An Oregon woman who says she was gang-raped by three men, has been convicted of filing false rape charges, because she failed to act “traumatized” enough. From the Oregonian:
After a day-and-a-half trial, Municipal Judge Peter A. Ackerman on Friday convicted the woman of filing a false police report, a class-C misdemeanor. Ackerman explained his decision, saying there were many inconsistencies in the stories of the four, but that he found the young men to be more credible. He also said he relied on the testimony of a Beaverton police detective and the woman’s friends who said she did not act traumatized in the days following the incident.
That’s appalling.
The Judge seems to believe that there is a typical way in which all rape victims act, and that if a woman fails to act that way, she must be lying. But that’s nonsense. There is no “rape victim script” that every rape victim follows. Essentially, this woman has been convicted of a crime for failing match the judge’s stereotype of what “legitimate” female victims act like.
Judge Ackerman has sent a message to rape victims in Oregon: If the judge doesn’t think you’re weepy enough, emotive enough, hysterical enough, whatever enough, then he might just convict you of a crime. There’s every reason to think an asinine ruling like this will deter rape victims from reporting rape to the police.
Shakespeare’s Sister, The Heretik and The American Street have more. UPDATE: See The Countess’ post, too. And a new post from The Heretik. And My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. And Once Upon A Time…. And Political Animal. And this stunning post at Shakespeare’s Sister. And Liberty Street. And Radioactive Quill. And Ded Space.
For a contrary view on this case, see Cathy Young’s post.
Pingback: Accept No Substitutes
Unless there is more to the story than we have been told, yeah, it looks like a pretty appalling decision.
Of course, if there isn’t more to this, it is possible that Amp’s characterization of the ruling as asinine is overly charitable; the judge’s ruling may have been intentionally malicious.
In any case, in order to convict someone of filing flase rape charges, the burden of proof ought to be on the other foot than when someone is trying to convict someone of rape. That is to say, the city ought to have to prove that she was not raped (and moreover, that she genuinely does not believe she was raped, that is, that the charges were filed in bad faith) in order to convict her.
I know a woman who was sexually assaulted and went to court here in the UK. The defence also brought up “evidence” that she didn’t act “traumatised” enough afterwards for her case to be credible. The guy got off.
Pingback: The Heretik
This makes me absolutely goddamn sick to my stomach. Literally nauseous.
THIS is presuming consent. Unless there’s a hell of a lot of evidence we don’t have, this judge has way overstepped the bounds of reasonable doubt, not to mention the bounds of common fucking human decency. He is an embarresment to me as a man, as a human, and as someone who tries to work within the system. Oh my god, this makes me angry.
So what are we doing? Petition? Protests? Is there any way to impeach a judge in Oregon?
ampersand, if the judge had come to that decision based solely on the way the accuser appeared in court, i would agree with you. however, the article states that he made his decision based on the “testimony of a Beaverton police detective and the woman’s friends who said she did not act traumatized in the days following the incident.” if this were any other kind of case, or even the accused in this case, i do not think anyone would have a problem with not believing a person based on his or her behavior following the alledged act.
i saw a lot of this during th Jackson trial were people were saying th accuser did behave like a victim. the truth is that different person respond in different ways. it’s not like there’s some sort of manual given out when a person is assaulted telling them how to behave. that said, if seasoned officers and the person’s friends don’t see some sort of change, then it is valid to assume that something might not be right.
as for the ruling itself, the burden of proof falls right back on the prosecution, so nothing has changed. the same rules should apply in this case as they do in every other case. obviously there was something storng about their case, at least in terms of believability, otherwise there would have been no conviction. i also think it is absolutely fair to punish a person if she makes false accusations. not only does it ruin the lives of the people she accuses (whose identities were surprisingly kept secret), but it also wastes time and money.
i cannot honestly imagine that victims will be detered, especially if this is an instance of false accusations. the two are not the same, and this logic only works if you assume no woman ever lies about being raped.
I included a link to another article about a similar case where the victim wasn’t believed, and was ordered to pay restitution. These kinds of cases will scare women out of filing rape charges.
Lots of victims don’t “act traumatized” after a rape. They detach and go numb. How is a rape victim supposed to act, anyway? I didn’t know there was a “real” way rape victims should act after they’ve been raped.
“that said, if seasoned officers and the person’s friends don’t see some sort of change, then it is valid to assume that something might not be right.
”
This is such bull, Jaketk. No, it is not valid to assume that the determination of whether or not a woman was raped should be based on *her* reaction to the rape.
I was raped over thirty years ago, at the age of 14. In the days following the rape, my reaction was anger at not only the rapists, but the helpful adults who questioned what I was wearing, why I was out of the house at 7:30 at night, etc. No, I was not traumatized. I was in fact catapulted into a lot of deep thinking about rape, and women’s rights. It’s one of the events in my life which has made me a feminist.
To even consider that whether or not a rape was committed is based on how “traumatized” other people think the victim was is not much further ahead than the days when a woman was only “really” raped if she’d been maimed or killed. The assumption then was that if she did not experience severe bodily hard, she must not have really fought the rapist hard enough, and therefore it should be assumed she consented to the sex.
Yuck.
I’d like to learn more about this case. As it stands it’s totally outrageous, not to mention irrational.
Susan –
If you read my posts in this forum, from this one down you’ll have much more context. This is truly outrageous and I was go as far as to disbar the judge.
How do I post a URL here?
Méta –
The way you posted a link was incorrect – I’ve fixed it this time, but please don’t try using BBCode here again!
In the future, please post links using html code. If you’re not sure how to do that, there are instructions here.
There’s also a link to those instructions just above the box where you type your comments in, so it’s always easy to find the instructions.
Thanks, Ampersand.
Believe it or not I was a web programmer in another life! LOL!
I read a lot of blogs but usually don’t comment on them, so I’m kinda new to this and this story made me come out of the shadows.
Thanks for your blog. Reading a man who is so unapologetic in his defense of feminism is really refreshing.
Jaketk wrote:
What other examples of finding someone guilty of a crime because they weren’t behaving like an innocent person, would you approve of?
For instance, suppose that someone was found guilty of insider trading because her attitude while being questioned by police was arrogant, and the judge believed that people who are innocent of insider trading tend to be nervious and defensive, not arrogant. Or because the person immediately demanded a lawyer, and the judge believed that innocent people would wait to be charged before demanding a lawyer.
Would you find that a fair verdict? I would not. I think your assumption that it’s only for this one crime that I’d find this sort of behavior by a judge appalling is unjustified.
I made a point of not watching the Jackson trial in detail. My impression overall is that he was probably not guilty, but that’s not a particularly informed opinion.
You have a lot more faith in the US judicial system than I do. Although the system probably works correctly most of the time, there have been many examples of people being found guity of crimes based on very weak cases.
And yes, in case you were wondering, I do think that some false rape convictions happen. However, as far as I can tell, the typical false rape conviction is one based on a mistaken ID.
No problem, Méta. And thank you for your kind words. :-)
broce, few people who are assaulted walk away unchanged. most do have some noticeable change in their behavior, even if it’s small. detectives deal with a whole host of victims. if this woman’s behavior was completely inconsistent with what they were familiar with, like she behaved as if nothing happened at all, they were right to question her story. in any other kind of criminal case, they would do the same thing.
i spent the first 14 years of my life being physically and sexually abused, and watching it happen to my brothers and my cousins. not a single one of us responded in the exact same way, but every one of us was certainly changed by what happened. in my case, i don’t necessarily trust people, especially those in my perps’ age range. i question ideologies that were part of or caused the abuse, like feminism. and because of the attacks and insults i got for speaking up, i only share those experiences with other male survivors, which is one of the reasons i am being so vague.
i don’t behave “traumatized” by any means, but that does not mean i was uneffected. if this woman behaved as if she was completely unaffected, but did not have repressed memories, i think many detectives would be hesistant to believe her.
Jake, you’re mistaking cues that are appropriate for an investigating police officer to follow up on (maybe) for things that have weight in a court of law. How the victim acts is irrelevant in court. It might be relevant in the investigatory phase; “huh, she says he raped her but now she’s at his house and they’re laughing in the front yard” – leading to further investigation or focusing an investigation on particular things. (“He was sure nervous when I was standing next to that closet door.”)
It’s not relevant in court.
i don’t behave “traumatized” by any means
So it would be OK for someone to decide you were lying about your abuse, because you weren’t acting ‘traumatized’?
As has been said elsewhere, there is an awful lot missing from this story (hey, it IS the Oregonian).
Ampersand writes:
i said nothing of approval, merely that no one would question it if this were a different situation. for instance, a year or so ago a 16 year girl ran out to a neighbor’s house screaming that her parents were murdered. the cops came and took her story and helped her out as much as they could. a few weeks went by, and as the cops investigated, the girl’s story did not add up. when they questioned her friends and family, they all mentioned that the girl’s behavior was odd. she did not grieve for her parents, or even want to attend their funeral. a few months ago, this girl was charged and convicted of first-degree murder, largely on circumstancial evidence and her inconsistent behavior.
i cannot imagine that most people would take issue with that. i did, but that is besides the point.
assume that a man is convicted of rape because he is callous and unsympathetic and his story is less credible than the accuser’s. this does happen, as most rape cases have little or no physical evidence. would you then consider it appalling if a man were convicted (and this is all that you know about the case) based on this?
i probably have less, considering my age and ethnicity, but in theory, the system could work if it were not so politicized and corrupt.
as for false accusation of rape, mistaken identity (which is amazing how blatantly racist it is) still lies in the hands of the person who made the positive i.d. that said, if the person admits to the sex, but says it was consentual, DNA evidence means nothing. it is still possible that many innocent men are in prison for a crime they did not commit.
