Misogyny, rape culture, racism in relation to journalism, media, and Reddit

[pochercoaster]

So, I found this nice piece (http://arewomenhuman.me/2012/10/15/cultural-scavengersviolentacrez-reddit-trolling/) about the Reddit fiasco, but just as I was about to post it in the Reddit thread it was closed. So here's a thread wherein we discuss how abusive behaviour exhibited by trolls such as Violentacrez is symptomatic of a greater problem and is not just some individual anomaly.

Well. This discussion got very strange, but I don't think there's a lot of life left in it [...] And from the outset this thread was destined to be a unanimous "Christ, what an asshole" thread, but as stated, got strange.

Firstly I want to say I appreciate the stance that the mods took on this issue and moderated accordingly, but I do think there is actually a lot left to be discussed. This guy is an asshole, no doubt, but why not talk about why he's able to get away with being an asshole, and the various cultural and societal mechanisms that enable his behaviour? I understand that the previous thread sort of devolved into piling onto one person, though, so in response I present this new thread, untainted by said dogpiling.

The article is long, but here are a few quotes. There are multiple links in the article for further information/explanation; I didn't include the links in the quotes:

Trolls are cultural scavengers, and engage in a process I describe as cultural digestion: They take in, regurgitate, and subsequently weaponize existing tropes and cultural sensitivities. By examining the recurring targets of trolling, it is therefore possible to reverse-engineer the dominant landscape.

Consider trolls’ deeply contentious but ultimately homologous relationship with sensationalist corporate media. For example, when trolls court emotional distress in the wake of a tragedy by posting upsetting messages to Facebook memorial pages and generally being antagonistic towards so-called “grief tourists,” they are swiftly condemned — and understandably so. But when corporate media outlets splash the most sensationalist, upsetting headlines or images across their front page, press the friends and families of suicide victims to relive the trauma of having their loved one’s RIP page attacked by trolls (and in the case of this MSNBC segment, by forcing them to read the hateful messages on camera), or pour over every possible detail about bullied teenage suicides, despite the risks of “copycat suicide,” the only objectively measurable media effect, and in so doing slap a dollar sign on personal tragedy, it’s just business as usual. In both cases, audience distress is courted and exploited for profit. Granted, trolls’ “profit” is measured in lulz, not dollars. Still, the respective processes by which these profits are achieved are strikingly similar, and in many cases — which I chronicled throughout my dissertation — indistinguishable.

I am not arguing that members of the media are trolls, at least not in the subcultural sense. I am however suggesting that trolls and sensationalist corporate media have more in common than the latter would care to admit, and that by engaging in a grotesque pantomime of these best corporate practices, trolls call attention to how the sensationalist sausage is made. This certainly doesn’t give trolls a free pass, but it does serve as a reminder that ultimately, trolls are symptomatic of much larger problems. Decrying trolls without at least considering the ways in which they are embedded within and directly replicate existing systems is therefore tantamount to taking a swing at an object’s reflection and hanging a velvet rope around the object itself.


What this means is – to quote Susan Werner (@pyroshy) – if our response to Chen’s exposé is to focus solely on Michael Brutsch, “we’re letting all the systems that enable him off the hook,” and losing sight of the broader culture of complicity in attitudes that lead to extreme cases like Violentacrez/Reddit’s creep culture. In fact, I’d argue that the real story in Chen’s piece is not so much the disclosure of Violentacrez’ identity as it is the culture at Reddit that enabled him – and the parallels to how our culture as a whole produces and consumes sexualized and exploitative images of girls and women.

A related concern is how many commentators seem to consistently confuse the disclosure of Violentacrez’s identity with actual accountability for his harmful behavior (again, thanks to Susan Werner/@pyroshy for elaborating the issues here). Precisely because Brutsch’s actions are part of a broader culture of exploitation, outing him as an individual is not the same thing as addressing misogyny and racism in online media/culture.

violentacrez’s behavior isn’t acontextual. It’s enabled by society’s woman-hating/rape culture and anti-black racism. ain’t there something odd about outing him TO THAT SAME SOCIETY THAT ENABLES HIM…to generate accountability?…I think outing violentacrez was the right thing to do and would have done it too! I however have issues w/ outing-as-accountability… just because certain forms of abuse are more demonized DOES NOT MEAN victims of it get more or more useful support…

outing creeps and abusers and predators is a tool. It sometimes works and sometimes doesn’t. let’s talk about when it works and when it doesn’t, and talk about *how* it works, rather than being self-congratulatory that violentacrez was outed as being a racist woman-hater. – Susan Werner (@pyroshy)


[...]

But unmasking Violentacrez is a first, not a final step. The profile of his behavior and the culture that supported him is much more than an occasion to castigate him; it’s an opportunity to turn the mirror on ourselves and our media culture. If we neglect that opportunity and are merely satisfied that a creep was uncloaked, the only benefitted parties here would be Gawker and Adrian Chen, who have another viral piece on their hands and come out looking like heroes despite their own participation in the culture they’re calling out.

This would be a shame – but it’s also precisely what I expect will be the overall outcome of all this.

The bottom line I guess is it would be a mistake to treat this as a story where Redditors are the “bad guys” and everyone else is blameless and good. I say this a lot, because it seems to frequently need saying; we have to look at these issues at a cultural and systemic level if we ever hope to address them substantively.



Blackamazon writes about the connections between doxxing (connecting someone’s online persona[e] to their offline identity), internet mobility, and online cultural capital for people of color and other marginalized groups. That is, the negotiations POC and other marginalized people have to negotiate between the need for safety and privacy and the credit, compensation, and ability to challenge dominant narratives that come with having an established or “real” identity online:

The hyper visibility of being a POC in a culture where visibility is becoming more and more everything can be flipped to opportunities BUT once you use that , you’re left open to those consequences.BUT

staying “safe” often compromises your creativity and credit, especially if unlike most of the folks running around you deal with employment that does not allow for cultivation in a studied direct war or lots of downtime.

The internet isn’t outside of our cultural norms and where it is is where we are seeing these great fissures. Access and secrecy have always worked in our society .

The issue was who got to use tools in what way. People like violentacrez and spaces like creepshots have always existed , but they have been coupled with a culture that through racism , hegemony, etc have needed the participants ( middle class white men, and their colluders aspirants) ad the upholding of propriety more than adherence to the stated cultural values.


