(Also posted at Creek Running North.)
This week, bloggers started writing about that poor woman who not only disappeared in Aruba but – insult on injury – had the bad fortune to become the Fox News flavor of the week. And one male blogger who is prominent far beyond any justification his talent provides, and who had recently attracted the mild ire of feminist bloggers over his reaction to KosPieGate, let loose with the assertion that though he certainly didn’t blame the woman for her abduction and probable rape, that it happened because she was stupid enough to go hang out with three guys.
Thank you for not blaming.
His commenters took it further. As quoted by Amanda Marcotte, one of them put it this way:
Want to talk accountability? I blame:
- The parents for not equipping their daughter for the real world and failing to realize that she was ill-equipped for the temptations of Aruba.
- Her “friends”. A good friend wouldn’t have let her get in a situation like she did. I’ve saved some drunk buddies from making bad decisions, and I’m sure they’ve helped me avoid trouble as well.
- Herself. When all of the failsafes out there, parents, friends, society, fail you there’s still the most important one left: yourself. She didn’t get kidnapped… she went off with them willingly.
Amanda noted an omission that some of the guys might have missed:
“I blame someone who didn’t make the list. I blame the rapist.”
Feminist-leaning bloggers have been hashing this over for the past few days, with that regrettably familiar combination of world-weary fatigue and renewed outrage. Lauren has a good list of some of the blog posts that have been generated as a result. In the comment threads on most of them, the same rhetorical dance played out:
Feminist: “It’s about time people put the responsibility for rape on the shoulders of the rapist.”
Unfeminist: “Yeah, but it’s really stupid for women to just go wandering around where it’s unsafe.”
Feminist: “We know it’s unsafe. We avoid going out. Rape happpens anyway. We’re tired of being blamed for it.”
Unfeminist: “But what if you were walking through the poorest neighborhood in Calcutta covered with cash, carrying a boombox playing ‘We’re In The Money,’ and with a big sack with a dollar sign printed on the outside? And wearing a hat that said ‘Rob Me’? Wouldn’t that be stupid?”
Feminist: “Um, what?”
And so forth. The whole of American society’s response to rape, it seems, runs along the lines of the old bad joke in which the patient says “Doctor, it hurts when I do this.”
Society’s response: “So don’t do that.”
“Don’t go out at night. Don’t relax with your friends on vacation. Lock your doors. Don’t be friendly with men you don’t know. Don’t trust the men you do know.” It’s a prescription for a very large prison, one that women are expected to carry around with them every minute of their lives.
And they’re expected to do so while the behavior of rapists is – well, certainly not condoned, but explained away as some regrettable extreme right tail of the normal male sexuality bell curve.
David Neiwert, one of the best writers on prejudice now working in the US, wrote last August:
[H]ate crimes have the fully intended effect of driving away and deterring the presence of any kind of hated minority — racial, religious, or sexual. They are essentially acts of terrorism directed at entire communities of people, and they are message crimes: “Keep out.” … Black people fear stepping foot in Idaho because of the presence of the Aryan Nations in the state’s Panhandle. Gays and lesbians view driving through places like Wyoming and Montana with a palpable anxiety. If you get out a map of the country and put yourself in the shoes of a person of color or another sexual persuasion, and start looking at the places you would feel safe visiting, you’ll suddenly realize that this can be a very small country indeed for people who are not white heterosexuals. This is what Yale hate-crimes expert Donald Green means when he says that hate crimes annually create a “massive dead-weight loss of freedom” for Americans.
Progressive men decry the effects of such crimes, and rightly so. And who among us would lecture a black couple victimized by a hate crime that they should have stayed out of Coeur D’Alene?
Is rape a hate crime? There are a few different definitions of hate crimes floating around. They share a few common features. The crime must be directed at a member or members of a particular social group: for instance an ethnicity, religion, sexual preference, or gender. (Check.)
The crime must be committed out of a feeling of hostility toward said group, with the victim chosen not for her individual characteristics but for her membership in the targeted group. (Check.)
Lastly, the crime must be intended at least in part to promote fear among members of the targeted group. This one’s harder to pin down without direct interviews of rapists. Eldridge Cleaver, the late and unlamented ex-Black Panther who started his adult life as a confessed rapist, wrote in Soul On Ice of his intent to rape in order to spread fear among white women, and whites in general. He described “practicing” on African-American women until he felt ready to “cross the tracks.” Rape is very commonly used as a terrorist tactic in wartime, a way to demoralize women in the civilian population. Can we extrapolate from examples like these to make guesses about the larger intent of the average rapist? Who knows?
But the effect is the same either way: a “massive dead-weight loss of freedom” experienced on a daily basis by more than half our population. And I have reinforced that loss, and you probably have as well. It is a normal and healthy response to encourage the people we love to stay out of danger as much as possible. I’ve done it myself, encouraged Becky and other women I love not to go out for urban walks at night. I’ll probably do it again. So will other men, and other women.
But we do so out of a desire to create a personal solution to a mass problem. That kind of thing rarely works, and when it does in the short term, the unintended consequences are usually massive. With the best of intentions, out of a desire to protect the people we love, we have acted in complicity with the men who commit hate crimes.
What do we do instead?
What do we do instead. We educate and try to irradicate the problem. We refuse to back down when the men and women who are part of the backlash tell us we are frigid, reverse racists or some other thing that is keeping them from the personal freedom of continuing to be and act ignorantly.
wonder why it was not front paged?
and at DKos, too — more than some on the Recommended list, yet I didn’t see it make that list there. Did I miss that?
I’m a little confused, CreamC. I didn’t post this at DKos. Where is the diary being mentioned?
unless someone can correct that.
“It’s a prescription for a very large prison, one that women are expected to carry around with them every minute of their lives.”
Very very well put. Thank you. Why can’t I go where I want to in society w/o a male escort? My fiance is afraid of me going for walks in our relatively well-to-do neighborhood in the daytime alone. I’ve seen women who do “dare” to venture on walks alone carrying baseball bats and sticks.
I’m sick of feeling confined to my apartment unless I can get a man to go out w/ me.
man that copy and paste blogger seriously needs a good ass kicking…(not a threat…just an observation)
how the fuck did he get so popular in the first place?
It seems like every other day he pisses people on the left off…he makes Markos look like Alan Alda in comparison.
“Was she going to pull a train?”
How could anyone on the left write such a horrible thing?
when their beautiful and successful adult grand daughter became suicidal. Her subsequent therapy revealed that she had been gang-raped by teenagers from the US while attending a concert in Canada years ago. She had repressed it and told no one for five years but the stress of her job had weakened her resistance. Her therapist told the family that they have no idea how much evil exists in society. There is no hope of finding the criminals who did this now especially since they are in another country so the family has concentrated on rehabilitating the young woman.
The family were known to be overprotective of their children and every precaution was taken before the young woman, then 15, went to the concert with friends.
And what about those rotten teen-agers who are now young men? I wonder do they ever think about what they did to this beautiful person? Does any one of them have a conscience? I sincerely hope that they are haunted by this but somehow I doubt it.
She was young, beautiful, innocent and naive. So, was it her fault?
It is amazing how we can shove down all those horrible things and go on as if we can handle it all ourselves. Eventually you always end up having to deal with those feelings and scars.
I realized that I had been repressing memories and refusing to deal with the results in my thirties. For my ex husband it was not until now, in his late forties that he is finally dealing with his problems. He made everyone in his life pay first. He is not a bad person but he has caused some havoc in all our lives with his refusal to deal.
Most of our torment comes from unresolved conflicts.
That’s why you will find old people telling the same old sad stories. They were hurt and it created a conflict in their minds which was never resolved and therefore never healed.
My friend helped her mother who had had a cruel childhood by stopping her eventually on each retold tragic tale and making her mother go deeply right into the event. As painful as it was, the mother then no longer felt the need to repeat those stories. She did continue however to tell other interesting stories that she had neglected.
I went through the pie wars at Dailykos under a different moniker, and when I saw this diary, I registered immediately. Very thoughful, thought-provoking, and much needed analysis on the subject. Thank you.
You will be welcome here–those of us who migrated here, as well as the founders and the original inhabitants, are dedicated to keeping this place civil and open to diverse points of view…as well as respect for both women and men.
Hi duranta,
I just wanted to second Shadowthief’s welcome, and also invite you over to the cafe to introduce yourself if you feel up to it.
welcome duranta..good to have you with us here. step up to the plate and comment with us and stay as long as you desire. Again welcome aboard.
