[Discussion] Rape Culture, Redux

A continuation of the P&C Rape Culture thread.

Let me start this off again, with this Canadian judge who asked why a rape victim couldn't just keep her legs together. He blames his comments on a lack of knowledge of criminal law...

Ignorance is not a defence.

Maq wrote:

Ignorance is not a defence.

I know, right? If it's not a defense for criminals, it definitely shouldn't be for judges!

While I agree that ignorance is not a defense, even more alarming is that a judge publicly admitted he doesn't know about criminal law. Like, what the f*ck, isn't that a pre-requisite for the job? Aren't most judges lawyers before they become judges?

nel e nel wrote:

While I agree that ignorance is not a defense, even more alarming is that a judge publicly admitted he doesn't know about criminal law. Like, what the f*ck, isn't that a pre-requisite for the job? Aren't most judges lawyers before they become judges?

He was doing mostly contract and bankruptcy cases. He also reminded people he wasn't in Canada in the 60s-80s, so I wonder what other antiquated prejudices he may still hold dear (*cough* apartheid *cough*).

In case I wasn't being crystal clear, it absolutely isn't an excuse. I find it appalling that he didn't bother to study up on criminal law. Even more appalling is the fact that he was promoted to federal judge after this case!

Also, I saw this picture on my FB feed:

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/7uEqRk9.jpg)

Oh, and I found a CBC article that mentions that three other judges in the same province are under scrutiny for similar issues.

The same judge mentioned before, Robin Camp:

CBC wrote:

Camp also accidentally referred to her as "the accused" during the 2014 trial, a mistake he repeated at a Canadian Judicial Council inquiry last week, before quickly correcting himself.

Let's have that sink in for a moment. The judge called the rape victim "the accused" twice. So in his mind, a woman who reports a rape is a potential criminal. Nice.

When a man who rapes a two-year-old and live streams the assault gets a suspended sentence.

Edit: the DA's office sent out a correction. It wasn't rape, but a sexual act, and the kid was a year old at the time. I'm not sure how this mitigates anything, TBH. The offender needs help, sure, but he also needs to be away from society until he gets that help.

sometimesdee wrote:

When a man who rapes a two-year-old and live streams the assault gets a suspended sentence.

Suspended sentence? That's where they hang him by his thumbs for a month in the town square, right? That's what I'm going to believe, for my own sanity.

sometimesdee wrote:

When a man who rapes a two-year-old and live streams the assault gets a suspended sentence.

huh, I was expecting some athlete whose future we couldn't possibly ruin with jail time *eye roll*

The act Grooms did commit was at the behest of professional pornographers who tricked him into the acts.

wait what... how.?..

meanwhile
Ohio Teen Raped by Youth Pastor Ordered to Apologize to Rapist's Wife by Church

This new version continues to be one of the most depressing threads.

I'm sorry, but not as sorry I am for all the rape victims who get re-traumatized by lackadaisical police and justice system...

As a Rice alum, this is one of the tamest exploits of the M.O.B who have frequently been reprimanded by the NCAA. My favorite was when they cracked the play calling whistle scheme for Texas A&M and brought the team to its knees in the second half. Edit: whoops that link references another story of which I wasn't aware. Can't find a link to the event.

Sorry for the derail but just wanted to give some context. They have a history of humorous disobedience and poking fun at the NCAA.

And since Baylor's fired coach, who helped cover up the assaults over the years, was at the game and got an ovation from Baylor fans when he was announced, it's hard to find fault with Rice. Baylor clearly needs some more humiliation to realize how wrong they were.

Sometimes, even when women report, testify at trial, and WIN THEIR CASE, they still lose.


Making her case

Aside from the case and story itself there is also a fairly terrifying stat in there,

Statistics Canada wrote:

In 2013, 41 per cent of women in Canada who reported being the victim of a violent crime accused an intimate partner of the abuse.

I don't know if they do such a thing in Ontario, but the Crown should probably ask for a change of venue; it's obvious the PTBs are in the rapist's Good Ol Boy Network.

This has been trending: https://twitter.com/hashtag/notokay?...
Roughly, it's women on Twitter sharing the specific details of the sexual assaults they've experienced, as a way to make the statistics relatable. (And it's as harrowing a read as it sounds, so be warned.)

Even more depressing are the guys replying that rape culture doesn't exist.

Women complain that all men are capable of awful/illegal behaviour towards women => #NotAllMen.

Man brags about awful/illegal behaviour towards women => All men do this.

The #YesAllWomen hashtag from a couple of years ago was a massive wake-up for me. It's not like I never believed it before but it'd never hit home. It reminded me of my own experience being cornered and felt up and how much it changed me and my subsequent behaviour. It was the realization that women feel like that all the damn time that shook me.

I am trying to figure out how to handle the discrepancy in my head regarding Juanita Brodderick and the other ladies that Trump invited to the 2nd debate, and my feelings towards them. This is a serious question, because I've been thinking about this since I'd heard about their appearance at the debate.

On one hand, I don't want to discount their claims that Bill Clinton sexually assaulted and/or raped them, because doing so would be me being oh-so-horribly a part of rape culture, and I'm trying my best to not do that. But on the other hand, I feel like the only reason they came to light was because Trump invited them, and I find that to be, at best, suspicious.

Am I participating in rape culture if I'm suspicious of their motives and the timing?

Rubb Ed wrote:

Am I participating in rape culture if I'm suspicious of their motives and the timing?

It's not an either/or.

You can acknowledge the validity and seriousness of the claims while still decrying the naked use of those claims for political gain.

Rubb Ed wrote:

I am trying to figure out how to handle the discrepancy in my head regarding Juanita Brodderick and the other ladies that Trump invited to the 2nd debate, and my feelings towards them. This is a serious question, because I've been thinking about this since I'd heard about their appearance at the debate.