Lili Loofbourow talks about how “free speech logic” applied to creepshots turns girls’ and women’s passive existence into active consent to invasions of privacy while presenting the active decisions of trolls to disseminate images of girls and women without their consent as passive, and also frame the revelation of a man’s name as an invasion of privacy that circulating images of female bodies without permission is not:

the free speech defense—as applied to posting photos of underage girls and dead underage girls in an explicitly erotic context meant to humiliate and degrade—rests on the logic that “she posted these photos, so they’re fair game.” Posing for photos constitutes an act for which any and all retaliation and “use” is fair, no matter how private their original contexts—including ex-partners circulating erotic photos, including photos taken of women unawares, including men commenting on and masturbating to them. The implication is that posing=guilt, that owning a body and being photographed in it is an action for which reprisals are fair and should have been anticipated before the subject of the photographs did what she did. In contrast, Violentacrez’s activities are framed as passive. All he’s done is circulate existing photos, and “frame” them differently. He has “done” nothing and deserves nothing, whereas women have owned bodies and posed in them. Circulating is passive, existing is active.

Aaron Brady/zunguzungu unpacks the “legal culture” behind objections that outing people like Violentacrez is a violation of “free speech” rights.

It is only when you believe that an act is not criminal that prosecuting it, for any reason, will seem like a violation of free speech (as so many people seem to believe). It is only when society has no legitimate interest in regulating, prohibiting, or punishing a particular form of behavior, that it will seem to you that “free speech” protects it. Otherwise, we accept all manner of infringements on speech. It’s just that, on those occasions, we understand that speech to be a vehicle for some other kind of act or violation. In those cases, it isn’t the speech that’s being criminalized, but the act of violence it’s being used to commit….[so] when people invoke “free speech” to defend a person’s right to take pictures of unwilling women and circulate those pictures on the internet, they are saying that it is okay to do so. They are saying that society has no legitimate interest in protecting a woman’s right not to have pictures of her body circulated without her consent.



So there's some food for thought.

In summary:
-The kind of exploitative behaviour that trolls exhibit online is similar to exploitation in the media.
-So trolling, or rather the exploitative nature behind it, is hardly unique to internet culture, and sprung from a culture that is already overwhelmingly exploitative/anti-consent/victim blaming/abusive.
-In my experience, many people tend to treat online behaviour as some kind of anomaly or idiosyncrasy without real-world implications. It's this idea that the internet does not happen in "real life" and therefore trolls should be immune from consequences.
-Dialogues about people such as Violentacrez tend not to go much further than "wow, what a dick" (if it gets there at all, depending which company you're in...) And while outing an abuser is fine, it doesn't solve the problem that society enables abusers, and if the dialogue is simply left at "wow, what a dick" then we can't expect meaningful change. The dialogue needs to be taken further.
-Trolling behaviour is really just the same old racist, misogynistic shit that's been around forever
-Seriously, posting the name of a pedophile online is an invasion of privacy, but taking pictures of women/girls without their permission and posting them online ISN'T?
-So much victim-blaming and slut-shaming, AUGH.
-It doesn't matter if what Violentacrez did was legal or not; it was immoral. Seriously, the law doesn't give a crap about victims.

[pochercoaster]

On ruining Violentacrez' life. (http://excrementalvirtue.com/2012/10/15/on-ruining-violentacrez-life/)


One point many Violentacrez defenders emphasize is that his life will be ruined by Chen’s decision to expose him. By this they mean chiefly that he will likely be fired and become unemployable thanks to Google searches like the ones you describe. But it’s telling, isn’t it, that these are the terms in which they understand a life to be ruined? People whose photographs are posted online–particularly in the contexts Violentacrez encouraged–stand to have their lives ruined too. Many girls and women have undergone extraordinary suffering (with some, like Amanda Todd, committing suicide) because of these “free speech acts.” But this particular kind of ruination doesn’t count; according to the terms these defenders use, only employability is relevant.

I’d suggest that while of course men and women both value their employability (and the ways in which their names appear in Internet searches), only women stand to have their lives ruined in this other manner, which goes unnamed and unrecognized because a) it happens offline (while bad Google results are visible, it’s much more difficult to point to or describe the dissemination of your body and the consequences, b) it involves “social” as opposed to economic ruin to which men are less vulnerable (unless they’re sex offenders) and c) it only involves female “victims” who are quite easy to blame. If your uncle stumbles on a nude photo you sent an ex-lover on one of the sites he visits and forwards it to family and friends, oh well–you were the agent of your own ruination.

This kind of humiliation doesn’t count according to defenders of internet anonymity; an event only counts as damage if you get fired. Only by discounting this other sort of exposure and denying that it constitutes damage can Violentacrez’s defenders claim that he is a victim and people photographed against their will aren’t. What they don’t know can’t hurt them, and if they find out, BFD.

But this logic is worth chasing too: the reason your life is ruined if your boss fired you over something you did online is that you can’t make money. Your ability to pay for room and board might be compromised, and so you won’t eat, you might not have a place to sleep, etc. Your quality of life goes down in measurable, material terms. Someone psychologically devastated by having their body displayed to thousands of perverts is also quite likely (should they become depressed) to be unable to work, to eat, to sleep. If the criteria for “life ruination” is the inability to support oneself, the endpoints for both hypothetical situations are quite similar.

Two other things: Eric made the point that people in tech are likely to consider Google results more damaging than images, as likenesses can’t be easily Googled. It seems to me that tech folks are the ones most likely to know that facial recognition software is already a reality, and will become more mainstream soon. The distance between a photo and a name was never as great as it seemed, and it’s diminishing daily.

The last point concerns how the different genders are socialized to understand identity and privacy, and it occurred to me as another reason why men might invest more heavily in their name compared to their image than women. Men are socialized to see a name as unchangeable. Women aren’t, as it’s still widely expected that they will change their names when they marry. Their names were never supposed to attach to them as people; the name was a sliding marker intended to index one’s affiliation with a masculine unit. I don’t know if this is still the case, but seven years ago it was much more difficult for men to legally change their names than it was for women to do so. Women have not historically been socialized to wed their identities to their names; quite the contrary.