This is certainly one of the every best diaries ever! Thanks Chris so much for sharing it with us here..
Well, I’m very much honored by the warm welcome y’all have shown me. It really has made my day.
This is one of the most thoughtful diaries I’ve seen posted on the subject. Please continue to post here. I also read the thread over at Creek Running North and admired your attempts to explain it to murky.
Many good comments there (not murky’s), folks – if you think this diary and discussion are worthwhile, you might want to click the link at the top of the diary for more.
I left a comment at Daily Kos Off Cliff – which I found from yours – too.
I’m already spreading the banjo comment via my email list – yours or borrowed? (Although, I think it works even better if you reverse the order of the sentences.)
I’m already spreading the banjo comment via my email list – yours or borrowed? (Although, I think it works even better if you reverse the order of the sentences.)
Mine, but go ahead and treat it as open source – which means you can edit it to fit your preference.
in my thievery – I put your name and a link to Creek Running North with it. Just wanted you to know that I’d edited it – I was an editor in a former life. I can’t help myself. 🙂
I’ll add to the welcome too. I went to his site yesterday, read a bunch of stuff, (including the first three chapters of a novel that I hope he finishes) and… picked up a MoonBat graphic! I love those (and the term moonbat as well… it’s so cute).
Great diary and discussion here, by the way.
Lauren now has a post on your post, both of which led me to leave a long tirade on hers, which I will spare you here. But the gist was that at the same time women get the message that they have to be so careful, popular culture glorifies behavior (love at first sight, girls gone wild) that directly contradicts the women-have-to-careful message. In fact, popular culture (and some bloggers) only deliver that cautionary message when there is some newsworthy damsel-in-distress story. So the idea that they are somehow to blame for failing to do the obvious is even more egregious. My comment then included this quote:
To which a male commenter replied:
I have never met anyone who reacted to groping or molestation by saying “you can’t blame a guy for trying” and I’m not sure where you get the idea that it’s so widespread.
Now any women between the ages of 13 and death could probably tell him where I got the idea that this was widespread but I was more struck by his incredible chutzpah in denying something that happens to women because he had not experienced it. It makes me wonder if a very key step — for dealing with rape and other gender issues (pie fight, anyone) — is to figure out why some men are perfectly capable of listening to and believing what women have to say and other men seem to be completely deaf.
Hell, you don’t even have to look any farther than “The Gropinator”, Governor of California! Repeated sex offender running for the highest office in the state, and what does he get? A free pass, when he should’ve been drummed out of the race in disgrace.
Even worse is the assholes who react to “please go away” or “please stop that” or other such things with “she’s just playing hard to get” or “she’s just being feisty”.
These pieces of slime very nearly make me ashamed to be male.
where up until very recently women had to endure being groped by men on the crowded subway cars even though there are laws against it with heavy fines. “64 percent of Japanese women in their 20s and 30s said they’ve been groped on trains, subways or at transit stations in the city.” The women were too ashamed to protest.
Well, they don’t have to take it anymore. They can ride in their own Women Only subway cars. Ironically it was the gropers who brought about the experiment, not the women.
LINK
These subway gropers — who lean, rub and pinch during the remarkably crowded rush hours — are known in Japanese as “chikan.”
Victims are often ashamed to show their faces. They say the experience is degrading, humiliating and frightening, but most are too embarrassed to react when it’s happening.
“They think it’s a kind of shame to say something or to cry, ‘Help, help,'” said Mihoko Ejiri, a professor at Tsuda College of Women.
Maybe we need the same thing here.
on the Montreal Metro, she screamed, and hit a guy with her umberella. Guess I taught her well, (she said, smugly).
AndiF, I saw your comment at Lauren’s and automatically reached for the mouse to give you a 4! Guess I’ve been spending too much time around here…
Thanks for letting me know. That is one thing I really like about this site — you can give and get feedback without actually having to respond to a comment.
I’ll be glad when it becomes more of a habit for me. I keep having to go back to diaries because I’ve realized I didn’t rate any of the comments I liked.
This is the poem I always think of when I am reminded of how endlessly wrong I am for being born female. Thank you for your post. It raised my blood pressure in a way I thought only Camille Paglia could.
First, marvellous, well-written, thought-provoking diary. Wish I could triple-recommend it.
I can add little to what you have already written except my agreement, and the comment that most men have little understanding of what it’s like to walk about the world as a woman. Even in the countries where women are considered the legal and social “equals” of men (notice the quotation marks around “equals”), women find themselves afraid to walk in certain places at night, or at any time of the day, or to travel alone. Of course in most countries of the world the situation is far worse; women aren’t even permitted the relatively minor freedom of driving an automobile in Saudi Arabia, and must appear in public in a tent-like chador.
I myself have never been afraid to go anywhere–outside of my combat experience, when I WAS in fear of my life–because I am a healthy male, 6’2″ and weighing (on a slender day) 200 lbs. I grew up in a tough working class neighbourhood and that, in addition to my army experience, means I feel myself physically capable. I have always taken it for granted that if I want to visit the bad part of town at 3 a.m., I can do so, and not think a thing about it.
I also spent my childhood, youth, and most of my adult life in Europe, where the fear of crime is not nearly as great as it is here. It is still common to see elderly ladies walking their dogs in Hyde Park in the wee hours of the night; try to conjure up a similar picture of them doing that in Central Park in New York City and you will get an idea of the contrast between the two societies.
So yes, women are already in a prison of sorts–don’t travel alone, don’t talk to strangers, and so forth, rules that normally apply to children, not to adults. And you are quite perceptive in pointing out that this is a societal problem and requires a societal solution.
And on a side issue: how did Steve Gilliard get so popular? Well, Steve got popular because he’s a favourite of Kos, and Kos often recommends and links Gilliard’s blog to his. Gilliard also dutifully spouts the official Democratic Party slogan of the day, no matter how inane and no matter that it contradicts yesterday’s slogan, and got rewarded for it by getting his blog linked from lots of party-affiliated sites. I have read Mr. Gilliard’s diaries that were linked or cross-posted on DKos when I was still active on DKos and never agreed with a single one. Hell, I agreed with Kos and Armando a lot of the time as long as the issue didn’t involve women’s rights–but I always found Gilliard’s own writing to be riddled with flawed basic assumptions that corrupted the whole of his thinking. This latest “the woman was stupid, that’s why something bad happened to her” blog is but the latest in a string of logical embarrassments that would sink his blog like the Titanic if he were not so insulated from his multitudinous mistakes.
Note to Gilliard’s defenders: reply to this message in vain…I know Gilliard’s thinking, as adduced from his writing, all too well, and there is nothing you can do to demonstrate to me what is already evident: the man couldn’t reason nor write his way out of a wet paper bag.
As a gang rape survivor, perpetuated on me by my father and his friends. I always thought it was my fault, if I had been more masculine or macho or was buff enough. To hear and know that many men continue to blame the victim for this horrible crime, baffles me to no end. I have had my share of confrontations with other men hitting on women, groping and generally making a nuisance of themselves, over the years I have been clean and sober.
Many of them with men who just don’t seem to understand that NO actually means NO, not maybe, or keep trying I will change my mind. I can only hope that somewhere, somehow, many of these progressives and I use the term loosely, will get a clue as to the destruction this hate crime causes in the lives of its victims.
Only through hundreds of hours of therapy and counseling was I able to undo some of the horrors I experienced as a child and can only offer my experience, strength and hope to other survivors of this horrendous crime against women and some men. That women have to be unduly fearful to walk anywhere in the world is a clear indictment of the failure of our society to make it clear that they are citizens of our society and should be able to do anything a man can do.
I find the language that was used over a Dkos reprehensible and hope that, that person will never have to experience the pain that is caused by the violation of one’s person. That they are so insensitive to the suffering that rape causes merely shows me what a shallow and callous human being they really are and I for one would not want anything to do with them in any way shape or form.
“That they are so insensitive to the suffering that rape causes merely shows me what a shallow and callous human being they really are”
Please, walk carefully here. While “shallow and callous” may be the most accurate adjective for some of them, in other cases, terms like “immature”, “overprotected”, or “spiritually comfortable” might be better choices. In some cases, “protective amnesia” might even be the driving force.
The differences lie along these dimensions:
arrogance vs humility
intention
knowledge / experience
permanence of the attitude
Insofar as we concede that change is not possible, we consent to our own victimization.