On one hand, I don't want to discount their claims that Bill Clinton sexually assaulted and/or raped them, because doing so would be me being oh-so-horribly a part of rape culture, and I'm trying my best to not do that. But on the other hand, I feel like the only reason they came to light was because Trump invited them, and I find that to be, at best, suspicious.

Am I participating in rape culture if I'm suspicious of their motives and the timing?

The way I currently feel is that no, I don't discount their accusations and they very well may be true, but their motives and timing are still extremely suspicious. Either way, I don't see a valid reason to put the blame on Hillary for something her *husband* did, Bill isn't the one running for President. So until Hillary is the one actually charged with raping someone, I just don't see it as her issue other than being another of Bill's victims and coping with it the best she can...like it seems all women have had to do in some way or another whenever we've been directly harassed or cheated on or making sacrifices to do what's best for family/children.

And yes, that might sometimes mean that we're contributing to rape culture, but oftentimes there are no good choices for victims in our society.

Rubb Ed wrote:

I am trying to figure out how to handle the discrepancy in my head regarding Juanita Brodderick and the other ladies that Trump invited to the 2nd debate, and my feelings towards them. This is a serious question, because I've been thinking about this since I'd heard about their appearance at the debate.

On one hand, I don't want to discount their claims that Bill Clinton sexually assaulted and/or raped them, because doing so would be me being oh-so-horribly a part of rape culture, and I'm trying my best to not do that. But on the other hand, I feel like the only reason they came to light was because Trump invited them, and I find that to be, at best, suspicious.

Am I participating in rape culture if I'm suspicious of their motives and the timing?

Thanks for this post Rubb. I've been trying to parse out my reactions the last few days as well.

I tend to default to believing victims, but there's so much that doesn't add up about most of Bill's alleged victims stories. This Vox piece is pretty illuminating.

Broaddrick, who seems to have the most credible claims, had the perfect situation to tell what happened, yet she recanted her statements under oath.

But even as I lean towards believing her, none of it reflects on HRC. Especially as Hillary's alleged threats seem pretty dubious. They are subtle to the point of being invisible.

Yeah, I feel mixed on the whole thing. The way Broaddrick and Willey have behaved and changed their stories gives me great pause, but I don't want to be a hypocrite because memory is fluid and someone misremembering details or denying the assault for a long time has been used as a way disqualify victims in the past.

I think what my opinion boils down to is that Bill Clinton may not be a rapist but he is definitely a sexual creepo and probably got away with being one due to his stature, and Hillary Clinton has probably chosen to look the other way more than someone should.

I put it alongside all the other ethical concerns surrounding HRC for President - not great, and wish it wasn't there, but still miles ahead of the only other viable option. It also continues to prove that Trump is either an extraordinary moron or a complete sociopath - He is a serial sexual assaulter and even openly brags about it, and yet decided to pivot his campaign strategy to focus on sexual assault victims.

I honestly think most of us over 50 would have similarly crumbly ethical appearances if we were subjected to 25 years of allegations based on our backgrounds and mountains of made-up accusations about them. As conservatives are fond of saying, none of us are perfect. But they seem not to apply a jot of forgiveness to their enemies.

That's not what Jesus would want them to do, right? Right?

Hypochristians run the Republican political show.

And honestly, I'm willing to cut kind of a lot of slack to someone who's dealing with their spouse cheating on them.

ETA: Yes, I want creepshows called out, and I want victims supported and protected. I just don't necessarily look to someone who's also being wronged to be the champion of justice in that moment.

wordsmythe wrote:

I just don't necessarily look to someone who's also being wronged to be the champion of justice in that moment.

This, exactly.

I'm with bekkilyn on this, though my not being American and not feeling it that much probably contributes. I cast no doubt on the testimony of women alleging that Bill Clinton attacked them. That deserves every consideration. Hillary may have been the woman who looked away, or the woman who was unrsonably jealous. But Trump IS that guy. If Bill Clinton could be a sexual predator, then Trump is at least on the same level, so any attacks on Bill Clinton on this score just emphasizes how bad Trump is.

Great read.

Are women people?

The main pull, although it's definitely a worthwhile read.

Even the Republicans who are disavowing Trump do so in language that reinforces this notion that women are objects that men own, instead of people in their own right. Most Republican men who released statements condemning Trump invoked their wives and daughters, framing sexual violence as a property crime against male-controlled female bodies, rather than a crime against people with rights.

Talk-show host Rush Limbaugh’s pique cascaded into a terrifying tantrum on Wednesday, as captured by Media Matters:

You know what the magic word, the only thing that matters in American sexual mores today is? One thing. You can do anything, the left will promote and understand and tolerate anything, as long as there is one element. Do you know what it is? Consent. If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it’s perfectly fine. Whatever it is. But if the left ever senses and smells that there’s no consent in part of the equation, then here come the rape police. But consent is the magic key to the left.

Limbaugh’s rant really distills the struggle between the women-are-people camp and the women-are-objects camp. Valuing consent is about valuing women’s humanity. As people, women should be able to make their own choices about whom they have sex with and under what circumstances.

But Limbaugh, as he makes exquisitely clear here, thinks of women more as objects, to be used and controlled by men. His dripping distance for the concept of “consent” is contempt for the idea of women as autonomous people. We are objects for male use, in his eyes. If a man wants to grab a woman’s p*ssy, then who is she to say no? Maybe her husband or father or priest has the power to say no, but not her. Giving that authority to the woman makes someone the “rape police,” which is apparently a bad thing to be.

The "Rape Police" happen to be one of the most successful shows on TV...
IMAGE(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.aoltv.com/media/2011/01/losvu250.jpg)