Jake –
From Kevin Hayden who has known her since she was a baby.
Source further down, in the comments section.
I wanted to add:
This sounds like she was “affected” to me. Living at half a dozen place in a year and dropping out of school isn’t “having your act together”.
So it would be OK for someone to decide you were lying about your abuse, because you weren’t acting ‘traumatized’?
mythago, you missed the rest of the point: but that does not mean i was unaffected. if this woman behaved as if she was completely unaffected, but did not have repressed memories, i think many detectives would be hesistant to believe her.
in your example, am i behaving as if nothing happened/completely unaffected, or am i behaving as usual, keeping people at a distance, hiding physical pain, or remaining in uncomfortable situations so as not to appear rude?
and yes, you are right that we do not know everything about this case, so i would hope you are not assuming that she is innocent and the boys are guilty just because of the judge’s ruling.
am i behaving as if nothing happened/completely unaffected, or am i behaving as usual, keeping people at a distance, hiding physical pain, or remaining in uncomfortable situations so as not to appear rude?
Somebody else has decided that, in their opinion, you didn’t act ‘traumatized’, therefore you’re lying. A little presumptuous, I’d say.
so i would hope you are not assuming that she is innocent and the boys are guilty
The men (not “boys”–I’ve seen nothing to suggest they were juveniles) were not charged with any crime.
Pingback: privilege judo » Blog Archive » judge gives green light for gang rape
This is appalling. I am a person who is kind of nonconformist in emotions. I cry when I shouldn’t and I don’t cry when I should kind of thing. I’m glad I don’t live in Oregon.
I’m not going to speculate on precisely what happened, but it’s clear that her failure to act sufficiently traumatized wasn’t the only factor under consideration.
Although there’s no way of knowing how often it happens, it’s undeniable that women do sometimes make false accusations of rape; I myself have been a victim of a woman’s frivolous and malicious abuse of the law, although her allegations were much less serious, and I was just subjected to a bit of harassment by a sheriff. In light of the magnitude of the damages suffered by a man falsely convicted of rape (which may well include being repeatedly raped himself), I would argue that a false accusation of rape is a crime even more serious than rape itself. If she truly made the claim in bad faith, then a month in prison is far too light a penalty to pay.
Of course, I do realize that sometimes the evidence is too flimsy to make a clear call either way, and I’m aware of the problems associated with creating disincentives for actual victims to come forward. But I also think that it’s horribly unjust to allow those who try to ruin the lives of others through false accusations to get off so lightly.
I don’t have a solution to this problem. Do you? Under what conditions would you accept a conviction for false accusation of rape as legitimate, and what punishment do you think is appropriate?
Considering that in this country the rule is “innocent until proven guilty,” I would like to see this judge’s evidence that she wasn’t raped.
I can understand an aquittal (more or less)—but there is a vast world of difference between an inability to prove something (to the standards necessary for conviction), and that something’s nonexistance.
So acting “traumatized” is now a requirement. First off, anyone who’s thinking about filing a false rape report is perhaps capable of acting? Secondly, what the fuck are they defining rape as? What are their criteria that makes it a crime? Not unwanted sex, apparently, nor deliberately making someone feel helpless and powerless, or selfishly using another person’s body for one’s own satisfaction, with its message about the respective worth of rapist and victim, or even causing physical injury, potential uncureable disease, or pregnancy—NOOOO, apparently the only thing that rape does wrong is making a woman cry, making her frightened, making her sad.
Translation: if the victim cheats the rapist out of the pleasure of destroying her, he hasn’t done anything wrong. Your own bodily autonomy, freedom of choice, equality, are all up for grabs so long as losing them doesn’t leave you crying your eyes out in the police station, the counselor’s office, at home, and of course, on the witness stand where your rapist can see you and enjoy seeing what he’s done to you.
And if this is the result of being unable to prove you were raped, how is one supposed to avoid an assault charge for defending oneself against rape? ‘Cause I’m sure attempted rape is even harder to prove.
Just nuts. How do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant knowingly told a falsehood when she filed the police report? This is just dead wrong. Is she appealing this?
“broce, few people who are assaulted walk away unchanged. most do have some noticeable change in their behavior”
Your proof for this contention, other than your personal experience? What makes *your* personal experience more accurate than mine?
“i don’t behave “traumatized” by any means, but that does not mean i was uneffected. if this woman behaved as if she was completely unaffected,”
But the article *specifically* noted that the woman did not act “traumatized” enough, not that she was totally unaffected. You’re extrapolating something from the story which is not there.
How surprised am I that Cathy Young thinks that absence of proof of a rape constitutes proof that the victim was lying?
About as surprised as I’d be if someone informed me the earth was round.
While I’m hesitant to jump on a bandwagon involving any case based on its reporting in the media (the fake story of a man being convicted for trying to abort his girlfriend’s baby with her consent for instance), assuming the facts are as reported this shouldn’t remotely rise to the level of legal action. Insufficent trauma is a bizarre and inherantly subjective standard to apply for such a serious case. Presuming all victims will respond to an attack in the same manner is dangerous and unfounded.
Furthermore, the suggestion that a false accusation of rape is a more serious crime than rape is insulting belittling towards the reality of rape. False accusations of crime, and indeed most especially rape, are no doubt serious offenses that when sufficently proven do demand legal action. But to suggest that a false accusation is more serious than actual rape is profoundly male-centric to the point of utterly dehumanizing women. Indeed, it is an insult to all victims of rape, male or female, but the manner in which that opinion was offered made it very clear that it was women who ought to be marginalized while the male victims of false accusations be elivated above them. I’d be horrified and angry if I were ever false accused of rape. The notion would disgust me to my core and I take great care to ensure my actions are always beyond reproach. Being accused of such a crime would greatly offend me and everything I try to do in my life. But I would NEVER pretend that the offense against me was greater than that of the men and women who are raped. My offense would be precisely because I understand how grave and awful a crime this is. How dare any man wallow in such self-indulgence such that they would seek to belittle such a disgusting crime! I’ve known women who were raped. Some told of me of the attack years after, others only days. I know that the suggestion that a false accusation is worse than the crime done to them is bizarre and uncalled for. Its a serious matter, but do not pretend that the false accused are the “real” victims.
Mr. Berg,
> In light of the magnitude of the damages suffered by a
> man falsely convicted of rape (which may well include
> being repeatedly raped himself), I would argue
> that a false accusation of rape is a crime even more
> serious than rape itself.
Why are you trusting the justice system to function correctly when the woman is on trial,
When you don’t trust it to function correctly when the man is on trial?
Also, bear in mind that just as a man falsely accused of rape is innocent and possibly suffers harm,
The woman who some man rapes is innocent and definitely suffers harm.
Rebecca
(For reference: “possibly suffers harm” does not refer to possible conviction, but the fact that a rape accusation—particularly a false one—doesn’t even necessarily lead to a police investigation of the accused.)
BStu:
But I would NEVER pretend that the offense against me was greater than that of the men and women who are raped. My offense would be precisely because I understand how grave and awful a crime this is.
This isn’t about your feelings or whether or not you’d be offended. It’s about the devastating effects that a false conviction could have on your life. I don’t want to belittle rape. It’s a very serious and despicable crime. But in most cases it’s over quickly and leaves no lasting damage beyond psychological trauma.
Of course, this trauma may be severe and last for years. I don’t deny that. But when someone is convicted of rape–or of any serious crime–he has years of his life taken away. He will suffer trauma as well. If he’s particularly unfortunate, he may be raped in prison–perhaps more than once. When he gets out, the life he knew will be gone. He’ll be permanently branded as a rapist. The consequences of conviction of a serious crime are devastating and permanent. No amount of therapy can make up for having been forced to spend the better part of your youth in a cell.
If I had to choose, I’d rather be raped myself than be falsely convicted of rape. Can you honestly say that you’d choose differently?
Ms. Borgstrom:
Why are you trusting the justice system to function correctly when the woman is on trial, When you don’t trust it to function correctly when the man is on trial?
I’m not. I think I made it fairly clear (comment 25) that I have serious reservations about the practicality of creating a system which can punish false accusations with sufficient severity while not convicting actual victims or creating disincentives for actual victims to come forward.
However, I suspect that there are probably some cases in which the accusation can be proven false beyond a reasonable doubt. If so, the accuser in such should be punished severely, not only because of the damages the defendant might have suffered, but also because such cases cast doubt on the credibility of actual rape victims.
Also, bear in mind that just as a man falsely accused of rape is innocent and possibly suffers harm, The woman who some man rapes is innocent and definitely suffers harm.
