«

»

Jul 05 2011

Same shit, different day: Part the Second

In which I say pretty much the same thing I said yesterday, only with bigger words and longer run-on sentences.

Mark my words. Malignant narcissist Dominique Strauss-Kahn will get off scott-free, scattering in his smug, entitled wake a bloody trail of ruined lives torn asunder.

Powerful elite white dudes simply don’t go down for rape. The Global Accords Governing the Fair Use of Women guarantee that assaulting disenfranchised hotel cleaners and young women whose mothers have political agendas is entirely consistent with the purpose for which these (and all) women were designed.

Then again, most rapists in general simply don’t go down for rape. Rapists are always set free to roam the countryside because their violent actions are invested with the sovereign authority of established patriarchal principles. One of these principles is that women are responsible for base male impulses. She wanted it, she was a tease, she was a prostitute, she fucked me last week, she’s my ex-wife, she was walking alone at night without a flame-thrower and three trained attack dogs, she was drinking in a bar, she was wearing high heels, she didn’t fight back too hard, she said she likes it rough.

Another of these principles is that women are liars. That’s why rape victims universally suffer from “credibility issues.” Strauss-Kahn’s hotel victim isn’t Joan of Arc’s saintlier twin, so she’s got “credibility issues” that conveniently allow prosecutors to look the other way. Likewise, Tristane Banon is obviously making shit up just to derail Strauss-Kahn’s political career:

Banon describes “his fingers in my mouth, his hands in my pants … [He] grabbed my hand and arm, I asked him to let me go … He pulled me toward him, we came down and we fought on the ground for several minutes … He was violent. When I realized he really wanted to rape me, I started to give him a kick with my boots, I was terrified and I told him: “You’re not going to rape me?” And then I managed to free myself, I ran downstairs …”

The author of the Slate article from which I nicked the above quotation, by the way, urges the reader not to take Banon’s word for it. It is Banon, not the Great Seducer Strauss-Kahn, who “deserves” to have her story gone over with a fine-toothed comb.

Meanwhile, it will come as no surprise that I’m not done with the aforementioned established patriarchal principles. As the world’s foremost authority on the adjudication of rape cases, you can take it from me: Established Patriarchal Principle #1 is that women legally and culturally abide in a persistent and perpetual state of consent.

This means that the essence of women — that is, the primary property possessed by women, the very foundation of our being, our ‘constituent substance’, the ‘indispensable and necessary attribute’ without which we would not even be women — is: fuck-toilet. Women don’t have sex, women are sex. By universal decree, getting fucked is what women are for, therefore women are unrapeable; you can’t rape a thing the primary function of which is fuck-toilet, and you can’t take by force something that by definition is already freely available.

Rape laws only exist because of male vanity. Men don’t want to think of themselves as filthy stinking rapists; they prefer to imagine that they’re James Bond, idealized versions of themselves as noble protectors of their females’ honor, so deeply imbued with charisma and magnetism that women voluntarily acquiesce to them. So, to distance themselves from rape, dude culture invented some special circumstances — the most non-negotiable of which is that the victim must be of absolutely unimpeachable saintliness in word, deed, and costume, and be willing to undergo no small quantity of public humiliation — under which only the most deviant, dissipated pieces of human filth may occasionally be deemed by the courts to have crossed that vague line between consensual boinking and sexual assault.

With this ingenious victim-blaming system, only the occasional debased douchebag is a rapist. Convicting an insensate monster every once in a while leaves the rest of Dude Nation free to not be “that guy,” and to enjoy with impunity their birthright as frat boys, pimps, rakes, ladies’ men, Great Seducers, predators, bosses, college advisers, boyfriends, husbands, fathers, heads of international monetary funds, and creepy uncles.

It is, incidentally, a direct result of the mainstreaming of stupid shit like BDSM that the claim “she said she likes it rough” is ever even considered a plausible defense in a sexual assault case.

111 comments

  1. pheenobarbidoll

    Can I get a Fuck Yeah!

  2. Heo

    I am an English teacher, and I approve these run-on sentences.

  3. Friend of Snakes

    I am an old English major, and I didn’t even notice the run-on sentences, but was swept along by the waves of emotion.

  4. Treefinger

    This is a masterpiece, run-on sentences or not.

    “It is, incidentally, a direct result of the mainstreaming of stupid shit like BDSM that the claim “she said she likes it rough” is ever even considered a plausible defense in a sexual assault case.”

    True. But I would say that the concepts behind BDSM have always been mainstream. Before it was “kinky”, it was merely the standard attitude to sex under the patriarchy. It didn’t have a name, it just was. In fact, I would say it still is. You never have to utter an iota of jargon related to it to ensure that the vast majority of men will produce a standard sexual “technique” akin to being stung to death by a hyperactive giant wasp. All that has changed is that the silly honorifics and props are en vogue now too.

  5. Mary Tracy9

    Also, rape laws are there because men don’t like it when other men or the wrong kind of men use “their” women as fuck-toilet.

    And I second the Fuck Yeah!

  6. Ginjoint

    FUCK YEAH.

    I’m busy over at the Chicago Tribune’s site, arguing with dudes who are saying that the police will stop, drop, and roll for anything a woman says! Also, this man is now branded for life!! His career is over!! The prosecutors should be more careful!! And, of course, Duke.

    Men hate women. Men hate women. Men hate women. How many times do folks need to see this illustrated?

  7. Albacot

    Ginjoint, interesting that you mention duke. The last that I heard was that the accuser had murdered someone. I guess it just goes to show that criminals of all stripes tend to be repeat criminals just like this asswipe DSK.

  8. Duckrabbit

    To elaborate Mary Tracy’s point:

    What about how the idea of rape enables WHITE men to justify hating / lynching / life-sentencing / death-penaltying at MEN OF COLOR for using white fuck-toilets without permission? Jill, please cast the jaundice eye thither!!

  9. Catherine Martell

    Mary Tracy9 sez: “Also, rape laws are there because men don’t like it when other men or the wrong kind of men use “their” women as fuck-toilet.”

    Correct. Until the 20th century, as far as I am aware, in England at least, rape was effectively a property crime committed against a father or, less commonly, husband of a woman who had been used as a fuck-toilet without permission of the dude who owned her.

    It is thanks only to feminism that we even have something approximating a concept of rape as unconsensual sex, though there is an argument (made by Germaine Greer, I think, and maybe others?) that we should rename it to divorce it from its misogynistic original meaning. It is thanks only to feminism that at least a few of us have realised that women are people.

  10. Matilde

    As a faithful and most fervent admirer of this blog since 2007, I’m beginning to wonder when I’ll finally become able to read posts of this caliber without sobbing quietly in my tea because, well, I cannot cope; this must be a nightmare, this cannot be the world I’m supposed to live in and surely I’ll wake up any second now in a parallel universe in which I’m not part of a fuck-toilet class because there isn’t any such thing.

    I used to think the horrible sinking feeling of powerless grief was just a phase. Now I’m not so sure. And in this particular case, being French doesn’t help.

    Fuck yeah, though.

  11. phio gistic

    “…arguing with dudes who are saying that the police will stop, drop, and roll for anything a woman says…” – Ginjoint, fighting the good fight.

    I’d ask a dude that says something like this

    1. have you ever had sex with a woman?
    2. and then or later treated her like shit?
    3. are you currently in jail?
    4. why not?

    If the police would do anything those hordes of lying women say, every one of those assholes would be in jail instead of free to whine on the Chicago Tribune website about how life is so unfair for the menz. If you follow their logic, every one of them should be currently incarcerated on trumped-up revenge charges, gleefully upheld by all those women-loving police.

  12. Lidon

    Enraging, but great post! It makes me want to get a flamethrower.