I do accept to an over broad generalization, one written when I was in a heightened state of agitation over one of the remarks that I read. Thank you for presenting me with clarification and a sense that I indeed brushed with the broadest stroke.
we have to stop viewing rape as a crime of passion. It is a hate crime. It’s about dominance, not attraction.
Secondly, when can women give up the title of “gatekeeper?” Why is it women who are responsible for where men put their dicks? I’m talking about the cheating husbands and boyfriends who can’t help it because “she threw herself at me.” I’m talking about “she was askin’ for it.” It’s what we wear. It’s the way we look. It’s where we go. It’s because we’re naive and it’s our fault. Why the hell are women responsible, not only for own sexuality, but that of men. Why? Is that my job? I’m supposed to be a full-time “cockblocker” on top of everything else I have to think about? So mad. So mad.
But it’s a theft of the other person’s bodily integrity.
As the self-help people might say, it’s a boundary issue.
For an “average” date-rapist, I would suggest it’s part sexual gratification and part failure to recognize the boundaries of the other person.
For someone like Eldridge Cleaver, or the Janjaweeds, it’s a deliberate tool of oppression.
What it boils down to, then, is that sometimes it’s sexual and sometimes it isn’t. MOST guys don’t think like Cleaver or the Janjaweeds–rape as military tactic simply doesn’t occur to them. And if it does, it’s so offensive that they immediately project it elsewhere.
OTOH, getting a little sex when she isn’t interested–that appeals and they know it.
Even shoplifters have different motives.
It’s another version of the idea that corporate theft and armed robbery are not the same.
Please don’t minimize acquaintance rape by calling it a failure to recognize a boundary. I speak fluent John Bradshaw-ese, and no, that doesn’t cover it. I have also survived multiple acquaintance assaults, and I can tell you that it is an act of violence and domination. A “how dare you deny me my rights to your body” type of assault. People who survive households where their bedroom doors do not protect them from family pederasts, tend to develop boundary issues, and have difficulty saying no to a myriad of things in daily life. They may also develop “control issues” due to a fundamental feeling of unsafety. These are “boundary issues.” But assaults are predatory — not a “failure to recognize.” I’m sure that there are men who are so obtuse that they do not know that when a woman is crying and screaming “no” that she really means yes, but I doubt highly, that they are in the majority. I also have to really wonder about their sexual wiring, if they find that an an enjoyable sexual experience. Make no mistake. Date rapists are predators, not horny, boundaryless men.
The point I was making was that if the boundaries are respected, date rape will not happen. Boundary issues are a very slippery slope.
You are minimizing it, when you call any rape a failure to recognize a boundary. It’s a little like saying setting someone’s house on fire is impolite.
Excuuuse me…
Who gave you the right to tell me what I am saying?
Rape is not ONLY a failure to recognize a boundary. But you cannot have rape WITHOUT such a failure first.
Your analogy doesn’t work for me. My great uncle (without any discourtesy to anyone) managed to burn the family home down by examining a comb too near a kerosene lamp!
Thinking a bit further, let us put boundary issues, rape, etc, on a hypothetical 1-10 scale of severity.
I’m thinking perhaps you put boundary issues at 2 and rape at 9 or 10. When I suggest a direct relationship between the two, you interpret my statement to be placing the severity of rape perhaps at 5.
Let me counter with the suggestion that it is not I who underestimate the severity of rape, but you who underestimate the importance and severity of boundary violations. I would leave rape at 9 or 10 (9 for date rape, 10 for violence added), but place boundary violations at around a severity of 6.
I haven’t told you what you’re saying. I’ve quoted you. And, I do have every right to interpret what you are saying. If you put words out there, they will be interpreted. If you feel that I’m misinterpreting you, that’s fair, but nowhere have I presumed to tell you what is between your ears. I have simply followed your actual statements to the conclusion they seem to lead to.
I think when you use phrases like “boundary issue” and “failure to recognize a boundary,” you minimize the offense. Does rape violate a boundary? Yes. So does murder. But, a “failure to recognize” or “issue” implies that it stems from an oversight or lack of understanding. That reads to me like apologia for date rape, especially in the context of your entire post, which identifies a date rape as a seeking of sexual gratification, and somehow a lesser offense than rape in time of war. I disagree. It is no less predatory, or lacking in hostile intent. Is the goal sexual gratification? Sure. The problem is that some people find asserting power over others sexually gratifying. They’re called rapists, in times of war and peace.
And you are correct, about the fire reference. I meant to say “deliberately” setting the house on fire, as in arson. What happened with your poor great uncle, was neither rude, nor hostile, but an accident — a “failure to recognize,” if you will.
It is certainly true that improper boundaries can be a predictor of violence. Gavin de Becker explains that, “When someone doesn’t hear your no, that person is trying to control you.” This, he warns could be a red flag indicating violent intent. But there are plenty of people with boundary and control issues who are not violent felons, and unlike rapists, they respond to rehabilitation. Think: CODA meetings, for instance. I do not underestimate boundary issues, and I do not tolerate people trying to control me, on any level. But, I do not think the annoying telephone salesmen who refuses to take no for an answer and rapists are in the same league, or even on the same 10 point scale.
If I may but in:
Chriscol, I agree with Recordkeeper that by saying that “if the boundaries are respected, date rape will not happen” you are, minimizing date rape, although I’m sure that is not your intent.
To say that date rape would not happen if people no longer “fail[ed] to recognize the boundaries of the [an]other person” is like saying that the Klu Klux Klan would stop burning crosses if they recognized property rights.
Individual rapes happen, of course, for individual reasons. When we discuss “rape” however, there is always the assumption that one is at least partly talking about the high rate of men who rape women. High crime rates are society’s problem, not just instances of individual immorality.
M/F rape happens as often as it does not because men are especially bad at respecting individual boundaries but because:
A non-person can’t have personal boundaries for others to respect, so while teaching people to respect others boundaries may help some individual cases, you need to make sure that most people see women as people before teaching respect for personal boundaries will have an effect on rape.
Many date rapists, of course, say that they respect women. Most of them believe that they do, many of them act as though they do, and many of them actually do “respect” women, they just don’t respect women as much as men, or value respect for women above their own sexual desires. Teaching them to respect boundaries in the abstract, again, won’t help until you teach them that respecting women is more important than getting laid.
In order to do this, we need to blow away the idea that sex is something that men want and women have. This assumption is the basis for many otherwise “good guys” turning around and treating women as nothing more than a fuck hole. It creates the dynamic of men as predators and women as gatekeepers, rather than the healthier and more accurate construct of two people trying to see if they get along. It makes us draw the line at “absence of a no” rather than “enthusiastic yes.”* It means that guys can excuse groping as “worth a try.” It means that when rape happens, we start looking for things the victim did wrong rather than asking what society did wrong, or where the rapist “went wrong.”
If the assumption is that women don’t want sex, it will always be a case of men trying to convince women to “give it up.” If women are always the ones being seduced, the existence of an enthusiastic yes beforehand is impossible. If sex is something that only women have, society will always have excuses for treating women “differently” than men. If sex is something that only men want society will always have excuses for men who treat women with less respect than what they deserve.
* I mostly mean “moral” not “legal” lines here. Legal definitions of rape should, and sometimes do, treat rape as something that happens when there is not yes, rather than something that happens after a no, but in cases that don’t involve incapacitation, I understand that legally enforcing this concept is tricky, especially at present.
I imagine the Poles saying as the Germans invaded in 1939: “This is a boundaries issue!”
Well, it was, literally–but I agree that the term “boundaries issue” doesn’t begin to cover the serious psychological and physical crime of rape.
Wait, Mr. Gilliard continues with a charming reminiscence of how slutty European women used to have sex with his friends and were basically immoral, loose women who had the nerve to mimic the sexual behaviour of–gasp!–men. Truly a breathtaking–or is the word gut-wrenching?–read. I hesitate to put the link on this comment because I don’t want to drive his blog numbers up.
Now, I didn’t dig that at all. The last thing I wanted to do was share women with my friends. I didn’t want to be naked with women who had seen my friends naked. Call me funny, but it wasn’t anything I was going to do.
http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2005/06/adults-in-adult-situation.html
I couldn’t leave it alone. I read it. And, now I feel the need for a shower, and possibly, a sedative. So, let me get this straight. Some European girls are slutty. Yep, girls can be slutty. He’s seen that in action. But, this girl in Aruba? She didn’t really think her slutty actions through very well. And, hey, it happens, because you know when girls are slutty, men expect sex, and once that testosterone kicks in, no stoppin’ ’em. What century is this? The conclusion is the kicker. She was the victim of “American sexual schizophrenia.” Yes that’s right. Rape, abduction, even murder, can be justified by the perception that American girls are slutty, when, in fact, some of them are downright naive. Boy, a girl can’t win.