Thoughts on Free Speech Logic and Violentacrez. (http://excrementalvirtue.com/2012/10/13/thoughts-on-free-speech-logic-and-violentacrez/) There's a quote from this in the previous post, but here's the whole thing.


Two things strike me about the Violentacrez business. The first is how the free speech defense—as applied to posting photos of underage girls and dead underage girls in an explicitly erotic context meant to humiliate and degrade—rests on the logic that “she posted these photos, so they’re fair game.” Posing for photos constitutes an act for which any and all retaliation and “use” is fair, no matter how private their original contexts—including ex-partners circulating erotic photos, including photos taken of women unawares, including men commenting on and masturbating to them. The implication is that posing=guilt, that owning a body and being photographed in it is an action for which reprisals are fair and should have been anticipated before the subject of the photographs did what she did. In contrast, Violentacrez’s activities are framed as passive. All he’s done is circulate existing photos, and “frame” them differently. He has “done” nothing and deserves nothing, whereas women have owned bodies and posed in them. Circulating is passive, existing is active. Chen’s piece highlights how extremely *active* Violentacrez’ practices are, & how specific the intentions. It underlines the malignant intent and removes the passive framing. This stuff takes massive effort.

The second point is the curious stance that circulating photographs of women doesn’t constitute a violation of their privacy because they’re not named. Their anonymity is preserved.

Let me repeat: these are PHOTOGRAPHS. These are the objects police use to identify criminals. These are things that explicitly and routinely constitute evidence. They are precisely the opposite of anonymous—they are vehicles of anti-anonymity. And yet many people in this community bizarrely insist that they are somehow irrelevant, and that posting them is not a violation of a person’s privacy.

Whereas connecting a username to someone’s actual name—not to their body, just to another label, another way they exist in the world—is a MASSIVE PRIVACY VIOLATION.

The implication is that privacy resides in your name, not in your body. If you’re a man with the luxury to think this way, your body is understood as a sort of irrelevant accessory to your name, the thing that really matters. An invasion of privacy isn’t interpreted as a literal invasion. Although they plainly are, men’s bodies aren’t understood as being capable of being penetrated. People with this mentality don’t see a photograph as an invasion of privacy because they don’t experience the image of their bodies as being connected to the privacy that is capable of being violated. Of the genders, one is overwhelmingly more likely to think this way and to conclude—astonishingly—that having a username connected to an actual name is an invasion of privacy whereas a photograph of someone is not.

Creepshots and the self-fulfilling prophecy of free speech. (http://excrementalvirtue.com/2012/10/13/thoughts-on-free-speech-logic-and-violentacrez/) Just pretend I bolded this entire piece because it is excellent.


If “Violentacrez” was seen as a criminal, unmasking him would be universally understood to be a praiseworthy thing to do. Sheltering a criminal is not something anyone defends; what they do, instead, is argue that the criminal in question is not really a criminal, or that the law is unjust. But if you accept the legitimacy of the law, and if you accept that the criminal in question broke it, then there is no virtue to be had in sheltering him. To the extent that you accept that an act is legitimately criminal, in other words, free speech protections do not apply to it. This is a subtle point, but it’s also not that controversial: as the famous “fire in a crowded theater” example demonstrates, “Free Speech” is not and cannot be a blanket protection of all speech, as such, but the right to speak without fear of being prosecuted simply for the communicative content of that speech. If your speech is assault, it will be prosecuted as such; if your speech is conspiracy to commit murder (or god help you, terrorism), it will be prosecuted as such. If your speech is criminal, it is not protected.

By contrast, it is only when you believe that an act is not criminal that prosecuting it, for any reason, will seem like a violation of free speech (as so many people seem to believe). It is only when society has no legitimate interest in regulating, prohibiting, or punishing a particular form of behavior, that it will seem to you that “free speech” protects it. Otherwise, we accept all manner of infringements on speech. It’s just that, on those occasions, we understand that speech to be a vehicle for some other kind of act or violation. In those cases, it isn’t the speech that’s being criminalized, but the act of violence it’s being used to commit.

I’m not interested in what the actual law actually says, however; I’m interested in what this distinction tells us about what we believe to be legitimately criminal, what kinds of behaviors we believe society has a legitimate interest in regulating or prohibiting. This is what people mean when they talk about the first amendment, after all, since Congress is not threatening to make any law prohibiting Adrian Chen from outing a scumbag on Reddit. The argument is about what the law should be. And this is important: the law is one thing, but our legal “culture” (our “should be”) is something slightly different. It’s the way we understand and describe ourselves to have a common social interest in promoting, protecting, or criminalizing something. Legal culture not only describes how and where the actual law is enforced—such that some criminal offenses are treated much more harshly than others—but our cultural beliefs are often part of the process by which the law evolves and changes.

For example, our legal practice around torture and legal due process for brown people changed after 9-11, far less because the actual law changed than because a whole lot of people agreed (even by their silent assent) that it was okay for them to change. “Stop and Frisk” is only legal because a lot of people are okay with it. And so forth. Rape is illegal, but a lot of rapes are, in practice, legalized because the victim wore a short skirt, or got drunk, or was raped by a “nice guy,” or any number of other factors. And when Occupiers slept in tents in public parks, for example, they often did so in violation of the law. A lot of people were appalled to see police using tear gas, riot clubs, and rubber bullets to drive them out, because a ten o’clock camping violation is not the kind of crime that most people see as requiring violent force; at most, it is, and should be, a minor civil infraction. But enough people were okay with seeing dirty hippy occupier anarchist scum getting arrested and beaten for breaking the rules that the police were able to get away with doing it.

Put differently, the point is that law, on its own, is often not really the actual determining factor in determining how “the law” is actually adjudicated. The words might be there on the books, after all, but our culture tells us how to read and interpret them. For a wonderful explication of this idea, see Desmond Manderson’s paper “Trust US Justice: Popular Culture and the Law” or listen to him lecture on it here. Scalia and Thomas might pretend to believe that the law can speak for itself, but they’re either liars or stupid, and I don’t care to argue with either class of person. So put them aside. And whether or not the sorts of things Violentacrez did on Reddit were actually illegal is another question I’m uninterested in trying to answer, for all sorts of reasons, starting with the Victorian moralism and indifference to suffering that informs how laws about obscenity are written.