  13. Fede

    It may be the patriarchy that is to blame, but this blamer blames the individual men, too. The men who buy into this shit. So the poor, innocuous bastards were brainwashed into seeing women as fuck-toilets? And it never once occurs to them that there could be anything wrong with such an unprovoked and completely unreasonable affront. In a man’s lifetime, not once. No staggering amount of evidence that women are being systematically brutalised will persuade these men to reexamine their self-contradictory and groundless notions. Some of them may have epiphany upon epiphany in all other aspects of life, but where the humanity of women is concerned, they remain resiliently senseless.

    Oh, but the patriarchy is insidious, it’s so normalised as to be invisible, right? No, it isn’t! It’s right bloody there! It’s a fucking obvious, staring-you-in-the-face, reeking cesspool of absolutely foul, illogical, moronic evil gunk, and its bubbling and gurgling is in Dolby Surround. Those men are just the scum that floats to the top.

    Perhaps they may yet learn the error of their ways! Perhaps if someone were to come along and nurture their human decency back to life; maybe if someone were to teach them ever so gently, spoon-feed them the truth in manageable little morsels; perhaps then? And so what?

    I don’t give a flying scumfuck whether those men are salvageable or not – give me five minutes alone with them and a blowtorch, and they won’t be.

  14. GMM

    I came across this on Pharyngula. Apparently feminist/atheist Rebecca Walker was propositioned in an elevator at 4am by a clueless dude who asked her back to his room for coffee. She tried to use it as a teaching moment, asking guys to consider how a woman might feel being along in an elevator with a man hitting on her.

    (Rebecca did a great take down on Center For Inquiry of the myth that women are bad at math but good at intuition. Yeah I know she’s probably of the funfeminist variety, but I loved this talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-X62CBTv44 )

    This brought out the knob in Richard Dawkins. He has this to say to Rebecca:

    “Dear Muslima

    “Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.

    “Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep”chick”, and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn’t lay a finger on her, but even so . . .

    “And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.”

    Some people called him on his “they have it worse so shut up” argument to which Richard replied:

    “No I wasn’t making that argument. Here’s the argument I was making. The man in the elevator didn’t physically touch her, didn’t attempt to bar her way out of the elevator, didn’t even use foul language at her. He spoke some words to her. Just words. She no doubt replied with words. That was that. Words. Only words, and apparently quite polite words at that.

    “If she felt his behaviour was creepy, that was her privilege, just as it was the Catholics’ privilege to feel offended and hurt when PZ nailed the cracker. PZ didn’t physically strike any Catholics. All he did was nail a wafer, and he was absolutely right to do so because the heightened value of the wafer was a fantasy in the minds of the offended Catholics. Similarly, Rebecca’s feeling that the man’s proposition was ‘creepy’ was her own interpretation of his behaviour, presumably not his. She was probably offended to about the same extent as I am offended if a man gets into an elevator with me chewing gum. But he does me no physical damage and I simply grin and bear it until either I or he gets out of the elevator. It would be different if he physically attacked me.

    “Muslim women suffer physically from misogyny, their lives are substantially damaged by religiously inspired misogyny. Not just words, real deeds, painful, physical deeds, physical privations, legally sanctioned demeanings. The equivalent would be if PZ had nailed not a cracker but a Catholic. Then they’d have had good reason to complain.”

    Richard”

    So women in the West don’t get beaten, raped, murdered for being women then blamed for being beaten, raped and/or murdered because we were in the wrong place (alone with a man?) wearing the wrong clothes, etc. This thread just proves it.

    There is a great war of words on both Pharyngula and Blag Hag about whether women in the West actually have a good reason to be afraid. I posted something on BlagHag’s blog and woke up to find 70 replies in my inbox. Although there are a lot of clueless dudes and a few clueless women, there are quite a few who get that being female means being on guard for rape even by men who initially use “only words.” Even in the “enlightened” West.

    Christina Hoff Summers must really be rubbing off on Dawkins, he’s starting to sound just like her.

  15. angie

    First, Fuck Yeah!

    Second, (and OT) but the Casey Anthony verdict just came down (acquitted on all major counts; convicted only on giving false information to the police) and the outrage at the “bitch “getting away with it” is already out of hand.

  16. yttik

    Well yes, things are usually pretty grim and any woman brave enough to file charges against this man will likely suffer a shit storm, while the odds of him ever being held accountable are pretty slim. However, I really thought we intended to execute Casey Anthony just because of her “innate womanly evilness,” without ever having to introduce evidence that she actually killed her kid. I was wrong, they’ve acquitted her.

    Dominique Strauss-Kahn may have squandered his patriarchal privilege somewhere along the way. He’s been a protected rapist for many years. That protection appears to have been revoked due to some political intrigue we don’t know about or else I doubt he would have been arrested at all based on nothing but the word of a maid. There’s a window of opportunity for these women to get some justice if his dudely protection has been revoked.

  17. allhellsloose

    DSK has a reputation for being a womaniser, and yet he’s still believed. To discredit her, all a woman needs is a reputation.

    Pass me the flame thrower.

  18. Noble Rat

    GMM:

    I agree completely, but I wanted to point out that the feminist at Skepchick.org is Rebecca Watson, not Rebecca Walker- who is Alice Walker’s daughgter, and evidently thinks feminism killed her childhood and her relationship with her mother, and has left a generation of women bereft and childless and therefor completely worthless.

    Just pointing it out because I didn’t know any of this until I googled Rebecca Walker looking for more information on this Watson and Dawkins conflict, and happened upon that gross shit heap of anti-feminist hand wringing about the babies we’re [supposedly] not having.

  19. tangle

    What does “PZ nailed the cracker” mean?

  20. GMM

    Oh my, sorry, Rebecca Watson! My head hurts from reading the comments on Watson’s youtube video about the incident, I can’t think straight anymore.

    I had no idea Rebecca Walker felt that way either, I think I need a drink now.

  21. LS

    William Saletan is absolutely despicable and after seeing the headline for that article linked above I decided I really need to boycott Slate for publishing that knob’s work.

  22. Laughingrat

    Long sentences are not the same as run-on sentences. Then again, it’s no surprise that a culture that despises critical thinking would also relentlessly users of complex language.

    In a similar vein, I wish the mass media would learn that “violent multiple rapist” does not equal “womanizer.” Of course, that little mistake is no mistake at all, so I despair of their ever learning better.

  23. allhellsloose

    Yes Laughingrat, I should have put ‘womaniser’ in quotes. Cause womaniser gives the touchy feely impression that ‘violent multiple rapist’ actually likes women.

  24. Ottawa Gardener

    This situation is just a sick examplar of a common fact. As for the Dawkins vs. Watson debate: dare we dream for actual equality, and by that I mean the kind of respect with excludes the prerequisite fear of the less powerful, rather than merely one step above overt and poorly treated property.

  25. Athena Andreadis

    I was actually going to bring up the Watson/Dawkins episode as a fit mate for the Strauss-Kahn debacle. After those two salvoes, Dawkins also stated that he would apologize “if he heard a rational reason that was convincing.” This after a few thousand comments explaining why he had been, well, a dick.

    This is what I said on one of the atheist blogs:

    This is only the latest (and lowest) expression of “Can we talk about what *I* deem important, which does not include the vaporings of hysterical females?” from Dawkins. His concern for Muslim women comes up at strategic moments as convenient, colorful window dressing to his agenda, as was the case with Afghan women for Bush et al. And, of course, explanations don’t count unless delivered by a white male Anglosaxon with the correct class accent.

    When parents in a First World country say “Do unplesant X, there are starving children in Africa!” almost invariably they couldn’t care less about starving children in Africa. “Arguments” of this type are useful clubs for bludgeoning dissenters (or personal enemies) or for trivializing concerns perceived as distractions from the truly important stuff — as determined by the alphas.

