Archive for category Bi-Yotch
Scott Kaufman at RawStory reports on this asshole:
According to his ruling, Judge Christopher McFadden claimed that a new trial was necessary because the unnamed victim waited a day before reporting the rape, and because she did not behave like a rape victim.
Nor, in his opinion, did William Jeffrey Dumas, who was convicted of repeatedly raping the victim in 2010, “behave like someone who had recently perpetrated a series of violent crimes.”
The evidence isn’t in dispute. Mr. Dumas’s semen was found in the victim’s bed, and the doctors who treated the victim found her injuries “consistent with multiple, forcible rapes.”
No, the judge’s issue with the conviction is that the victim and rapist, respectively, did not behave like a victim and rapist.
Plenty of rape victims wait a day, or longer, to report the crimes. Many don’t report at all! They often don’t report because they’re afraid (and not without reason) that some asshole, or several, in the justice system will scrutinize their behavior and decide they’re not acting victim-y enough.
People who commit rape aren’t oblivious to this theory of “acting like a rape victim.” Most rapists know their victims, and are well-acquainted enough with them to draw out the violation by coercing their victims to behave in certain ways, which most people tend to see as “not acting like a rape victim.”
When we expect victims to behave a certain way, we just give rapists instructions on how to get away with it.
The rape victim in this case has Down Syndrome. People with disabilities—most especially developmental and cognitive disabilities!—are particularly vulnerable to sexual predation, precisely because so many people don’t take their accounts seriously.
The message Judge McFadden is sending her is that it was a mistake to report her rapes. Her testimony doesn’t mean anything, so she should’ve just kept quiet.
I am sitting here cringing in solidarity with Paris Lees for having participated in a “debate” with Julie Burchill at the Spectator. It didn’t go well, but she seems to be dealing with the horror of her experience much better than I would. She has some handy, astute things to say about progressive concepts such as intersectionality, which seems to be catching a lot of flak from British white cisgender feminists lately. I will share her insights, as she is much more gracious than I am.
Intersectionality is a fairly unattractive word to describe a fairly useful concept. People face multiple forms of prejudice and intersectionality is simply about recognising the difference, say, between being called a “slag” and being called a “black slag”. Burchill says she doesn’t “like” intersectionality – but it’s not a case of liking. You either accept that some people have more to struggle against than you, or you don’t. And you either wish to help them, or you don’t. What she really means is that she doesn’t like transgender people objecting to her cruel and inaccurate jokes – just as some people say they “don’t like” political correctness because really they don’t like gay people asking to be treated with respect.
I see nothing unattractive about the word, but whatevs, it’s a term that’s in use for the discussion of social justice issues, and you’re either invested in those issues, or not.
Also, this happened:
Burchill also accused me of being a privileged graduate who probably spent my time at university learning academic jargon at sit-down protests. The truth is that I’m even more common than she is and turned to prostitution to put myself through higher education. It was more “lie down” than “sit-in”.
I’ve seen a screencap of Burchill’s writing in which she says that sex workers should be shot as collaborators with capitalist patriarchy. Maybe she’s developed a more nuanced view since then. For some reason I’m not interested in extending the benefit of the doubt.
Solidarity, the sort that Burchill says her dad believed in, was about everyone who was less well-off helping each other to achieve a more equal society. It’s a lovely idea but it wasn’t always successful. Increasing rights for workers didn’t necessarily apply to women, for example.
And fighting for better conditions for women doesn’t necessarily work out as improvements for women across the board. It’s like, some marginalized people are less marginalized than others, and the less marginalized aren’t necessarily interested in the concerns of those who deal with multiple oppressions. Working-class white cis women aren’t necessarily standing up for the rights of homeless trans women of color, for example.
On Road, the organisation that manages All About Trans (a project that introduces media professionals to young trans people), also works with homeless people, undocumented migrants, travellers and people with mental health issues. Intersectionality isn’t a competition, it is about promoting equal rights for everyone. I suspect that Burchill knows that, deep down, and couldn’t care less.
I think the qualifier of “deep down” is too generous.
The latest offering from Emily Yoffe is this shit:
College Women: Don’t Depend on “Bystanders” to Rescue You from Assault. Rescue Yourselves.
So what is her advice to young women for “rescuing themselves,” I wonder?
(Those scare quotes around “bystanders” are VERY REASSURING.)
Teaching young people to intervene when they suspect sexual assault is an important tool in reducing such crimes on college campuses. An article by Michael Winerip in theNew York Times on “bystander intervention” describes these programs that teach young people how to spot suspicious behavior and what to do about it and points to some early successes. Winerip writes, “The hope is that bystander programs will have the same impact on campus culture that the designated driver campaign has had in reducing drunken driving deaths.” He adds, “Both take the same tack: Drinking to excess can’t be stopped but the collateral damage can.”
Someone has evidence-based advice for reducing the incidence of rape on college campuses! Don’t worry, Yoffe is here to derail it.
No time for a full post at the mo’.
A little bird showed me on Facebook this morning that Emily Yoffe has once again taken to Slate to run her mouth about the relationship between intoxication (just on women’s part) and rape (overwhelmingly committed by men). It was a train wreck the last time did she did it, and it looks like she hasn’t learned a damn thing.
I can’t read the article. Not right now. I’m at work, where the pressure is absurd as usual, and…I think it’ll be best if I get nice and wasted before I dive into Yoffe’s latest iteration of Don’t Call it Victim-Blaming When I Blame Victims. I need to ride out the day, get home, have my way with the liquor cabinet, and THEN I can do something about this shit.
This happens in my inbox on occasion. Somehow I suspect these messages are reserved just for bi women.
That’s my username blurred out at the top, but something tells me they sent the same message to a lot of users at the same time. Part of me is tempted to respond to this message and ask for specifics on what led them to choose me as a possible candidate for their triad.
A handful of little birds told me about these messages received by various women around OKCupid, and I agreed to use them as examples in a post of What Not to Do in Online Dating, Dudes.
Oh, who am I kidding? There is no “little bird told me” here. These all came to my inbox. These are all recent additions to your blogger’s experiences in online dating.
I’m giving advice that applies to everyone seeking everyone, but since I’m a woman who gets messages mostly from men, I’m going to frame this as advice to men seeking women.
First on the docket is this guy:
At first I thought maybe I’d reply to this guy as an experiment. I’d tell him about how annoying it is that I keep getting messages from guys who don’t appear to have read my profile, and see how he responded to that.
It’s a sign of how jaded I am, as a woman who sees (and sometimes experiences) the range of skeevy shit that men pull to try and pressure women into opening up to them. My first impression of this message was that this user was trying some PUA shit, similar to “negging,” in which he’s trying to get me to respond and show him that I’m not like all those other, soulless online daters who can’t take the time to get to know someone.
Like I said: jaded. This is no country for Pollyanna.
I’ve decided against engaging with him, though, because he very well could be sincere. He might be genuinely put off by his experiences in online dating and just wants someone to talk to.
Doesn’t mean I’m going to become his new friend, though.
I’ll tell you what really does irk me about this message, regardless of my assuming the worst of his motives: there’s no sign that he has actually read my profile. I can’t tell that he wrote this message specifically for me.
I see this happening a lot. Usually it’s just a generic, barely even existent little fart in my inbox. I don’t think “hi how r u” or even “hi princess hows it going?” is adequate for introducing yourself to someone you’d like to date, but maybe I’m just a snob. Sometimes, though, I get lengthy, detailed, well-composed messages that seem to be very thoughtful until I take a step back and realize that the user copy/pasted his missive to a number of accounts who fit his demographic requirements but don’t seem to have much else in common.
I’m sure this happens to everyone to some extent, but then I also get an additional dose as a bisexual woman. I get the messages from couples who want to find another woman to join them in threesomes, so they scoop up a bunch of bi women’s accounts and just shotgun these transparently non-personalized “please give us a chance” missives without even checking our profiles for any sign that we’re into threesomes. I mean, we’re bi, so, obviously we MUST be into threesomes. Duh. Which is why these poor sad couples need to spray their come-ons at as many women simultaneously as they can.
(Quick digression: it’s always M/F couples who’re seeking threesome partners. I’ve never had a M/M couple ask me to join them in the sack.)
Now I’ll show you some more guys who’ve hit my Squick buttons, and very recently. I don’t mean this as a tall glass of Guys, Don’t Do That. It’s more a helping of Guys, Do This Instead. Let it never be said that feminists are humorless, sex-phobic harpies who want men to be miserable. I am handing out FREE ADVICE to improve your chances of a response, dudes! I can’t give you advice that’ll guarantee a reply, and certainly none that’s certain to make a woman want to jump on your peen. That advice doesn’t exist. I will, however, help you to get out of your own way. Especially if you’re seeking an intelligent, thoughtful woman for a long-term relationship.
This pair of messages just appeared in my OKC inbox, and…I’m honestly not quite sure what this guy is trying to say in the second message.
I won’t even bother with the wisdom of telling someone she reminds you of someone with whom you’ve already had a failed relationship.
The second message is a good example of the value of punctuation. There’s not a single mark in that sentence (sentences?) to show the relationships between phrases, and I’m having a genuinely difficult time sussing out what he’s trying to say.
Option 1: “It’s not surprising you’re single, as you’ve been on this site a long time.”
This is a negging attempt, and a tautology. Not attractive. It manages to be both obnoxious and pathetic at the same time.
Option 2: “It’s not surprising you’ve been on this site a long time, as you are single.”
Another tautology; a meaningless observation. Not negging, but still pathetic.
Option 3: “You have been on this site a long time without establishing a successful relationship due to some other personal failure on your part which I have neglected to describe.”
Still negging, still obnoxious and yet transparently stupid.
If he thinks I’m going to respond just to ask him to specify what exactly that unpunctuated sentence means, he is sorely mistaken.
A recent rape case in Sweden has ended with acquittal because the judge decided that the defendant really didn’t intend to rape his victim, even though there’s no other way to describe what he did to her.
“I expressed very clearly that I didn’t want to, so there was no way he could misunderstand me,” the woman told investigators. She explained, however, that the man became more aggressive as her protests increased, adding that he “seemed to like it”.
The woman screamed so much and so loudly that she eventually lost her voice while the man continued. At one point, he covered her nose and mouth so she couldn’t breathe and slapped her in the face, Metro reported.
While the woman told investigators she “expressed very clearly” that she didn’t want to have sex, the man told the court that he was convinced the woman was into rough sex, saying he received “very clear signals” that she enjoyed what he was doing.
However, the court ruled it had not been proven that the 27-year-old had acted with intent to act against the woman’s wishes, a ruling that left many observers seething.
The burden of proof in this case was apparently for the prosecution to read the defendant’s mind and prove that he KNEW his victim wasn’t just playing a sex game when she kept screaming NO.
(Quick digression, for anyone unfamiliar with BDSM play: the procedure is for both partners to agree on a safe word before they begin the sex game. The safe word is something totally random, like “Armageddon.” That way, there’s a way to distinguish the “NO” in the game from a genuine withdrawal of consent.)
Just to be clear: there’s no dispute over whether the defendant violated the woman. There’s no confusion on the part of the court over whether she made a clear refusal.
It is because the defendant says he thought she was into it, that the judge has decided he must not be guilty of a crime.
To bolster his judgment of “but he didn’t MEAN to be a rapist,” Mr. Larsson points to the stages earlier in the events leading up to the rape, the defendant accepted the woman’s refusal of other sex acts, such as oral and anal sex. So…the guy demonstrated that he is ABLE TO DISTINGUISH REFUSAL FROM CONSENT, and then when he IGNORED HER REFUSAL, Mr. Larsson figured that meant the accused just couldn’t understand what his victim meant by all that screaming “NO.”
Whereas, I would look at that fact pattern and conclude that the accused proceeded to force his cock into his victim over her protests because he’s a violent, predatory piece of shit who gets off on women’s fear and pain.
Furthermore, the judge thinks he’s a really brave soul for refusing to bow to the pressures of the screaming masses on Twitter and Facebook. I think he’s just trying to convince himself he’s so much better than all those other judges, who might let little things like reality and reason get in the way of enabling rapists to escape consequences.
All that said, I would really like to be able to read the entirety of Larsson’s op-ed, but I don’t know Swedish and there doesn’t seem to be a reliable English translation online.
The op-ed at SVT Debatt is here.
Do I have any Swedish readers who’d do us a favor and give us a non-terrible English translation of this? I tried reading the Google Translate output, and it is word salad.
The most clearly translated part of his piece is this last sentence here:
Next time it’s about your son or your brother sitting in the court, and then you will certainly want to judge not to give in to the mass media pressure.
Everything else is basically incomprehensible. Are there any Swedes present who can make Larsson’s rape apologism accessible to us Anglophones? Please?
Well, I’ll be dipped in shit. Ms. DiFranco has taken to her Facebook page to make another attempt at apologizing, and this one is…actually not bad at all:
This is better. This is the shape of a real apology. I’m not yet convinced that she quite understands the objections to Nottoway Plantation, but at least she’s not doubling down anymore. She’s very nicely asking for someone to toss her a rope so she can climb out of her hole.