…and it was worse, when Mr. Gilliard delved into how emotionally manipulative and exploitative those bewitchin’ Norwegian babes were (heartbreakers all, those Nordic goddesses, just ask Anita Ekberg and Elke Sommer) and how he implied that maybe it was time for women to learn the reality of their place (safety in numbers, don’t go out after dark, don’t talk to strangers, don’t drink in public…hey, isn’t that Saudi Arabia? I think we’ve found our model society!)
Sorry for the sarcasm, I know it ill befits the civil atmosphere on Booman Tribune, but I’m not feeling particularly gracious this evening. I have a son, not a daughter, but I have sisters and I have nieces and cousins and female friends, and several of them have been assaulted–though not raped–by men who were protected by the same excuses Gilliard has woven. I mean, how DARE my niece go to a bar in New York City all by herself…? A woman? Going out alone? And without her burkha or bodyguard, too…well, for shame.
The whole entry is far too psychologically revealing. Misogynist, stunted adolescent, omega dog, Madonna/whore complex… just a few observations I couldn’t help making.
Indeed, if you read the latter half of Mr. Gilliard’s diary, he states that he was disgusted that these hot foreign babes slept with his mates and not him.
But…he doesn’t care because he wouldn’t want to sleep with those foreign sluts, anyway.
Ah, now I see.
…have their own lawyers, judges and independent judicial system to protect their accused.
Given that we have <ahem> “progressive” people here claiming that it’s probable the girl was “abducted and raped,” the only hope those boys would have in an Alabama courtroom is that the Senate finally got around to condemning lynching last week.
It’s a discussion blog.
Do you not understand the difference?
It appears that the irony is a little thick around here today.
Not as thick as the bullshit.
I notice that both you and the chap above who are so concerned with this blog’s effect on due process in Aruba–which is, erm, ZERO–have absolutely ZERO concern with Gilliard’s specious reasoning that Ms. Holloway left the bar in Aruba with three young men because she MUST have wanted a gangbang, which then got out of hand.
With that remark, you have NO problem. But you DO have a problem with us discussing the very high probability that SOMEBODY–maybe van der Sloot and the two other young men who were with him–raped and possibly murdered Ms. Holloway. These three young men are being detained by Aruban authorities because they are the last three people on earth who saw Ms. Holloway alive. They at least are cognisant of her last known whereabouts.
I think you have revealed yourself quite well on this blog–and I thank you for that. I always like to know with whom I am dealing.
…and call a spade a spade !
This is a case about a blonde chick from Alabama who is missing in a majority black country under mysterious circumstances. If you can’t see the racial undertones then you are blind, dumb, naive, or willing to perpetuate stereotypes yourself. I see a little of all of the above in your comments thus far.
Natalee Holloway did leave a bar with Joran van der Sloot, a Dutch teenager about her age–she did NOT leave with the other two men, but rather discovered that the other two were in the backseat of the car after she had already gotten into the car.
In other words, she came across the swarmy coloured kids after leaving the bar with what she thought was a nice Dutchman (i.e., a respectable white boy).
…how about this interpretation:
Ms. Holloway meets Mr. van der Sloot, a young man about her age (actually 17 to her 18). She is drunk, yes, but also charmed by him.
Mr. van der Sloot offers to take her to a romantic local beach. But he doesn’t have a car; his friends, two Surinamese brothers, will drive them.
In the space of a few paragraphs, you first have the girl ambushed from the back seat by the dark natives, yet a few posts over the Surinamese pick them up for a ride. Your “speculations” are full of holes but they seem to be based on the premise that the charming, romantic, yet hapless Dutch boy brought Natalee into danger through contact with his coloured associates.
All three young men said they had sexual relations with Ms. Holloway; I find it doubtful, given what we have learnt of her in the press (a young woman described as extremely responsible and a student with near-perfect marks in high school), that she was organising a sexual liason with all three of these young men.
And 10 days ago, CNN briefly reported that they confessed to the killing, so your statement and the sources sound even less credible but it does make for titillating speculation.
Your posts sound very much like the rationalization for the conviction of the black kids in the Central Park jogger case in which the teenagers allegedly admitted to having sexual relations with another media-created high profile white woman. The kids actually served years in jail before the true killer and rapist confessed and the D.A. got the case dismissed…ten years too late.
That case also raised the discussion of a woman going into a perceived-to-be dangerous situation and all the related issues brought up in this diary. The jogger was in an area known to be dimly lit where most women wouldn’t jog alone. However, it quickly turned into a media circus focusing on a white woman who was attacked by a “wolf pack” of black kids out “wilding.” (The tabloids words, not mine.)
You’re right, it is good to know who you are dealing with and recognize their specious arguments.
it that is what you want to discuss. There has been none on this diary and I don’t appreciate your hijack.
This is by far the angriest post on this diary.
And I find it most enlightening that the anger is directed at me and directed at Natalee Holloway.
Truth is, nobody knows exactly what happens. The original version of the story was that Natalee left the bar with Joran van der Sloot and his two friends. The version that emerged later was that Natalee left the bar with Joran and his two friends were either waiting in the car or else joined them.
I have no idea if Ms. Holloway was “ambushed”; you are constructing a straw man and then proceeding to kick the living hell out of it.
And TeresainPa is quite right, you ARE trying to hijack this diary–apparently because you’re furious that we’re not discussing what you want to discuss, and that we happen to disagree with you and Saint Steven of Gilliard that Natalee Holloway’s a spoilt white slut whose arranged gangbang went awry.
Still no condemnation FROM YOU of Mr. Gilliard’s speculation that Natalee Holloway must have been ready to “pull a train” (organise a gangbang for herself) from you, I see. Again, that tells me everything I need to know about your entire attitude towards this matter, as well as towards women in general.
Okay, let’s try this again.
The original post takes a blogger to task (in part) for making suppositional statements about a missing person which are not based on first hand knowledge.
An individual writes in a comment that other comments are making suppositional statements about individuals who are being investigated by the authorities.
Someone writes about the appearance of this irony in the comments. Someone takes issue with comments about irony.
I used to say that the main difference between republicans and everyone else was that they were “irony challenged”. Not anymore.
Ironic, eh?
No wonder we lose elections.
My original post was 2 sentences and the diary author gave a civil reply which addressed and clarified the issue I raised. It was done as far as I was concerned.
But that wasn’t good enough for you.
You are the one that went off on the tangent about the facts concerning alleged sexual intercourse and the circumstances under which Natalee met the black men that had more than the tinge of accusations that are very familiar to anyone who knows race relations in this country. I see you are now conveniently backing away from your “facts” as earlier asserted.
TeresainPA can go to hell as far as I’m concerned. A pretty blonde girl and allegations against black men bring up issues of race. Teresa, too damn bad if you don’t like it !! And no T, I will not be kept in my place as you demand.
And speaking of straw men, you have field of scarecrows. I don’t have to pass any litmus test through a condemnation of a 3rd party that would satisfy you or anyone else. And the “Online Tonton Macoutes”…oh, that’s classic. In the last century, outspoken black people were called “Mau Maus.” Nice to see you brought it up to date. And the mother of them all, my alleged “anger directed at Natalee.” I won’t go any further with that one but I’m sure you could “speculate” as to my “anger” as it relates to Natalee.
Both of you sound like you’d be at home on the stormfront site.
There are certain men who can not leave a discussion of “women’s issues” alone and must hijack it and make it something else.
There are certain white men who must hijack every discussion of race and talk about reverse racism.
Both groups are equally ridiculous. This subject is not about racism. Sexist men are sexist no matter what ethnic group and black men also rape women so let’s not go there.
I will very happily listen to what you have to say about racism if you start another diary on that topic. In the meantime what you are doing here is intentional hijacking.
Teresa, at this point I’d like to invoke Booman’s Basic Rule: Don’t be a jerk (it’s actually “don’t be a dick” but I like “jerk” better).
No, it doesn’t apply to you. There are people here who simply cannot argue in a civil, adult way, and have carried over their nasty habits from DKos, complete with character smears, juvenile taunts, and personal attacks, into the relatively pristine atmosphere of BooTrib. Telling people to “go to hell” ought to be cause for being suspended from posting on this website, and I have rated the person in question a “1” to warn him.
