Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Duke Rape Case: The Danger Of Screaming No Rape

HuffPost: The Danger of Screaming Race in Rape



... the bombshell admission on CBS's 60 Minutes by a friend of the black female student who claimed rape by a pack of white Duke University Lacrosse players that the rape may not have happened.

and

Women's groups should have taken the same wait and see approach to the case.

This admonishment to take a wait and see approach is ironic coming from someone who has decided he knows what really happened based on the 60 Minutes interviews designed by the interviewees to make the defendants look like they are not only not guilty of the crimes they've been charged with but that they are victims of a corrupt system which doesn't care about truth and justice.

It's carefully crafted melodrama. Yes, folks the villains in act one are shown in act two to be the victims. (Picture Nifong removing his white hat and stroking his long black curly mustache.) But what will happen in act three, the trial? Will our hapless victims turn out to be as villainous as they seemed in act one or will our innocent victim turn out to be an evil Jezebel?

The defense attorneys are hoping the show will close during the intermission.

I notice there is no similar admonishment directed at all those who "knew" from the moment they heard about this case that this allegation had to be a hoax perpetrated by these 2 evil strippers. As details of this case have emerged the justifications for how and why this "hoax" was perpetrated have shifted with the smoothness used to justify invading Iraq once the initial story fell apart.

Apparently, attacking alleged rape victims before trial is good citizenship, but defending alleged rape victims is bad citizenship.

And the so-called bombshell is doubt by a witness who from every detail I've read on the case was a co-worker and not a friend of the alleged victim as described in HuffPost and whose credibility was shredded by those who believe this is a hoax. First she was a co-conspirator then she was a greedy opportunist with a criminal past who would capitalize on her involvement and now she's an innocent bystander brave enough to do the right thing.

I know people can change, but that's pushing the boundaries of credibility.

In other places I've read people saying that the revelation that the alleged victim was back working as a stripper 2 weeks after the alleged rape proves she wasn't raped. But if something happened to anyone else and they didn't go to work again for 2 weeks, that gap would be significant.

Does it only become insignificant because of her job? Or because of stereotypes about rape?

Also what does this do to the credibility of those who said she came to the Duke lacrosse party already raped?

There were those who said she couldn't have been raped because there weren't blood splatters all over the bathroom walls. If any sexual violence that doesn't leave blood splatters on the walls isn't considered real rape, I would never want to be alone with people who hold that belief.


In years past far too many authorities routinely laughed off, victim blamed, or simply turned a blind eye to the cry of rape, the only exception to that was when a white woman fingerpoints a black man as the assailant.
This is still happening far too often and many of those who paint the Duke Rape Case as a hoax want to go back to those good old days when all but the most violent of rapists didn't have to worry about being arrested and treated like a criminal. They were just men who could say, "I was young, I was naive."

Those tempting women are the ones to blame. When they describe what happened to them as rape, they are lying.

Update: I just saw this quote from the second stripper describing (in her 60 Minutes intervew) what she said when she and the alleged victim briefly left the house: "And how he couldn't get it on his own and had to pay for it."

That resulted in her being called the N-word.

This shows me that those who called for dancers were really looking for prostitutes and were thinking that the payment for dancing included sex. In the selfish minds of the lacrosse players that could turn a gang rape after handing over money into nothing more than taking what had been bought and paid for.

These were just strippers after all so it wasn't like they had any moral reason for not giving the lacrosse players what they wanted to make their party special.

If that's the case then the lacrosse players are Johns who broke the law before the N-word was uttered. I'm sure verbal crudeness is the normal treatment many strippers experience so that alone isn't a red flag for rape.

Drunken entitlement and a feeling of superiority is not a valid rape defense. Too bad so many people who hear details of this case seem to think it is.

It's also interesting that in the 60 Minutes story there was nothing about the taxi driver's report of overhearing some lacrosse players talking about how she was just a stripper and wouldn't go to the police.

Technorati tags:
Bookmark and Share
posted by Marcella Chester @ 3:01 PM   8 comments links to this post

8 Comments:

At October 17, 2006 6:07 PM, Blogger sailorman said...

The problem is that people are digging in their heels on both sides.

When the accusations became public, I didn't expecially think they were innocent; I was shocked at their behavior. Lacrosse players are often assholes. But then as the story came out it seemed more and more likely that
1) Something bad and inappropriate happened in that frat house
but
2) Whatever it was, it didn't exactly match the particulars of the violent acts which were first described.

And that bothered me too: While I believe in convicting people who do wrong, I am a strong adherent of convicting them for what they actually did--not what the press says they did. And I confess that as a general rule (not only rape) inaccurate accusations give me the skeevies if they seem at all preventable.