What I want to observe, then, is simply this: when people invoke “free speech” to defend a person’s right to take pictures of unwilling women and circulate those pictures on the internet, they are saying that it is okay to do so. They are saying that society has no legitimate interest in protecting a woman’s right not to have pictures of her body circulated without her consent. Her consent is not important. If all of the things that Michael Brutsch did, as “Violentacrez,” are protected free speech, then we are saying they are legitimate. Freedom of speech only protects the kinds of speech that some version of the social “we” has determined not to be violent. And by saying that what he did was protected, we are determining that those forms of violence against women are not, in fact, violent. And this matters because something so insubstantial as “culture” has a powerful impact on the actual practice of the law. The more we value a man’s right to violate the integrity of women’s bodies, the more stand behind that as merely “speech,” the less we will understand the violation that such acts always imply and propagate. And the more we think this way, the more invisible these forms of violence become. The more we understand creepshots not to be a violation—and circulating them to be a morally neutral act—the less we will be able to understand women to be people who can be violated, since the mere act of occupying a body that can be photographed becomes the consent required to do so.

[Kim]

Thank you for these posts.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

All of this stuff was said in the old thread but was funnier when we said it.

[shiney]

Well, good thing this subforum isn't about being funny then, mister see you in the discussion forum in a week.

I get that being snarky and smarmy is your thing and in a number of threads that's fab, this subsection is something we are trying to actually clean up though and

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ZYWcWxU56wY/TCh9rfWNiLI/AAAAAAAAAOM/_UA9TIYgoNQ/s1600/yourenothelping.jpg

[Terex4]

Damn that's a lot of information to digest and comment on ::V:

Its almost impressive just how self-centered people are. Many of them actually believe that because they don't recognize the woman in a photo, its somehow anonymous. But this really is just an extension of what we already see all the time. If any one of these people defending this sort of behavior had a compromising photo of themselves distributed online, they would be calling foul from the start.
-In my experience, many people tend to treat online behaviour as some kind of anomaly or idiosyncrasy without real-world implications. It's this idea that the internet does not happen in "real life" and therefore trolls should be immune from consequences.
This is something people really need to wake up to. I don't know how many times I've heard people saying things like "oh no, someone said something on the internet. RAAAAAAAGE" while, at the same time, these same people have friends and/or other relations that they only interact with online, or, you know, let loose a string of slurs and insulted someone's mother because they died in a video game or insulted Harry Potter :rolleyes:

So, I think its more of just not being able to understand when something doesn't apply to them with the distance and pseudo-anonymity of the internet to further remove them from those consequences and any reason to feel sympathetic.

[Ecks]

many of the points above are part of why I'm glad I no longer have consistent internet access, why I no longer browse the shitholes (NPF being an exception), and why I've cleaned up my act behavior and thought-process wise.

Creep shots, taking "private photos," etc. and spreading them around without the consent of people who appear in them is wrong, period. Let's take a real-world analogue here:

Let's call our pervert Donny. Donny goes around taking panty shots, and hides by open windows hoping to catch a girl undressing. He then goes around and tries to sell or hand out these photos in public. Does Donny get in trouble for this? Not as often as he should but it is still condemned as wrong, and an invasion of privacy (which isn't even the worst he's done, but we'll start at that) of the girls in question.

Now why is this crap suddenly protected as free speech just cause it's "omg online stuff needs to be PROTECTED! MY RIGHT TO BE A HUGE ASSHOLE ON THE INTERBUTTS WITHOUT ANYONE KNOWING IT'S ME IS IN DANGER!"

Personally, I think "online anonymity" is a double edged sword. There are things we should be protected from divulging our identities for... but this privelidge is HORRIBLY abused at the expense of people who deserve better.

Being a dick to someone in public is wrong, but you're accountable for it by everyone around you who speaks up and says "Hey, fuck you, asshole!" So why is it that being at a keyboard while you're being a dick should make you any less accountable for what you're doing?

I dunno, am I just going on about stuff we've already all agreed on or do I have a point here?

[Overcast]

People are odd. The reason that some people don't try to take the conversation of this, even if they don't approve of it, further than very minor disapproval rather than wide view is a matter of minor etiquette. People feel uncomfortable discussing the matter itself and more than frequently react defensively. Not in itself for the sake of the culture as much as their possible place in it.

Inevitably these conversations make someone feel targeted, and sometimes rightfully so if they are indeed an enabler of sorts. This creates an awkward and unpleasant atmosphere as people are discussing an awkward, unpleasant, and painful situation. The growing pains of fixing it are gut-wrenching but ultimately beneficial. Though people don't want that inconvenience. What they want is sweeping instantaneous change so we can just get over it. Though that is obviously not possible. They want someone who rules the world to fight for it while they sit in the background. Though that is obviously not possible. They don't want to spread this uncomfortable feeling to everyone around them, but it is really the only way to make it better. Everyone has to feel the constriction of their bad decisions weighing on them, a large scale fit of guilt and self-hatred.

I know because I myself am still struggling with this issue on my own. Which makes me feel uncomfortable about everything that amuses me, even if people tell me that it is wrong. That makes me feel uncomfortable about my opinions about others, because of the potential problem of it. That makes me feel uncomfortable about myself, because I am not a part of the greater good and don't have that great desire to be. Though I know it would be best.

Don't really have a resolution at this point.

[Solid Snake]

Someone needs to tell me why CNN decided to give this man an audience without at any point writing something to the effect of "This man is a fucking piece of shit and should rot in the deepest depths of hell." (http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/18/us/internet-troll-apology/index.html?hpt=hp_c1)

[pochercoaster]

Man, fuck that CNN article. Note how white dudes who are criminals always get humanized in the news- you never hear about any of their crimes without hearing about how hard they worked, how they're parents, or about how they supposedly regret their actions.

I have a problem with every other sentence in that article, seriously fuck that. AUGH.

He was, however, questioned by police because of assertions that he had sex with raped his stepdaughter.

CNN legal contributor Sunny Hostin said she believes the website is hosting "borderline kiddie porn." child pornography- pornography of minors, who are under the age of 18, is not "borderline kiddie porn"

Fixed those.

