"The initial rationale for anonymity was to afford victims a measure of protection and prevent them from feeling more shame and self-loathing than they already felt. But as Joan Didion explained in 'Sentimental Journeys,' her essay about the Central Park jogger, this anonymity also had an element of the self-fulfilling, 'guiding the victim to define her assault as her protectors do.' In other words, if rape were defined as more shame-inducing than other crimes, then the victims would continue to experience it as more shameful."
Writes Hanna Rosin in "Trolls Are Outing UVA’s 'Jackie.' That’s Rolling Stone’s Fault Too."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५० टिप्पण्या:
I suspect that keeping the name of the accused rapist private (as much as can be possible, before the trial begins) would resolve many of those problems.
The alleged victim can be protected. The accused gets a chance to clear his name (if possible) in court, while not having to spend much time in the court of public opinion.
And the headlines can come out when the judge and/or jury decide the case.
However, that reduces the opportunity for reporters to produce splashy headlines during the weeks and months leading up to trial.
If we're willing to name the accused before they're found guilty, the blade has to cut both ways.
Because, at the moment, we're not even sure that a rape happened. We may not have a rape victim [even Rolling Stone seems to go back and forth on this one!]
My instinct is that people's names, in these cases, should probably not be reported before you know the story is true. If Rolling Stone had done their job and sat on the story until it was verified, no one would be being doxed or having to retain lawyers.
One problem is that the choice is often not between releasing the name of a victim or not, but between releasing the name of an accuser or not -- while the name of the accused is nearly always released. (Although, in many cases the evidence establishing that someone was in fact raped may be clear and convincing.)
I'm mystified that, when someone is accused of rape, and they assert their innocence, they do not lace their statements (and those of their representatives) with comments along the lines of "the allegations made by Ms. Martha Jones are false" and "I never had sex with Martha Jones", etc. to make it as hard as possible for the media to ellide the accuser's name.
The police are best equipped to handle this sort of thing.
They can interface with the college in a uniform way and remove the college form a conflict of interest.
It's odd that none of these lefties have felt any compunction about outing the names of fraternity house residents or the name of the lifeguard who she claims took her to the pre-planned attack.
That is the central defect of the feminist argument. The identity of the accuser is a state secret, but the accused (whether guilty or not...and who the fuck cares in any event?) is prominently identified and vilified.
- Krumhorn
No, it's a hoax.
Slate has a much better piece on this story.
Occidental College, by the way, is where a friend of mine was denied tenure because they learned he was privately conservative.
It was a nice college 50 years ago. Now it is a hard left bastion of lies.
Note that in the story, there was no use of 'alleged'. all the 'facts' were certainties.
Having said that, this gal is obviously frail and sick. There is no need to name her at this point.
Honestly, now the story changes from "Sabrina Rubin Erdley and Rolling Stone committed criminal libel" to "These doxxers are baaaaad".
We won't hear any more about the massive hoax, now all we'll hear about is the DOXXXINNG!!1 (with an ELI5 explanation of what doxxing is in parenthesis following the word).
"In other words, if rape were defined as more shame-inducing than other crimes, then the victims would continue to experience it as more shameful."
This is a good thing, right?
Not that victims feel more shame, but that rape is defined as more shameful than other crimes.
Eric: They mean shameful to the VICTIMS not the criminal.
Nobody, except maybe parents of college students, is talking about the alcohol thing on campuses. When I was in college, and a fraternity, we did drink a lot but not the binge drinking that seems to be so prevalent.
The big difference then was a) no birth control pill and b) the university was still acting "in loco parentis" to girls.
Girls were much more careful about sexual encounters and about getting drunk. Secondly, there were no coed dorms and sleeping together in a dorm room was verboten.
Older girls often got apartments where hijacks were allowed but they were still careful. Consent was obviously an issue.
In one funny example, my girlfriend and her sorority sisters wanted to see a stag movie (porno flick we would call it now) and I arranged to get one set up in my apartment; then I left so they could all attend and see it without my presence.
They wanted to see one but wanted no witnesses.
My daughter graduated a year ago and is a very pretty girl but saw none of the supposed rape epidemic. NONE. She is my third daughter and none of them saw any of this. NONE.
"Older girls often got apartments where hijinks ....
God damn autocorrect !
Lonetown: "The police are best equipped to handle this sort of thing."
Hmmmm. I don't think you have a clear understanding of what precisely the goal of the left is in this regard.
The left seeks to establish star chamber/kafkaesque proceedings wherein women can lodge any accusation they desire at any male and the male moves immediately to the punishment phase with punishment also to be determined by the leftists.
Any actual reporting of crimes to the police inhibits and degrades the ability of the leftists to do what they do best: act as totalitarians.
Thus, from the leftist perspective, reporting these accusations to the police should never occur.
I am reminded of the TV legal shows favorite doctrine of corpus delicti that the prosecution has to produce a dead body...or in this case a raped body.
Really they just have to prove a crime has occurred by proof of the elements of that crime.
But a rape accuser has to prove nothing now...not even their name.
There's an article in the paper today about the UWW Wrestling Coach who was fired -- apparently because he went to the Police when he was told of a rape incident involving a wrestling recruit rather than telling the Dean of Students (!!)