Back to the matter at hand:
Of the three prime suspects in this, one is a Dutch kid who is white; the other two are brothers originally from Surinam.
It’s obvious that the folk concerned about racism here haven’t travelled much, otherwise they would realise that the entire world doesn’t have America’s racial obsession and categories. In Aruba, for example, they are not obsessed with the color of a person’s skin, as so many Americans seem to be–that’s why one white man and two black men are being detained, no favour given and none expected.
As I said in my post that was censored, the author of the diary and I had put the matter to rest and this thread could have ended right there. But YOU were the one that was unsatisfied with our exchange and went off on racially charged speculative tangents based on hearsay you claimed (then) as “fact.” And your thinly veiled racist comments concerning my “anger at Natalee” and “Tonton Macoutes” tactics show you to be the one who clearly is obssessed with race as it may apply to black men being in contact with or having an opinion on the missing blonde from Alabama.
Given that I have extended family from Aruba, I don’t need any vacuous comments from you on the social construct of the island. Anyone who claims that Arubans are not color conscious obviously doesn’t know a damn thing about the island, or the Caribbean in general. But it’s clear that you enjoy going off about things you know little about.
Too bad if I’ve soiled your “pristine” neighborhood.
If we keep fighting like this we’ll have as many registered users as Dkos! Pass the popcorn please.
To the same person who got my first “1” rating on this site.
And yes, I realise the seriousness of “0” or “1” rating someone here, and I don’t do it lightly.
But when someone flails out at anger in these boards and persists in an attempt to hijack a diary–despite numerous admonitions not to do so, and despite having his comment altered because it contained a personal insult–then I’m sorry, it’s “mega troll” rating for you.
Why so angry and disrespectful?
Hmmm…. If we read this entire thread from the diary on, it seems that Poobah 1) has not read the entire thread; 2) has not bothered to think about Booman’s guidelines of respect; and 3) has not even TRIED to listen empathetically to what posters have said.
Words have been twisted of meaning. For instance, when a poster noted that the young woman left with the Dutch boy and only discovered that others were going to drive the car, I did not take that as racist, but as meaning that she expected to be hanging out with only one person.
We seem to need a new rating, like “1.5,” that means “disrespectful and beside the point.”
That said, thank you to Chris and most all of you posters for a very enlightening discussion.
No wonder we lose elections.
Well comrades, it appears I’m not pure or righteous. I didn’t denounce quickly enough or with sufficient conviction.
Well comrades, it appears I’m not pure or righteous.
I would hope that the anti-feminists at DKos don’t export to this place their peculiar form of harassment, intimidation, denigration and condescension. It makes for a hostile and unproductive environment and if we wanted to be subjected to the pleasures of verbal abuse, god knows there’s enough ‘progressive’ blogs to participate on.
Thanks.
and I just wanted to drop a quick line of appreciation for this excellent diary.
The bully boys are losing, they just don’t realize it yet.
We have a couple on this diary.
Not to worry–they’ve wandered onto the wrong website for their particular brand of cyber bullying.
We won’t let Booman Tribune become that sort of place. I won’t let it become that. We won’t let it become that.
Here is where we make our stand and say “no more”.
I never took the opportunity to thank you for principled stand during the wars. So – thank you!!
You’re welcome, catnip.
Still digging the shrapnel out of my arse, though. I came under some heavy fire in the killing fields of DKos.
That’s why a few online Tonton Macoutes here don’t worry me; if I could stand 50 of them on DKos, two here is a piece of cake.
I do not understand your comment. What do you mean when you say “No wonder we lose elections”?
At first glance, it seems to me to be an inflamatory statement. Is that your intention?
I for one would appreciate some clarification on this statement.
I know why “we” (meaning right-wing Democrats) keep losing elections.
It’s because “we” are so eager to gain the white male Southern (i.e., “Bubba”) vote that “we” tromp on, oh, let’s see, women, blacks, Latinos, gays, environmentalists, the urban poor–you know, the loyal constituencies of the Democratic Party who see no reason to put time or effort into working for a party that doesn’t work for them.
And after every lost election, “we” blame “us”–meaning the loyal troops of the Democrats who only get blame and recrimination even when we hold our noses and vote for “Anybody But Bush”.
We have met the enemy, and he is “we”.
Sorry to go off-topic like this, but SOMEBODY had to say it.
GREAT comment, Shadowthief.
I went off on this a few days ago at Creek Running North (it’s OK to flog the post in my own diary, right?)
I’m really heartened to see more and more people saying such things – one of the best pieces of news in the last few months.
Shadowthief, what you say in reply to my comment is similar to my sense of what is implied in the statement “No wonder we lose elections” But who can say? It’s so short and so seemingly off-topic I am unsure what the commentor means by it.
So I am asking. I wish to be enlightened. I would greatly appreciate a reply.
Here, and listen to what one other is saying? Or has it gone too far for that?
Sure this diary is about rape and sexism and all that, but I’m not sure why that would automatically discount the concerns of someone who also thinks race plays a part in things, including how one views incidents. And language. (by the way, I’m not really sure whose nickname I’m replying to, but it’s a question for anyone).
Anyway, it’s sad to see this excellent diary devolve into accusations and counter accusations and anger and troll ratings and all that, instead of the actual addressing of what is being said.
sigh, preview is your friend.
That should be “what one another is saying”, which may not in itself be proper grammar, but oh well.
Since you asked, Nanette….
I have already pointed out that of the three young men being held, one is white (Dutch) and two are black (Surinamese).
None of the three have been charged with a crime. Under Aruban/Dutch law, they are permitted to be held for quite some time without formal charges being filed.
I could well understand the charge of racism if Aruban authorities let the white man go free and held the two black men. But they are holding all three. It seems that justice in this case is color-blind.
And it is not racist to say that Natalee Holloway was not interested in the two Surinamese brothers, it is a fact. The two brothers said that Natalee left the bar with Joran van der Sloot, the white man of the trio, that she was kissing him in the back seat of the car, and Natalee’s friends have testified that Natalee was dancing and flirting ONLY with Mr. van der Sloot at the bar where he met her.
The accusation of racism has been hurled here, hysterically, in attempt to deflect attention from the real issue here, which is discussion of Mr. Gilliard’s misogynistic diary posted on his own blog.
That’s a fair observation. But I took pains not to allege such acts of any individual when I wrote the piece. erhaps I should have been more clear.
It’s not just Alabama, by the way. When I was cutting my left activism eyeteeth, in the early 1970s in Buffalo, it wasn’t unknown for African-American men to be saddled with rape charges despite having abundant alibis and character witnesses.
Chris, I didn’t perceive any unfairness in this diary.
This blog doesn’t have any effect on the judicial process in Aruba. The three men who are in custody, van der Sloot and his two friends, were the last people on earth who saw Natalee Holloway alive (let us hope that she still is). They have already been caught out in a lie about dropping Ms. Holloway off at her hotel, and the Aruban authorities have good reason to have detained all three.
And I do not think it is unreasonable to speculate that someone–possibly these three young men or someone else–has done something to Ms. Holloway. All three young men said they had sexual relations with Ms. Holloway; I find it doubtful, given what we have learnt of her in the press (a young woman described as extremely responsible and a student with near-perfect marks in high school), that she was organising a sexual liason with all three of these young men.
The Aruban authorities are holding these three in custody with good reason. Nobody here is trying to railroad van der Sloot nor his two friends–they are merely thrashing at a straw man in order to distract us from their friend Steve Gilliard’s abominable ramblings.
What’s more this isn’t a post about the case in Aruba — it’s clear that this particular event is just a jumping off point for the discussion, which makes their comments even more specious.
Specious, yes.
Not to mention suspicious.
for such a thoughtful diary.
I, too, had stopped walking alone my previous neighborhood.
It was a Sunday morning, a few weeks after I had purchased and moved into my house (all on my own). I woke up, threw on some shorts and walked, perhaps 2 miles. I was completing my walk along a very major street, when an elderly man pulled up along side of me and tried to convince me to get in his car. I am sure he thought that I was a prostitute. I stopped walking alone the second I was safely in my house.
I still hesitate, in a different neighborhood (and country) and I hate that feeling.
I can so relate to your experience Toni. I used to run and do triathlons… One day on a long run, a bunch of guys in a car slowed down beside me as I ran long. One of them tried to grab at me out the window. I was so scared … but I was able to get away. Since that day (about 10 years ago) I never run alone – always with my boyfriend/now husband or girlfriend. It scarred me badly, and has changed the way that I live my life.