You may disagree, but I don’t think we should draw much of a distinction between attempting a crime and successfully committing it. I think that attempted murder should be treated the same as successful murder, and I think that attempting to ruin someone’s life (or acting with reckless disregard for the fact that one’s actions might result in such) with a false accusation of rape should be treated the same as successfully doing so. So the fact that the truth may prevail and the accused may walk free doesn’t affect my opinions about how demonstrably false accusations should be punished.
In the past, I’ve volunteered as a crisis counselor, meeting with rape survivors in the hospital after an assault. I’ve seen many different reactions. Laughter and joking is just as “normal” a reaction as fear and tears. We all cope differently. Unfortunately, those of us who volunteer as advocates have to spend far too much of our time and energy correcting others in the ER who assume that somebody is fine or is lying simply because she copes in a way they find unbelievable.
Second, the threat of being accused of “false charges” is very scary just after a trauma event, so now women (especially in that area) who need to seek out help will pause. I’ve worked with clients in the past who were threatened with such action if they didn’t submit to evidence collection kits, and I’ve seen the fear and upset that causes. When you’ve gone through something like and assault, the threat of getting into legal trouble yourself is quite enough to motivate you to simply avoid talking to the police or going to the ER in the first place.
“I don’t want to belittle rape. It’s a very serious and despicable crime. But in most cases it’s over quickly and leaves no lasting damage beyond psychological trauma.”
Excuse me, but WHAT THE F*** are you talking about?
Do you have any idea how ignorant such a comment is? Rape is a devastating crime that can* leave great damage to its victim and by extent her family and loved ones. Anyone who has known rape victims, who has read their stories or testimonies, who is familiar with rape survivors’ work, or who has read even a handful of studies on rape and its long lasting trauma can testify to that.
If you had been held down and nearly castrated at age 17, would you describe it as “oh, it was over quickly — all I have now is psychological trauma”???
Oh, and you write, “If I had to choose, I’d rather be raped myself than be falsely convicted of rape. Can you honestly say that you’d choose differently?”
If you could choose, then it’s not rape, is it?
Asshat.
*By the way, something that many women have pointed out on this thread is that women can also be angry, determined, resolved, numb, etc … and that the severity of rape’s effects, as well as how long they last and how difficult recovery is, varies a lot from woman to woman.
Thanks Linda, I’ve pretty much been thinking ‘asshat’ with each more offensive post that has arrived from our Mr. Berg.
Kindly take your psuedo-psychiatric conclusions and shove them, sir. They are indeed most offensive.
jaketk:
In what way was feminism an ideology that was part of or caused the abuse?
jaketk,
I was raped several years before I encountered feminism. Does that mean I have discovered the secret of time travel?
Jaketk: what does your experience as a male assault survivor have to do with systematic assaults on women’s veracity and personal experiences? If anything, I would think it would make you sympathetic. Strange how you use it as yet another bludgeoning tool to doubt what women have to say. Why don’t you come out and say it? Women are liars, right? Your assualt seems to give you unlimited rights to attack women… but when women criticize men and rape-by-males you seem to think we’re all feminazis out to castrate the world. Go figure.
That’s one of the big problems I have with men chiming in on threads about women being raped by men with their “well, men are raped too!” comments. Yes, men *are* raped too. And what-all does that have to do with how women define rape, define rape society, define how traumatized they are by it, prove that they were raped, ad nauseum? It’s like the men suing the battered women’s shelters… if you guys need safe space, don’t turn to our resources. Build your own. Similarly, if you feel that your rape equals and is comparable to the rape that women experience, fucking say that and share in the solution. But don’t be such a sexist prick as to use your rape to beat women down further. Your maleness does not sanctify your experience.
Hey, news flash, the legal system doesn’t work perfectly.
That this case has aroused so much outrage, however, demonstrates that the larger culture is healthier than this judge (which, of course, isn’t hard).
Seems to me that the debate about which is worse, being raped or being falsely accused/convicted of rape, is kind of pointless. Both are horrible and have horrible consequences. I don’t see why advocates for either set of victims need to compete with the other for sympathy.
“I would like to see this judge’s evidence that she wasn’t raped.”
No shit, this is what gets me most about this. It wasn’t that the police and prosecution decided not to go forward with prosecuting the men with rape because of insufficient evidence, but that they turned around and prosecuted her for filing a false charge because there was insufficient evidence for the rape. How in the hell does this pass any basic test of logic?
It also annoys the shit out of me that some people are somehow confusing not having enough evidence to be certain of rape with therefore having enough evidence to convict of false rape charge. It’s possible, certainly, for there to be evidence of a false accusation and therefore conequently no evidence for the false crime. There is a difference, however, between that and concluding, based on lack of evidence for the charge, that the accuser must be lying – beyond a reasonable doubt. And yet their case appears to be solely based on the lack of evidence for the rape.
RonF – yes you are right, but only because, since this an emotionaly charged subject, people are mostly talking about which victim hurt worse, rather than what hurts society more. It’s rather like the question of which is more important: ensuring that every person who has the right to vote is not prevented from doing so or making sure that there is no voter fraud? It partly depends on the scale, of course (are we talking about a few hundred people voting under dead people’s names or are we concerned with how easy it is to hack into electronic voting machines?). However, when the amount of each is neither overwhelming nor vastly disproportinate to each other, it’s also a fundamental value judgement.
Personally, even if false reports of rape were made in equal amounts to the number of rapes that were underreported, I would worry more about the latter. I think that a society whose own citizens fear coming foward when they have been victims of a crime has a more fundamental problem than a society where even liars feel safe going to the police with false charges. Now, if we had a problem of high convictions of false charges – either as a general rule or for a particular type of crime- that would be something else altogether, but the latter at least doesn’t seem to be the case.
What Qgrrl said. >:
I can understand if the judge didn’t feel there was enough evidence to convict the men of rape. After all, it should be a convincing case to convict someone of a crime, and perhaps there just wasn’t enough evidence to be convinced.
However, I’m surprised that the alledged victim was actually convicted of committing a crime. It certainly doesn’t sound like there was any convincing evidence on that front either. In fact, it sounds like both sides were just based on testimonies, and neither had anything really substantial. If that were the case, then it only seems that the suspects should be acquitted. The claimaint shouldn’t be fined just because she didn’t win the case.
It almost seems like the judge felt somebody needed to be convicted of something one way or another.
Kenny> Well said.
I am stunned that this judge is on the bench. This case is so outrageous, as to make me wonder about his past ruling history. This might be the first time he’s overstepped both reason and logical authority, but I seriously doubt it. The guy shouldn’t be disgracing the bench, and should be removed from office asap.
Of course, I’d also be for public flagellation and feathering, but I know this isn’t humane treatment for a criminal.
If there’s more to this case than, “She didn’t act traumatized enough,” and, “I have a hunch that the boys are more credible,” why aren’t we hearing it? Why would it be omitted from a three-page newspaper article on a decision to convict a young woman of filing a false accusation?
Kevin Hayden of the blog the American Street attended the trial, as he knew the woman for most of her life. He says the news story is accurate. In his blog and in comments in Shakespeare’s Sister’s blog, he says the police detective thought it was strange that she didn’t shower immediately afterwards, since rape victims “always” overshower. This, despite the fact that many people don’t do so afterward (numb, in shock, whatever), and are told not to, the better to get a rape kit.
Fucking hell. It’s telling how the presumption of innocence crowd that shows up whenever we have the gall to talk about rape and the rough treatment rape survivors get clam up in this case–except to say that of course there are false accusers! Oh, yeah. No real presumption of innocence here, nor is there any overwhelming evidence that she did indeed manufacture the claim.
I’ll bet you’d hear them yelping if it was a robbery charge that brought this about, though.
>>Kevin Hayden of the blog the American Street attended the trial, as he knew the woman for most of her life. He says the news story is accurate. In his blog and in comments in Shakespeare’s Sister’s blog, he says the police detective thought it was strange that she didn’t shower immediately afterwards, since rape victims “always” overshower. This, despite the fact that many people don’t do so afterward (numb, in shock, whatever), and are told not to, the better to get a rape kit. >>
Or simple depression.
That link won’t load, but I’ve seen his post quoted on this impromptu blogswarm. And it’s basic common sense: the evidence we’ve heard about is lousy evidence. If there were good evidence that in fact made up the judge’s motive, what reason would there be to omit it from any discussion?
Actually, I was comment #5, and, if you’d read it, you’d see that part of what makes me so absolutely sick with fury here is precisely the lack of presumption of innocence. Susan (also, presumably part of the eeeeeevilllle “presumption of innocence crowd”) posted at #9, and called the entire case outrageous and irrational. Neither of us said a single goddamn thing about false accusers. Both of us condemned the case in no uncertain terms. Period.
Anyone who is accused of any crime deserves the (legal) benefit of the doubt. I don’t see any way that any of us, working from the evidence presented, can believe that this poor girl’s case satisfies the reasonable doubt standard.