Still, something went wrong in that house, though I don't know what. But the polarization is a problem. When some folks read my comment, they'll probably see me saying "the women are lying" and "the boys are right" and "she wasn't raped" and all that. That's not what I'm saying.

Do you think there's a middle ground? Is it OK to "wait and see" NOW?

 
At October 18, 2006 12:02 AM, Blogger justice58 said...

Listen

The 60 minutes show was a onesided case of bold, blatant lies. It was shown before the upcoming election to make the people of Durham NOT vote for Mike Nifong. Ed Bradley was just a pawn for CBS's Duke Alumni.

Just watching and listening to the bold-faced blatant lies of the duke 3 makes me even more sicker than before. And the nerve of Dave Evans' comment..."she brought shame on a great university". It was his OWN lowlife decision to host a party to degrade women and encourage underage drinking. And then..." I was young, naive and sheltered". Gag me with a long handle spoon. Dave Evans' got game and he is working it.

I was not impressed at all. There was nothing shown that would cause me to change my view. I support the victim and will until this case is resolved.

The duke 3 thought they were entitled to do to her whatever they wanted and no one would listen, much less care because..."she's just a stripper". My say to them is...Wrong generation! You're not getting off on this one. I commend Mike Nifong for having the guts to continue to fight for justice. I pray that he will win the November election.

 
At October 18, 2006 12:04 AM, Anonymous cooper said...

I have posted on this from the beginning, but my biggest problem from it was the extreme misogyny I saw all over the net in postings and comments which shocked me as well as the attitude that for some reason these guys are are more “victims” than anyone who may be accused of a crime which they did not commit.

Of course the CBS interview is going to look good for the defendants, of course these guys and their families are pissed off because whether or not they committed a rape or not their true colors were shown and they were not pretty...well that is just too fucking bad IMO.

If the reputation of say,,, some college girl were on the line for some hideous crime and she may or may not have committed it but she did some pretty offensive things, was shown to be racist and a bit of a pig not to mention a drunk partier how many people do you think would be out to defend her...

Not that many I imagine.

 
At October 18, 2006 7:10 PM, Blogger justice58 said...

Listen



Imagine this,your daughter being raped by some of the elite college students of Duke University and no one will hear her cries of help because she's poor, black, and she's employed as a stripper.

Imagine that your daughter was trying to get an education ...lets say, at a less than prestigious college than Duke University and no one would listen because *GASP* she has no wealth, power or prestige.

Imagine that your daughter is working hard while trying to survive with 2 little children to support. And no one will listen to her cries of a brutal assault and kidnapping by the Lacrosse team of the prestigious Duke University.

The picture is not so d*mn pretty huh... is it??

The lowlife thugs (duke 3) brought this upon themselves and now must suffer the conquences of their own actions.

The parents of these thugs should have taught them to respect women..period.
Where is their d*mn morals?
These rich spoiled thugs were already headed on a collision course long before the Duke Rape Case. The University knew of their behavior and did nothing about it. They were allowed to run amuk and the University gave them a free pass. The dukies were very disrespectful to their neighbors by shamefully urinating out of windows, playing loud music, and causing law enforcement to constantly confront them about their behavior. They had no respect for the law whatsoever. Their attitude was despicable, and the university looked the other way and quickly said "boys will be boys".

If you watched the 60 minutes of lies, then you must have seen the "sense of entitlement attitude". Dave Evans' quote: "she brought shame on a great university". The d*mn nerve of him. It's the old blame the "stripper" attitude. That interview really did defined him. He is a lowlife arrogant masochistic lying thug.

The defense has bamboozled the public with their low-down dirty tactics by making the public believe that this victim is delusional.

Women of America, a rape can happen to any one of us,or if not us then our mothers, daughters, or sisters at anytime.

 
At October 20, 2006 2:21 PM, Anonymous Kali said...

I was channel surfing when I came across that 60 minutes program. I heard two sentences and knew immediately how biased their presentation is going to be, just from their choice of words. At that point they were not even directly disputing the rape account, but just from the way they framed those two sentences it was obvious what their agenda was. I couldn't bear to listen anymore to that crap and changed to another channel immediately.

 
At October 25, 2006 12:17 PM, Blogger Y. Carrington said...

Hello Marcella...I just wanted to let you know that I linked your powerful post here.

I wrote my own critique of the 60 Minutes piece before the broadcast but was too goddamn angry to write anything afterwards. Thanks for saying what I wanted to say.

Best, Y. Carrington

 
At October 28, 2006 7:56 PM, Anonymous per said...

"This shows me that those who called for dancers were really looking for prostitutes... "

could you explain why you think this has been demonstrated, please ?
per

 
At November 02, 2006 9:26 PM, Anonymous Professor Zero said...

It is unlikely that the victim lied.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home