O.
I am so sorry to hear this Olivia. Did you contact the police? I know that I didn’t, because I didn’t even look at the car.
No, I didn’t contact the police either. Thinking about it now, I’m not really sure why I didn’t. I can’t remember what type of car it was or even the colour at this point. It seems like a long time ago for the little details, but the big ones remain.
My boyfriend/now husband learned a lot about women’s equality that day. He was so scared when I told him what happened. It was a real wake-up to him, to experience it through me. Every time I wanted to run, I scheduled it around his free time – and he understood how limiting that was, and how unfair. But he wanted me to be safe, and I’m just thankful that he was that sort of man. Of course I had to marry him!
Your posts hurt, I have also had attempts from people on the street, once when I was 5 yrs old and once when I was 19. It is how I come about raising German Shepherds, they are very loyal and protective yet read people well and usually leave common souls alone who mean their owners no harm. It has renewed my confidence walking or running. Granted, I’m not alone doing it but the dogs are usually so eager to go and I don’t have to wait for a family memeber or a friend to go with me.
A pox on my worthless cats – I tried to put a leash on them when they were kittens. They quite enthusiastically demurred. Or demeowed.
Sorry – I couldn’t resist.
Sorry to make so many posts on this diary, but I neglected to mention something before.
My understanding of the facts are these: Natalee Holloway did leave a bar with Joran van der Sloot, a Dutch teenager about her age–she did NOT leave with the other two men, but rather discovered that the other two were in the backseat of the car after she had already gotten into the car. Those other two men have said they had sexual relations with Ms. Holloway; so she did not leave the bar with three men, but with one, a young man her own age, and it is rather obvious that any sexual relations with at least two of the three men was not consensual. The other two men are brothers: Satish Kalpoe, 18, and 21-year-old Deepak Kalpoe.
The early accounts of Ms. Holloway leaving a bar in Arbua with three men was contradicted by the story Mr. van der Sloot and the other two men gave to police, in which they said that the other two were waiting in the car and did not leave the bar with Ms. Holloway.
I’ve never read Steve Gilliard before, except when Markos excerpts (I rarely follow the links). It appears I didn’t miss much.
I, as a young single woman, go out with three guys all of the time. Two of them are past fraternity boys, as a matter of fact. Perfectly respectful, considerate young men.
Hmmm, I also once went off with two guys I just met when I was in Ireland. Unadvisable, yes, but the fact remains that nothing happened to me.
Maybe Steve Gilliard knows…something…that many of the men I’ve met don’t.
That’s exactly what this comes down to. A woman shouldn’t have to be afraid of going off with a couple of other people, no matter what their gender. She shouldn’t need a chaperone or bodyguard at all times. Individuals should be responsible about their sexuality and choices and respectful of others’.
These individuals weren’t, and twits like Steve Gilliard seem to want nothing more than to excuse them.
Mr. Gilliard’s sordid speculation is that Ms. Holloway left with three men to “pull a train” (organise a gangbang for herself).
Um, Mr. Gilliard, how about this interpretation:
Ms. Holloway meets Mr. van der Sloot, a young man about her age (actually 17 to her 18). She is drunk, yes, but also charmed by him.
Mr. van der Sloot offers to take her to a romantic local beach. But he doesn’t have a car; his friends, two Surinamese brothers, will drive them.
Ms. Holloway gets into the car with Mr. van der Sloot, not intending to have anything to do with the two brothers. What the three men had in mind, and what actually happened, is now what Aruban authorities are attempting to uncover.
But note that Mr. Gilliard’s ONLY explanation is that Ms. Holloway MUST have had a gangbang in mind.
I think that says far more about Mr. Gilliard and his defenders on DKos (and here) than it does about Ms. Holloway’s judgment.
Exactly. Gilliard’s trying to excuse these rapists and their behaviour by pinning the blame on the woman involved – blame the victim, in other words.
How progressive.
A woman who goes somewhere with a man, and somehow winds up with three men, must have been seeking a gang-bang.
Sadly I must say, that this reminds me that I can imagine a different sort of nightmare than chafing under a repressive Bush Administration, and that would be, enduring a future Democratic administration which, desperate to maintain its grasp on the almighty White House, would employ some of these types of voices as their online Tontons Macoutes.
We can’t continue under Bush, but we can’t go forward to a Democratic future where this kind of attitude is considered okay too. Where the small and less powerful are sacrificed and thrown overboard in the ongoing singleminded quest for the Ring.
There has to be another way.
Sadly I must say, that this reminds me that I can imagine a different sort of nightmare than chafing under a repressive Bush Administration, and that would be, enduring a future Democratic administration which, desperate to maintain its grasp on the almighty White House, would employ some of these types of voices as their online Tontons Macoutes.
Yes. quite so. Although I must say I have difficulty accepting the notion that employing or enabling these sorts of voices represents a winning strategy.
For me the essential question of late ‘has been how does this differ in tone or intent from the rhetoric of mensnewsdaily or Rush Limbaugh?’
For me the essential question of late ‘has been how does this differ in tone or intent from the rhetoric of mensnewsdaily or Rush Limbaugh?’
It doesn’t.
But that’s okay, because they’re playing for our team.
And once they have possession of the Ring, tightly in their grasp, they will use that awesome power for good, of course. For the ultimate benefit of all of us (important things first, though). How could it be otherwise?
Or enslaved. Or maybe all the Hobbits. And maybe half the humans and some of the Elves.
But the ring will be ours, and, uh, we’re the “good guys”, so that makes it o.k. And the Hobbits are just a single-issue group (Hobbit survival) who don’t focus on the “important shit”.
By the way–“online Tonton Macoutes” has got to be THE sobriquet of the year (and it’s only June). I’m writing that one down for future reference.
By the way–“online Tonton Macoutes” has got to be THE sobriquet of the year (and it’s only June). I’m writing that one down for future reference.
I liked that one as well.
Wow, that may be one of the best analogies for why partisan reasoning (It’s okay if we abandon these issues now, we’ll deal with them when we’re in power) is a really, really bad idea. They’re asking Hobbits (women, blacks, etc, etc, etc) the One Ring (power) to people who don’t care about Hobbits.
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that this is not in the best interest of the Hobbits.
The hobbits will not vote for the “just trust me” crowd, and the orcs will still have the power after it’s over.
We cannot alienate the Orc vote.
We have to downplay the single issue of Hobbit survival in order to win back the Orc vote.
Hobbit survival is not a core value of the Democratic Party.
I like this!
Hmmm. I meant to add most of your post as my sig.
Wow, what a compliment.
LOVE the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
between pornography and this kind of thinking?
A woman who goes somewhere with a man, and somehow winds up with three men, must have been seeking a gang-bang.
Woman with three me…. what the heck else would you expect but a gang bang? Right?
the sexes, should women be taught to fear men?
Why, if there’s equality between the sexes, should a girl, or a woman, be any more afraid of three men, than a boy, or a man, be afraid of three girls or three women?
Steve Gilliard, if you’re reading, would you answer, please?
Good diary & great discussion.
Just glad to be here.
but I have just found the most astonishing website when I was googling for news stories about the missing girl. This hit came up on the first page of links! It’s a white pride site, and, when it comes to non sequiturs I defy you to beat this: ” This girl is from Alabama; did her parents teach her nothing?”
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=209510
I would be horribly offended by the “boys will be boys” defense. How dare anyone say I can’t control myself, or that I don’t know that physically assaulting another human being is wrong.
It is very obvious how this kind of thinking hurts women, but why it is not equally obvious that it also hurts men?
What is Giliard actually saying here? That women and men cannot be together in a non sexual situation?
He is really making a huge mistake in mixing up his sexual fantasies with the behavior of real people in the real world.
I’m male, and am quite offended by it. Especially since it also implies that non-sexual relationships between men and women – friendships, say – are impossible. Some of the best friendships in my life have been with girls, and Gilliard’s implying that my only reason for being in those friendships was the hope of sex.
I loathe the “boys will be boys” mentality. It implies that men are irresponsible machines, and are incapable of being anything else.
I have an evil, immature desire to wait a couple of months, then go on his blog, pick a post at random and make the comment “Jeez, who can belive anyting you say — you men all think with your dicks” and when I get blasted, link back to his own posts.
LOL
I might just do that myself.
😉
Yeah, I read those threads with Gilliard. I gave up on him a long time ago, due to his sexist remarks.