    Most of the responses to Rebecca Watson fall along this spectrum, from “Look at Saudi women and count your blessings, you spoiled whiners!” to “Well, if she didn’t feel it necessary to call the police it’s bullshit fit for the fainting couch.”

    As for the reason why Dawkins chose to comment at the time and in the manner that he did: like many people in his particular circumstances, I suspect he gets annoyed when furniture pieces (especially tschoschkes) become unruly.

  26. Kristine

    It’s bullshit like this that makes me believe that men’s hatred for women is deliberate, and not a subconscious mistake. I’m beginning to doubt that women would be missed if we all just died one day.

  27. Laughingrat

    Aw, I wasn’t pickin’ on you, Allhellsloose. More on the mass media!

  28. Cyberwulf

    Dwakin’s clueless comments just prove that even if all religion were done away with, men would still find ways to justify belittling, ignoring and oppressing women. It doesn’t surprise me one iota that he trotted out “OMG SHUT UP YOU STUPID BITCHES THEY HAVE IT WORSE IN THE MIDDLE EAST”. This is, after all, the man who thinks being raped multiple times as a child is better than being raised Catholic.

  29. Judi

    Spinster Aunt says: “Powerful elite white dudes simply don’t go down for rape.”

    I’m trying hard to think of an example that might cast doubt on this statement, in order to preserve a little crumb of hope that Justice might be an actual thing that exists. I’ve been sitting here, just thinking hard, for a long time now, and I haven’t come up with a thing. It’s as if they actually issue these guys a card, License to Rape, along with the ski passes they get at Davos.

    Can anyone out there come up with an actual example of a powerful elite white dude who has been convicted and punished for rape?

  30. allhellsloose

    I know laughingrat and I do love a good pickin’ on the mass media.

  31. allhellsloose

    Judi, Moshe Katsav, former Israeli president was jailed for 7 years in March this year for rape and sexual assault charges. The trail lasted four years behind closed doors and he still had the audacity after the verdict to weep and call the women liars.

  32. ew_nc

    This news set me on a downhill bummer-trip all day that has just culminated in having to read rape-apologist comments on a forum whose sole purpose is supposed to be to expose and snark on fundamentalism and patriarchal religions. I don’t care that the previous was a run-on sentence, either. The unfathomable depths of patriarchy’s influence has been made clearer to me in all-new way.

    My question is, after a day like this, is how is a rad feminist supposed to find the strength and desire to go on? The ways in which we are screwed are just too plentiful. Margaritas just aren’t going to do it for me today.

  33. Rachel

    I’m beginning to doubt that women would be missed if we all just died one day.

    Only the hot ones. (I wish I were joking.)

    Dawkins is vile. I almost couldn’t read that.

    She was probably offended to about the same extent as I am offended if a man gets into an elevator with me chewing gum.

    Notice that his speculations on what feelings or thoughts she might have had are, of course, treated as far more valid than what she actually, directly, said they were. Yes, it is deliberate. Men are far less unconscious of misogyny than we would like to fool ourselves into believing.

  34. Killerchick

    I have been using the “women-as-toilets” rhetoric (that I stole from you, Jill, so thanks)of late, when dealing with the garden-variety patriarchs I encounter in my daily life.

    I noticed straight away that it makes them, almost without exception, very uncomfortable.

    I initially thought this was because the power of the image made them see the truth of the lack of humanity and degree of objectification ascribed to women in this sick-fuck patriarchal culture, then one explained to me that he doesn’t see his precious seed as a foul excretion – it is divine, potent, life-giving juice; essence of man – and therefore not to be confused with piss and shit. When he uses his Nigelette as a cum-receptacle, it is wholly different from taking a dump, he earnestly explained to me.

    After all, I guess piss and shit are substances *women* produce too, so my use of the analogy was reducing his manly love-juice to the lowly status of something even *a girl* might expel.

    Yes, smacked-of-gob by this though I was, it appears to be true: men don’t have a problem with thinking of women-as-toilets as such; rather they have a problem with the idea of their precious ejaculate being conflated with bodily effluent.

    Since I ascribe no such magical powers to semen, I continue to find the analogy an apt one.

  35. Dizzy

    The “women are liars” is a powerful meme. The way everyone rushes to accuse rape victims of lying, you’d think that men are falsely accused of rape every 2 minutes. Instead of, ya know, the opposite.

    I’d bet that most dudes do a mental happy dance when celebrity rape charges are dropped due to credibility issues or lack of evidence. Whether or not they suspect he did it, they sure do have a lot invested in making us all out to be lying amoral thieves. Keeps the sex class on lockdown. Deliberate indeed.

  36. redpeachmoon

    Fuck yeah, and flame throwers all around.
    Attack dogs too, please.

  37. Rachel

    Also on Dawkins/Skepchick, every time I see someone take the “but Muslim women have it so much worse!” tactic (which is of course awful on multiple levels besides what I’m saying here) I always hear it as a threat. Better stop complaining, ladies! Look how much worse you could have it! Aren’t we men here being generous to let you have all the rights you have! Don’t you realize how easily even that generosity could be taken away from you?

    …ohhh yeah, I realize, motherfucker.

  38. Schnee

    I am doing a ‘Career Planning’ course. A mid-life one. Yesterday, day one, I decided that mostly, the others on the course were all perfectly decent, extremely well-educated, able-to-use-their-own brain kinda people.

    Today, day two, we were given a team exercise. The story is, a family live on one side of the river, woman, abusive husband and two kiddies. On the other side lives the wife’s male friend. She goes to visit him and then can’t get back across the river. She realises she has no money for the ferry, nor does the pal, the ferry captain won’t let her ride for free, the river is inexplicably inhabited by piranha and the only bridge has some kind of bandit who shoots everyone who tries to cross. The woman tries to take the bridge and gets shot. The question we had to answer was, ‘who was MOST responsible?’
    In my group, I and one man said, ‘duh, no brainer, the bandit, he shot the woman,’ but yes, you’ve guessed it, everyone else said the woman. ‘But it’s like when women get blamed for being raped,’ I said, and after a bit more pushing, the group I was in agreed that maybe we were right. When pushed by the course leader though, they all but one man, reverted to blaming the victim. The other group just all blamed the victim. She shouldn’t have gone out without enough money, she shouldn’t have tried to get back, she knew she would get shot, yep, even the women agreed, it was the woman’s fault.

    A theoretical exercise, yes, but so very revealing of attitudes.

    I SO BTP

  39. Metal teapot

    I’m really confused on something, and dared not ask newspaper/some other feminist forums, because of the nature of the replies I’d receive. However, one of the reasons the case is apparently falling apart, is due to the fact she made a phone call to her boyfriend, where she allegedly said
    “Don’t worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I’m doing.”
    Now this implies, she is just doing this for the money. However, how would this case lead to him giving her money? If she blackmailed him to not report it, that might make sense. However, once the allegations are out, I can’t imagine it being settled out of court for money (unless the justice system in the US is very different from the UK). Also I didn’t think being found guilty would result in the transfer of money from the accused to the victim. Therefore, I can’t see how this sentence makes any sense at all unless (which is most probable) taken widely out of context. Can anyone explain this?

  40. anne

    Metal teapot, my guess is that at that early point the victim had the same misconceptions as most people that rape is treated as a serious crime in the U.S. and victims are lavished with outpourings of public sympathy and monetary compensation. The fact that her assailant had a lot of money was exactly why she and her boyfriend should have been worried from the start.
    I’m not a lawyer, but I think the only cases where rape victims are paid money by their rapists is in out of court settlements and in the rare case they win a civil suit. The only rape case I can recall where a victim was given large sums of money was Michael Jackson’s out-of-court settlements. The victim in the DeAnza case tried (and sadly failed) to sue her rapists for some paltry sum (and some acknowledgment that they are indeed rapist shitbags) in civil court too.