"Well, I am to some degree apologizing for what I did," Brutsch said. "Again, I was playing to an audience of college kids. And you know, when two years ago, when all of this was at its height, the audience was appreciative and supportive of the sort of gallows humor that I put out there."

Yeah, let's show how remorseful he is! I'm sure he's really sorry for what he did sorry he got in trouble. Also blame it on his supporters/audience.

Also, gallows humour. Like taking pictures of minors without their consent, and blatant misogyny and racism.

Looking back, Brutsch said his actions "were a huge mistake." He claimed he was addicted to Reddit and could not stop himself. The biggest thrill Brutsch said he got "was those meaningless Internet points," earned when "Redditors" voted for his posts.

Note how often white criminals are reported as having addictions or mental illnesses.

Brutsch -- who is married, with a stepdaughter as well as a son and a stepson who are both in the U.S. military -- told CNN he started out posting "mostly soft-core porn," such as "pictures of naked girls, that sort of thing."

Never mention a white criminal without mentioning how they're married and are affiliated with the military to appeal to patriotism and family values.

Days after the Gawker article, Brutsch agreed to talk exclusively to CNN on camera at a hotel room in Fort Worth, about six miles from his home. He said his employer fired him after the Gawker article. He had worked there for seven years.

Poor baby.

[Solid Snake]

Man, fuck that CNN article. Note how white dudes who are criminals always get humanized in the news- you never hear about any of their crimes without hearing about how hard they worked, how they're parents, or about how they supposedly regret their actions.

I have a problem with every other sentence in that article, seriously fuck that. AUGH.

But Pocheros!
His son and his stepson are both in the U.S. military!!!
And he's kind of sort of sorry to some degree!!!
And he was fired from his job of seven years!!!!!

What an honorable, ethical man he is, worthy of the utmost of sympathy pieces from CNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Meister]

Someone needs to tell me why CNN decided to give this man an audience without at any point writing something to the effect of "This man is a fucking piece of shit and should rot in the deepest depths of hell." (http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/18/us/internet-troll-apology/index.html?hpt=hp_c1)
Because they're in the business of news and information and not in the business of telling the general public who they should hate. It's an interesting interview that highlights some of the motivations behind reddit subculture, if only superficially, touches upon the general issue of internet services' responsibility for user content, and, yes, may reveal media bias through its language. They could have just done a motivational poster saying "THIS MAN: incredible asshole" but the interview is more interesting. Anyway do you seriously need a news organization to spell it out for you to form an opinion on this guy?

Listen, I don't want to see this thread become the all-purpose Let's Confirm To Each Other How Much We Hate A Guy show. There's all of the rest of the internet for that. In a thread that's got some of the underlying issues right in the title, concentrate on those.

[Kim]

Listen, I don't want to see this thread become the all-purpose Let's Confirm To Each Other How Much We Hate A Guy show. There's all of the rest of the internet for that. In a thread that's got some of the underlying issues right in the title, concentrate on those.

The thing is, how these things are discussed by society at large are part of these issues. The fact that a white man is getting attention and opportunity to apologize that would probably not be given were he a black man. The fact that the media feigns a lack of bias both in it giving him this opportunity and in how it goes about it. We don't need the news to tell us how to feel, but the messages sent out in popular media do influence the way people think. Giving a man like this a figurative podium from which to speak reflects these issues.

As much as you may want to, you cannot separate the issues in our society from how they're presented by those with power, and a news station has a FUCKLOAD of power. Such power must be used responsibly. While you may disagree with the criticisms made against CNN, I don't think telling members they aren't allowed to make those criticisms is a responsible use of your authority.

Poch made an excellent post pointing out some of the shitty elements of the article and how those shitty elements reflect a large systemic problem. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your post and you in fact support Poch's post 100% and were only telling Snake he wasn't allowed to make emotional posts, but if that's the case I don't think you made that clear, and a better post would have made clear that it was Snake's posts specifically that were out of line, since those seem to be the only ones that could be argued to detract from the thread, though honestly I find them rather harmless.

[pochercoaster]

Edit: NINJA'D

I would argue that biases in journalism are actually a large part of these issues. And news unfortunately is in the business of telling the public who to hate, just usually those are the victims of crimes (when they are sexual assault and related crimes) as opposed to the perpetrators, and in the process they distort the information instead of provide it. For those who do not access news through the internet and read up on these issues through a variety of sources, they are being presented with a biased representation of the events. Yes, most people with common sense will still conclude that this man is a criminal, but the additional sugarcoating is still objectionable and symptomatic of the culture that allows places like Reddit to breed in the first place. (I understand that your response was directed at Snake and not me, though)

Anyways, ugh, I had some other things I wanted to talk about but I forgot what they were and it's late, so I'll probably write up a post after some sleep.

[Meister]

Oh hey I'm definitely 100% in favour of pointing out media biases and bad journalism, don't get me wrong there. And that includes pointing out where they shape an opinion instead of representing it (a tricky distinction, at best). I definitely don't want to keep anyone from making these criticisms but also not from challenging them, but in either case to do it without needing to restate the obvious common ground that I think we all have here ("dude's an asshole for sure"). So yeah, to clarify, addressing Snake in an immediate sense, but even more so addressing everyone else as well to not let things get out of hand.

[POS Industries]

I would say we're not even close to getting out of hand yet, so there's nothing for anyone to worry about for the time being.

[Meister]

All that said I do have to challenge some bits:

Fixed those.

Now I haven't followed this case as closely as you probably have, and I don't know if there actually have been allegiations of the guy actually raping his stepdaughter that CNN is deliberately toning down - if you're gonna "fix" statements like that please back it up with a source. Similar with the second statement: are you saying Hostin is misrepresenting the actual material posted (in which case, deliberately or by mistake?) or that there's no such thing as "borderline" child porn?

e: and now I realized that hers wasn't even a statement that necessarily relates to his particular postings, just reddit as a whole, so that's a bit dodgy of CNN to associate it without explaining the exact connection.

Note how often white criminals are reported as having addictions or mental illnesses.

Can you provide some more examples? I don't particularly doubt that that's a thing but it would be nice to have them.

[Satan's Onion]

...
Now I haven't followed this case as closely as you probably have, and I don't know if there actually have been allegiations of the guy actually raping his stepdaughter that CNN is deliberately toning down...