Incidentally, far less than the “benefit of the doubt” standard leading to this, I think it’s fair to look at the belief espoused by some here that when a court finds someone not guilty, they’re saying “they didn’t do it.” If you actually believe that, then of course this conviction makes sense, but thankfully our legal system doesn’t (or shouldn’t, shouldn’t, isn’t supposed to) work that way. It’s not at all incompatible to say both that there’s a reasonable doubt that these men (not boys) raped her and to say that there’s a reasonable doubt that she lied.
Personally, and based just on the evidence I’ve seen, I don’t think there is a reasonable doubt that they raped her, but, of course, I haven’t seen all the evidence.
“I don’t want to belittle rape. It is a very serious and despicable crime. But in most cases it’s over quickly and leaves no lasting damage beyond psychological trauma.”
In what world is psychological trauma not damage? Psychological damage means the brain is functioning differently. When dealing with trauma, women’s Autonomic Nervous Systems are less likely to kick out the “fight” or “flight” responses and more likely to activate the “freeze response, where both branches of the ANS are activated at the same time – when that happens there is a sense where the brain is deliberately shorting itself out. Time sense is trashed. The connection between the body and the brain gets iffy. Emotions are muted. Because the hippocampus is depressed, memories are not processed normally. This is all well and good during the actual trauma; it helps the woman survive it – the problem is that quite often the brain’s still a little quirky once the woman is safe.
Since the memories didn’t get their time stamp from the hippocampus when they were created, if they wander into consciousness the woman relives the memories, without being able to tell they are NOT happening right now. The hippocampus never labeled them “past event,” and until that happens somehow she is still experiencing that rape every time she’s triggered. This is what people don’t seem to get. No, for many of us, it is not “over quickly.” We’re living there for a very, very long time.
And the fact that the brain doesn’t recognize the memory as a memory, reliving the event means that the brain is once again shutting down systems on you completely at random (until and unless you figure out all your triggers and quit developing new ones), which often leads to memory problems, which leads to problems on the job or in school. Funny how that works.
Not that everyone’s brain gets hit in the exact same way. Some people get hit by body memory, where you get to feel them touching you again even though you haven’t seen them in years. Some people dissociate, where one part of your brain or body decides it isn’t talking to rest for some reason. That one is often connected to sex – so fun to have sex when the more excited your body gets, the less your brain knows about it.
And since your body considers itself under threat so often, everything’s kicked into high gear. After two or three days of jumping at every little sound and flinching at any movement in the corner of our eye, some of us get a mite testy, which tends not to go over big with your significant other. Depression is not good when you’ve got little ones. Etc. Then there are the secondary issues – difficulties trusting, sense of foreshortened future, avoidance, social phobia, all that good stuff.
I am sorry, I do not normally get this sarcastic, but Good Lord! Anyone who thinks psyhological trauma is not significant lasting damage has never seen hide nor hair of the beast, and apparently is incapable of even imagining it.
From the information here, it certainly looks as if the woman in question is a fairly typical example of the “outward adjustment” phase (aka, denial), in some popular theory of rape trauma or other. But the idea that anyone with any knowledge of how things works would argue that women who’ve been raped all respond the same… Well, they may have been exposed to knowledge on rape trauma, but clearly nothing was absorbed.
Daran writes: In what way was feminism an ideology that was part of or caused the abuse?
My oldest aunt is a feminist. She was sexually abusive. All of her actions, she felt, were justified because she had been oppressed by “The Patriarchy.” Because I am male, and therefore a potential threat, her actions were merely preemptive, not unlike the Jessica’s Law. She felt I deserved it because I would probably do it to a woman, I needed to learn what it felt like (she actually said this, which is ironic since she knew what was going on between me, my brothers, and my father), and I would get over it. Most of what she said was akin to this: But don’t be such a sexist prick as to use your rape to beat women down further. Your maleness does not sanctify your experience, though much calmer and usually in a even tone. She never yelled at me, but in much the same way as the comment, what she did was okay because just by saying it hurt was “beating women down.”
Feminism provided her with the ammunition as my family is mostly male, and my grandfather could not have cared less about his daughters. Granted, as far as I know, neither of my biological aunts were treated anywhere near the way my grandfather treated his sons. I assume that because they were not the focus of the abuse, they felt neglected and latched on to a movement that allowed for such extremism. The irony is that many of the opinions my aunt has about men are shared by a lot of feminists. Even when I mention what happened, the ideas themselves are generally defended.
Q Grrl writes: What does your experience as a male assault survivor have to do with systematic assaults on women’s veracity and personal experiences?
I offered it only as a counter point to Broce’s comment. I am fully aware that my experience is considered irrelevant, fully-deserved, laughable and negligible here. As this is a feminist blog, I know better than to come here assuming I would get any sympathy.
BTW, I was not aware that state and federal tax dollars were “your” money. I think my foster parents “stole” a great deal of it.
Jaketk, I’m very sorry you were abused. It’s horrible what happened to you; no one should be treated like that, ever.
At the same time, please don’t accuse other posters here of saying that your abuse was fully-deserved, unless you can back it up with an in-context quote of someone here explicitly saying that your abuse was fully-deserved.
I myself have been a victim of a woman’s frivolous and malicious abuse of the law
So you had a bad legal experience involving a woman, and that convinced you that women are disproportionally hysterical and crazy? Do you think women have cornered the market on being frivilous and malicious, and misusing the law? Do you think rape is the only crime that’s subject to false accusations? If you honestly would rather be raped than be falsely accused of rape, then you are, to put in kindly, insane. It’s hard enough to get a rape convinction when there’s physical evidence, due to the “rape doesn’t exist and anyway, she asked for it” mentality of our society. Just ask those guys who sold the tape of themselves burning their unconcious victim’s vagina and sodolizing her with the pool cue; they were acquitted, she was “playing possum.” The chances of a false rape claim actually being prosecuted and leading to a conviction are very small. Yes, there have been some high profile cases of accidental misidentification, where either the victim wrongly identified her attacker or the police arrested the wrong suspect, such as the Central Park jogger case. However, is it really the victim’s fault that the police too often rely on unreliable investigative techniques? Should the onus be on the victim to track down, apprehend, and prosecute her attacker, or just to somehow verify that the police know what they’re doing when it’s outside her area of expertise?
jaketk, your aunt is obviously mentally ill. There is no subset of feminism that I’m aware of that justifies child abuse of boys in the name of scoring one against the patriarchy. I’m sorry for what happened to you, but to try and claim that anyone outside of a mental hospital would consider your abuse deserved is unsupportable. Feminism does not “allow” for the extremism of mentally ill child abusers, and nor does believing that patriarchy is oppressive make someone an evil lunatic who’s getting ready to abuse a boy. Mentally ill people tend to pervert all kinds of ideologies to justify their behavior. If a child has been abused by a Christian who claims that he’s scourging the child of sin to please God, does that mean Christianity gave the child abuser the license and ammunition to abuse? Because if Christianity didn’t exist, this person would have lived a happy, stable, normal life and not abused any children?
Ampersand writes:
My apologies, but I do honestly believe several posters here hold that sort of “you had it coming”, “oh, boo-hoo” view of male abuse.
Jaketk, I am genuinely sorry for what happened to you, and I can’t fathom what must have been going on in your aunt’s mind to believe that abusing you was justified because you were male; to treat any child that way is evil, as far as I’m concerned, and I personally, as a feminist raised by feminists, cannot imagine following the train of “logic” your aunt apparently used to arrive at the conclusion that it’s okay to hurt anyone.
But is it fair to say that feminism “caused” your aunt’s evil? She may have used arguments with a feminist overlay to justify her actions, but is that any different from male rapists who argue that their violence against women is justified because they were provoked to it? People who commit that sort of violence will do it, and they’ll justify it to themselves with whatever excuse they can think of.
I’m not sure whether you are actually saying this, but it sounds like you’re arguing that because of what your aunt did to you, the whole of feminism is implicated, including the movements that got women the right to vote, the movements that are still trying to ensure fairness in the workplace, the movement that is still trying to ensure fairness at home? And do you have any evidence that there are other feminists abusing male children – or anyone else – because of the “ammunition” provided by feminism? Did rapes and sexual abuse in general not occur before the feminist movement?
Feminism may have allowed one person to justify her own evil to herself and to you, and you have a right to your own reactions to this – but I think that to stereotype the entire movement because of it isn’t likely to be a helpful reaction, any more than it’s healthy to believe that because some men rape, all men will.
MSN writes:
No, not really. She has no kids, no history of abuse, and has often joked about it, with less detail, with her friends.
Feminism does allow for extremism (that is, extreme points of view), so it is only logical that some people are going to take it more seriously than others. Writing them off as mentally ill denies that many people do things once part of a group or ideology that they would otherwise not do. This happens a lot with religious and political ideologies, and was quite frequent this past century. Many ideologies give people the springboard they need. Part of it is on them, but part of it comes from the ideology that reinforces those beliefs.
If the ideas behind a person’s acts are that you should punish your child, then technically Christianity has given the person license to punish their child however they see fit. More so, if those ideas are defended, then it is not the act of punishing the child that is wrong, just how far it was taken.
Bullshit.
