Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
My Man Godfrey
Published Letters: 136 Editor's Choice: 7
I don't understand what's wrong with the statement that "Rape is an accusation easily to be made, hard to be proved, and harder yet to be defended by the party accused."
I'm a feminist, and an attorney, and I don't find the quote, or this attorney's particular use of it, objectionable.
Sometimes there are contradictions and dilemmas that come with respecting women's rights and the rights of the accused. Although I've never been a victim of sexual abuse, I do feel a personal connection to this issue because of the experiences of somebody very close to me. On balance, though, few things terrify me more than the thought of an innocent person serving prison time. (It's politically incorrect, and unpopular, for instance, to require children to testify in court in molestation cases, but I strongly favor that requirement, even if it means that more crimes against children will go unpunished. The fact that a crime is especially heinous does not mean that the standards of proof should be relaxed; if anything, the opposite is true.)
Is it the "easily to be made" part of this quotation that you object to? If so, you may be interpreting the quote too broadly. I don't think this attorney was necessarily suggesting that rape doesn't affect its victims powerfully, or that women who bravely choose to report rapes don't face a number of negative consequences (harassment, intimidation, etc.). The point, rather, is that there are very few criminal charges that can be proven solely on the word of a witness; in a rape case, a single person's false testimony is enough to destroy a life.
Rape cases are also unique in that acquittal doesn't ever really result in exoneration. Knowing that someone was once accused, and acquitted (or even convicted!) of burglary, or cocaine possession, or insider trading, or drunk driving, wouldn't destroy a person's reputation in most people's eyes -- certainly not in the way that a past accusation of a sex crime would.
I agree that false rape claims are probably rare (although that 5.5% figure, if correct, seems alarmingly high to me). On the other hand, there are plenty of crazy and dishonest women out there, just as there are plenty of crazy and dishonest men.
I guess what I'm saying, to Ms. Clark Flory, is: you shouldn't be so quick to simply sniff at people who are advocating for strong protections for the criminal accused. If you're going to argue against a proposition like the one in this quotation, you have an obligation to be very explicit about your thesis.
It's just crazy how hard you rock. I'm starting to regard this blog as one of the "rudiments of civilization." Also: I'm beginning to doubt my own critical reading skills, because I can never seem to find anything in your posts that I disagree with.
It amazes me that the media -- even including Salon -- continues to ignore the comment Imus's co-host made, on the air, about the women's NCAA final, describing it as "the jigaboos vs. the wannabes."
As bad as "nappy-headed hos" is, "jigaboos" is even more shocking. Why is that racial slur being buried in the coverage of this scandal?
Well, I'm with you on this one, Joan.
It still surprises me that people get so angry whenever somebody tries to encourage civil conversation on the web. To the other posters: this piece on Imus and Kos is not an invitation to fume about, e.g., Joan Walsh's "anti-Catholic" prejudice. Can we just agree that misogyny and homophobia are bad before we start furiously pointing fingers at each other? (You'll have to forgive me, by the way, if I'm unimpressed by comparisons between the web's ubiquitous homophobia and racism and Joan's supposed "anti-Catholicism" and "man-hating." For real, aggrieved Catholics: you're able to repeat, endlessly, that I'm a perverted sinner who's doomed to burn in Hell -- and to spend millions of dollars lobbying, internationally, against my right to marry and adopt -- but it's disrespectful and bigoted for me to defend the freedom of artists to display mildly subversive pieces like that chocolate Jesus?)
Anyway: I'm fed up with the "backlash" against political correctness; in this case, the cure is worse than the disease. The gay jokes and scary misogynistic remarks and racist innuendoes -- and false equivalencies (homophobia/racism = anti-Catholicism) -- are like a toxin that builds up in the air; it's time to open the window.
This piece is conspicuously missing any real evidence of an impending "backlash" against Koreans. Meanwhile, there's plenty here -- including quotes from bereaved students on the VT campus -- to suggest that no racist response (beyond the inevitable ravings of a few lunatics and wack-job radio hosts like Michael Savage) is likely.
"Some Korean students" "fear" that bad things are going to happen? "Racist screeds have cropped up quickly among right-wing commentators and on the Internet?" This sounds exactly like the kind of lazy sourcing Glenn Greenwald ridicules on his blog every day of the week. (And when I follow the hyperlink attached to the words "racist screeds," I get . . . "Debbie Schlussel?" I've never even heard of this woman -- and she now speaks for "the right?" I notice, also, that, while her response to the shootings was indeed racist, it was not anti-Korean, but anti-Arab.)
Anecdotal evidence and common sense would seem to indicate that no wave of anti-Korean sentiment is building.
The bottom line is that this article is irresponsible and distateful. The overwhelming impression it leaves is that Joe Eaton is licking his chops, praying for some violent and outrageous racism to materialize in the wake of this tragedy. Don't hold your breath, Joe.
Not "distateful," whatever that means.
I don't understand why Broadsheet linked to this. It just seems like a bunch of mean-spirited schoolyard jokes about "fat" and "pizza-faced" celebrities. Wearying and predictable.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
