how backlash works
Apr. 13th, 2007 05:10 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophiaserpentiaI wasn't going to post about the dropping of assault charges against three members of Duke University's Lacrosse team, because it's not a story i've been actively posting about, and my blog is not a news service, it's where i comment on things and collect my thoughts.
But then, yesterday, someone on my friend's list linked to an essay by John Podharetz in the New York Post titled, "Let the Liar Be Named & Shamed." I'm not linking to it because (1) it's appalling and possibly triggery, and (2) it does name the accuser several times. Jill at Feministe mentions that the NYP also posted her picture, and that the Smoking Gun is posting her personal information.
These were, undoubtedly, the same people who would have demanded we not try and convict the accused boys in the media. Charges are dropped, and suddenly, they are gleefully, happily, convicting her of fraud and literally calling for a campaign of terror against her.
I'm not kidding. From the piece by Podharetz:
First, i'm inclined to wonder if he really believes she isn't already terrified and having nightmares. I mean, even IF she was making the charges up i am certain, i'll bet my life savings, that she is terrified right now.
He wants to make sure she has nightmares and is terrified, and pictures of her as well as other personal information are now widely available. If this woman is harmed, her blood is on his hands.
Holy hell. When i read this i can almost feel spittle on my face, because i can picture the author in a sputtering, foaming fury.
Now, if the woman committed a crime, if she deliberately made up these charges so that she could get... what, exactly, does she stand to gain in the first place?... well, whatever she might gain from this, then the proper course of action would be to charge her with slander or fraud or malicious arrest.
The thing is, we already have a procedure for handling false accusations because we live in a (supposedly) civilized society which (theoretically) does not operate by intimidation and threat but by the rule of law.
But nothing makes misogynists angrier than the implication that violence against women is actually widespread and deserving of special attention. They dedicate significant chunks of their time to proving that there is an epidemic of false rape accusations and treat this as if it is a men's civil rights issue. They can't really demonstrate what it is that women supposedly get out of falsely accusing someone of rape, or why they would trouble themselves with the scrutiny and notorious brusqueness of the criminal justice system, but they make this argument anyway.
But then there's this circular argument Podharetz hints at, that this woman's false accusation will make it harder for other accusers to get a fair hearing. This is total nonsense. The only reason that a woman would fear that her accusation of rape will be lumped in with all other rape cases is because of misogyny in the first place, because of a societal attitude that blends all women together and therefore blends all their accounts together as well.
Under misogyny, all women are interchangeable; if a man was angered by girls around him as a child, he can get revenge against them by going into a school 20 or 30 years later and shooting a completely different bunch of girls, because to the misogynistic mind, girls are interchangeable. So, when misogynists ponder feminist claims about the ubiquity of rape, they blend all rape accusers into one stereotypical rape accuser (who "probably consented but then felt remorse the next day," because don't you submit to having a Q-tip shoved up your hoo-hoo to cover up your remorse?) and therefore it makes sense to suspect all accusations of rape just because some of them happen to be unproveable.
But the "logic" of this is terribly flimsy in the first place. Suppose person X accused person Y of punching him in the face. Can person Y's defense team imply that, because person Z made a false accusation 15 years ago against someone of punching him in the face, that we should question all face-punching accusations? No -- this logic only applies to accusations made by women, or gays, or black people, or Jews.
Lastly, by advocating a campaign of terror against a woman who dared to accuse three men of rape, he is contributing to the atmosphere of fear that silences women in the first place -- and, he's doing so while claiming to speak for those women whose accusations of rape won't get a fair hearing because of misogyny.
crossposted to my journal and crossposted to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
feminist
But then, yesterday, someone on my friend's list linked to an essay by John Podharetz in the New York Post titled, "Let the Liar Be Named & Shamed." I'm not linking to it because (1) it's appalling and possibly triggery, and (2) it does name the accuser several times. Jill at Feministe mentions that the NYP also posted her picture, and that the Smoking Gun is posting her personal information.
These were, undoubtedly, the same people who would have demanded we not try and convict the accused boys in the media. Charges are dropped, and suddenly, they are gleefully, happily, convicting her of fraud and literally calling for a campaign of terror against her.
I'm not kidding. From the piece by Podharetz:
She must be denied anonymity because she makes a mockery of the very policy of granting anonymity to rape accusers. We do not publish their names so that they will not fear public exposure. But people who are tempted to do the monstrous thing [name deleted] did should fear public exposure.
They should be terrified of it.
They should have nightmares about it.
First, i'm inclined to wonder if he really believes she isn't already terrified and having nightmares. I mean, even IF she was making the charges up i am certain, i'll bet my life savings, that she is terrified right now.
He wants to make sure she has nightmares and is terrified, and pictures of her as well as other personal information are now widely available. If this woman is harmed, her blood is on his hands.
Her name is [deleted], and she does not deserve to lick the underside of the shoes of hardworking and honest people of color and modest means who somehow manage to get through life without attempting to destroy and defile the lives of others.
Holy hell. When i read this i can almost feel spittle on my face, because i can picture the author in a sputtering, foaming fury.
Now, if the woman committed a crime, if she deliberately made up these charges so that she could get... what, exactly, does she stand to gain in the first place?... well, whatever she might gain from this, then the proper course of action would be to charge her with slander or fraud or malicious arrest.
The thing is, we already have a procedure for handling false accusations because we live in a (supposedly) civilized society which (theoretically) does not operate by intimidation and threat but by the rule of law.
But nothing makes misogynists angrier than the implication that violence against women is actually widespread and deserving of special attention. They dedicate significant chunks of their time to proving that there is an epidemic of false rape accusations and treat this as if it is a men's civil rights issue. They can't really demonstrate what it is that women supposedly get out of falsely accusing someone of rape, or why they would trouble themselves with the scrutiny and notorious brusqueness of the criminal justice system, but they make this argument anyway.
But then there's this circular argument Podharetz hints at, that this woman's false accusation will make it harder for other accusers to get a fair hearing. This is total nonsense. The only reason that a woman would fear that her accusation of rape will be lumped in with all other rape cases is because of misogyny in the first place, because of a societal attitude that blends all women together and therefore blends all their accounts together as well.
Under misogyny, all women are interchangeable; if a man was angered by girls around him as a child, he can get revenge against them by going into a school 20 or 30 years later and shooting a completely different bunch of girls, because to the misogynistic mind, girls are interchangeable. So, when misogynists ponder feminist claims about the ubiquity of rape, they blend all rape accusers into one stereotypical rape accuser (who "probably consented but then felt remorse the next day," because don't you submit to having a Q-tip shoved up your hoo-hoo to cover up your remorse?) and therefore it makes sense to suspect all accusations of rape just because some of them happen to be unproveable.
But the "logic" of this is terribly flimsy in the first place. Suppose person X accused person Y of punching him in the face. Can person Y's defense team imply that, because person Z made a false accusation 15 years ago against someone of punching him in the face, that we should question all face-punching accusations? No -- this logic only applies to accusations made by women, or gays, or black people, or Jews.
Lastly, by advocating a campaign of terror against a woman who dared to accuse three men of rape, he is contributing to the atmosphere of fear that silences women in the first place -- and, he's doing so while claiming to speak for those women whose accusations of rape won't get a fair hearing because of misogyny.
crossposted to my journal and crossposted to
feminist