Nobody has told you any such thing. We have told you that your abuse should not be a silencing tool to be used when women talk about a rape culture which has women as its primary– if not sole– subbordinate class. Using it as such is dirty pool. You accomplish nothing. You create no rapport between yourself and women who have been abused. You use it as a distancing tool and a means of guilt-tripping. You use it to draw attention to yourself as being somehow more special and more in need of nuturing than the women who are the primary focus of threads like this one. Small wonder that every feminist you run across isn’t weeping and tearing out her hair in a spasm of online “mea culpa.”
Nobody has said “boo-hoo” about your abuse. Several of us have said that your expectation of special deference from feminist women is crap, and a typical immobilizing tactic used by your fellow MRA’s.
And incidentally, jaketik, since you believe your abuser’s feminist beliefs have been so destructive to you, why –again– are you among feminists ? Surely all those righteous MRA practitioners could provide some newer, better model of saving abused men and boys ? Why don’t you ask them why they spend so much time harassing women’s shelters instead of spending their time and resources to help you on some alternate model that would be more to your liking ?
Oh, and there’s a definition for a person who strides into a space knowing full well that what they have to say will meet with mass dislike, and who makes a point of repeating those deliberately alienating words ad nauseum at every opportunity. I’ll give you a hint: It rhymes with “roll.”
Ampersand:
I find it ironic that you quote “fully-deserved” without any context. In fact his words were
“I am fully aware that my experience is considered irrelevant, fully-deserved, laughable and negligible here.”
The context of course was that he was replying to Qgirl (Post 41 in this thread in which she accused him of “us[ing his abuse] as yet another bludgeoning tool to doubt what women have to say”, of considering that “Women are liars, right?”, that his “assualt seems to give [him] unlimited rights to attack women”, of “be[ing] such a sexist prick as to use [his] rape to beat women down further.”
And all without an in-context quote of him or a word of protest from other posters here or of rebuke from you. (Yes, I realise that you can’t read or respond to every post)
“Fully-deserved” is not justified by anything that I’ve seen written here, but I understand why he feels that way.
You forgot to add that Q-grrl mentioned that it was horrid and her advice was to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Guess that didn’t fit in with your sanctimony though.
Anyways, I call bullshit as well, Alsis. There is nothing in this persons posting that gives any inkling of trying to be part of a group-think that collectively shames and abhors abuse, but instead wants to point the finger of blame on feminists because of a lunatic aunt who claimed to be a feminist (umm bullshit), and an abusive father.
My response in the first paragraph was to Daran, Bean jumped in between the posts, so I wanted to clarify that.
“Feminism does allow for extremism (that is, extreme points of view), so it is only logical that some people are going to take it more seriously than others. Writing them off as mentally ill denies that many people do things once part of a group or ideology that they would otherwise not do. This happens a lot with religious and political ideologies, and was quite frequent this past century. Many ideologies give people the springboard they need. Part of it is on them, but part of it comes from the ideology that reinforces those beliefs”
With all due respect, bullshit. How does feminism “allow for extremism”? What the hell does that even mean? I’m sorry, but that makes no sense. You need to define your terms. Yes, people do things as part of a group or ideology that they would otherwise not do, sure. Once your aunt was indoctrinated into the cult of feminism and saw everybody else sexually assaulting male children, she had no choice but to do it too, or be written out of the in group. If only your aunt had never heard the word “patriarchy,” nothing bad would have happened to you.
Sorry to disappoint you, but an “extremist ideology” that lets us know things like rape is bad and equal pay is good isn’t the same thing as a mind control cult. Sorry to disappoint you again, but even before scary feminism came to change us all from nice, normal, well adjusted citizens to “doing things we wouldn’t already do,” like child abuse, we already knew that rape and unequal pay were bad! Feminism didn’t make us angry or help us figure out what our problems were, we knew them already. All it did wqas help us to figure out that there might be some solutions (child abuse not among them).
“If the ideas behind a person’s acts are that you should punish your child, then technically Christianity has given the person license to punish their child however they see fit. More so, if those ideas are defended, then it is not the act of punishing the child that is wrong, just how far it was taken.”
Yeah, that’s the point. Nobody says that the idea behind Christianity is that you should punish your child. Well, okay, a few small sects of child abusing lunatics do, but that invalidates your “point,” because there are no sects of feminists who think child abuse is okay. It’s crazy to say that Christianity is to blame for child abuse, because 99% of Christians do not use Christianity to defend child abuse, just like no feminists use feminism to condone child abuse. But according to you, if you defend the “ideas” of feminism, like “rape is bad” then you are somehow defending child abuse. This makes no logical sense, and it’s thuggish, as when you told someone that because she made a point about feminism that has nothing to do with child abuse, she’s basically a victimizer, because your aunt, who abused children, said something similar. By the same token, my neighbor was assaulted by someone who told her “Jesus Christ wants you to be a good girl.” So by your definition any parent who has ever uttered that phrase to their children is an abuser. Also by your definition, when you say that we’re condoning child abuse, I could say that you’re inciting rapists and abusers to attack us, because people who condone child abuse are bad people and deserve to be punished, thus you wouldn’t care if we got attacked, therefore you’re condoing rape. That would make no sense, but neither does anything else you’ve said here.
Sorry to post twice, but a better analogy would be that by your logic, or Jerry Falwell’s, ie, Feminism is a scary dangerous extreme ideology that causes women to leave their husbands, kill their children, become lesbians, and destroy capitalism, well gosh, wouldn’t it be a good idea to kill feminists? After all, it would be self defense. This evil corrupted creed turns them into killers and abusers, so we just have to kill them before they kill us! Now, I have to (hopefully) assume you wouldn’t actually defend anyone who killed a woman and tried to weasel out of it by using this excuse, I was driven to kill by sheer fear and hatred of matriarchy, I had to defend myself, like you say, my actions were merely preemptive. Because people have free will, and that’s just nuts, it makes no sense.
I’m sorry if I sound sanctimonious. I don’t think I am being sanctimonious, but I expect that anything I say is going to sound that way to you, and I’m not sure there’s anything I can do about that.
With respect, I have not forgotten to mention anything. Q-grrl does not appear to have said anything about it being horrid in this thread. (If I’m mistaken about that, can you quote please, but I’ve read through her single post several times, and I’m not seeing it) If she’s said this in some other thread, then I’m not aware of it.
But let’s take it as read that the did say that, meant it sincerely, and that he read it. Has it ever occured to anyone that it might sound sanctimonious to him?
However, this is a side issue to the point I was making. Ampersand did not take jaketk to task for failing to say that someone’s abuse was horrid. Ampersand said that jaketk said that … (to however many levels of “said that” indirection we need) jaketk’s abuse was “fully-deserved”.
And I agree, that nobody has said or implied this in any way in this thread. I did not say that Q-grrl said that his abuse was deserved. I said that Q-grrl said several other things that, to my mind, are every bit as offensive as “fully-deserved”, and did so, without any quote or justification that I can see.
Since Q-grrl made her post, a couple of other people have taken up the “you’re bludgening women” call. (Posts 45,60, and 62 Do you need me to quote them?) And I still don’t see a quote or a justification for it.
I don’t accept the premiss that your groupthink does this. And I’m asking you as politely as I can to take your own advice in the “how not to be insane” post, and think, seriously about what I’m saying. In particular, when you read those comments between 6 and 40 by jaketk and in reply to him, what do you see? And when you read the posts from 41 onward, what do you see? Because what I see is a polite conversation – with disagreement and emotion on both sides – that fell apart from 41 onward.
That wasn’t actually my advice, Daran, and as good of a friend as Amp is, I don’t particularly agree with it on all levels, anyways…
The group-think I refer to is the collective ideology that rape is wrong every-which-way you look at it, and attempting to victim blame, or create scenarios in which women collectively are somehow just as responsible for rape (they simply aren’t, no matter how much people want to assert it) is not acceptible. Instead we have people like Jaketk coming in with really offensive finger-pointing, and feminist blaming, and you coming in with the resounding ‘oh look, aren’t I ever so reasonable as I point out just how irrational and mean these feminists are’, all the while exhonerating yourself from any underhanded argumentative tactics (*read: I expect anything I say is going to sound that way to you). You’re seeming to expect folks to go easy on people who are using some rather nasty silencing tactics to undermine a very serious issue. I don’t respect that, nor will I shy away from a vile argument that’s been prettied up to try to sound reasonable.
To me, I’ll take a strident and forward Q-grrl any day over people who attempt to cushion or obfuscate less than generous observations in mealy-mouthed small talk or academic snobbery. It might not be pretty, but it’s salient and true, and it doesn’t allow for the sorts of discussion hijacking that seems to be so commonplace with the topic of rape.
Anyways, back to the subject of the judge and young woman. That’s what really counts here, and it deserves our focus and serious attention.
Daran wrote:
For the record, I quoted without context is because my response to Jaketk appeared about an inch below the bit I was responding to, and therefore anyone reading my post would have read the original context about a second beforehand.
Basement Kim wrote:
Yeah. :o Sorry.
Anyways, back to the subject of the judge and young woman. That’s what really counts here, and it deserves our focus and serious attention.