  41. Rachel

    Metal teapot – Civil suit. You can sue individuals for battery, it’s just usually not done because (in general) the person who violently assaulted you might be judgment-proof (poor) or wasn’t caught, so the suits focus on, say, the facility where it happened not protecting you better etc. Theoretically she still might be able to recover. Remember OJ won his criminal trial but lost the civil suit?

  42. minervaK

    My question is, after a day like this, is how is a rad feminist supposed to find the strength and desire to go on? The ways in which we are screwed are just too plentiful. Margaritas just aren’t going to do it for me today.

    I ask myself that a lot, and at least part of the answer, for me, is to separate myself from ‘mainstream culture’ (i.e., The Patriarchy) as much as possible. Yes, it means I’m viewed as slightly weird, and yes, it has a deleterious impact on my ability to make a living, but I’d rather be poor than dead.

    In the long view, I think that the cesspool will eventually overflow and drown itself. That is, the patriarchy shits its nest so copiously that there’s no way it can survive in the long term. I’m talking on an archaeological basis, in chunks of hundreds of thousands of years. Of course, that means that I will certainly have croaked by the time it finally goes the way of the dinosaurs, but I take a personal comfort in the sure knowledge that it will, someday. And who knows? Sometimes revolution occurs when you least expect it.

  43. speedbudget

    I still don’t find anything about the victim talking about how this guy has a lot of money does anything to change the facts of the case. The prosecution has at least implied that her story of the actual assault is truthful and there is physical evidence to support her version of events.

    Given what I’ve read, it would seem that this woman is at least a mule or patsy and possibly some kind of petty criminal, which, so what? Lots of people do shady stuff. Lots of people I knew in college cheated and lied to get extra aid from the government. Their lawyer parents helped them.

    She seemed to me to be involved in some kind of money scam. Given all this, I would only assume that she would try to profit off her of misfortune. Any savvy person would do so, and they do all the time. I work in criminal justice. I see people constantly trying to profit off their own misfortune at the expense of others. That is the truth of practically every personal injury suit I see. So why does it matter so much if in this instance this woman is trying to do the same? If that’s even what she was trying to do, as we don’t know the context of that statement.

    Also, Dawkins is a douche. It is so infuriating to me how any time a woman politely asks a group of men to please stop being asshats, some douche comes out of the woodwork all “MIDDLE EAST” and shuts the whole dialog down. Every single time.

  44. Kea

    Hear, hear, MinervaK. I am of the opinion that overpopulation and the resulting environmental degradation will force a revolution in the next 200 years. Of course, if dudely attitudes do not improve, we will simply go extinct. Glad I won’t probably live that long.

  45. Carol the long winded

    It is starting to look like some areas of the world are going to find out what it is like to live without women since female fetuses are aborted at an alarming rate.

    I wonder if Dawkins imagines that a man chewing gum might forciably cram the gum into his mouth? Or what he would say if a man at 3 in the morning asked Dawkins to a room in which to drink coffee?

  46. anne

    MinervaK and Kea – Humanity will probably have been drowned under the melted polar ice caps by then. No more humanity, no more patriarchy.

    speedbudget – If it was me, I’d want to take him for everything I possibly could. Not just because it would be nice to have a lot of money, but because wiping out the fortune of some asshole who felt entitled by his wealth and social privilege to rape me would give me some sense of satisfaction. If I ever see the day when a rapist’s wealth is transferred by a court of law to his victim, leaving him in poverty and her in the lap of luxury, I’ll be cheering from the rooftops. Ah sweet revenge fantasies!

  47. Metal Teapot

    Anne, the thing is I wouldn’t go after money because I didn’t know it was an option. It seems unlikely that trying to prosecute has anything to do with money. Therefore the statement seems widely out of context. It is being used to smear the victim in a way that makes no sense. However because the p says women are all money grabbing bitches, people agree, rather than realising the statement is illogical in the context the defence are implying it was used. If she was just after money, there are far more likely methods of getting it. It seem to be the defences strongest argument, and that needs challenging if money transfers rarely happen in rape trials. There are many reasons the victim could of said what she did that don’t destroy her credibility, and very few logical reasons that do.

  48. Lovepug

    In response to Dawkins and any other fuckwad who accuses Western women of being ungrateful whiners:

    We are holding the line you sack of shit! Any woman who lives in a culture that has made any fucking feminist progress AT ALL owes it to all women in third world countries where the oppression is overt to keep fighting the fight. Otherwise, how in the hell are any of those women to have any hope that there is life on the other side? We cannot give up no matter how insignificant you think the issue is because the moment we give up, we’ve let those aforementioned “muslim” women down. Yes, asshat, I will continue to object to being harassed in an elevator no matter whether the dickblister touched me or not, and whether you think it’s severe or not because that’s where the progress needs to go.

    We “whine” because our “privilege” is the fucking diesel locomotive engine that’s going to drive the entire feminist freight train straight to Savage Death Island and we can only hope that tools like you are lying on the tracks.

    What a dumbshit. I’m thankful I will never have to rely on that rectal blemish to have my back. I feel sorry for his friends because he’s a whimp ass loser.

  49. Crystal

    According to an NY Times article I read yesterday, in the phone call she made where she allegedly talks about wanting to exploit the situation for cash, she still says she was raped. And her account matches what she told the police. I don’t get it– if you’re “lying” about the rape to get cash, wouldn’t you tell your boyfriend you “made it up” while telling him about your plan to exploit the situation? Especially if you don’t think the call is being recorded? I mean, *if* she was saying that she wanted to exploit the situation, that clearly communicates that she didn’t realize she was being recorded. And she still said she was raped. This only serves to bolster the fact that she was raped. It’s not a credibility issue! It disgusts me that people want to use this to dismiss her when it instead strengthens her claim. Clearly, this is because men hate women. And I’m with Anne. Who the hell cares if she wants to “take advantage” of this hideous situation? Many of us would do the same if we were in her shoes. I hope that DSK is tried and convicted, but it seems less and less likely every day.

  50. Cat Ion

    Also on Dawkins/Skepchick, every time I see someone take the “but Muslim women have it so much worse!” tactic (which is of course awful on multiple levels besides what I’m saying here) I always hear it as a threat. Better stop complaining, ladies! Look how much worse you could have it! Aren’t we men here being generous to let you have all the rights you have!

    As if those “rights” were magnanimously bestowed on Western women. No, it’s not like we had to fight for them or anything. It’s not like every single step was a massive battle. Nope — the Saintly Dudes of the West all of a sudden woke up and realized that they’ve treated the womenfolk badly and amends just had to be made. That’s how it happened, really!

  51. Jill

    “What about how the idea of rape enables WHITE men to justify hating / lynching / life-sentencing / death-penaltying at MEN OF COLOR for using white fuck-toilets without permission? Jill, please cast the jaundice eye thither!!”

    What men do to other men in the service of patriarchy, though always deplorable, is not precisely the focus of this blog. But I certainly see your point; that whole To Kill a Mockingbird scenario kept popping into my head while I was writing this post.

  52. Jill

    “My question is, after a day like this, is how is a rad feminist supposed to find the strength and desire to go on? The ways in which we are screwed are just too plentiful. Margaritas just aren’t going to do it for me today.”

    I suggest turning off the TV and the internet, and finding some animals to hang around with for a while. And have the marg anyway.

  53. anne

    Metal Teapot: “Anne, the thing is I wouldn’t go after money because I didn’t know it was an option. It seems unlikely that trying to prosecute has anything to do with money.”

    Like I said, she may have had the fairly common misconception that a successful prosecution in a U.S. criminal court meant monetary compensation to the victim. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me that she may have latched onto that idea as consolation in the wake of being raped. That seems like the most logical explanation for her statement. But of course rape enthusiasts are using it to make her out to be unrapeable. That’s what rape enthusiasts always do.

