case, was to call the alleged victim a "ho."

--Finally, what I really, really, really can't deal with is certain right-wing blogs whose sites strongly resemble this one pouncing on the first indication that this case might not be clear cut by sending all their half-witted commenters over to Feministe in order to pronounce such stupidities as, "Well, don't you believe in 'innocent until proven guilty?'" No, dude, I believe in TOTAL FASCISM!

This is especially stupid when you consider that one of the Feministe bloggers is in law school and one of them actually IS a lawyer. More importantly than any of that, NO ONE THERE SAID ANYTHING against the principle of "innocent until proven guilty."

What they did admit to was a bias in favor of the victim. Supposedly, that's the beauty of blogs: You know the bias up front. How many times have we heard that from Roger L. Simon, huh?

What I'm seeing, though, is that it's perfectly okay to have a "bias up front" so long as it's the right--and I mean that literally and figuratively--bias.

Nuh-uh. No. If bias is okay, bias is okay--regardless of which direction it comes from. Anything else is "claiming special privileges"--an accusation I see right-leaning blogs hurl OUT the same way they'd draw a breath to breathe, but which my own personal experience with blogging tells me they don't take so fucking well in reverse.

Posted by: ilyka at April 13, 2006 02:19 AM

Ilyka

I was really pissed when I posted. Not always a good thing and I hope you know its much of this topic that pisses me off rather than you.

Maybe I wasn't as adament about how we should no more jump to conclusions about the vic than the perps, but I'm so USED to defending vics I just kinda take it as a given people who read me on a regular basis know that.

REAL harm has come with the Duke LaX players ARE rapists rush-to-judgement. Seems even a random male Duke student can be beaten into unconsciousness for the crime of being...well a Duke Male Student:

'This is Central territory; you're not welcome here. Duke kids rape women and we don't want you raping our women'

Of course, the fact that it took a dozen guys to terrorize two people and the use of the phrase "our women" is another day's discourse on mob psychology and the binary nature of young male minds.

I fully support the use of all forensic science as I want to go where the evidence points. Direct evidence (witness testimony) is not always reliable or even credible. Show me fingerprints, DNA, spatter patterns, ballistics, footprints, etc and I'll take that over an eyewitness to the opposite any day.

Prosecuters CAN get it wrong, and it is a show of character whether they can actually serve justice rather than their own political career. Nifong's statements alone raise some huge flags on his own prejudice in this case.

This case was fucked from the get-go.

Assumption: the woman is a 'ho' cuz she's a stripper
Assumption: the guys are rapists cuz they are frat boys (with homo tendencies which gangrape will prove their straight creds)

Both assumptions are bigot inspired bullsh*t. And that's leaving aside the racist stuff. (aside: another annoying factiod is that interracial crime is RARE. And when it does happen, more often whites are victims)

What do I KNOW? That Duke Lax players had a party off campus with alcohol (suspendable offense there due to underage drinking) and that they hired strippers (morals clause for suspending... if that isn't in Duke student conduct code, it should be). One 27 y/o woman ends up in the hospital with bruising and injuries "consistent" (legal speak) with assault.

She claims rape. Duke players deny claim.

Forensic evidence revealed at this point in time supports the latter's denial.

I've talked on the qt with a couple of attorneys and unless some magic DNA makes an appearance linking one or more of the players to the woman, they would not file. Regardless of her "identification" of one or more players. If nothing else, they'd kick it back to the police agency to find out who really assaulted the woman.

Posted by: Darleen at April 15, 2006 04:36 PM

PS...

The above is why I'll never get seated on a jury.

heh

Posted by: Darleen at April 15, 2006 04:40 PM