Yep. It strikes me how often these threads that focus on WOMEN and the violence we have to deal with get derailed. Seriously–I have yet to see a thread where some guy didn’t turn it into a thread about him, or do something to derail it. Anything is preferable to talking about violence, and how it affects WOMEN, and how it is that WOMEN are the main targets of DV and rape. Better to silence and shame us beatches, many of whom have dealt with this.
Sheesh.
Anonymous–did I mention you? No, I didn’t. I was talking about the fact that every time we talk about rape (and I’ve been posting here, blogging, and posting on the net in general for years), we get people accusing us of being against the presumption of innocence. Even though we aren’t.
Does anyone know of any further reaction in Oregon to this ruling? Is this judge subject to re-election? (Some are, some aren’t.) This man does not belong on the bench, in my opinion, unless there are a lot of facts I don’t know. At least there is room for seriously questioning his judgment.
Someone in the local area – we in California can’t help you out much – needs to mount a local campaign to have this creep recalled. That’s going to be much more effective than any amount of outrage.
Ah, my apologies, then. Since Susan and I have, within the last week, been part of a large and ongoing conversation here that dealt primarily with the presumption of innocence, specifically in a context in which the presumption of innocence and the ‘reasonable doubt’ standard lead to an outcome that most people here (myself included) found less than optimal, I figured your comment was a swipe at that conversation, and at me and her. I’m still not sure who else, specifically, the ‘presumption of innocence’ crowd you were referring to was supposed to be, but I’m willing to accept that it was a general statement, and not intended as a personal attack.
And yes, I understand your frustration. Every time I talk about the presumption of innocence and the standard of reasonable doubt, I get people accusing me of being pro-rape, anti-woman, and “presuming that all women consent to sex with any man any time.” Even though I’m not.
In reference to how jaketk uses his narrative regarding his abuse, he *indeed* does use it in this space to demonize feminists and women. He blatently refuses to call his aunt mentally ill. Why? Because in some part of his mind, it is easier to hold onto the world-view/personal view that his experience of abuse means that all feminists are out to hurt all men. This is highly problematic. In many ways. One, it stifles important discourse here (which is, on average, what happens when men refuse to talk about women who have been raped by men and want to focus on men who have been raped, even if that isn’t the topic). This happens almost every time — yet strangely these same men don’t openly discuss male on male rape or the rape of men by women. They piggyback their stories onto women’s, not in an act of solidarity (strangely enough), but in an attempt to discredit women’s claims about how rape and rape culture shape their lives. The second way that this is problematic is that it mirrors, but does not accurately reflect, feminist class based analysis of men’s social roles in a patriarchal society. Men’s Rights folks think that what feminists are doing is the same as them: throwinig personal anecdotal evidence into the mix to shore up weak opinions/politics. This thinking serves to blinker these men against the decades (and centuries) of solid feminist theory and politics. It reduces feminism down to the rants of an insane female relative who abuses male children.
If all that feminists wanted was a feel-good pat on their individual backs, well then the MRA’s view of the world would make a lot of sense. We could then sit back in a miasma of PC guilt and let yet another man put us in our place with his personal trauma. We could deny the reality, yet again, of our own rape stories and rape experiences because of course men get raped too! We could even more importantly TOTALLY IGNORE THE MEN WHO ARE RAPING WOMEN and create a false playing field or status quo in which rape has equal social significance for men and women.
And then guys wonder why I say that all men benefit from rape. You know who benefits from jaketk’s rape? Not his aunt, although she did in her own sick way. Men benefit from jaketk’s rape. Especially male rapists, but more close to home are those good guys that can use his rape as a spring board to escape their own bad socialization.
Yet because jaketk can’t wrap his head around this, he gets used. Time after time. And always will. His is the rape that endlessly evolves — and which he uses against women’s narratives when they are trying to dissect the very rape culture that grows stronger out of his violation.
Am I sorry he was raped? Hell yeah. Am I doubly sickened that it was a woman and his aunt? Strangely yes. I don’t get it. I don’t get the desire to overpower and harm in that manner.
But I refuse to let him use it in a destructive manner against women.
bean writes: But to blame all feminists for the abuse your aunt put you through is doing exactly what you claim women (particularly feminists) do to men.
I do not blame all feminists for anything. This is like saying because you think there are elements within Islam that allow for violence against women you think all Muslams are rapists. I have not personally encountered any religions or faiths that condone violence against women, yet I do not assume that none exist.
I do not hate feminists, so your point is moot. My logic is that if the black community allowed for the rape of women, we should probably question that. Ironically, this is the feminist position. I think it is appropriate to question certain feminist attitudes as well.
I do not think all feminists are abusers, so again, I fail to see your point.
Kim (basement variety) writes:
To me, I’ll take a strident and forward Q-grrl any day over people who attempt to cushion or obfuscate less than generous observations in mealy-mouthed small talk or academic snobbery.
I am continually astounded by how little I disagree with Qgrrl in many areas. The fact that some men are abused or have been raped is a problem that needs a solution. However, finding a solution for that should not be a zero-sum game with finding a solution for women being raped.
In fact, the two should feed off of each other, showing that rape is mostly about power, not sex. It demonstrates to me that the focus should be on people abusing power.
One of the things that I think turns off some people from feminism is a perception that some feminists think that men are specifically and uniquely deficient, and that women are not. To my mind, it’s more simply about power.
People who have power tend to abuse it; power in the world for most of it’s existence has hinged on the ability to exercise physical dominance; men, therefore, have had power more than women. In a post-industrial age, the power relationship is less dependent on physical strength. This means that women are more able to oppose abuse, helping to fuel the rise of feminism. It also means that the incidence of abuse by women is likely to increase. The latter doesn’t cancel the fact that there’s abuse by men and that it needs to be solved. It simply means that there’s an increase in a problem that hasn’t happened as much before in history (abuse by women), and that it needs to be solved as well; that abuse, while often expressed differently by the two sexes, occurs; and that we are more likely to solve both problems if we focus on the true cause, instead of setting one against the other.
i have an idea, i’ve been thinking about it since i read about this case – are there any rape emergency rooms in any states/counties/whatever? and if not, don’t we think we need them? i mean like a rape clinic…where they only treat victims of sexual assault/abuse… isn’t it obvious that rape victims are treated badly when they go to the emergency room, often are not given the info they need (plan B)…wouldn’t it make since for women to start demanding emergency rooms dedicated to sexual assault? maybe an offshoot of planned parenthood or an office that would be open 24/7…they would be far more sensitive to the victims, might be able to get more detials on the crime, women might feel safer reporting a rape if they knew they would be treated with kindness and compassion by their investigators and nurses/physicians. idk, i was raped a long time ago..some things you just never get over all the way – i still prefer female docs to men…i just wonder how many females would report the rape, get checked out – better evidence collecting by specialists (higher conviction rates) if they knew the docs would be females…idk..i think we need to do this…it could be a rape specialist(s), men who have been raped could come in and be treated, maybe seperate doors for each side…idk…we need to make it easier for women to seek help in a safe and secure area with concern and compassion, especially while feeling violated and vulnerable. any ideas? i have heard too many horror stories of rape victims being treated like crap by the hospitals, sanctimonious nurses, an uneducated legal system and an under trained police force. i think this would be a solution…if every major city in every major state had this set up…some might have to drive to get there, but wouldn’t it feel good to go somewhere where you felt safe, cared for and like someone was fighting for your rights, especially after such a violation…i mean with the amount of women who are raped each year, shit…each day…it could treat and educate…it isn’t like there wouldn’t be a demand…started by women, run by women, male specialists for men/boys who have been raped…
one addition, the rape clinic should have enough rooms so that if a victim is afraid to return to their home or apt, they would have a safe place to stay, at least for 24-48 hours…
You mean like these?
Emergency accommodation is also available if the victim fears returning to her own home.
Q Grrl writes:
No… I do not believe she is mentally ill because it is a common excuse for abuse. I know it is easier to accept that women only abuse if they are mentally ill, but many people who are abusive do so just because they can, with no mental illness or drugs. You do not assume every rapist is mentally ill, but if I do not think my aunt is mentally ill, I hate women and feminists? Besides, it is not as if I blamed her for anything. I merely stated what happened and why she did it. I accept full responsibility, so there is no point is claiming I blame feminists for anything.
Wrong again. One, I would never mention my abuse for any sense of solidarity on a feminist site. That is expressly the reason I have never gone into detail. It would be the equivalent of posting about a hang nail on a thread about murder. Two, my experience discredits nothing other than the myth that women cannot abuse. Outside of that, stating that I reacted by shutting down and pushing people away, not by sobbing uncontrollably, demonstrates that there is a difference in the way people can respond to assault. Nothing more, nothing less. It was a non-issue until you decided to attack me for “beating down women.”
I am already aware that mentioning my experience promotes and facilitates female rape. But for the sake of argument, yes I realize that my experience promotes the “rape culture.” I would remove myself from the equation if I could, but I possess too much cowardice to do so, and my friends and siblings would be hurt if I did. I have no desire to hurt anyone, so until I can distance myself from them further, or someone else does it for me ( I would not stop them), I unfortunately have no choice but to remain. My apologies.