    By the way, does anybody know what ever happened with the Richmond CA high school gang rape case? The most recent updates I’m able to find are from late 2010.

  54. Le Chat Noir

    I’m going to repeat this question because it is significant and may also be why some women who don’t claim to be feminists would rather be in denial:

    “…how is a rad feminist supposed to find the strength and desire to go on? The ways in which we are screwed are just too plentiful.”

    I’m not waiting for “the revolution”, I want to see change NOW.

  55. Milly goes for a walk

    The average male is likely to feel more empathy for a toilet. No one is going to argue that a toilet likes it rough. Toilets can get broken.

  56. Satchel

    @tangle

    Re PZ Myers and the communion wafer (“cracker”):

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/the_great_desecration.php

  57. Lidon

    We “whine” because our “privilege” is the fucking diesel locomotive engine that’s going to drive the entire feminist freight train straight to Savage Death Island and we can only hope that tools like you are lying on the tracks.

    Amen. I say we take a flamethrower to Dawkins and then when he inevitably protests, we exclaim, “What’s wrong you little WHINER? You could have it worse!”

    I suggest turning off the TV and the internet, and finding some animals to hang around with for a while. And have the marg anyway.

    Definitely. I’m pet sitting a dozen animals right now and although a bit overwhelming, they do make me feel better.

  58. stacey

    Thanks very much to phio gistic (“Well why aren’t *you* in jail?”) and Lovepug for the Feminist Freight Train, which has kept me from collapsing in despair. Lucid argument and righteous rage will save us every time.

  59. Violet Socks

    Christina Hoff Summers must really be rubbing off on Dawkins, he’s starting to sound just like her.

    Dawkins has always been like that. He’s a sociobiologist at heart, sociobiology being the 1.0 version of ev psych. His “selfish gene” stuff was and is absurdly reductionist, but that’s exactly why it’s so popular. It’s the same kind of thing as ev psych, really (substitute “Pleistocene-era brain module” for “gene,” and away you go). Stephen Pinker has always been Dawkins’ biggest fan over here in the States.

    It is a great shame that the death of Stephen Jay Gould has left Dawkins as the “face” of evolutionary science, since Gould was right and Dawkins was wrong. (Dawkins and Gould had a public feud running for years about adaptationism and the level(s) at which selection occurs, with Gould representing a nuanced, sophisticated approach to understanding the evolution of life on earth, and Dawkins representing a cartoon Flintstones version that only a second-rate mind could love. But Gould is dead, and now there’s only Dawkins.)

    Anyway, it’s rather fitting that he has apparently taken on a second career as a crusader against religion. He’s playing whack-a-mole with people who are on his level, really, since most religious believers, like sociobiologists, are operating on an ultra-simplistic model.

  60. AlienNumber

    This is a video of the woman’s lawyer representing his client:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ5QanQtCd8&feature=player_embedded

    I don’t know, as much as I hate to disagree with Twisty about anything, looks the woman may stand a chance. See: trail of sperm-tainted spit on the wall and carpet. Bruised “vagina” (this dude couldn’t say vulva now, could he). Dislocated shoulder. Determined fancy lawyer. etc

    In the meantime, the other favorite rapist of the liberal media, Assange, is making melodramatic videos complaining that it’s hard oh-so-hard (and priceless; and also apparently thankless) to save/change the world while being under house-arrest. No shit, Einstein! Maybe now he has a glimpse of how women may feel living in the confines of Rape Culture.

  61. Denise

    Auntie Jill, what do you think of the Casey Anthony trial/verdict? I was flippin’ channels here in the Netherlands when I stopped at CNN to see Casey Anthony sitting in court waiting to hear the jury’s verdict, which a commenting lawyer said would definitely be the death penalty. I thought, they show this stuff on telly?! And then I couldn’t help watching…

    Whatever the truth, I did notice she had been accused of all the usual stuff, like seeing motherhood as a burden, wanting a ‘party’ lifestyle, and that old classic, not showing enough emotion.

  62. speedbudget

    Metal teapot, you might not know to go after money, but a lot of people here in the United States do. In fact, working as I do in the system, there are entire industries built up of people trying to game the system in order to profit. There are people who cause accidents in order to be able to sue the guy who hit them. There are people that I think if they would commit themselves to anything other than this sue career path, they would be phenomenal at whatever they put their mind to. Most of them are doing it because our insurance system sucks and this is the only way to pay bills. Others do it because it is profitable.

    And it has nothing to do with the criminal side. Everyone knows you can sue civilly even if you CAN’T go criminal (as in the case of an accident with injuries).

    Her story is credible. Her injuries match her story. The prosecution has never said she lied about the actual rape. Their only beef is she wants some damn money.

  63. Ottawa Gardener

    @Killerchick: So important is the seed, in fact, that it can be a sin for it to spill on the ground. Rather it must be deposited in a bonafide f*toilet. Whereas, menstrual fluid, a potent symbol of actual growing and producing of little dudes and women, is so vile that it can make a dude unclean. I don’t suppose I have to explain the implications of this to anyone.

    @Violet Socks: Gould was an expansive thinker. I’ll miss his tomes.

  64. Julezyme

    Gould did champion NOMA, though, so let’s not lionise him too much.

    Perhaps a civil suit in which the jailed boyfriend sued DSK for trespassing would stand a netter chance?

  65. Julezyme

    Sorry, “better”. (stupid iPhone #firstworldproblems)

  66. allhellsloose

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jul/05/maternitypaternityrights-women

    “But Muslim women have it so much worse” – given the sentiments of the article linked above, I’m beginning to think not.

    We have lots of ‘austerity’ measures going on right now in the UK, it’s a global phenomenon though, right? Cuts to women’s aid centres, cuts to carers support system (majority of women are carers either for elderly parents or disabled children). I could go on.

    As one trade union member put it in a conference I attended last year, “That light you see at the end of the tunnel could be the express train coming towards you.”

  67. Sarah

    allhellsloose – yep. We have the de-funding of Planned Parenthood, the passage of laws that force pregnant women to be subjected to creepy proselytizing and verbal abuse, etc. etc. Like arts programs and marketing departments, women are the first to be thrown under the bus. If we ever got out from under it in the first place.

  68. Metal teapot

    I think I’m phrasing myself badly, I don’t like the fact the papers gave us a suspicious phrase in a conversation out of context. I can easily imagine a conversation of the form,

    “What do you know about this guy?”
    “Don’t worry … this guy has a lot of money …I know what I’m doing.”

    “Are you sure this is a good idea? Is the guy rich? Rich people can buy their own justice.”
    “Don’t worry … this guy has a lot of money. I know what I’m doing.”

    It is like selectively editing a review from a movie, putting a positive tag phrase when the whole review is bad.

    Given she is talking to her non-white partner in jail, he is probably well aware that rich white people don’t go to jail. She may be less aware of this, and so I think it is likely the whole thing is fairly innocuous. Maybe she did say the phrase in the context of getting monetary compensation for the crime he committed but the defence should be forced to release the entire conversation if they want to rely on it for evidence. It might not even be about Strauss-Kahn for all we know. I’m angry that the phrase is being used to challenge her credibility, when if you chose a selective sentence from a conversation you can prove just about anything. I think it is important to challenge it, because I find it hard to believe it isn’t being used vastly out of context to imply one thing, when she meant something entirely different. In particular, given the defence are going to argue she lied about being raped, and this suggests they will argue she lied about being raped for money, it is important to note that it is unlikely her rape would lead to money, since this destroys the defences case.