Wisconsin Law: Wisconsin state law requires university employees aware of sexual assault to report the incident to its Dean of Students. It does not require them to report the allegation to local or even university police.
I would say that law should be changed. If you have to report a crime to the Dean of Students, shouldn't you also have to report it to the Police?
Slate has a much better piece on this story.
Michael K., outstanding article!. It should be required reading for all the lefties out there who screech about their unwavering commitment to believe the accuser, and it's unnecessary to determine guilt through a fair process based upon a sturdy standard of proof.
I suppose that one dark benefit of all this is that they have gone so poisonously far (as lefties so often do) that the lash-back will be fast and furious which will have the effect of making them look just plain vile and hateful. Just as there are rapists out there who have no concern for the lifetime of horror they have inflicted on their victims, there are twisted bitches (and their mothers) who will gladly fuck a guy one night and then gleefully proceed to ruin the rest of his life.
- Krumhorn
"The larger question of whether victims of rape should remain anonymous is a complicated one."
No, the question is if the ALLEGED victim of rape should remain anonymous.
Now if there is DNA evidence, witnesses, video, confession, proof the attacker has a history of violence or any such other evidence we might see some leeway.
But the accused does have the right to confront their accuser.
If the claims made are false, is the accuser now NOT a criminal?
What protections is she due?
The media tried to keep Mangum's name silent after her lie went public.
This is hilarious - it's like we're in some sort of meta-ball of lying scum fail.
Reflections on
a Shattered Glass
The adorable little weenie I knew was nothing but a con artist.
By Sabrina Rubin Erdely |
I used to feel almost sorry for Stephen Glass C’94. I don’t anymore. When in 1998 the news first broke that Glass had been fired from his job as a writer for The New Republic after making up the details of 27 of his articles, I was shocked—but found myself scrambling to explain away my former classmate’s behavior.
http://www.upenn.edu/gazette/0104/0104arts02.html
Rolling Stone's mistake was in naming the fraternity, and the place where Jackie worked and met Drew. Those two facts allowed the story to be proved false.
Why did Jackie lie? It appears from some accounts that she may have gotten persuaded/pressured into performing oral sex at a location and with individuals that she may not actually remember. We don't know that for sure, but let's assume that's what happened.
If revenge is her motive, rape is more damning and easier to explain as nonconsensual than oral sex. Anonymity can also be used as a weapon for revenge. If she blames the whole school, why not pick the biggest target at the school?
Paul said...But the accused does have the right to confront their accuser.
Paul you ignorant slut (kidding). W/r/t a criminal case you are of course correct. But w/r/t the University proceeding that's almost certainly wrong. Read the Slate article by Hannah Rosin to which Michael K linked. The Occidental College student was not allowed to even read the accuser's statement (her accusation!) because she did not want him to have it. The Admin didn't specify up front what he was accused of doing, and in fact changed what they decided he'd done wrong after he appealed their initial decision. You'd think having the ability (or "right") to see the accusation against you would be a given--really a fundamental principle--in any modern pseudo-judicial proceeding, but you'd be wrong.
Read the Slate article by Hannah Rosin to which Michael K linked.
That article is insane. Slate is doing good work here. Shockingly.
I don't think it especially diminishes a Hollywood celebrity's status to come out as gay. In like way, I don't think it especially diminishes a college girl's reputation to publicly accuse another student of rape. There will be no honor killings as a result. It might, as in the case of Bill Cosby, cause other victims to come forward and, alternately, cause defense witnesses to come forward with different descriptions of the event.......The idea that one out of five girls on college campuses claim to have been sexually assaulted seems very suspect. The fact that those reporting this fact report it without any degree of skepticism is even more suspect.
There is nothing "complicated" about the issue. There is no other crime is which the victim is not named, although it is often the case that being victimized is something the victim would rather not reveal. This is one more instance of women having it both ways.
Is Charles C. Johnson "singularly vile"? I wasn't aware of that. Can anyone confirm or refute that characterization?
Wait! I'm confused...weren't there a lot of purported rapes and assaults at the Occupy camps? What happened to the RS story about Occupys' Rape Culture? It's almost like they say one way, but act another. Isn't there a word for this?
Sorry, the good Slate article is by Emily Yoffe, not Rosin as I said above.
I'm pretty sure it's Yoffe who does the "Dear Prudence" these days, so it's all the more important to give her credit for good work now.
Lena Dunham's publisher has just thrown up its hands and said "Don't Shoot !" on the rape claim in that book.
The headline says "Fires Back," but "Don't Shoot" is a better characterization.
Insty quotes Wilford Brimley from "Absence of Malice," which is entirely appropriate.
Keeping accusers' names private maintains the idea that the accuser has something to be ashamed of, therefore rape culture.
By the way, I did contribute to "Barry"'s defense fund.
And not just because she is ugly.
This is about will to power and about imposing new cultural beliefs on Americans. Rejecting the worn out Magna Carta and replacing it with the old kind of truth that used to govern relations between and within tribes. Where tribal identity is the primary fact of any case.