That is kind of you to say, but you will understand if I doubt your sincerity after the last page and a half. It is fine if you do not honestly believe those things. As I said, I offered it as a counter point, not as an attempt to steal sympathy away from real victims.
yes, do we have this in the US? i have heard of aftercare shelters, but none that actually do the rape exam and fill out paperwork…i think in the US, you go to ao hospital first, and then they refer you to a rape group. i want something that would actually do the exam, gather evidence, perhaps have laisons with the police department…idk, there is too much lacking, we need to identify the gaps, from education to treatment and come up with some solutions, if women are the primary targets, WE need to come up with solutions. it is shocking to me to read about some of the men on the juries and the judges themselves who see a women semi concious and find her a willing partner…horrible…i think unless you have been raped, you really can never understnad what it does on a physical, mental and emotional level. you just can’t. i will never understand when someone says it was *just* rape – rape can take years to work through, and even then, the lingtering fear, the remembrance that any one stronger than you can, well, basically do anything they want to you, that never goes away. ever. the remembrance that your spirit is the only thing you really have as a woman, that your body can be, in essence, taken from you. idk. i have always said: RAPE – ripping away part of my essence/existence…idk..solutions, solutions. i wish we would have a damn war on violence instead of a war on drugs, at least that way violent offenders might have to serve their full sentences.
there may be a couple. i think los angeles has something similar to this where a different group of people handle the victim than the regular staff. i think part of the reason it has not been done that often in the states is because of concerns about the method of the exams, gathering of information, and perhaps what would be sent to the police. the hospitals are responsible if the victim leaves, or if evidence is lost or tainted. i am not sure if the same legal standards would apply your suggestion, though it would be wise for hospitals to have staff trained to deal with such situations.
>> Two, my experience discredits nothing other than the myth that women cannot abuse.
Funny, Jaketk, you are the *only* one talking about that. I’ve not seen a single poster here *ever*, not just in this thread, make the claim that women cannot abuse. I see you saying feminists think this, but I’ve never seen a single feminist make that statement.
In other words, this one’s all in *your* head.
jaketk writes: “Two, my experience discredits nothing other than the myth that women cannot abuse.”
Except that no one here is promulgating that myth. No one here supports that. So, when you inject our experience vis-a-vis discursive tactics in threads that have nothing to do with whether or not women can abuse, you *do* discredit what women are saying about the rape they experience at the hands of men. You bring up a rhetorical red herring each time — not because its true that women abuse/rape, but because it has no relevance, in the context in which it is presented, other than to disrupt the discussion of the rape of women perpetrated by males.
Susan;
Amp wrote an email to the judge yesterday to get a copy of his statement. All this is going down in Beaverton, but I know (at least in our house) we are all pretty well disgusted with what we know of the case, and hopefully will get more information soon.
Jake;
The problem as I see it is that you’re trying to pull in the aspect of feminism as part of the abuse, as if it’s something that anyone other than your abusive and to my way of thinking mentally ill aunt rationalizes her poor behavior. It’s insulting to feminists to drop her on our laps as if she’s a monster we somehow created. As for the question of her sanity – I think abusers aren’t firing on all cylinders, be they man or woman. I expect it’s not considered ‘mental illness’ universally or even generally, but to me, it’s mental and it’s ill. It’s not HEALTHY, RATIONAL or RESPECTFUL decision making. And pretty much I’d say to any abuser out there that lurks, ‘you’re crazy in the head brutha/sistah’.
Funny, Jaketk, you are the *only* one talking about that. I’ve not seen a single poster here *ever*, not just in this thread, make the claim that women cannot abuse.
And I did not make the comment suggesting that anyone did. Q Grrl stated that I only mentioned it to prove women don’t get abused. But my experience proves nothing outside of that it can happen. That is all it demonstrates.
I know you feel attacked for me stating that, but it is all in your head.
bean, resentment takes effort i would rather not spend. it also would mean that i hold her responsible for what happened, which i do not. there is little sense in blaming a person when it was my actions that caused it to occur in the first place. still, even with acceptance of responsibility for what happened, i am not going to pretend it did not happen because it makes you uncomfortable. while it is easier for you to believe no feminist would ever do such a thing, that does not change that it occured. so i am sorry, but that is not something i am going to do.
interestingly enough, i never said feminism caused my aunt to do anything. i said she used it as justification, that it (i believe) acted as a catalyst for and contributed to her behavior, and that her views are consistent with most feminist views. your issue is not her views. those you actually agree with it. it is merely that i take issue with them. while i doubt she would visit a site like this, i do know you would never realize how seriously she takes the issue of women’s safety or male violence if she were to. again, those are views you agree with. you agree that something should be done about them, even if it requires forcing people to change their views about women. you would do so with words, and sometimes by berating those who disagree. she would do so by enacting the violence on them. same views, different method. again, if this makes you uncomfortable, i am sorry, but i am not going to pretend that every other ideology in the world has people to who go too far except feminism.
Go for it, folks. We need to act, not just talk, if we can. We need to do what we can to get this creepo off the bench. God alone knows what he’ll do next time.
Hey, maybe a letter even from a Californian will help. What harm can it do? Keep me posted.
First of all, jaketik, you greatly misunderstand what the feminists here have written about rape culture if you seriously believe that understanding how it works makes any feminist “comfortable.” It takes quite a lot of arrogance on your part to crow that we all just float along in little bubbles of comfort, and that we desperately need someone like you to run in and puncture said bubbles for us.
Second of all, I doubt you are sorry one bit, or you wouldn’t be carrying on as just one more “Women-do-it, too,” version of the Energizer Bunny. You didn’t want to be abused, and your aunt abused you anyway. You know that the women here don’t like your diversions and your false acusations , and yet you persist in them anyway. In fact, it seems to me that far more feminists on this blog have told you that they believe your personal abuse stories and are sorry for your experience than vice versa. That is, I have seen countless threads about rape and abuse perpetrated by men against women that were deluged with men whose first priority was exonerating themselves from any acusations of rape and abuse. Saying kind things to the women who were trying to tell their stories and learn from them was decidedly on the back burner for those men, if it was there at all.
Maybe you should sit back and think about that for a spell.
>>I know you feel attacked for me stating that, but it is all in your head.
Wow. That’s a leap. No, I don’t feel attacked. I feel a tad astounded that you made the comment in the first place. There *is* no myth that a woman cannot abuse, except in your mind.
Please provide a citation from a reputable feminist source, or heck, any reputable source, claiming that women cannot be abusers.
>>And, again, other than your aunt, show me any feminist theory that says abuse is okay, against anyone. Again, your aunt was an abuser
What’s interesting to me is that Jaketk claims on the one had that his aunt (who I assume is a feminist) used feminism as justification for abuse, and on the other, that feminists think women cannot abuse.
If feminism supports abuse by women, how can it at the same time hold the view that women cannot abuse? There is a problem of logic here.
I don’t think the judge will have made a media statement as such. He will have handed down a judgement, which is maybe what you meant. That judgement will be part of the court record for the case, and by default, open to public inspection, but it not something that the court would disseminate.
But is it really wise to dig this stuff up? Are we really doing any favours to the individuals in this case – both the woman and the men – to expose every last detail of this sad affair to the blog and media circus? I mean, look at what happened in the Bryant case.
It will probably happen anyway. I expect we’ll soon know her name, home address, mobile telephone number, bra size, and just how many different men’s sperm were found on the swab. But do we really want to be a part of that process? I know I don’t.
You’re right Daran, judgement is exactly what I meant to say, but the proper word eluded me when I initially wrote the post you quoted from. Suffice it to say that as I gathered my toddler and newborn up to go grocery shopping, I somehow faltered in my academic vocabulary prowess. Thank goodness you caught that, else I think nobody would have understood what I meant! *gathers her tongue from her cheek before moving onwards*
Anyways, being that myself (as well as Amp, Bean and Alsis) all live in Portland, right near where the judgement took place and the judge resides, I’d say it’s in our best interests to know, yes. I can’t see the logic or rationale behind accepting what seems like and very well could be a judgement that was based soley on how victimized a woman acts after being victimized as not only a measure for the guilt of the accused, but also as a measure for the veracity of her accusation.
Jaketk:
You say you did something you take full responsibility for. And that you don’t blame your abuser. But that your abuser used feminism to justify the abuse. And that feminism didn’t cause her abuse, but was the catalyst for and contributed to her actions (a contradiction in that alone). And that her views are consustent with the views of most feminists. And “i am not going to pretend that every other ideology in the world has people to who go too far except feminism.
Wow, dude. I don’t mean to berate you at all by saying this, but that’s a mass of contradictions, and claims with no supporting evidence beyond your own opinion. As well, to say you won’t “pretend that every other ideology in the world” has extremists, but feminism does seems consistent with a lack of information about human behavior.
Just so you know, EVERY ideology has some fanatical adherents, including feminism amd liberalism. There’s no pretense in being aware of that.
But sympathy not being your motive, you are clearly trying to make your points accepted. And they seem so unclear, contradictory and unfocused that it’s nearly impossible to get what your point is. If you aren’t blaming feminism as the cause of your woes, you are clearly charging feminists with shared view that men should be abused for being men.