If I remember what I've read at Something Awful correctly, there was a rather...infamous "Ask Me Anything" thread hosted by violentacrez himself, wherein he actually bragged about doing that to his stepdaughter. We can only hope he was just making shit up to please his large fanbase of creepy fuckers.

[pochercoaster]

All that said I do have to challenge some bits:

Now I haven't followed this case as closely as you probably have, and I don't know if there actually have been allegiations of the guy actually raping his stepdaughter that CNN is deliberately toning down - if you're gonna "fix" statements like that please back it up with a source.

In the original article Adrien Chen wrote about how Violentacrez bragged about raping his daughter, as SO mentioned. It was in an AMA which, near as I can tell, has since been deleted. It obviously wasn't consensual sex like the language in the article suggests. This happens all the time in journalism- sexual assault is repeatedly referred to as sex scandals or simply sex.

Similar with the second statement: are you saying Hostin is misrepresenting the actual material posted (in which case, deliberately or by mistake?) or that there's no such thing as "borderline" child porn?

He created a subreddit called "jailbait." As in you would go to jail for having sex with someone that age. He also created subreddits such as rapebait- as in it's the victim "baiting" the rapist.

What is so "gray area" or borderline about this?

Edit: I missed the part about whether or not the material is being deliberately misrepresented. To which I ask, does it matter? Overall, I think misrepresentations like these are a bit of both, since ignorance certainly enables its more deliberate manifestations, and vice versa. But whether or not it's deliberate doesn't change its effects.

He created hundreds of subreddits dedicated to rape, child pornography, racism, and misogyny. This is not something that a regular well adjusted adult does just for kicks. No one says "I'm going to create hundreds of subreddits dedicated to rape and child porn just because, I'm totally not a rapist or pedophile it's just, you know, a hobby, something a non-rapist or a non-pedophile would totally do in their spare time."

If anyone doubts violentacrez' actions, I decided to check his profile in the waybackmachine (since he deleted that account) and put together a compilation of some pretty blatantly incriminating comments. There's no images, of course, but the comments themselves are pretty upsetting, so link. (http://imageshack.us/a/img829/5930/violentacrezall.png) There were plenty of snapshots of him submitting to reddits like jailbait as well. Note that this was just a few pages that happened to be archived- I didn't even have to dig for this.

Can you provide some more examples? I don't particularly doubt that that's a thing but it would be nice to have them.

Every white person who has gone on a shooting spree in America in the last decade. They interview their families, talk about how they were bullied at school, talk about how they're unstable,* etc. A black or brown person doing the same thing is called a terrorist, a thug, or what have you, and they don't interview their families.

George Zimmerman is also an example of a white criminal who was humanized in the media. So is Julian Assange.

*Note I don't mean to imply that mentally ill people are violent criminals- it's just one way the media makes a shitty attempt to humanize criminals. This results in an enormous amount of stigma towards mentally ill people and it's incredibly wrong. There is an association between crime and mentally ill people, though- in that mentally ill people are more likely to be victims of a crime, not perpetrators.

Additionally, someone created a tumblr dedicated to outing predators, which prompted this reaction from Reddit: (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/11/predditors-tumblr-creepshots-reddit_n_1955897.html)


To everyone else who is a member here, all I can emphasise is... please stay safe. When posting here, we strongly suggest that you use an alternative account or, at the very least, delete personally identifiable information about you that you may have posted in your comments. You still aren't doing anything illegal.

The Moderators may also take a harder line for your safety. Whenever we can, we will check your profiles for any comments that may personally identify you. You will have your posts removed, you will be banned, and then you will be sent a message asking you to create a new account so you can post here. This is only for your safety.



As some of you may know, a prominent member of Reddit's community, Violentacrez, deleted his account recently. This was as a result of a 'journalist' seeking out his personal information and threatening to publish it, which would have a significant impact on his life. You can read more about it here.

As moderators, we feel that this type of behavior is completely intolerable. We volunteer our time on Reddit to make it a better place for the users, and should not be harassed and threatened for that. We should all be afraid of the threat of having our personal information investigated and spread around the internet if someone disagrees with you. Reddit prides itself on having a subreddit for everything, and no matter how much anyone may disapprove of what another user subscribes to, that is never a reason to threaten them.

As a result, the moderators of /r/politics have chosen to disallow links from the Gawker network until action is taken to correct this serious lack of ethics and integrity.

We thank you for your understanding.

So Reddit is encouraging users to use alt accounts so they don't get outed. Violentacrez is not an anomaly.

And if you want to know how this actually affects people's lives, then read about Amanda Todd. (http://abcnews.go.com/US/bullied-teen-amanda-todds-death-spurs-fake-fundraising/story?id=17507029#.UIEwl4awWYY)

[Amake]

Well, that Reddit mod there basically comes out and says no matter how much you may hurt another person by indulging in your diseases, we will go to any lengths to protect you from the consequences of your actions. Because the right to privacy only applies to real people who make Reddit posts, not some girl on a picture I guess?

(I thought I was going to have something to contribute here, but I'm basically just continuously disgusted by Reddit to a degree where I can't shut up.)

[Loyal]

In the original article Adrien Chen wrote about how Violentacrez bragged about raping his daughter, as SO mentioned. It was in an AMA which, near as I can tell, has since been deleted. Why should CNN tone down allegations of a man raping his *stepdaughter*? It obviously wasn't consensual sex like the language suggests. This happens all the time in journalism- sexual assault is repeatedly referred to as sex scandals or simply sex.I should hope that such resolution in your allegations is backed up with an actual source that isn't Gawker or reading between the lines of how "this is obviously not what they meant, they clearly meant this!"

I haven't seen any accounts describing the affair as anything but mutually consensual. And that's without addressing that he may have made it up to begin with, vis-a-vis being a troll. If the original article did describe him as having raped his stepdaughter (something I'll have to take you on your word for), why did they change it? Adrien Chen obviously has no reservations against making VA look like as miserable a human being as possible, and it's not like he ever had any love for Reddit itself.