I don’t think he would be able to say similar things about other racist, prejudicial thought like he does about women. I won’t go into examples, but I don’t think he’d appreciate any table turning.
No, he’s perfectly happy stating as fact some broad declarations about men’s behavior, brought about by just looking at women … so the women are to blame and the men just can’t help it. He once said that men only helped women they wanted to have sex with. Because Gilliard thinks it, it must be true.
He doesn’t realize how close he comes to telling women they should wear burka’s, like Afganistan’s men. Women wear burka’s because the MEN can’t be responsible for themselves if they see other women. According to Steve, this is true and normal.
He and Kos are very alike when defending their current “women=bashing thought du jour” … That’s how they see it and YOU should just grow up. Never realizing that they are the juveniles and not vice versa.
He’s quite pompous about cooking, too, even though his attitudes about cooking limit him in the same ways.
Yeah, I only read his thread on the abduction subject because another post had clued me in, I had had to drop him from my list a long time ago. While he’s on our side, he’s way too close-minded, and full of himself.
…is he “on our side”?
I am increasingly fearful of the chaps “on our side”, as they seem to think that the key to winning is becoming like the OTHER side.
We may yet exchange this nightmare government for a worse one–a Democratically-controlled government that does exactly what this one is doing, only under the cloak of “centrism” and “moderation”. This is like Jesse Jackson lending his considerable stature to right-wing fanatics who opposed removing poor Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube and allowing her to die in peace–up until that time, I had always thought of Mr. Jackson as a man of considerable sense and a man “on our side”.
Now, I’m not so sure who’s “on my side”, and getting quite nervous about my allies. At least the enemy doesn’t pretend to be my friend, and we are comfortably in open conflict.
I’m reading this, and I flip over to Daily Kos, and lo! it’s Armando, posting a Recommended Diary entitled “Political Whore” about Susan Estrich.
And Armando sees absolutely nothing wrong with calling a woman a whore, and responds defensively to the polite calls to retitle it “Political Sellout.” “Bitch” and “whore,” we’re told by other helpful souls there, are actually gender-neutral words now.
Once we’ve won the revolution, we still need to reeducate some in our own ranks.
Quite.
Neither of the women I’ve known who have been sex workers deserve to be compared to Susan Estrich — last I heard, both were quite left wing and their politics were never for sale.
Though I’d favour ‘political mercenary’ over ‘political sellout.’
The worst part is when you remember how he was sooooo concerned about sexism in the Democratic party.
Rape isn’t so much a hate crime (although hateful in nature) – nor is it specifically related to sex. It’s a crime of power.
Several years ago I attended a multi-session course on self-defense for women, taught by a husband/wife team of police officers. One of the first lessons they shared is to do your best not to show fear. (I know, I know – easier said than done) Exhibiting fear serves to enhance the attacker’s feeling of power and provides a rush – knowing they’re instilling fear in their victim.
In reference to the blame aspect – my parents were strict, and they were also very open in sharing their teachings and warnings about potentially dangerous situations. My friends (both male and female) always had my back, but there’s only so much friends can do if a person is intent on engaging in stupid behaviors. (And please allow me to explain – my comments are no reflection on the woman in Aruba, because I know absolutely nothing about her story) But I will say this – I’m damn lucky to be alive to write this, and I could write a book on the dangerous, idiotic things I’ve done – and they’re nothing I’m proud of. Including the many times I hitchhiked in strange areas by myself in the middle of the night. And walking home from parties in dangerous neighborhoods miles away from my home, or taking rides from strange men. The situations took place in my mid to late teens, and always involved dangerous levels of alcohol consumption and/or whatever other chemicals may have been on hand to obliterate my judgment. And again, I cannot stress enough how damn lucky I am to be alive, because some terrible things happened to me along the way. More times than not, I later found out that my friends had tried their best to keep me from engaging in the irresponsible behaviors. But no matter how close someone is monitoring your actions, if you’re intent on behaving stupidly, you’ll find a way – beyond the control of others.
When my parents were in their early 80s, they unknowingly encountered a dangerous situation during a camping trip. They met a couple of friendly teenagers at the campsite, who told my parents they had never been fishing before. My parents are immensely generous by nature, and since they had extra rods and reels on hand, they invited the teenagers to spend the afternoon fishing with them out on their boat. Later that night, several police officers arrived at the campsite, and my parents found out the kids were actually in their 20s and were known scam artists who took advantage of the elderly. When I asked my mother if that had an impact on her trust of others, she told me “Of course not! Life is too short to allow a couple bad seeds to ruin your faith in humanity”.
Going back to the self-defense class. . . a couple things really took the class members by surprise. We were informed up front that none of the self-defense materials would be given to us in written form. And we were told that under no circumstances should we share our learnings with our husbands or boyfriends. The officers told us if we had the information in writing, or shared the information with our significant others, the men in our lives could likely use the counter-attack maneuvers against us. WTF? The officers felt the need to be brutally candid, based on their experiences with domestic violence. (On a side note, unless you’re an expert in martial arts, never attempt to kick a man in the groin. By lifting your leg to kick the attacker, you’re placing yourself off balance and the man can easily flip you on your back. And if you don’t fully connect, you’ll just infuriate the attacker even more so. And for those of you with toddlers, you’ll understand that the best defense against being dragged or carried off is to go completely limp, because your weight will make it immensely difficult to carry or drag you away)
It was also interesting to learn of basic psychological differences between men and women. When the officers taught us how to gouge someone’s eyes out, all the women in my class became squeamish and had great difficulty proceeding with that lesson. The officers explained that women have a built in nature of nurturing and typically do not want to physically harm others, even if their own lives are in jeopardy. (PLEASE don’t be upset with me if that comment came off as over generalizing or sexist. It was merely based on my own personal reaction when engaging in that lesson, behaviors I observed from virtually every other woman in the class, and the information shared by police officers who had extensive experience with the subject matter. I have no doubt there are many women out there who do not fall into that category – but nonetheless, it was interesting to experience those emotions and actions firsthand.)
What’s my point? Quite honestly, I don’t know. Mostly it’s a stream of consciousness rambling about different experiences. If any of my comments offended others (for whatever reason) please don’t be angry. I had no intention of striking any nerves – I’m merely sharing personal experiences – fully understanding that there are many exceptions to the “rules” I’ve illustrated.
Oh yeah. . .and I’m sorry if I inadvertently crossed over into the land of “Off Topic” :^)
It’s a crime of power.
Which is pretty much what a hate crime is.
I wrote you a lengthy response, but it disappeared into oblivion when I hit Post. I don’t have the energy to rewrite my comments, so I guess I’ll just depart with a non-response – what with all your 41 recordbreaking Recommends and your selective downrating of others.
Good night, semantics and all.
I didn’t intend to downrate anyone here.
Re. the ratings, I’m wondering if Anomalous hasn’t picked up that you’re fairly new. There’s a bit of a trap for new players that I remember running into myself over on dKos.
Although the ‘3’ on the ratings equates to ‘good’ on the ratings scale, it’s not really interpreted by people as meaning ‘good’ and is rarely given. Damning with faint praise and all that. So ‘4’s are pretty much the norm here.
That’s good to know, dove. Thank you.
Um, I mean that’s excellent to know.
“Um, I mean that’s excellent to know”
Okay, smarty, I’m sorry about my previous comments. (Seriously.) I have firsthand experience with the subject matter (both in drafting hate crime legislation – and being a victim of rape.)
Under the circumstances, I think it best that I not comment on subjects that set off my emotions to such a degree. (Which is not to say I’m taking my toys and going home. I’m just identifying personal hot buttons in which my emotions may likely overshadow my objectivity)
By the way, this is a great diary (not just “good”, mind you 🙂
OK, I’m confused now, because I thought your post was very well thought-out. I didn’t mean my short reply to be anything other than a small rejoinder on that one , and I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear.
I took a year of karate/self defense and it made me feel much better about being out in public alone. I learned how to punch very hard and in what places to punch and how to react quickly to strikes against me (and even how to break some one’s neck quickly – hope to never have to use that one). Very glad I took those classes.
Ahhh. . .but are you positioned to gouge your attacker’s eyes out? 🙂 or smash them in the throat? (Something tells me you can answer those questions in the affirmative)
Good night, and wishing you safety of spirit!
“Rape isn’t so much a hate crime (although hateful in nature) – nor is it specifically related to sex. It’s a crime of power.