Others, especially Bean, have addressed things you’ve said quite well. But unless you know all feminists or post links to some research supporting that statement, you should note that numerous feminists on this blog dispute that contention. Out of dozens of (active and passive) feminists I’ve known, I can count the male bashers and extremists among them as less than a dozen.
Your abuser may be ill or mean or spiteful, but her views are not mainstream in any ideology I’m familiar with. I think the contradictions suggest you could benefit sorting this stuff out with a counselor.
You’ll not likely find any satisfactory answers to the pain you endured or the pain she inflicted here. I think it’s important that you get it sorted out and in a better forum for addressing it, which a good counselor can provide.
Thankyou so much for your post Shiloh. It was both apposite and enlightening.
Jaketk , who are these “real victims” you keep talking about? And what do you mean that you take responsibility for what happened to you? I’m trying not to get pulled into this argument, which seems to be going nowhere, but my background is in psychology, and many of the things that you are saying raise huge red flags. As bean said, there are no actions that a child can take that would in any way justify their being abused, or “cause” the abuse to occur. I cannot recommend strongly enough that you get some therapy. You are in no way responsible for anything that happened to you as a child. The abuser is the one who is responsible, and if there really is a Hell I’m sure that they have a special circle reserved for those who harm children.
Also, I know this is obvious to everyone else here, but…there is no branch of feminism which believes that child abuse is hunky-dory, or an appropriate response to the problem of patriarchy. Your attempt to generalise from your own experience with one clearly disturbed and evil relative to some idea that feminism promotes child abuse makes no sense.
Think of it this way. My mother was sexually abused by her father. He was a soldier in the British Army, and very proud of his involvement in WW2. He certainly felt that he was owed gratitude and deference as a war veteran, and was not shy about letting people know that he felt that way. Should I assume from this personal experience that all WW2 veterans are abusers, or that the British Army is encouraging or enabling child abuse, or providing the justification for it? That would be ridiculous. My grandfather was a horrible man who used whatever excuses he could come up with to try to justify his crappy behaviour. Your aunt sounds very much the same. Your implication that feminism is somehow responsible for her behaviour makes no more sense than my hypothetical about the Army. Bad people will attempt to justify their behaviour by any means necessary. If we allow them to do so we are letting them off the hook and not forcing them to shoulder the blame for their own actions, which is in fact where the blame really belongs.
Back to the actual subject of this thread…this judge should be disbarred. Since when are judges or police officers considered competent to assess what the “proper” response to trauma is? Have they had any specialised training in psychology? No? Then they are not in a position to be making this kind of call. And the fact that one of the reasons the cop gave for feeling that the victim was not credible was that she didn’t return his phone calls quickly enough? Give me a break. Having someone not answer your calls is annoying, but it’s not grounds for charging her with a crime. What an asshole.
I agree we shouldn’t be coming to any conclusions based solely on what a newspaper article says, especially when there’s nothing in that article to suggest that the judgement was based solely on anything. The wording was “relied on the testimony”, which doesn’t imply that other testimony wasn’t considered or even also relied on. I’ve read a few legal judgements in my time, and they invariably go into every single factual and legal point in excruciating detail.
I take your point about having a legitimate personal interest, given that it’s your local police and courts. I considered trying to find the records myself using PACER, but decided against it, for the reasons I gave in my earlier post. (I’ve only used PACER for Federal court judgements and don’t know if it even covers the State courts.)
By the way, I came across this comment
Napoli is filing an appeal in the next few days. Due to the arcane system in the City of Beaverton, there is no court transcript or audio recording of the court proceedings. Beaverton is not a “court of record”. Therefore the girl is entitled to an appeal and the case will be tried over again from square one, in Washington County court.
If that’s true, what was the point of the Beaverton trial in the first place?
To others:
Was the ‘then-girl-now-woman’ troubled prior to the rape? That depends on the definitions you use. I could relate various life incidents which some would say “possible sign of trouble” and others would say “pretty normal stuff that occurs in the confusing time of adolescence when you’re ready or wanting to be an adult”. There’s been no clear red flags that are definitive of the former concern.
More aberrant behaviors were observable post-event along with more emotional distress. For her privacy concerns, I won’t be relating many specifics. Anyone wishing to sort out her emotional distress and their foundations should submit their psychiatric credentials to support their theories, instead of their own biases built upon their own experience.
I never expected it’d be easy to get a conviction against the men simply because in a three-words-against-one situation and lacking signs of the more brutal rapes that people want to see to be convinced.
But, in choosing to prosecute the young woman, one would assume she was aggressively pursuing their prosecution. In fact, the complaint of the lead detective was just the opposite: she wasn’t in touch with him enough, and that caused him to project that she wasn’t acting like typical victims.
Other than the first month or two after the rape, she was not pursuing counselling. What she pursued was employment, socializing with friends, and a love relationship she could depend on, all fairly normal pursuits in anyone’s quest for survival. Was she a druggie? No. An alkie? No. Criminal record? None.
A very smart student, her physical health woes caused absences that caused her to fall behind in school. Post-rape, she dropped out, but planned to return, catch up and graduate with her class.
She just wanted the whole thing to go away, to be over forever. After they charged her, when a family member took her to the Sexual Assault Resource Clinic, she was angry immediately afterward just because telling them made her re-live it. She came to appreciate their support of her afterward, which mainly consisted of them accompanying her to each court appearance.
Now consider, these are people used to working closely in alliance with the police. Her attorney, a former prosecutor, has knowledge of what kind of prosecutions are the norm. Both were shocked by the prosecution, and surprised by the outcome. That alone should be indicative that something was different about this case.
Unfortunately, I didn’t see that difference presented in evidence. The lead detective was received as the most credible witness, though the evidence was all circumstantial (except the words he recorded of others, which is recorded hearsay) and open to interpretation.
So the bottom line is that it appeared the judge merely made his best guess. The standard of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ hardly seems to have held sway.
The witnesses against her: two detectives, the three men who raped her, the girlfriend and girlfriend’s mother that she was living with at the time of the assault, and another former acquaintance who offerred opinions from a remote perspective.
Two of those people were the very people who convinced her to report it! By the time they were interviewed by the detective, the girlfriend was saying it ‘didn’t seem like a real rape to her’, because the girl wasn’t acting how she thought a rape victim would act. I’m sure there are plenty of 17 year old experts qualified to pass such judgment. Uh-huh.
The girlfriend’s mother was a piece of work. She provided the alcohol the victim had that night, which she stole at the grocery store she worked for, and other adults who’d visited the victim there noted the mother always was mildly inebriated. About a month after the rape, the victim was supposed to move out to make room for the return of the mother’s boyfriend. He was getting out of prison after being convicted of molesting his own daughter.
How much credibility should she be granted regarding another sexual assault victim? The judge cited her and her daughter, and the detective, as the ones delivering his justification to convict.
Setting aside the question of whether the guys were guilty – as they weren’t going to be prosecuted and that was a given many months before this trial – the word of those people she spent two months living with was granted too much credibility in my opinion. Which basically left the detective, who pointed out minor discrepancies, advanced theories of what motivated her, and ultimately prevailed in convincing the judge that his own judgment was sound.
As a result, unless she wins on appeal, she won’t be eligible for any victim’s assistance – be it counselling for rape or emotional woes. The men, even if falsely accused, were free from prosecution well in advance of that trial. They gained nothing from it beyond the opportunity to file for civil damages against her future wages when she’s employed again. Were she truly guilty, without counselling, with exposure to jail inmates and a fresh debt burden against her, what incentive or disincentive then exists to repeat the crime at some future date?
Well, I’d guess, if she doesn’t pick up new antisocial skills from her cellmates, I’d guess she’d not report any real or imagined rape, or if she did, she’d leave out any details that show herself in any unfavorable light. More likely, though, she becomes a permanent target of rapists because this one conviction will forever invalidate her word.
And what if – as I believe – she’s innocent? Then someone will have a big chip on their shoulder and will counsel other victims to avoid the justice system. And cutoff from that system, what options will be left to her should she be a victim of any future assault? Other than escape, her only remaining option would be to kill her attacker(s).
Thus, either way, I don’t see what society gained, the men gained, or she’s gained. I see great potential for worse difficulties for her and for society down the road.
But I didn’t raise the issue to argue all the possibilities. I argue from an unshakeable belief in her innocence and that the evidence against her is so weak that the longterm risks of a wrongful conviction make no sense at all.
Reasonable doubt should have held the day. Justice cannot be psychic or perfect. This woman’s educational goal was to pursue a Master’s in Public Administration. I can only wonder how the court anticipates she’ll become a productive public servant if she feels the administration of public justice has betrayed her completely.
Some potentially useful addresses for raising hell:
Beaverton City Council comment form:
http://www.beavertonoregon.gov/council/comments.cfm
Beaverton Mayor’s email:
mayormail@ci.beaverton.or.us
Beaverton Municipal Courts:
courtmail@ci.beaverton.or.us
Beaverton City Attorney:
cityattymail@ci.beaverton.or.us (City Attorney Alan Rappleyea)
Not sure who at the state level to contact.