  69. phio gistic

    allhellsloose and Sarah have great points. The USA has been tightening the screws on women all year. More than 900 pieces of legislation proposed nationwide to take away women’s legal rights over our own bodies. Some places have literally already started charging women with murder & jailing them if they intentionally or otherwise terminate a pregnancy, while if a pregnant woman dies, it is still most likely to be by being murdered by a man close to her. Access to health care and birth control is being devastated, with lower income women of course hit the first and worst. And we’re still subject to assault, enslavement and murder from the men around us in addition to the run-of-the mill harassment, whining, and coercion women have always had to put up with. But Dick Dawkins thinks since we’re still allowed to drive we better just STFU.

  70. Cycles

    I spent an hour last night reading through 328 comments on Pandagon about Rebecca Watson’s use of the creepy 4am elevator guy as a teaching moment for clueless men wondering why more women don’t get involved in the atheist movement. Predictably, there was a freakout. How dare you call dudes on their actions? Clearly more women are not in the movement because women are stupid or ignorant or easily offended; it has nothing to do with the predatory boorish entitlement constantly demonstrated by males in general, of which male atheists are a subset not immune to such behavior. And I’m infinitely glad that IBTP is a space where I don’t have to follow that statement by spending three paragraphs soothing the feelings of Nigels who are hurt by the implication that they would behave in that way.

    I’m a hardcore atheist, but I would never join any of the existing atheist movements in their current states. Too many dudes entrenched in their own beliefs of infallibility and superiority to listen to the very people they’re trying to attract into the movement. It’s really not even that difficult: don’t treat women like a set of tits and holes. They can’t even hear that message without freaking out in tens of thousands of comments calling Watson a whining attention-grabber and enforcing their right to be let down gently, in lieu of immediate and automatic compliance, when they corner keynote speakers in elevators at 4am.

  71. Sarah

    phio gistic and Cycles – A-yup. It’s hared not to see how the prevailing winds are anti-woman in the face of such evidence, but somehow the menfolks and many womenfolks manage it.

    As for DD’s assertion that our right to drive means we should shut up – ever noticed het coupledom’s tendency to appoint the male half the designated driver? Watch the X-Files for an excellent example in non-romatic capacity.

  72. Tanya

    Another thought that is in the same category as the dudes telling us to be quiet because we have it so much better than those Mulism women comes up whenever I get into a discussion about politics. I will be bemoaning some travesty being perpetrated in our names and with our tax dollars by our government and they will say “but at least we don’t have it as bad as those people who don’t even have democracy”. I then have to explain that as far as we have come we still have a long long way to go. Voter turnout hits a new low with every election. The government does a very poor job and we should expect better. Nothing will change if we make excuses for them.

  73. Rididill

    That argument is the dumbest one ever. Might as well say, ‘hey, I’m doing better than most of the world just by being born, so why the fuck try for anything? It would be an INSULT to the hardships they go through!’

    And a great argument why Richard Dawkins, if these are the values he espouses, should most definitely STFU, privileged little asshole that he is.

    In fact, why don’t we just try and find out once and for all who has is the worst ever and proudly designate that as the standard for being able to fight to have a better life. Hey, we could have a ranking system, seeing as the people at the bottom mind switch around a little. You’d have a self regulating system of shitness – the people right at the bottom would take it in turns to be at the bottom or almost at the bottom, given as soon as they rise up then they lose their right to keep trying to have a better life. And, seeing as no one else is allowed to do anything to better their lives cos they’re so damn privileged already, they will sooner or later sink down to the bottom as well.

    When you think it through, this ‘you can’t complain cos others have it worse’ is possibly the stupidest idea ever and guaranteed to lead to the ultimate death of humanity if taken to its logical conclusions. Seeing as the worst off, are in fact dead! Hah!

  74. Milly

    Just wish I could have stayed away from those threads. Hooray for Rebecca Watson!

  75. ashley

    hahaha, Justice. I just wanted to state that the symbol of Justice in the US is a chick blindfolded.

    going to jail isn’t justice for rape.

  76. Milly

    Talk about a bunch of whiners too. Will the world be a better place if women aren’t raped? Why yes. Will the world be such a terrible place if you can’t pick up a random stranger ( cough- fuck- toilet) in an elevator? Uh no, not really. It’s time those nice guys got a grip. Hello, it’s not all about you.

  77. speedbudget

    “You can’t complain because SHARIA LAW” is about as stupid as when my mom used to tell me to eat cause there are starving kids in China. They wouldn’t want to eat liver either, I’m sure.

    It’s also about as stupid as “If you don’t vote for us, imagine how much worse it will be with them.”

  78. tinfoil hattie

    @Ottawa Gardener, your take on “Onanism” clarified something for me. I’ve always HATED that freaking story, and just now I got the “click” – it wasn’t the jerking off that was the sin, it was the NOT DEPOSITING THE SEED INTO THE PROPERLY DESIGNATED F-TOILET.

    GAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!

  79. Fictional Queen

    Well hey,I’m Middle Eastern living in the Middle East and I hate it when American women are harrassed just like I hate it when we are harrassed.So what now?

  80. Fictional Queen

    I think the ultimate male fantasy is for all women to be dead,and then they would kill each other until there’s no humanity left.
    I don’t think humanity will go extinct,I think males will go extinct.Humanity doesn’t need them at all,parthenogenesis will soon enough be possible for humans,too,and then whithout those barbaric and dangerous and violent assholes that fester the earth women will draw a breath of freedom finally!

  81. TotallyDorkin

    @Ottawa Gardener
    I would just like to add that in the way that menstrual blood would make a man “unclean”, semen has the same “impurity” and sexual relations or “nocturnal emissions” would require a man to become purified, at least in the Orthodox Jewish tradition.

  82. laxsoppa

    I’m amazed by how common that “think of the starving children” argument is! I probably shouldn’t be, because patriarchies all around the world love that sort of scare tactics.

  83. Twiss Butler

    110707-LT IBTP

    Lacking a realistic foundation for action, the eloquent and angry statements above come down in the end to handwringing and empty threats of violence, interspersed with a few references to the unresponsiveness of civil and governmental authorities, and undercut by self-injuring use of a word inherently insulting to women.

    I don’t know how law works in other countries, but in the US a class of people must be constitutionally certified as entitled to equal protection of the law by inclusion in the 14th Amendment to have the slightest hope that class-based injury to them will be judged to compel serious judicial response. Advocates for women dropped the ball after winning constitutional recognition of their right to vote because they did not inform women of the need to go on to use their vote to nail down their right to equal protection of the law, including – in effect – their right to bodily integrity, fearlessly spelled out in legislative debate and public campaigning to mean not only abuses that men might encounter, but those abuses that men inflict on women to keep them a subordinated class. And that means naming as primary sex discrimination all those abuses that target women’s unique reproductive organs while leaving men untouched. Find a list of these at http://www.equality4women.org .

    Recognizing the cowardly, self-defeating frivolity of funfeminism points to the essential need to tell the hard truths that indict men and dignify women. The violence against women that is dismissed with a laugh or a sneer as “sex” must be consistently addressed as a political strategy of class-based terrorism that men viciously protect because it pays off for them. It is no secret that law evolves in response to changes in what the majority of people think. In this case, it must respond to what the majority of women are empowered to think about what they already know. The hotel employee and the woman in the elevator both knew that they were being subjected to a power play by men. The challenge for feminism is to encourage women to relate what they experience every day in so many ways to a degraded status for women that is not inevitable (“It’s a man’s world” “Boys will be boys” “Prostitution is the oldest profession” “Rape is inevitable”) and that together they can use the Constitution, the peoples’ law, to force men to respect their right to human dignity.

  84. damequixote

    While channel flipping I heard a radio conspiracy theorist say that the rape charge was obviously a set-up. Why? Because these kind of men get away with anything they want (violent rape included) 24/7. The only time that would be different is if it WAS a set-up.

    Ok, I had to admit that was an interesting take on this whole stinking pile.