Several years ago I attended a multi-session course on self-defense for women, taught by a husband/wife team of police officers. One of the first lessons they shared is to do your best not to show fear. (I know, I know – easier said than done) Exhibiting fear serves to enhance the attacker’s feeling of power and provides a rush – knowing they’re instilling fear in their victim.”
I have been around quite a few men that are abusers (with friends I had) and agree with this. They are mostly cowards, and want to be able to intimidate to make themselves feel less like cowards. A strong confident person with righteous anger can often back them down. It’s as though their mother is talking to them or something, and really strange to see. They want and need the fear to do it for them; if it doesn’t show they don’t flip into that other weird head space that feeds on that fear.
What do you think a hate crime is? It’s a crime of power. The K K K sees blacks as a threat to the position of power occupied by whites, so they commit hate crimes. Gay-bashers see gays as a threat to gender roles that secure their place in the pecking order. Some say they are reacting to their own terror at the homo-erotic tendencies and fluidity that we all have, to some degree. They are afraid that they will somehow be dragged to the dark side by the presence of homosexuality in the community. Hate crimes are crimes committed out of fear that one’s position of relative power is threatened.
Rape is an assertion of dominance. It’s an assertion of dominance in war, to terrify women, as our diarist says, and to demoralize men because of the supposition that women are other men’s property, which they are taking. It’s an assertion of dominance in a prison block. It says this is my place in the pecking order. Don’t even think about usurping it, because I can make you my bitch. It’s a an assertion of dominance in a date rape that says “I am a man and I will take my privilege no matter what. I won’t have some woman (lesser being) telling me what I can do with her body.” So, no, I don’t see a difference. There is only variation as to which lesser status group or individual the hate crime perpetrator perceives to be a threat to their status.
I never should have engaged in semantics in attempting to distinguish between hate crimes and crimes of power. (I merely meant to say that it is founded in power and control – more so than many other crimes.)
From everything I’ve researched, a “hate” crime is defined as a crime aimed at a specific group (typically based on race or sexual preference). In the instance of rape – it really has no boundaries with any particular group – it includes women, men, children, all races, all nationalities and individuals of all sexual preferences. So. . .while the crime itself is hateful, I didn’t think it qualified as a “hate” crime as defined in legislation.
I didn’t intend to start any trouble, and I’m sorry that I appeared to have done so.
I don’t think you started any trouble, A. You’ve got a reasonable and well-expressed point of view here. And I agree with your reservations about declaring rape a hate crime – though I think there’s a strong case to be made for it. That’s why I deliberately didn’t make any conclusions about the internal state of all rapists.
The point I was trying to make is that whether we decide rape is a hate crime or not, there are certain undeniable and strong similarities between rape and hate crimes in the effect they have on the targeted population. And while I agree that women are not the sole targets of rape – I know this from personal experience, as I mention in a rather intemperate fashion in comments on this post at Creek Running North – they are certainly the primary targets.
And a big difference between how I was treated after being assaulted and how many women are treated: No one told me I shouldn’t have been out walking at midnight in South Berkeley. No one asked me not to go out again. No one asked whether I’d struck up a conversation with the guy or led him on somehow.
Anyhow. Sorry for the little misunderstanding, and I really valued your responses to my diary.
As a legal definition, no. As a definition of the intent, or the underlying psychological factors that shape the offender, I really think it does. I actually have some problems with hate crime legislation. I understand the need for statutes to attempt to curb the behavior. However, a lot of what is defined as a hate crime could also just as easily be called domestic terrorism. Many of these crimes are perpetrated to terrorize, with the goal of some type of social change.
Reading garbage like this from Gillard becomes so depressing and makes me wonder just when women are going to quit being blamed for everything? As for women ‘asking’ for it…yeah good defense there. Kinda like saying well the guy said he wanted to be robbed so I robbed him…ergo it’s not a crime, right.
There also seems to me one overwhelmingly and glaring fact that hasn’t been mentioned about women only going out with friends, etc etc..and that is most rapes are done by someone that is know to you or the more offensively named ‘date rape’.
I read an article this morning(and can’t remember where so no link for now)about how many women and girls disappear every year. I believe this statistic was from the FBI and might interest everyone since the media so focuses on women-white women in particular- and yet several thousand more men disappear a year than women. A statistic that was a complete surprise to me…and then makes you wonder even more about the media coverage of this latest ‘white girl in peril’ story.
And I still wonder how anyone can conflate the crime of rape with sex. I foolishly thought that it had been established years ago that rape wasn’t about sex but about power, domination, fear, anything but sex. You could say it is the antithesis of sex.
in “blaming the victim” was a few years ago in a court of law. No, I wasn’t a defendant, or a victim…I was sitting in a jury box, with 11 other ordinary folks and a couple of alternates, in a sexual assault trial.
The case involved a maintenance worker who had used his passkey to enter a woman’s apartment and perform sexual acts on her (oral and digital penetration, and attempted rape — her son, who was sleeping in the same room, woke up and started crying, which scared him away).
The defense attorney first tried to portray the assailant as a sleepwalker (who just happened to be able to sleep-unlock a door), then as a love-struck young man who thought that the woman was interested because she spoke to him in a friendly manner in the laundry room a couple of times. The kicker was in closing arguments when he argued that the irritation caused by the digital penetration could have been caused by the woman using a tampon…the female members of the jury shot down that theory pretty quickly when we got to deliberating!
From the beginning of time, it’s been the woman’s fault: “The woman gave the fruit to me, and I ate” — never asking if it was really a good idea or not.
The profit-mongering election hijacking that produced lamebrain GWB as 2-term executive director of these United States is the ultimate hate crime against humanity.
Did I leave anything out here?
You know what? Personal profit costs somebody. Is it me, or you?
How can I capitalize, or does my obsession with supreme capitalization mean I have narcissistic personality disorder and need therapy, or what?
Maybe I can consume absolution by selling this annoying conscience to the medical community, or maybe the Catholic church might be interested in it.
Any clues as to the most profitable way to sell out my own humanity?
I’m listening!
The following is a rule a made a few months ago. I do not direct this at any individual in this thread. I post it here for those who may erroneously think they are posting at a site with the same rules as Daily Kos.
And I just want to disseminate a new rule based on my semi-collected thoughts:
Not everyone is as smart as you. Not everyone one is as well informed as you. Not everyone writes as well as you.
And I don’t care how dumb, ignorant, and illiterate you are, there is someone, somewhere who is more so.
So, when it comes to having disagreements and debates and discussions…this is the rule:
Don’t be a prick.
Don’t act in a way that would get you punched in the face or thrown out of a dinner party. Don’t treat other people with disrespect even if you think they are stupid and ill-informed.
Don’t mock someone because they have trouble expressing themselves.
Don’t be a prick.
That’s the rule.
Great diary, Chris. Sorry I came so late to the discussion.
Some of these comments. Trying to hijack this conversation by blaming the girl and racism and…
You know, when I was thirty, I and a girlfriend decided to celebrate by buying Amtrack passes and taking our skateboards and skating and riding the rails across America. We called it the “Old Boyfriends Tour” because we made stops to visit old boyfriends along the way. We went to Santa Fe at one point, met all these cool young dudes hanging out at the Plaza there who thought we were pretty cool because we were riding skateboards. We ended up hanging out with these guys, going to a party, getting plastered, riding in the back of a truck with them…
Later I thought, y’know, that was probably pretty dumb. Something bad could have happened, easily. But on this occasion, nothing bad did. These were sweet boys. We were not looking to have sex with them. We just wanted to hang out and have some fun. You know, what’s wrong with this world, that just wanting to enjoy the company of strangers can be taking your life in your hands, and that if something bad does happen, it’s your fault for being a woman who just wants to experience the world the way that men do? On our own, independently, taking some mild risks here and there but being able to assume that the vast majority of our brothers do not mean us harm.
& Chriscol language diaries I think you all are on to something very big. As you know the repubs have managed, in conjunction with fruitcake religious right folks, to create their own code so that words that seem innocuous become part of the bulwark of hate and mistrust threads that are running through our country. Now I am not smart enough nor do I think on my feet fast enough to counter some of the attacks we hear everyday. I think the pie fights on dKos show that even so-call progressive men and women are still reacting and not being proactive.
Maybe there is a meme we can use to help us get through the next few years? And I am asking you all to provide this meme. My visual idea of it in my head is a “don’t crowd me, don’t put me down, if you don’t want to listen just go away. BUT I AM NOT GOING AWAY THIS TIME!
I just gave my first ever “Mega-Troll” rating on BooMan…I feel alternately dirty and cleansed…