Zimmerman is also an example of a white criminal who was humanized in the media. What are you talking about? While the police were shamefully lax in pursuing the subject, Zimmerman was all but crucified by the media for quite awhile up until information surfaced that their collective initial impression of Zimmerman, Martin, and the case itself may have been flawed.
So is Julian Assange.To the best of my knowledge, Julian Assange is a man currently seeking asylum to avoid being extradited for questioning in the matter of two cases of alleged rape, for which no charges have been actually brought forth.

What am I missing in these two cases?

Additionally, someone created a tumblr dedicated to outing predators, which prompted this reaction from Reddit:
So Reddit is encouraging users to use alt accounts so they don't get outed. Violentacrez is not an anomaly.Quite frankly understandable. However deplorable their actions would be, being outed to the general public is all but inviting vigilante justice, which is indefensible no matter how much you hate the person in question. VA claims to have received a number of death threats since the release of the Gawker article, and typically any sort of even-merely-controversial activities being associated with a real-world identity is going to invite similar unpleasantness.

The thought that someone would eventually act on these threats is not something to dismiss, and even if nobody acts on them it's bound to be a terrifying and nerve-wracking experience nobody deserves to go through. So yes, people are going to be told to take steps to protect themselves.

You're not seriously arguing people could reasonably be expected to respond with something like "your time is nigh, submit yourself to the mercy of your peers", are you?

[Solid Snake]

Anyway do you seriously need a news organization to spell it out for you to form an opinion on this guy?

The problem is that many people do rely on the news media to form opinions on people, and the media isn't being very objective in painting a picture of a person who's objectively terrible.
Regarding your argument here, I don't need CNN to spell out an opinion for me to form on this man, but given societal constraints I sure as hell need CNN to do its job and spell out the objective facts -- including, yes, the fact that this man is a despicable misogynist -- to everyone else.

I have absolutely no problem with taking out a bullhorn and shouting "This guy is an asshole!", for two reasons...

One reason is the reason you're apparently against: Sometimes, it just feels good to rail against assholes who evoke a strong emotional response. If you're capable of reading what this man did and if you feel no similar emotional response, I'm not sure what to say. Granted, that may be inappropriate for a News and Current Events Thread, but if at any point in time we're outright banned from expressing emotion in said threads, discussion will quickly die out, because there's a lot of subjects we're very passionate about.

More importantly than mere emotional instigation, however: Reminding us that this man is an asshole serves the broader purpose of a criticism of CNN and its paint job of him, because many (ignorant male, conservative, etc.) readers who aren't aware of things like privilege and rape culture are going to read that article with its biases and walk away upset with the notion that a 'good man' with children in the military lost his job while engaging in "legal" activity online.

That isn't true. CNN should KNOW it isn't true. But when CNN doesn't seem to grasp that, CNN needs to get called out.

Well, anyway. It's genuinely surprising to me that anything I posted could be construed as objectionable, so I think the right response is just to remove myself from this discussion entirely.

[shiney]

That's not really helpful either Snake? In my efforts to try and improve the level of discourse here on NPF I would question that, if a response to someone airing a concern or criticism is "fine I won't engage in this discussion", then doesn't that only reinforce the divisions that have been appearing around here?

Meister is right in that, the post you made didn't do much to actually further a discussion as much as just supply confirmation to an agreed-upon subject, i.e. VA is an asshole. We sure do know that already! I just don't want to see an assumption that a (fairly benign!) disagreement in the way the discussion is presented is then construed to be a judgment on the participant. And I really, really don't want to see a response that makes it seem like [constructive] criticisms result in someone quitting a discussion (for lack of a better phrase, 'quitting' doesn't feel right but you get my gist). It certainly wasn't objectionable as a post, but it wasn't constructive as a comment either.

Please don't let this derail, I'm happy to discuss over PM or something as well. I just want to see that everyone's opinion* is treated as valid without anyone feeling like they should not engage in a discussion.

* this comes with a disgustingly heavy qualifier of "please see the past 4 months of anger and division across this forum" to determine what a valid opinion actually is, and what is using the term opinion to mask bigotry et al.

[Loyal]

The problem is that many people do rely on the news media to form opinions on people, and the media isn't being very objective in painting a picture of a person who's objectively terrible.
Regarding your argument here, I don't need CNN to spell out an opinion for me to form on this man, but given societal constraints I sure as hell need CNN to do its job and spell out the objective facts -- including, yes, the fact that this man is a despicable misogynist -- to everyone else. The media's job is absolutely not to explicitly tell people what to think, and any organization that makes a practice of doing so is not one I would trust for any news I consider important. Saying that the way to correct a bad spin on a story is to spin it harder in the exact opposite direction is just a terrible practice to even consider, let alone adopt.

I have absolutely no problem with taking out a bullhorn and shouting "This guy is an asshole!", for two reasons...

One reason is the reason you're apparently against: Sometimes, it just feels good to rail against assholes who evoke a strong emotional response. If you're capable of reading what this man did and if you feel no similar emotional response, I'm not sure what to say. Granted, that may be inappropriate for a News and Current Events Thread, but if at any point in time we're outright banned from expressing emotion in said threads, discussion will quickly die out, because there's a lot of subjects we're very passionate about. Not hardly. It is entirely possible to express an opinion or argue a point without being emotional or melodramatic about it. It's preferable, in fact! Being personally or emotionally invested in the subject matter doesn't oblige you to become personally or emotionally invested in the discussion itself.

If anything I'd argue the exact opposite is true, in that being invested in the subject matter should encourage you to handle it clinically so you can better represent your viewpoint, but that's a wee bit off-topic.

[pochercoaster]

I should hope that such resolution in your allegations is backed up with an actual source that isn't Gawker or reading between the lines of how "this is obviously not what they meant, they clearly meant this!"

The CNN article said this: He was, however, questioned by police because of assertions that he had sex with his stepdaughter.

Consensual sex is not a crime. You do not investigate someone for allegations that they had sex. You investigate them for allegations that they committed a crime. The language is completely misleading.

I haven't seen any accounts describing the affair as anything but mutually consensual.

Consensual sex with his stepdaughter? You realize that most rapes occur between people who know each other, right? Rapists target people who they have power or authority over and one such position of authority would be as someone's father/stepfather.

And that's without addressing that he may have made it up to begin with, vis-a-vis being a troll.

Which is why he should be investigated.