Sure, why not. Society has already seen fit to grant women a right to commit premeditated murder/abortion of unwanted human lives in the privacy of a clinic. Granting victims of rape exemption from public scrutiny, and preventing the alleged perpetrator from confronting the alleged victim, is actually a step forward from a planned parenthood policy.
Besides, the social complex (e.g. civil rights) already operates on a presumption of guilt. This is all forward thinking. Degenerate, but clearly progressive. It's over. Degenerate religions have consequences.
Female privilege is absolute. It is an old tradition which harkens back to the time when an aristocrat could beat an unruly peasant with his cane for whatever reason he saw fit.
Good times.. good times.
From one of the blogs:
"Erdley told her it was being published anyway, with her consent or not. How's that for irony."
This story gets more and more like "Absence of Malice" every day.
This girl is disturbed and, like a bunch of other females in the news, it is not good to be making big stories about them. Even Lena Dunham looks like she is not right in the head, to me.
Sorry, it pisses me off that they are described as being a "victim" (instead of "alleged victim" or even "accuser") BEFORE there is a conviction, or even a police report.
three posts related to the Rolling Stone story and not one tie-in to Lena Dunham's memoir?
And you wonder why people suspect you of leaning left?
"three posts related to the Rolling Stone story and not one tie-in to Lena Dunham's memoir?
And you wonder why people suspect you of leaning left?"
The Dunham story is imploding but I was trying to respect the thread.
There was one, mine
Blogger Michael K said...
Lena Dunham's publisher has just thrown up its hands and said "Don't Shoot !" on the rape claim in that book.
The headline says "Fires Back," but "Don't Shoot" is a better characterization.
Insty quotes Wilford Brimley from "Absence of Malice," which is entirely appropriate.
Having said that, this gal is obviously frail and sick.
People keep saying that, but what's their basis for claiming it? The people claiming she seems that way are the same people who bought into her gang rape hoax.
When you know someone is (a) a liar and (b) good at convincing other people she has suffered something she has not actually suffered, how can you ever know if her tears are real?
And why should you care if they are?
"When you know someone is (a) a liar and (b) good at convincing other people she has suffered something she has not actually suffered, how can you ever know if her tears are real?"
You cannot, but it is more comforting to think of her as sick rather than just evil.
@Michael K
My comment wasn't directed toward you or any other commenter here.
Seems to me, just like a Seurat painting, when viewed close up, there are unconnected data points. It's only when you step back and take it all in that the picture becomes apparent.
so why does Althouse continue to focus on points only?
From afar (Oz) I am wondering if the "Rape Culture" Salem Trials and what are now apparently Lena's inventions are really manifestations of a form of Asperger. A lot seems to be poor interpretation / display of social signals with maybe a Walter Mitty overlay attached to this.
"My comment wasn't directed toward you or any other commenter here."
Oh, I don't worry about that. I just came back from a nice swordfish dinner at my favorite restaurant.
My daughters are the experts here. I rely on their experiences. The rape culture is bullshit.
The closest the youngest came was when two friends got into a fight when they were out drinking after her graduation. The guy started beating up his girlfriend. Annie yelled at him to stop and, when he started after her, she locked herself in her car and called the cops. They were not students. They worked with her at her waitress job that she had all through school.
She is coming back to California and I will be much happier with her close. I've been after her to take shooting lessons. I have a gun for her but I won't give it to her until she knows how to handle it.
My other daughters all know how to shoot. One is an FBI agent.
Yoffee's article in Slate is must-reading. If you haven't read it yet, do so now.
From her article and overtly offensive use of the word "victim" Hannah Rosin puts on full display the mendacious sanctimony of feminism: to a feminist the accuser is the victim and the accused the guilty, regardless of the truth of the accusations. To feminists the hypothetical deleterious effects on future hypothetical victims are more important than protecting the innocent in the here-and-now. To those who believe no man could truly be innocent it must seem the obvious choice.
"In an age of universal deceit, to tell the truth is a revolutionary act."
George Orwell, 1984
Torn between truth and their agenda, feminists will reliably choose their agenda. If Ms. Rosin is upset that some real journalism is happening, that is a sign that somebody in journalism is finally doing something Revolutionary: telling the truth.
Jackie chose to give extensive interviews to a prominent publication with national circulation. The allegations were sensational, involving a white hot current public issue and a prominent university. And she thought that her name would remain a secret?
Sometimes you have rapists, and sometimes you have false accusations of rape. If you always be
Wove the accusation, then an awful lot of innocent guys are going to be paying for a lie. Because sometimes women make up stories. tawanay Brawley anyone?
Stephen Pagones died before he got any really money from Sharpton for slandering him.
I view this the same way I view cop shootings. You have the facts. You don't just assume that because it's a white cop and a black man that therefore it's a racial incident. Sometimes the cop did kill the black guy with murder in his heart. But just as often the cops are in the right for doing what they're doing.
jr565, I agree with your comment in general. But that "just as often" in the last sentence is far wide of the mark. It implies that 50% of the time the "cop" has "murder in his heart". i TRUST THAT WAS NOT YOUR INTENT.
Damn cap lock key. Didn't mean to shout.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा