And I thought McCain's "I'm like Teddy" comments were bad...

h/t Latoya at Racialicious

So, let's play a game...

One of these things is not like the others.

Joe Francis is making my blood boil again, this time from the pages of a GQ men.style.com feature. How is it that, even from fucking prison, this jackass just can't shut up? The good news is that this article makes it even clearer, if that's possible, just how completely relentless his assholery is.

There's a particularly amusing bit where he's talking about his time in jail, and how it's not what he expected. He talks about how he's "a god" on the inside- that he's revered like a rock star because of his association with Girls Gone Wild. But, he continues: "The one thing I fear is one of these fucking people showing up at my house. I’m a different class. They’re dumb. They’re the people you see on Cops. Those are the people you see in jail."

Hey, Francis, speaking of "dumb"?

You're in jail, too.

Twit.

Still, that passage is really significant, in my mind. Not just because it's quickly followed by his making an incredibly inappropriate remark towards a female guard (who, according to the author, "gives him that disapproving-but-flattered half frown."), but because I think it's a strong message about how we treat and view people like Francis. Here's a man who has made a name for himself by being a violent, abusive maniac. Oh, yes, Girls Gone Wild is what started it all, but it's not GGW that made him a public figure- there are thousands of pornographers who never gain a fraction of the notoriety that Francis has.

Why?

Because Francis goes out of his way to abuse, humiliate, and intimidate everyone he comes in contact with. The Times article was the first time I really started to learn about who this guy was, and every interview he gives, every appearence he makes just further cements the perosna he's cultivated. Even the GQ article mentions it a few times- he's portrayed and plays up this image of being "a 15-year-old boy who just can't help himself". He's the very image of "boys will be boys", grown up.

If ever there was somebody who more purely embodied that ideal, and just how dangerous it is, it's Francis. Even the GQ article, which seems at times weirdly sympathetic towards Francis, makes note of how manic the guy is, and how it'd probably be good for society if jail broke him a little bit. We ought not tolerate a 15-year-old acting like Francis does. The lack of self control would be enough to get most of us in trouble at that age. And Francis isn't 15. He's over twice that.

But Francis's personal douchebaggery is only part of the problem... and not even the biggest part. That Francis is an asshole is a personal failing, and it should be enough to get him ostracized, and has clearly been enough to get him in trouble with the law. But the sad fact is that it's also made him a celeb. As he points out, he's "a god" in prison. These are people he despises- he calls them idiots, and does everything he can to avoid them, but they still treat him like a rock star?

Latoya quotes the most impressive display of clueless assholery from Francis over at Racialicious, and I think it's worth repeating. It comes on page four, when Francis begins talking about the people he considers enemies:

His enemies list has grown as he sits in jail, and it was recently expanded to include Access Hollywood reporter Maria Menounos, who did an interview Francis didn’t like. “She called me the ‘ever defiant Joe Francis,’ ” he howls. “Fuck yeah, I’m defiant! It’s like that defiant Rosa Parks won’t give up her seat. Fuck you, Maria. The ever defiant Nelson Mandela just can’t stand apartheid. The ever defiant Martin Luther King. The ever defiant Jesus Christ. You fucking stupid whore. If I saw Maria Menounos, I’d punch her in the face.”

As the tirade ends, he quietly starts repairing the phone he busted by banging it against the glass. “I’m not comparing myself to Rosa Parks or Jesus Christ. I’m comparing myself to someone standing up for their rights,” he says. “I’m just saying you can have an unpopular person who is criminalized and demonized. Jesus Christ was crucified by Pontius Pilate at my age. He was not a popular guy.”

1. When you attempt to point out a similarity between yourself or your situation, and someone like Rosa Parks or Jesus Christ and their situations, you are, in fact, comparing yourself to them. When you suggest that your legal troubles and the fight you've picked are somehow similar to Martin Luther King Jr.'s fight, you are, in fact, comparing yourself to him.
And you, sir, are no Martin Luther King Jr.
2. You're an unpopular person because you're an asshole, a liar, a rapist, and a violent maniac. There's a very significant difference between being an unpopular person because you're challenging the status quo in the pursuit of equal rights, and being an unpopular person because you're a violent rapist asshole who cheated on his taxes. Oddly enough, I find myself seriously lacking in sympathy for the second.

The article is disturbing, and I think that the author misses the mark when he tries to claim that Francis's "real passion is dominating other men." It may be true that he has a passion for that, as well, but his disregard and hatred of women is so thick, you'd need a machete to get through it.

And, seriously? He spent a year in a detention center that let him order pizza?!
*sigh*

Yeah, that's justice.

Who called it?

I just noticed Q&A With a Call Girl: Former call girl opens up about the industry on MSNBC. The Q&A asks the all important questions "What did you carry in your purse?" and "How much did you spend on clothes?" Oh, and "Was there anything you wouldn’t do?" My favorite might have been "What do you think of the movie “Pretty Woman”?" and the follow-up question "Is the movie realistic?" Because, yeah, those are the real hard-hitting questions.

I was surprised, though, that they published the question "What’s the biggest misconception about the business?", to which McLennan responded:

I don’t want to make it seem more glamorous than it is. I don’t want to candy-coat it, because there certainly is a dark side to the escort/call-girl industry that exists and destroys people’s lives. The common misconception is that that’s all it is – that’s it’s all glamorous or it’s all dirty, and it’s all of the above. It’s a well-rounded industry.

Now, let me think... who called it? Who pointed out that the media vultures were looking for exactly this kind of story?

Oh, right! That'd be Ren. Let's see... 3:47 on the 11th, Ren posts:

the media wants to talk to sex workers about it. I know, because oddly enough, a certain Renegade and a certain DC reporter had a conversation. I thought maybe it might be an opportunity to bring some light to issues such as sex workers rights and the hypocrisy shown by fellows like Spitzer. However, that is not what the media is interested in. That's not what they want. They want to know how one goes about hiring a "high-end" escort, how prevelant is it, what goes on, do the working girls care if the men are married? What else do they spend money on when with the woman? They want the scandal, the titilation, the naughty little thrill....but nothing too dirty. Nothing about the women on the streets. They don't want to hear about the truly unseemly side of the biz. They want to hear about the men...the rich and powerful men who spend the money on "high-end" girls. They want to hear how the men will fly in to see a girl, or fly her in, spends thousands on her and on the dinners and events and everything else. They want to know how he likes it.

And less than 24 hours later, MSNBC obliges.

Ren also mentions not wanting to take part in interviews like that one, because:

The media hardly needs another "tell all" about sex workers and the powerful politicos that hire them when they don't even want to see the women as human...not just the "high end ones". Besides, I distrust what would end up not making it through the editing process.

I can't help but wonder what didn't make it through MSNBC's editing process, too. Especially when questions like "Did you ever feel threatened on a “date”?" get only a one word response: "No." Really? That's all she had to say about the question? Why do I find that hard to believe?

In related news, Spitzer, in his resignation speech:

Over the course of my public life, I have insisted, I believe correctly, that people, regardless of their position or power, take responsibility for their conduct. I can and will ask no less of myself. For this reason, I am resigning from the office of governor.

Oddly enough, I don't recall any reports of him turning himself in to the police for violating the laws that he so ardently enforced. Anyone want to bet he serves a day in jail? That he even sees the inside of a court? Because I'm betting that his resignation is as far as that goes. Because, you know, there are some pretty different concepts of taking "responsibility" in effect here; if you're a prostitute, taking responsibility means going to jail, but If you're a political figure, taking responsibility is as easy as resigning.

Oh, no doubt, it sucks to have to resign. I imagine it's a real big disappointment to have attained such a position of power, only to see it crumbling beneath you.

Boo-fucking-hoo.
I was pretty sure that he was involved in criminal activity, and that we usually dealt with crimes through the criminal justice process. What the hell do I know, though?

Detroit and the Divine Right of Mayors.

Huh.

And all this time I thought he was on assignment by the people who voted him into office.

I really like how Kilpatrick says that his former chief of staff, Christine Beatty, resigning was "the right thing to do". It was the right thing for her to do... but not for him. He's "on an assignment from God", and, according to the article, he's "never been a quitter and doesn't plan to start now."

Not only is Kilpatrick not stepping down, he's planning to run again in 2009, saying that he will "make a case at that point, too, why [he's] the best person for the job."

I can't wait to see that.

This scandal alone has cost the tax-payers over 9$ million. That's not exactly a drop in the ocean. Kilpatrick has a long history of scandalous behaviors that reflect poorly on a city that desperately needs a turn-around. Now he's facing perjury charges. A former Detroit auditor general estimated that Kilpatrick charged in excess of $50k in personal expenses to the city, back in '05. Three former aides- two of them former classmates of Kilpatrick's- embezzled almost $50k from the mayor's petty cash account. And then there's the bad publicity the city received in the wake of the Tamara Greene murder and the Manoogian Mansion party. Or the lease of a Lincoln Navigator that cost the city $24,955 ($5 under what would have required city council approval- convenient, yes?), but that was to be used by Kilpatrick's wife and children. There's the blatant nepotism that Kilpatrick has repeatedly engaged in- placing family and friends in high-paying positions for which they have few qualifications. There's the fact that Washington D.C. police refuse to provide Kilpatrick's entourage with the level of police protection offered other mayors because of Kilpatrick's "inappropriate" behavior on previous D.C. visits. Or the use of almost $9k of a charity fund meant to improve the city of Detroit to take his wife, sons, and babysitter on a week-long vacation to the La Costa Resort and Spa in CA. Add to all of that the countless charges of physical violence that reporters and photographers have levied at Kilpatrick and his security teams.

The city is suffering- unemployment keeps going up. The housing market is tanked. The auto industry- the life-blood of the city- is slashing jobs. And maybe he can't fix all of those problems, and maybe they're not necessarily his fault... but he is responsible for his behavior, and for the people he puts into positions of authority. And he is responsible for being the public face of the city.

And if Kilpatrick is the best person for that job, I'd hate to see the worst.

In which my brain makes connections that may or may not exist...

I'm coming to the table late, but for those who don't know, we're four days into the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence. I've been rather lax in blogging (which happens sometimes), but I'd be remiss if I didn't mention it, and point to a few of the really great articles out there you should be reading.

First of all, Cara has a really amazing post about promoting rape that you should be checking out.

Holly, guest blogging at feministe, has a really powerful story up about Transgender Day of Remembrance, and her feelings on it, as well as what happened this year. It's a really heartbreaking story, and it's hard to read it without getting angry but also severely saddened. Check it out.

Baby221 is royally pissed off about the Megan Meier case. It is, as she points out, some fucked up shit.

What do these stories have in common? They're just a few of the many faces that violence against women take. When we think of violence against women, it's almost always in two contexts: spousal/partner abuse, or rape. But, the reality is that violence against women takes dozens and dozens of forms. As Cara points out, those products promote violence against women- by minimizing and mocking the seriousness of rape, and by presenting it as something funny. Violence against transgendered women is still violence against women, and we ought to care about it more than one day a year. And yet, even as they're facing the threat of transphobic violence at the hands of the authorities and random people on the street, trans-women face violence from within the feminist community, too. The suicide, and the contributing factors leading up to it, of Megan Meier is a terrible tragedy. She was a young girl who was, by most accounts, facing a lot of social pressures and was really unhappy. An adult used her fears against her, and betrayed her trust.

And, of course, Holly's post and baby221's post aren't what we typically think of when we think of violence against women, and there are factors that were "more important" to the situations than their statuses as women, but it seems to me that there's overlap there. I think that their femaleness isn't irrelevent to the situations being described. Certainly, Heart's reaction to trans-women is very much about the status of women. And most of the stories I've read about the Meier case talk about the social factors that she was facing, which have been described in very gendered terms. If being a woman wasn't the primary factor in the actual violence, it was almost certainly a factor in the ways that people treated them, and in the events leading up to the violence.

Or maybe I'm over-analyzing and seeing connections where they don't exist? I suppose that's a possibility. Regardless, read the stories. They're important.

On "Accidental Rape"

One of the comments that came up in Jill's post about rape and power was the point that rapists always know that they're raping. Several people pointed out that "rape is never an accident." There was also the suggestion that rapists always know what they're doing- or, to reword it slightly, rapists know that they're rapists- they don't rape without knowing that they're raping. Personally, I'm really not completely convinced of this.

One of the reasons that I advocate a shift in the ways that we think about sex is precisely because I think that the current model leads to rape. Right now, we're taught to think about sex as thing- largely a thing that men want and women have. Under this model, sex is often seen as a conquest- you're victorious if you have sex. This, I think, is at least partially responsible for some of the ways that people pursue sex- this is why people think it's okay to lie in the pursuit of sex, or why people think that it's okay to get someone drunk and "take advantage of them."

I'm going to try to find the stats, but I remember reading that surveys have shown that there's a divide between what people say and what they believe surrounding sex and rape. Most people will, if you ask them, agree that rape is wrong. But, when you start asking about specific situations, you start to see a divide form. There are many people who firmly believe that a situation is only rape if it meets all or most of the following:
The attacker is unknown to the victim.
The victim explicitly says "no".
The attacker threatens the victim with a weapon of some kind.
The attacker beats/chokes/strikes the victim.
The victim fights back, but is overpowered by the attacker.
The attacker penetrates the victim.

And, certainly, those are sufficient conditions to consider an attack a rape, but are the necessary? I think that many of us can agree that the first condition isn't necessary at all, given that most rapes are apparently perpetrated by someone the victim knows.

The fact is, there's not widespread agreement about where we draw the line regarding rape. I think the line ought to be obvious- but, unfortunately, that doesn't make it so.

I think that SarahMC was the first to mention rapists knowing whether or not they're rapists:

Even if women aren’t able to say “no” or get away for whatever reason, you’d think the fact that they freeze up and aren’t active/enthusiastic during the act would give these oh-so-innocent men pause. If your partner fucking freezes while you go to town on her body, it may be because you are raping her.

No, I totally agree with this- if you're with someone, and that person is giving you anything less than enthusiastic consent, you ought to check in and find out what is going on, because it could be the case that the other person is not on-board with what is happening. If you don't, you very might be raping that person.

So, yeah, these sorts of people- the sort of person who doesn't really care whether his/her partner is particularly enthusiastic and interested in the sex- the sort of person who sees the other person as a means to getting off? They're not exactly innocent. I think that the analysis that these sorts of people just don't care is right on. They don't care about the other person's feelings particularly.

Which is not quite the same as saying that they realize that they're rapists. It's possible to be a shitty, selfish human being without being a criminal. It's entirely possible- and, given the skewed model of human sexual relations that I think our society embraces, not particularly surprising- that some people who rape think that they're just participating in typical sexual behavior. When you have a conquest model of sex that you're working from, "taking advantage" of someone who is drunk and passing in and out of awareness doesn't parse as rape, because that person hasn't told you "no."

See, part of the problem is with the way many people read consent. For some people, consent isn't an affirmation, it's lack of a negation. In other words, some people think that it's only rape if the other person actually says "no" in a forceful way. If the other person is drunk and passing out, well... you can't say "no" if you're passed out, so it's not really rape.

Do they think that they're being nice?

Oh, absolutely not. But, they see sex as a struggle- a conquest- a thing to be taken from another through almost any means. They see the drunk victim as a person whose guard has been dropped, and is no longer capable of denying them access.

So, in that way, yes, I think that there are people who are rapists who simply don't realize that's what they are. I think that they probably think that they're just participating in typical sexual behavior. No, they don't care about their victim's feelings.

That's why I think it's so vital that we reframe the nature of consent and the ways that we view sex. If there's as much misunderstanding of consent as I think there is, we need to get people on the same page. We need to make it clear that lack of resistence is not the same as consent- consent is consent. We need to make it absolutely clear that, if you engage in sex with someone who is not giving you enthusiastic, affirmative consent, you might be raping that person.

Sarah reall nails another important part of this idea in her response on that thread:

As for the issue of whether or not the rapist knows they are raping in these cases, I would argue that they may not label the action as rape themselves and then justify the action to themselves because they feel entitled to their victims’ bodies.

I think our culture is so caught up with the idea that rapists are only strangers who jump out of trees and brutalize their victims in ways beyond the rape, that recognition of what rape actually is in most circomstances is often both unknown by both the rapist and the victim. If there was a pre-established relationship or freindship, the victim does not always recognize it is rape and blames herself. I’d argue the same could be true for the rapist, given the pre-established relationship, as well as our cultural misogynistic attitudes towards women’s bodies, a rapist may be convinced he is ENTITLED to her body.

And I honestly believe that education and changing the ways that we view sex are the best ways we have to change that.

*Feminism's* Rape Fallacy? Really?

h/t Feministing, I think?

David Cox, from the Guardian, has this to say on the subject of rape.

First of all- and this is nitpicky- where, exactly is the fallacy supposedly being commited? Because, uh... I don't see one. Or is Cox using some use of "fallacy" that I'm not familiar with? Also, for an article that's called "Feminism's Rape Fallacy" he doesn't even mention feminism until the penultimate paragraph.

Nitpicks out of the way...

It's hard to know what to say to Cox, because a lot of what he says is completely unfounded, or out-and-out made up. Let's start at the begining, with his opening statement: Isn't it time to acknowledge that it's beyond the capacity of the judicial process to deal with date-rape?

I'm not sure it's possible for me to roll my eyes any harder. Does he think that this is something profound? Does he think that none of us have ever come to the conclusion that the problem of rape isn't something that the courts alone can deal with? I have a feeling that Cox thinks that he's really hit one out of the park there- that he's offered up something really deep.

A quick glance through almost any feminist blog, though, would have shown him that he's preaching to the choir with that one. I don't know anyone who thinks that the judicial process will stop rape. I don't know anyone who thinks that ending sexual violence and eliminating date-rape will happen in the courts. That's the whole reason that we talk about the social aspects of rape. That's why we talk about victim blaming. That's why we talk about the sense of entitlement, or slut shaming, or any other number of social, not just judicial, problems.

Date rape isn't something we expect the courts to solve, we just expect them to stop being part of the problem. Low conviction rates and hostile treatment of victims isn't a problem because it prevents us from ending rape- they're problems because they help further victimize people who are already victims. They're problems because they show that the courts don't take a problem seriously.

And when your conviction rate drops from 33% to 5.4%, it's possible that people might start to think that your courts don't take that crime very seriously. Or, you know, the your juries don't. Of course, when the number of reported rapes is increasing, but prosecutions aren't... well, that doesn't necessarily help, either.

So, no, David Cox, you're not being profound. You're arguing against a position that nobody has. At the very least, you're arguing against a minority opinion that I've never seen articulated.

Then, of course, there's Cox's claim that it's "doubtless" that "many" of the convicted 5% are unknown to their victims. Which is weird, because the Guardian reports that "Women are most likely to be raped by men they know and 50% involve repeated assaults by the same man." Researchers blamed a "culture of scepticism" for the low prosecution and conviction of rape. The same culture of scepticism that might, for example, lead to a "journalist" writing an article like this, perhaps?

Alright, I know, I'm just being petty.

But it's hard to know what to say when someone can write "Should we be surprised that juries acquit them, or that police or prosecutors consider a conviction unlikely in their cases?" of victims who've been raped by someone they know? Should we be surprised?

Absolutely!

If the evidence supports a victim's claim that she (or he) was raped, it shouldn't matter whether the attacker was a spouse, a friend, or a stranger off the street. Particularly since, you know, all evidence suggests that the majority of rapists are known to their victims.

Cox is hung up on this idea that it's always a "he says/she says" situation where a woman's claim can't be at all verified. Sure, sometimes that's true. Sometimes there's no way to know for sure what happened, and sometimes there's no evidence that an attack took place. That makes cases difficult- that doesn't mean that it's preferable to throw our hands up and say "Oh well! Tough shit, victims!"

To start with, if we want to make a system that finds guilty people guilty while letting the innocent walk free, we need to quit promoting the myth that women routinely make false allegations, as if that's a justification for not pursuing rape cases. The fact that there are some people who have falsely accused others of rape shouldn't lead us to conclude that most or all people who make rape accusations are liars.

As it turns out, people will lie about just about anything, given the right circumstances. People have made false assault charges. People have lied about being mugged. People have lied about being abused. Have lied about having property stolen. Have lied about people lying about them. That doesn't mean we don't look for evidence of assault, theft, robbery, burglery, extortion, or libel. And when we go to court, we don't treat the victims of those crimes as though they're liars.

In the end, all of this comes across as an excuse to get to what Cox really wants- an excuse to victim blame and slut shame. It's only at the end of the article that we get to the real meat, when Cox's suggestion is to stop putting yourselves at risk, ladies.

See, as the most likely targets for rape, it's your responsibility to stop getting raped. "Exercise caution" as he puts it. Keep your "valuables" out of sight. That's right. "Think twice before visiting footballers' hotel rooms late at night" and remember that getting yourself "into a drunken stupor in the company of a frisky male" is dangerous.

There are several problems with this.

First of all, as a man, I can't help but point out what a thoroughly low standard Cox apparently holds men to. This is one of those "Wow, you people think a lot less of men than any feminist does" situations. The implication is pretty clear- men can't help themselves around a drunken woman? That's a low standard if I've ever seen one.

More important, though, is Cox's completely ignoring the realities of rape. It doesn't matter what a woman is wearing or how drunk she is, or if she's got her "valuables" on display- rape isn't about passion. It's not usually the case that it's a guy thinking "Wow, she's hot" and not being able to control himself. It's not a case of her dressing a certain way. Rape is usually perpetrated by men against women they know, regardless of dress.

Cox also misses the mark with regards to drinking. It's not women who drink that are at risk for getting raped. The relationship is all wrong- in most cases where drinking was involved in a rape, it's the perpetrator who was drinking, not the victim.

But, really, it's probably much easier to spread mistruths and lies about rape and to pile on about how the victims shouldn't get themselves raped than it is to examine any of the facts about rape and try to find ways to get the attackers to, you know, stop raping people.

And, lastly, there's that whole myth that feminists are completely and utterly opposed to women playing a part in securing their own safety?

Not true.

Concerning Cosmo- Battling the Myth of Gray Rape

Feministing recently posted about the horrible Cosmo article in the September issue. It supposedly tackled the issue of "gray rape" but mostly seems to have blamed women for getting raped and made a bunch of rape apologies.
Lovely.

Cara, over at Curvature, wrote a letter to Cosmo about the article. You can see Cara's letter, and what they wrote back, in this post. I wish I could say that their response is surprising, but it's not. It's the same kind of hand-waving that I've come to expect from major media outlets when you complain about some incredibly offensive sexist comment. Cara is asking for people to write more letters, and the NYC Alliance Against Sexual Assault is organizing a letter writing campaign.

I'll be sending off a letter in a moment, and I urge you to take a look at the article and join in. It's easy for a magazine like Cosmo to brush off a handful of angry letters. It's less easy to write off a complaint when it starts coming from more and more people. Every person that writes a letter criticizing that article becomes a person who potentially may not buy their magazine.

As much as I hate to admit it, I think that hitting media outlets in the pocketbook is one of the most effective ways to get them to change their tune.

The Price of Justice: Branding Your Wife With an Iron, and Slashing Her With a Knife = $3,958.80

Via Feminist Philosophers:

Well, this is just awesome. Really.

Colin Read, a management consultant over in the UK, branded his wife, Elizabeth, with a hot iron and slashed her foot with a knife while she slept. Why did he do these violent things? Because she didn't press his shirt, and didn't make him a sandwich. When she complained about the knife attack, he beat her with his fists. When she tried to talk to him about it a few days later, he hit her again. The branding attack happened a week later.

At the trial, his (soon to be former) wife was so terrified of him, that she had to be compelled by a summons to testify. I can't say I blame her. I mean, he branded her and slashed her with a knife, because she didn't make him a sandwich. How do you think he's going to react if you testify against him in court, right?

And even after being found guilty of all three of the assault charges levied against him, and the judge noting that the attacks were "appalling" and Colin's denials about the attacks concerned him, what happens? The violent asshole walks free with less than a $4,000 fine. No community service. No jail time. Nothing.

Why? Because, according to the judge, it was the marriage that led to the abuse, and since they're getting a divorce, it won't matter now. Oh, and Colin is so very busy working at his 180k a year job that he wouldn't have time to do community service. The judge noted that jail time would "help no one."

What. The. Fuck?

First of all, it wasn't the marriage that led to Colin abusing Elizabeth. His working 17 hour days might have soured his mood. Elizabeth not pressing a shirt he wanted might have annoyed him. He decided on his course of action, though. He was the one who decided to cut her with a fucking knife while she slept. He was the one who decided to brand her with an iron.

Second of all, punishing him does help people. It sends a message that this kind of abuse isn't acceptable. It teaches him a lesson, and sends a message to other people. It could also be an opportunity to get him some bloody counciling, since he clearly has some fucked up ideas about what is an acceptable way to let anger out. Last, but not least, it would send a message to the victims of abuse, that the courts take these kinds of cases seriously, and respect how difficult it is to report domestic violence. When the courts essentially do nothing to assholes like this guy, they send a very loud message to the victims of violent crimes like this that their suffering doesn't count.

If I walked up to a man on the street and slashed him with a knife, beat him with my fists, and branded him twice with an iron, does anyone doubt I'd face jail time?

Elizabeth is quoted in the article: "I didn't really want to go to court. Now with the sentence the way it was, it doesn't really seem there was much point."

That's the message that victims of domestic violence are going to carry away from this. And can you blame them?

Nurse Rapes Patients...

While I was reading about the Gulf News report about the sleep rapist, I stumbled upon this lovely story. One of the head nurses at the Peter Dally Clinic for Eating Disorders has spent the last gods know how many years raping and molesting patients at the center. Police aren't sure how many women this scumbag raped, and they've sent out letters to all of the patients that he came into contact with since 1999. They don't have contact information for the patients he would have been in contact with in the 80s.

So far, 8 women have have won compensation from the trust, but I don't see anything about criminal proceedings in the article.

I'm not really clear on why the article put scare-quotes around "molested" in the article headline, either.

Sex and Sleeping... At the Same Time?

h/t feministing

A 26 year old RAF mechanic was cleared of rape charges because he suffers from a disorder called sexsomnia. Basically, this guy falls asleep and then goes into a state where he'll try to initiate sex during sleep. In this case, he claims to have fallen asleep, and while sleeping, raped a 15 year-old girl. When she awoke to find him on top of her, she screamed, and he got off of her, and wandered out into the yard. He doesn't deny that penetration took place. And yet... he's walking free.

This particular case seems to have been poorly handled, I think. This was a guy who knew he had this problem. He was aware of it, because he'd done similar things before to his girlfriend. He'd groped her and tried to initiate sex with her while he was asleep before. In one instance, he punched her while he was asleep. So, he knows that this is a possibility. That means that it's his responsibility to make sure that he doesn't hurt other people. Knowing that he has this problem, he shouldn't allow himself in a position where he's going to hurt other people. He knew he was sleep deprived, and that he'd been drinking too much, so he shouldn't have slept in a place where there were people that he could harm.

This also raises bigger questions, though. What if this were the first time that it happened? What if he were really truly in a deep sleep trance and did something to hurt someone else without realizing it? What's the appropriate way to handle a case like that? On the one hand, the victim of a crime deserves justice. On the other, we try not to punish people for things that they don't have control over. I'm not sure how a case like that should be handled. And, to throw a wrench further into this: What if the person who suffers from sexsomnia initiates sex with someone who wants to have sex? In the case of this guy, it was a 15 year-old girl, and she didn't want to have sex... but what if it had been a 25 year-old woman who did? What if he woke up and realized what was happening, and he didn't want to have sex? Or if it was a woman initiating sex and a man had sex with her and she woke up?

There's an interesting conversation happening in that feministing thread, now, between Kimmy and activistgradgal, about this very thing. Ultimately, what role and responsibility do sleeping people have if they do things while they're asleep?

If a man tries to have sex with a sleeping woman, that's rape. A sleeping person is not in a condition to give active informed consent to anything, let alone sex. That some sleeping people give the impression of intiating or wanting sex shouldn't really change that, because it's not about the body consenting, but the mind. In this particular case, I think his responsibility comes not from his being asleep, but from his knowing that he has this condition, and not having taken precautions. Had he not known, or had he taken reasonable precautions but something still happened... I'm not really sure what should be done.

No News is Good News...

(This is so lame, but until just now, I never noticed how that can be read in two ways... the lack of news is, itself, good news, or, as in this case, there is no news that is good news. How did I never notice that?)

Anyway, a news round-up: A homeless man in Cincinnati is shot to death when he asks a passerby for money. The woman who shot him is being charged with a hate crime. I'm not really sure where to fall on this one- I absoultely think that it's wrong to shoot someone because they ask you for money.

On the other hand, according to the article, the victim was known to use an aggressive style when asking for money "pushing on people" etc. A 62 year-old woman, alone at night being pushed by someone, I think, might reasonably fear for her safety. It may not justify her shooting the guy, but it makes it a hell of a lot more complicated than "he asked for a quarter."

Which makes the the article interesting, too, for the way that it tries to revoke sympathy for either party- they can't decide who they want to blame: a black woman with a gun, or a homeless dead guy. You're told about how the victim was homeless and used violent/aggressive means to ask for money, but then they describe the situation as a man being "shot to death... over a quarter" and the headline is "Woman Killed Man Over Spare Change" as though she was so outraged by his request for a quarter that she had to blow him away. I can't watch the video yet, but it certainly sounds, so far, like it was probably more about feeling threatened than about the quarter. What do I know, though? Regardless, it's a sad situation, all the same.

This story needs a trigger warning of some kind... I'm just not sure what. It's weird and disturbing... so... you know, be warned, I guess?

Our story starts roughly a year ago, when three men hatched a "scheme" to... dig up a woman's body to have sex with it. One of the men saw the woman's picture in the obits, and... I don't even want to know what he was thinking at that point, honestly. It's all just so fucked up and wrong. Anyway, the long-story-short version: They're caught digging up the grave and promptly arrested and charged with attempted sexual assault and robbery.

As if that wasn't bad enough, at the end of July an appeals court dismissed the attempted sexual assault charges, saying that Wisconsin doesn't have laws against necrophilia. The point of contention was a provision that states that penalties apply: "whether a victim is dead or alive at the time of the sexual contact or sexual intercourse." The court ruling argues that the provision is intended only to cover cases where the victim is raped and murdered in close succession, such that it can't be determined whether the victim was alive or dead at the time of the sexual assault.

It remains to be seen whether they're going to pursue any other charges against the men involved. Seriously? They dug up her fucking grave to rape her corpse, and they're not necessarily being charged with it?! And their smarmy defense lawyer has the unmitigated gall to say that a criminal ban on necrophilia isn't needed because "the instances of it are so rare that I'm not sure that it's worth the time, money, resources and efforts of the Legislature to create that".

Online Harassment and DOS Attacks... This Sounds Familiar...

Last night, Jill over at feministe posted a troubling post. It looks like a number of feminist blogs, including feministe, had been targeted by denial of service(DOS) attacks, and their comments spammed with really disturbing and vile threats. Bloggers were threatened with sexually assault and murder just for blogging about feminism.

In a way, this is a sign that feminism has legs. The vitriol here shows that these assholes are, on some level, afraid. They feminism as a threat to the system that gives them power and privilege. They see bloggers like Jill and piny and the rest that they set out to silence as being the heads of a movement that scares them. They invested time and energy into a campaign to silence the voices of the people that they're worried want to change a corrupt system... they think that feminists want to take their toys away...

And they're right.

Feminism is a threat to assholes like them. As feminists get heard and they push for change, the sort of jerk who would use threats of rape and murder as a means to silence his political enemies is going to find that he has less and less political capital. His views will become more and more unpopular and he will be made to look like the offensive prick that he is. He will lose power.

These sorts of actions- trying to shut down sites that you don't agree with, using threats about rape, threats about cutting someone... murdering them...- it's exactly the sort of thing that happened to Kathy Sierra.

I don't know what else to say, but I wanted to take a moment to draw attention to this, and to say: Thanks to everyone at feministe. You're doing important work, and I appreciate the time and effort you put into running and maintaining an excellent site. These assholes see you as a threat because you are. And I think that the rest of us are better for it.

SCotUS and Bush: "Don't bother complaining if you don't notice that missing quarter for more than six months."

Lauren, over at Unsprung, has a great bit about Ledbetter v. Goodyear. For those who aren't familiar with the case, it was basically a case of serious wage discrimination. Lilly Ledbetter worked for Goodyear Tire for over two decades. Near the end of her employment there, information came to her attention that led her to believe she was being unfairly discriminated against- it turned out that she was being paid significantly less than men who were doing less work than she was in the same positions. When the case reached the SCotUS, the court found against Ledbetter. According to Title VII, discriminatory intent has to occur within 180 days of the charge. That is, Ledbetter would have to have been denied a raise within 180 days prior to her claim of discrimination. Being issued a paycheck that reflects the discrimination is not, the court says, an act of discrimination itself.

Ginsberg dissented, rightly noting that pay discrimination is an ongoing and often subtle form of discrimination, and that it's often the case that pay is kept secret from other employees and that employers are keen to keep employees from discussing and knowing how much each other make.

The House (or, more accurately, the House Dems), have been critical of the ruling, and are looking to pass legislation that would reset the statute of limitations every time a discriminatory paycheck was issued, as each paycheck that reflects discriminatory raises constitutes a new act of discrimination. Unfortunately, the president has made it very clear that any such legislation would be vetoed on his watch.

Which is, to put it lightly, bullshit.

If I start to embezzle money from my employer, when do you think that the statute of limitations starts to run out? The first time I do it? When I come up with the scheme?

Hell no! Every time I take money from them, the clock is reset. It's worth noting, as well, that the statute of limitations for embezzlement is measured in years, not months.

This is completely about protecting corporate interests, and it's disgusting. By refusing to hear cases of discrimination that are more than six months old, the court ensures that workers who've discovered that they've been cheated don't have legal recourse, which, given the very nature of pay discrimination, protects coroporations from costly lawsuits. If they can keep pay discrimination quiet for six months- not a difficult task in a day and age when many employers have official policies prohibiting employees from discussing wages- they free themselves from having to pay out discrimination awards or back wages or costly settlements. Meanwhile, embezzlement, a crime that costs corporations, can be charged, from what I can see, up to seven years after the last instance of embezzlement.

Proving discrimination is pretty hard, and the deck is stacked against you from the get-go. It's bad enough that you only have six months to file discrimination charges given how difficult it is to gather evidence and prove in the first place, but to be told that the six months start from the first moment of discrimination, even in a case like this, where the discrimination is ongoing and has lasting effect? Downright offensive. And when the president of the United States makes it clear that he's going to shoot down efforts to help workers see that they're treated in a fair and equitable manner?

I'm almost speechless.

Kansas City: A Great Place to Drive (Unless You're, You Know... Not White...)

You might remember the case of Sofia Salva.
No?

Salva is a Kansas City resident who lost her baby after police refused to get her medical attention after a traffic stop. Salva was driving without proper tags, and had outstanding warrants, and police arrested her and made her spend an evening in the slammer before finally releasing her to get medical attention. All of this despite the fact that she was bleeding, and had requested medical help a dozen times.

At one point, an officer responded to her pleas that "I have a baby in my stomach and I'm bleeding!" with "How is that my problem?"

You'd think that the ensuing lawsuit and controversy would convince the police that, you know... maybe treating non-whites like shit just for being non-white isn't such a good plan.

Not. So. Much.

So, what, exactly did this woman do to deserve the treatment she got? Well, she was black, and in a vehicle that may have matched the description of a vehicle implicated in a crime. It's ridiculous. Since when did driving the same type of car as a criminal give the police the right to treat you like that? Why didn't they run her tags? Why didn't they take into consideration that she was cooperating and pregnant?

At Tony's Kansas City, some of the comments, I think, lend a bit of insight into why the police acted the way they do. I have to admit that this was the first time I've stumbled upon Tony's blog, but if the quality of comment his post attracted is any indication of the general sentiments in the area, I guess it's not a surprise that the police acted like total asshats.

It's still most disheartening, though. How do you take comments like "Seems to me that you believe every story that some Black offers." (emphasis mine), to:

Did she even have license plates to run? I'm guessing from her ethnicity she had temp tags.

And for those self-righteous politically correct d-holes who are about to call me racist? Drive around and count temp tags and note the race of the driver. Driving while black? More like driving with a "temp tag/pull me over" sign in the window.

Stories like this are outrageous, and it always blows my mind when there are people out there who try to defend such blatantly hurtful and hateful conduct. I must confess, though, that stories like this also leave me feeling completely impotent. After all, what can I do about a story like this? I can blog about it, and talk about how it makes me feel, and how horrible it is... but does that help the woman involved? Does that help push the police into changing the way that they treat people?

Can We Talk About Cronyism?

This story on feministing caught my eye. I wish I could say that it surprised me that Bush would would appoint someone to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission who, in his last job, "undermined the unit's mission of securing the employment rights of women and minorities in the public sector, while defending employers' rights to discriminate based on religion." Because, you know, nothing screams equal opportunity like institutional discrimination. Er. Right?

Sadly, this administration has a bit of a history with making bullshit inappropriate nominations and picking the worst possible appointees. It's so fucking ridiculous when you start to think about it. Has Bush made a single good nomination? Did someone accidently misexplain the situation to him? Is he under the impression that you're supposed to appoint people with blatant conflicts of interest to positions? Does he think that the point of the EEOC is to violate equal employment opportunities?

But, like I say, it shouldn't be a surprise. Bush has repeatedly made awful nominations, and has a habit of using... *ahem*... underhanded appointment methods. When he doesn't put people into positions that they're woefully unqualified for, he sticks morally bankrupt criminals into positions of power.

Which is odd... because Bush seems to understand the point of political appointments. The White House homepage claims that "One of President Bush's top priorities is to select men and women of the greatest ability and highest ethical and professional integrity to serve in policymaking and key administrative positions in his administration." Bush himself says of political appointments:

The success of the Bush-Cheney administration will depend on the quality appointees we choose to join us to lead this nation in the years ahead. I will look for people who are willing to work hard to do what is best for America, who examine the facts and do what is right whether or not it is popular. I will look for people from across the country and from every walk of life. I welcome all who are ready for this great challenge to apply.

Read that, then consider some of his past appointees and nominees:

Michael D. Brown - appointed to the position of Undersecretary of Emergency Preparedness and Response by Bush in 2003.
Qualifications: Um. Well... none, really. He has a BA in public admin and poli-sci from 1978. He had absolutely zero experience in emergency management before joining FEMA.

Lest you think that Brown was the only FEMA official with no business being there-
Patrick Rhode - appointed as Chief of Staff of FEMA.
Qualifications: None. Has aboslutely no experience in emergency management. But, he was an event planner for the Bush campaign. That counts, right?

Scott Morris - Appointed to the position of Deputy Chief of Staff of FEMA.
Qualifications: ... Yeah. None again. No experience what-so-ever in emergency management. Served as a marketing director for an e-business application software company, and served as a media strategist for the Bush campaign.

Claude Allen - Appointed as Deputy Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and, then, in 2005, appointed to the position of Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, where he provided advice on non-economic policy issues like education, health care, HIV/AIDS, etc.
Points of interest: Supports abstinence only sex education. Opposes legalized abortion. Has made anti-homosexual comments to the press. In other words, exactly the sort of person I'd want in charge of shaping public policy. Yep.

Julie Myers - Became the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement after a recess appointment.
Points of interest: Lack of law enforcemnt experience

Joseph Schmitz - nominated to be Defense Department Inspector General.
Point of interest: Left his position to take a position with the Prince Group, who are associated with the mercenary group Blackwater USA.

Daniel E. Troy - appointed lead counsel for the FDA.
Point of interest: Has begun shooting down lawsuits against pharmecutical companies over claims that meds caused harmful and unexpected side effects. Oh, right, I almost forgot! Prior to taking this position, Troy was a lobbyist for the drug companies, and, as a lawyer, repeatedly sued the FDA.

Ann-Marie Lynch - appointed as a member of the Health and Human Services Department charged with helping provide advice to the president regarding consumer issues and medical drug policies.
Qualifications: Former drug industry lobbyist who fought attempts to institute drug price caps. After taking her position, pushed for policies that benefited drug companies and blocked reports critical of drug-company claims.

They're not the only ones- Bush has appointed over 100 former lobbyist and advocates into positions where they're expected to help govern the very industries they used to work for.

George Deutsch - Appointed to be the press officer for NASA.
Qualifications: Claimed to have graduated with a BA in journalism from Texas A&M, but didn't graduate until a year after he resigned. Instructed NASA website designers to add the word "theory" after every occurrence of the phrase "Big Bang" on NASA sites, claiming that "this is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue."

Philip Cooney - Appointed to head the Council on Environmental Quality.
Qualifications: Despite the position being of scientific nature, Cooney holds no science experience, but is actually a lawyer and holds a BA in economics. Prior to holding this position he worked as a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute who opposed emissions limits. Later took a position with ExxonMobil.

Eric Keroack - Appointed as deputy assistant secretary for population affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services.
Qualifications: Keroack is a non-board certified ObGyn who opposes contraception, including the birth control pill, and has claimed that premarital sex impairs one's ability to create successful long-term relationships.

Janet Rehnquist - appointed as Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services. Resigned after a Congressional investigation into her actions regarding an audit of Florida's pension fund, and allegations that she forced out top career staff members for politcial reasons.

Kenneth Tomlinson - appointed to chair the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Later resigned in the midst of scandal and accusations that he had used his position to push a decidedly political agenda in an attempt to "purge" the "liberal bias" of the CPB.

John R. Bolton - Nominated to the position of permanent Ambassador to the United Nations. After a filibuster prevented the nomination from succeeding, was appointed via a recess appointment.
Qualifications: Bolton has strongly criticized the UN for most of his career, stating "There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States." There were serious allegations that Bolton abused "power and authority" over intelligence analysts and contractors, including throwing objects, making derogatory remarks about sexual orientation and weight, and other inappropriate remarks.

Hans von Spakovsky - nominated as a commissioner of the Federal Election Commission, later appointed by recess appointment.
Points of interest: Implicated in the recent investigations surrounding the dismissal of US Attorneys. Pushed for policies that would restrict the voting rights of American Indians, and pushed for the Georgia ID voter law (later ruled unconstitutional).

Bradley Schlozman - Appointed as US attorney in Kansas City MO.
Points of interest: Accused of politicizing the civil rights division of the Justice Department. Along with Spakovsky, Schlozman strongly advocated the Georgia Voter ID law. In 2003, approved a plan to redistrict Texas, despite Justice Department lawyer opposition and arguments that it violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

David Safavian - appointed as the top procurement official of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy.
Qualifications: Had less than two years of procurement experience prior to be placed as the top procurement official in the White House. Arrested three days after resigning in connection with the Jack Abramoff scandal. The previous appointee to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy has two decades of procurement experience.

Julie MacDonald - appointed to the Interior Department.
Points of interest: repeatedly rejected and mocked staff scientist recommendations about protecting threatened plants and animals under the Endangered Species Act, and urged scientists to more strongly consider the positions of industry and business leaders. Her actions have resulted in adding only 10 species to the endangered/threatened species list per year, compared to 64 a year under Clinton and 59 a year under Bush Sr.

Lurita Doan - Nominated to lead the General Services Administration.
Points of interest: Proposed cutting GSA contract audits which have saved taxpayers over $1 billion in the past two years. Violated the Hatch Act when she used her position to try to come up with plans to help Republican politicians in future elections.

Oh, and let us not forget good ol' Scooter Libby. Assistant to the president. Chief of Staff to the VP. Assistant to the VP for National Security Affairs. Also: convicted of disclosing the classified identity of a covert CIA agent, obstructing justice in a grand jury investigation, perjury, making false statements to federal investigators. Oh, and Bush commuted his sentence. Lovely.

I could go on, but, honestly, it's pretty depressing when you see the level of graft and corruption present in many of the appointees. It's clear that, in a disturbingly large number of cases, it's not strong ethical character or experience that are rewarded- it's political affiliation, loyalty to the president, and backing the party line.

Nebraska Judge: "We Wouldn't Want the Jury to Think You Were the Victim of a Crime, Or That You Were Accusing Someone of Rape, Would We?!"

I'm sure, by now, that most of us have heard about the case in Nebraska where a woman is being told that she can't use the word "rape" during the course of... well... a rape trial. Bowen claims that Safi raped her while she was too drunk to consent to anything. Safi's attourney requested that the judge prohibit the use of the words "rape" or "victim" during the trial, and the judge agreed. In other words, Bowen isn't allowed to say that she was raped. The defense is arguing that "rape" is a legal term, and that Bowen isn't in a position to be able to use that term. Which, quite frankly, is bullshit.

The argument here is simple: There's a constant battle between the rights of the accused and the rights of the accusor. Both parties have a right to see justice served. In the case of a trial, there's a balancing act, because the goal is to make sure that the jury is hearing the facts of the case and isn't being persuaded by irrelevent factors. Or so the story goes- given the blatant emotional pandering and the playing on prejudice that happens in trials, it can sometimes be difficult to see this. But. Whatever. In the end, there are many things that a lawyer simply isn't allowed to do, because allowing it would prejudice the jury against or for the accused. The lawyers often aren't allowed, for example, to refer to the accused as a murderer, during the murder trial. Allowing them to call the defendant a murderer prior to conviction can create the impression of guilt regardless fo the facts. I can understand that.