    As for the world without women; hey, you don’t have to wonder. It’s coming to a theater near you! The Smurfs movie is coming out soon to brain-wash yet another generation of kids into the great misogyny that you can be anything you want as long as you are male. And then there is Smurfette. They just need/can tolerate one female and that’s all she can do or be. She’s the fem’ performing receptacle.

    I blame the patriarchy because it’s NEVER going to blame itself.

  85. Unree

    @TotallyDorkin: Ritual immersion following ejaculation is optional these days for Orthodox Jewish men, whereas for Orthodox Jewish women it is mandatory if they’re going to have intercourse with—or even be touched by—their husbands.

    Here is a source: http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/216,2409/Do-men-go-to-the-mikvah-too.html

  86. Ayla

    I love how the turd writing that jewish apologist BS linked above by Unree starts off explaining that the laws of purity and impurity apply equally to men and women, then goes on to explain how they in no way, shape, or form apply equally to men and women.

    It’s so… Orwellian.

  87. Ottawa Gardener

    Though I am no cultural historian (or any other sort of historian for that matter), from what I can surmise, what is interesting about menstrual blood is that it seems to be the source of fouling across various disparate cultures though I am not suggesting this is universal by any means.

    Perhaps, a more interesting example might be the use of accidental breast milk ingestion by men as a joke because it is so gross despite the fact that it is one of the more innocuous bodily fluids. On the other hand, women who ‘swallow’ are sexy.

  88. tinfoil hattie

    Twiss Butler, SC Justice Nino Scalia stated the truth when he said women are not protected under the 14th Amendment. So the Constitution is, in fact, not the “people’s law,” but rather men’s law:

    “Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. (I disagree with THAT shit) The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws … You want a right to abortion? There’s nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law.” Or just keep on doing whatever the fuck you want when it comes to women.

  89. TotallyDorkin

    Oh yeah I’m aware that the Orthodox Jewish laws of menstruation nowadays are incredibly more strict and oppressive than any laws about male ejaculation. I probably should have put something about that in my last comment. The Torah is the word of god until it starts being too inconvenient for men (IBTP).

    I’ve always thought that the rhetoric that Orthodox Jews spew about the “equality” of men and women is so full of bullshit that I don’t know why they even bother.

  90. minervaK

    Hey, cool! We’re talking about religion again!

    On a DSK-unrelated note: I don’t usually see this kind of information, but I happened to be cutting through an internet sewer line on my way to somewhere else and saw a story about this person Kris Jenner. She is being called a “pimp” by the media arm of the megatheocorporatocracy because her three daughters are publicly-celebrated patriarchy-compliant toilets. I’m curious whether I am the only blamer that finds this to be particularly offensive. Not only is she being called a “pimp,” but she’s being crucified for not vociferously denying her “pimphood.” I blame funfeminism gone horribly, horribly wrong. Somewhere in the whole business there’s a “sex-positive” thing going on, I just know it.

  91. veganrampage

    Of all the rapes in all the gin joints in the world, this one makes me want to blow my brains out just that much more.

    Cyrus Vance Jr. is the name of the excrement who serves as DA who let DSK go. Here is is the link providing all his contact info. He also, for reasons unknown, took the case out of the purview of the sex crimes unit.

    http://manhattanda.org/contact-us

    He’ll be hearing from me Monday fucking morning. I am not happy Monday morning, nor any other morning.

    Here is an article depicting facts, a rare event in NY media coverage. It is entitled “DSK Backlash Throws D.A.’s Office.” Enjoy.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/07/dsk_backlash_throws_das_office_1.html

    HBO had a recent documentary wherein a (serial)rapist was convicted of raping a prostitute in same said NY County, but under the previous DA Morgenthou. The assistant DA’s were all women. Of course the film left the impression that rape victims regularly got justice, and there was no mention of the appalling statistics on rape convictions in general. It was a “feel good” rape documentary entitled “Sex Crimes” problematical in moniker alone.

  92. TwissB

    •@tinfoil hattie “SC Justice Nino Scalia stated the truth when he said women are not protected under the 14th Amendment. So the Constitution is, in fact, not the ‘people’s law,’ but rather men’s law”

    Having in a previous post hailed Justice Scalia for finally telling the truth that I have earlier pointed to on this blog and elsewhere, and repeatedly tried and failed to persuade prominent constitutional scholars, especially self-styled feminist ones, to come clean about, I certainly agree with you. In practice, the Constitution is men’s law, but I’m not about to help men misrepresent the ideal that the people’s law is, to use James Herndon’s phrase, “the way it ‘spozed to be.” That is the ideal that the rest of my comments addressed – how to take a different route to get there than ERA campaigners have done from the 1920’s to today when both Rep. Carolyn Maloney and the “3 State Strategy” people are clinging to the same timid view of equality for women as only what the most conservative politician would accept today. I don’t want to hog more space on this generous blog by detailing here my radically different approach to defining and campaigning for an ERA, so I refer anybody who is interested to read paper #760 “ERA: Toward a Successful Campaign” at http://www.equality4women.org.

  93. veganrampage

    Beyond weird- may have stumbled onto the real reason why they let dung heap DSK walk. The women DA’s who were in aforementioned HBO doc AND were handling the DSK case referred to two NYPD (in an unrelated case)as “rape cops” in footage that was NOT AIRED.
    These two bastions of serve and protect repeatedly raped a woman who was drunk, and whom they were supposed to safely escort home. They were caught on video tape lurking around her apartment for hours, they were caught lying to dispatch for hours and there was myriad forensic evidence, however the victim’s recollection of the crime wasn’t clear enough for the jury and all women are lying cheating whores who are asking for it anyway. The two rape cops got off with a slap on the dick; no quotation marks needed.
    Of course the sick fucking part of this sick fuckery is that one of the women was just fired by the DA (Cyrus Vance) who let DSK walk. Why? Because the un-aired footage should have been handed over to the defense? Fuck the what?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2010283/Head-NY-Sex-Crimes-Unit-led-rape-cop-investigation-fired-starring-HBO-documentary.html

  94. Teresa Wilson

    Another dood just got acquitted of rape. Jamie Leigh Jones lost her case against KBR. The jury said she wasn’t raped. This was a horrific story when it first came out. I feel sick.

    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/7645236.html

  95. ElizaN

    It’s very tempting to break the leg of the Dawkins Excrescence. I’m sure he wouldn’t mind; after all, there are people with broken spines!

  96. leila

    but how bout how rape prohibitions primarily function as an implement of the law, which as irigaray says (more or less, anyway), exists to mediate relationships between men, in this case, in a racialized way?

    just a thought towards broadening yr analysis…

  97. speedbudget

    So basically Scalia is saying that the default state of the Constitution is that the ladies can just suck it. If we don’t like our lot, we can try to get some grassroots momentum and get a law passed. By a bunch of men. If not, oh well.

    Meanwhile, the Constitution conveniently supports and protects the lifestyles of certain kinds of people (rich, white, male). Can’t help that! It’s just the way it is. No, we can’t just expand that meaning to include all you other people. That wouldn’t be fair. BOOTSTRAPS, MOTHERFUCKERS.

  98. tinfoil hattie

    Word, speedbudget.

    In other news, nobody gives a shit anymore that old people also can just suck it. MICHELE BACHMANN WANTS TO TAKE AWAY PORN! Jill is right – just try to take away their porn.

  99. TwissB

    I don’t know what causes a comment to be hung up in moderation, but as a guess, I’m repeating with the web site reference at the end omitted.