There is, however, a tremendous difference between saying that a lawyer isn't allowed to use legally defined words in other ways, and saying that the victim of a crime isn't allowed to use common words to describe it. The entire point of the trial is to find out whether a jury believes that Safi raped Bowen or not. Bowen has accused him of this, and she ought to be allowed to tell her story as she sees it, just as the victim of a mugging should be allowed to say that someone stole his wallet. Stealing is certainly a legally defined word, and the whole point of a mugging trial would be to determine the innocence or guilt of the accused, but it would be a gross miscarriage of justice to tell the victim- "well, you can't use words like 'stole' or 'mugged' or 'attacked' to describe the way you were beat up and had your wallet stolen."

This case has been getting a lot of publicity, and Bowen has made it clear that she has every intention of fighting for her ability to call a rape a rape. There has already been one trial that ended up in a hung jury, where Bowen was under the language ban, and this latest trial ended up in mistrial. The Nebraska Supreme Court refused to hear her complaints, and her lawyers are talking about taking this to the federal level. I say, good for her.

Refusal to follow the judge's order can result in potential jail time or worse for Bowen, but I absolutely think that this is a case worth fighting. Artificially limiting the language available to the victim of a crime trying to describe the events to a jury doesn't- as the judge suggests- help keep them from being tainted. Instead, it creates the false impression that the crime wasn't as heinous as the victim might actually have found it. Particularly when, as in this case, the judge refuses to tell the jury that there's a language gag in effect. In other words, the jury would be hearing testimony that Safi and Bowen had intercourse or sex, but wouldn't have any notice as to why Bowen wasn't describing it as rape.

On Friday, the judge declared the mistrial because of the protests taking place, and Safi's lawyer, Mock, remarked that the actions of Bowen and her family were an "irresponsible and reprehensible public campaign" to improperly influence the jury selection. Says the lawyer who called for having "rape" stricken from Bowen's testimony. Of course, when the prosecution tried to have "sex" and "intercourse" stricken as well, given that they carry the implication of consent, the judge refused. Surprising? Hardly.

As others have noted, this stinks of silencing the victims of crimes. Rape trials are notoriously difficult for victims, and this is just one more step towards silencing their testimony. Words have power, and forcing the victim to use words that carry implications of consent only makes it harder for the victims of these sorts of crimes to express what happened.

And while it's true that we should have juries that are as impartial as possible, it's insulting to everyone involved to suggest that a jury can't hear the victim say "that man raped me" without their jumping to the conclusion that it must be true. The judge has a responsibility to say "You're here for the purpose of determining the guilt or innocence in this case. You'll hear testimony, weigh the facts, blah blah blah."

Ultimately, words have power and meaning, and when a judge takes it upon himself to try to create artificial limits on the words we use to describe things, it doesn't further justice, it pushes us further from justice. It silences the victims. It limits the effectiveness of the testimony jurors will hear. The victim is forced to use words that are just as loaded and carry just as many implications, only in the other direction, and it puts an unfair burden on the person who has already been victimized once to tread lightly because the judge assumes that the jury is composed of complete morons incapable of understanding the point of the trial.

Your Lips Say "No More Rape" But Your Policies Say "Yes!"

This Slate article about a judge's deciding that the word "rape" can't be used during a rape trial is really, to put it mildly, disconcerting. The problem is, according to the article, that allowing the word "rape" (and several other words and phrases) to be used during the trial might taint the impartiality of the jury. After all, rape is a crime, and if you allow the victim... *ahem*... the person upon whom another person engaged in sex without consent to use the word "rape" to describe the condition, you might give the wrong impression. You know, the one that the person saying "He raped me!" might have been raped.

The Slate author sort of touches on a problem I've mentioned before. We treat rape cases very strangely, from my perspective. In most criminal cases, the assumption for most crimes is that a crime has actually happened. Sure, there is the occaisional exception, but in most cases, if someone says "I was robbed when I got off of the subway!" the general public aren't going to assume the victim is a lying jerk. We may question whether the right person is being charged, but we don't routinely paint the victims of most crimes as stupid liars. The defendant is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, but that doesn't necessarily mean that no crime has occured- just that we can't assume that the defendant is the one that did it.

That seems fair.

Rape, though, is different. In a rape trial, it's not the defendant that's on trial- it's the entire case. It's the woman, and her claims to have been raped. When many rape victims step forward, they are immediately assumed to be liars. It's not just a matter of "Well, she's accusing the wrong person" it's often "she wasn't raped at all." Every aspect of her accusation is subject to the accusation that she's a lying slut who wanted it. The words are different, but the message is the same. Passed out? Maybe she said yes. Raped on a date? She consented, but regretted it later. Raped by strangers in a park? She's ugly, so she wanted it.

It's not that I think that the defense shouldn't be able to raise questions about whether there was actually a rape. Absolutely, they should, just as someone accused of murder can try to shed doubt over whether it was actually murder, or self defense. That being said, the starting position of any particular case shouldn't be "That lying slut just feels guilty after-the-fact," which is an all too common sentiment. The prosecution shouldn't be going into the case trying to convince the jury that the victim isn't a dirty liar who is out for attention.

Removing someone's ability to call an assault what it is just makes it more and more difficult to convince women that they should come forward when they've been attacked. What, exactly, is the incentive? On the one hand, we're told that we want to prosecute and punish rapists. Great! I'm all for that! On the other, cases like this make it seem a lot more like we're interested in punishing women who've been raped. We're asking women to come forward and charge rapists, but then we start off assuming that they're lying, and now we're even taking away their ability to use the words that describe what has happened to them.

We'll prosecute your rapist, and we'll let you talk about what happened... but you can't actually call it rape. You can't mention the rape-kit. You can't call it an assault. In fact, here's the thing... what you can do? You can call it sex or intercourse. We don't want to give the jury the impression that you've been the victim of a crime. After all, it's not like we're here to put someone on trial for committing a crime.

Can we imagine this happening in other trials? As the author points out, it would be ridiculous. We understand that, at a criminal trial the alleged victim is accusing the defendant of a crime. We understand that the person making the accusation is going to talk as though sie has been victimized... otherwise... why would we even be having a trial? If I go to the police and accuse someone of stealing my car, and we go to trial, it's obvious to everyone that I'm saying my car was stolen, and it's up to the jury to decide if it really happened, and if it did really happen, if the person being accused did it. My saying "my car was stolen" or "and he shoved a gun in my face and stole my keys" is important information. It lets the jury know my side of the tale, and allows me to give voice to the crime that was perpetrated against me.

All over the world, it seems like women are getting the same message, though: Rape is not a crime we punish. The state says "No, rape isn't okay. We take rape seriously!" but action after action says differently.