    •@tinfoil hattie “SC Justice Nino Scalia stated the truth when he said women are not protected under the 14th Amendment. So the Constitution is, in fact, not the ‘people’s law,’ but rather men’s law”

    Having in a previous post hailed Justice Scalia for finally telling the truth that I have earlier pointed to on this blog and elsewhere, and repeatedly tried and failed to persuade prominent constitutional scholars, especially self-styled feminist ones, to come clean about, I certainly agree with you. In practice, the Constitution is men’s law, but I’m not about to help men misrepresent the ideal that the people’s law is, to use James Herndon’s phrase, “the way it ‘spozed to be.” That is the ideal that the rest of my comments addressed – how to take a different route to get there than ERA campaigners have done from the 1920’s to today when both Rep. Carolyn Maloney and the “3 State Strategy” people are clinging to the same timid view of equality for women as only what the most conservative politician would accept today. I don’t want to hog more space on this generous blog by detailing here my radically different approach to defining and campaigning for an ERA, so I refer anybody who is interested to read paper #760 “ERA: Toward a Successful Campaign.” Click on TwissB to see site.

  100. TwissB

    @tinfoil hattie- FYI-My response agreeing with you and clarifying previous post is stuck in moderation.

  101. Metal Teapot

    Organised religion has a lot of problems, why should one religion (atheism) be different from any others. All these groups meet to celebrate their common faith, or lack thereof. For the Darkin’s thing, he likes to argue that religion is responsible for a lot of the worlds problems. This isn’t true, people are responsible and religion is an excuse. There is no reason that the same problems can’t appear in an atheist setting. However now ‘rationality’ is an excuse. It is just a change in the idol being worshipped. More problamtic, if the atheist community acknowlage that a lot of problems with religion also occur in their groups, they disprove their point that religion is inherently to blame. As a non-religious person I’d say people invented religion, just like they invented any other social movement. It is therefore a reflection of the society which upholds it. The atheist movement like any other religion is a social group created to reflect a common belief, and is still created from the same problematic society as any religion. Therefore it will have the same problems.

  102. allhellsloose

    Teresa I remember reading a harrowing account of Jamie Leigh Jones’ rape, brutal assault and imprisonment in the Guardian a few years ago. I’m sad about the news that she lost the case.

    DSK has called Banon’s account of what happened ‘imaginary’. In other words, she’s a liar. Yawn and the same old defense is trotted out.

  103. TwissB

    In light of recent dialogue about Constitution as exemplifying men’s reasoning, I can’t resist offering this Supreme gotcha! from Justice Powell in 1973 Frontiero v. Richardson. The fellows had indulged Ruth Bader Ginsberg, arguing for ACLU and referring to what she hoped was her iconic Reed v. Reed win, and decided that servicewoman Sharron F. could claim her husband as a dependent on the same basis as servicemen were routinely allowed to claim wives as dependents. But Powell et al. wanted to make sure that this wouldn’t make ALL sex discrimination against women constitutionally suspect. So here’s what he wrote:

    “MR. JUSTICE POWELL, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN join, concurring in the judgment.
    I agree that the challenged statutes constitute an unconstitutional discrimination against servicewomen in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, but I cannot join the opinion of MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, which would hold that all classifications based upon sex, “like classifications based upon race, alienage, and national origin,” are “inherently suspect and must therefore be subjected to close judicial scrutiny.” Ante, at 682. It is unnecessary for the Court in this case to 692*692 characterize sex as a suspect classification, with all of the far-reaching implications of such a holding. Reed v. Reed, 404 U. S. 71 (1971), which abundantly supports our decision today, did not add sex to the narrowly limited group of classifications which are inherently suspect. In my view, we can and should decide this case on the authority of Reed and reserve for the future any expansion of its rationale.
    There is another, and I find compelling, reason for deferring a general categorizing of sex classifications as invoking the strictest test of judicial scrutiny. The Equal Rights Amendment, which if adopted will resolve the substance of this precise question, has been approved by the Congress and submitted for ratification by the States. If this Amendment is duly adopted, it will represent the will of the people accomplished in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. By acting prematurely and unnecessarily, as I view it, the Court has assumed a decisional responsibility at the very time when state legislatures, functioning within the traditional democratic process, are debating the proposed Amendment. It seems to me that this reaching out to pre-empt by judicial action a major political decision which is currently in process of resolution does not reflect appropriate respect for duly prescribed legislative processes.
    There are times when this Court, under our system, cannot avoid a constitutional decision on issues which normally should be resolved by the elected representatives of the people. But democratic institutions are weakened, and confidence in the restraint of the Court is impaired, when we appear unnecessarily to decide sensitive issues of broad social and political importance at the very time they are under consideration within the prescribed constitutional processes.”

    Okay? As tinfoil hattie puts it (lightly censored): “Or just keep on doing whatever the f.. you want when it comes to women.”

  104. minervaK

    Organised religion has a lot of problems, why should one religion (atheism) be different from any others. All these groups meet to celebrate their common faith, or lack thereof.

    There is no official church of atheism. It’s not a religion. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby.

  105. TungstenVirago

    Atheism is not a religion (as we are all default atheists when born) but it, with a capital A, is certainly just another male bonding sesh. There was a time, pre-awakening, when I actually believed Atheist dudes were more reasonable, open-minded, cool and also more likely to respect us and stuff.

    LOLPMSLIBTP.

  106. Rididill

    I can’t believe that about the KBR case… humanity, why do you so thwart my attempts to have faith in you?

    So fucked up… so fucked up… I despair.

  107. Metal Teapot

    One thing that bugs me about all the guys getting annoyed at women treating them as a threat is how hypocritical it is. I have a male friend who is a standard Nigel but rather large. He is tall, fairly fat and fairly muscular. He also often shaves his hair quite short, to save time grooming. If he wanted to do you harm, he could but that is often true. One day he commented that when he walks down the street at night, people would look behind them, see him, and respond scared. This was true independent of whether the person in front of him was male or female. He said his respose was to slow down, and keep a distance. Men are like women, they are threatened by similar things and react the same way. If a man was proposioned in an elevator at 4am, they’d be creeped out. Similar with being asked for money, or any too personal question delivered with no small talk. Men understand what is wrong with the scenario but don’t care because sex. The need to ask for sex is so important that the fact it makes a large proportion of women uncomfortable, and leaves the rest unbothered but with a near zero success rate doesn’t bother them. If they thought of women as humans they’d know how to make conversation or not. However the idea of holding a conversation with a woman without proposing sex is beyond some men. They will never see why that is a problem because sex.

  108. Heather

    A very recent conversation:

    Police Detective in Sex Crimes unit: “Yeah, I’m so sorry, but the DA won’t press charges even if you get a recorded confession from him where he admits to the aggravated sexual assault and rape with a foreign object because the jury will never convict on an acquaintance rape.”

    Me: shaking with rage hangs up phone. A sobering thought bubbles to the surface, “Then they won’t press charges when I rape him back for the same reason”.

    I can’t be the only one who has thoughts like this? Thanks detective and thanks rape culture…this is one of those “the solution is contained within the problem” problems yes?

  109. No Sugarcoating

    You’re not the only one, Heather. Hell, revenge rape fantasies(a few movies come to mind) seem to be popular even among people who have never experienced that terror.

  110. Comrade Svilova

    TW for violence and self harm

    If someone needed two reconstructive surgeries and 200 therapy appointments for PTSD after having sex with me I would never, ever argue at any time — least of all in court — that it was consensual. I would probably be so angry with myself that I might want to do myself serious harm, but I would never dream of saying “I did nothing wrong.” It makes me sick. How can a man look at that kind of damage to a woman and not feel responsible, guilty, and determined to try to make some kind of amends?

  111. Heather

    @No Sugarcoating

    I wouldn’t say I fantasize about using rape as a means to getting back at him or obtaining some kind of justice. More that what this detective was basically saying, as I understood it, is that everyone has a free pass to commit “acquaintance” rape using her and the DA’s logic for not pressing charges. But I get what you’re saying. It was all I could do not to stand on my chair and cheer during a certain scene in “Girl w/Dragon Tattoo”. In reality, I can count on one hand how many times I haven’t wanted him dead. Rape is out of the question, could never do it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>