If the original article did describe him as having raped his stepdaughter (something I'll have to take you on your word for), why did they change it?

Because of rape culture and victim blaming.

Adrien Chen obviously has no reservations against making VA look like as miserable a human being as possible, and it's not like he ever had any love for Reddit itself.

He describes things that VA himself admitted to and didn't even try to hide. He didn't make up the fact that he created reddits like rapebait and jailbait. If that makes him look like a miserable human being (it does), it's because he is.

More coming later...

[Marc v4.0]

The media's job is absolutely not to explicitly tell people what to think

That's true, but every major (and most minor) news outlets do it anyway so the point is pretty moot, isn't it?

[POS Industries]

Not hardly. It is entirely possible to express an opinion or argue a point without being emotional or melodramatic about it. It's preferable, in fact! Being personally or emotionally invested in the subject matter doesn't oblige you to become personally or emotionally invested in the discussion itself.

If anything I'd argue the exact opposite is true, in that being invested in the subject matter should encourage you to handle it clinically so you can better represent your viewpoint, but that's a wee bit off-topic.
It is off topic, and a little too far into the area of a tone argument derail, which we actually do have a rule against.

Our members really do have the right to express their anger about a topic that makes them angry. If they're out of line, we on the staff will make that call and ask them to step back. That's not your job.

[shiney]

pocheros, it isn't the media's place to say someone raped someone unless it's proven. They could have said "allegedly raped" but they have concerns of libel to think of as well. This guy lost his job, he's more likely to litigate if he can perceive that he is being slandered and taking allegations of sexual [mis]conduct from a now-deleted AMA thread and stating that he raped his stepdaughter in a front-page article is, from a corporate news media perspective, no different than wearing a big sign that says "Sue me".

This is why in the case of James Holmes or whatever his name was, Auroraguy, he was called the alleged shooter. He hasn't been proven guilty in a court of law yet, nor has VA, hence it is not their place to pass this judgment. They could have said he allegedly raped her, but again, that exposes them to risk of a civil lawsuit as the ONLY evidence supporting sexual contact OR rape with/of his stepdaughter is the aforementioned deleted thread. You can't make an assumption of "it was his stepdaughter, OBVIOUSLY it was rape" on a major international publication like CNN.

I could make an argument based on deleted posts that for example, POS Industries here sacrificed a small puppy in a satanic ritual. I mean. we all know it's true, but I couldn't then expect CNN to put in an article that he murdered an animal in cold blood because there's no evidence in the real world let alone in the thread where it was deleted.

This is how corporate media is. To find VA being called a rapist, you have to go to blogs where people are allowed to voice their emotions and opinions regarding a subject without fear of reprisal. It's not so black and white.

Also I think one of the lynchpins of this whole thing is the name "CNN". They are hardly the bastion of journalistic integrity that many seem to think they are. I don't think for a moment they are supporting rape culture by not calling it rape personally. They are just not injecting assumption into their article.

e: Like this is my 10th edit of this post or something because really I would like this guy to die in hell basically from what he's done, but whether or not he raped his stepdaughter, an argument based on hearsay with that kind of connotation has no business in a news article.

[Solid Snake]

That's not really helpful either Snake? In my efforts to try and improve the level of discourse here on NPF I would question that, if a response to someone airing a concern or criticism is "fine I won't engage in this discussion", then doesn't that only reinforce the divisions that have been appearing around here?

To clarify, the intent there wasn't to suggest I wouldn't participate in NPF discussion threads because "NPF is hella bad" or "Moderators you're so mean"

My decision to vacate the thread (which I've apparently now renounced?) was related to the subject matter, not the forum. It was my attempt to concede that there's no way I'm personally engaging in a 'quiet', 'civil' discussion about this man. I'm not a position where I feel I can discuss VA or respond to Loyal's arguments in a civil manner -- in that case, it's far better for me to take my leave than make things infinitely worse via my participation.

Meister is right in that, the post you made didn't do much to actually further a discussion as much as just supply confirmation to an agreed-upon subject, i.e. VA is an asshole. We sure do know that already!

We have a pretty significant difference in perspective here, and I think it stems from this source: You're viewing my commentary as 'stating the obvious' because everyone on NPF agrees with the presupposition that VA is an asshole (which may or may not be true, for the record.)

I wasn't calling VA an asshole in an attempt to inform NPF of 'the obvious.' I was instead pointing out just how big an asshole VA was in response to a CNN post that I linked to that portrayed him sympathetically. In that context, my reaction in the thread was to expose CNN's cultural complicity.

Doing so requires a reaffirmation that VA is, in fact, an asshole, but only because doing so is part of a broader argument against CNN -- which I alluded to but admittingly didn't make entirely clear, perhaps under the assumption NPF would intuitively understand the underlying argument -- that the media's interpretation of "neutral objectivity in reporting" is heavily biased towards privileged white male aggressors in a way that reinforces rape culture and misogyny generally, because it's considered 'neutral and objective' to defuse VA's culpability through an irrelevant discussion of his kids' military service and the loss of a 'precious' job, and a rape investigation is described as a 'sex' investigation, etc.

I do object to the notion that linking to the CNN article 'added nothing of value' to the discussion, though I'll concede I could have described my objections to the CNN article in more detail. Thing was, Pocheros basically said everything for me -- which left me in a position where I just attempted to piggyback off her legitimate criticisms with a bit of sarcastic humor.

[Solid Snake]

pocheros, it isn't the media's place to say someone raped someone unless it's proven.

When the perpetrator actually brags about committing the act, yeah, I think that's a case where we can buck the legal tradition and say that the act is assumed to have happened until proven otherwise.

[shiney]

Yeah I meant the sarcastic humor. :)

I read the article as well. So did Rai in fact, and we both were pretty well disgusted because you're absolutely right in that they portrayed him as something of a misguided soul. If he'd been black, or gay, or muslim or something? He would have been some godless heathen bent on destroying our children and why isn't there a congressional investigation. I take issue with the majority of their article except for the very last bit, where I know that branding him with accusations of a sexual crime would have far greater implications than the rest of that milquetoast BS.

When the perpetrator actually brags about committing the act, yeah, I think that's a case where we can buck the legal tradition and say that the act is assumed to have happened until proven otherwise.

You're a lawyer. What do you think if a publication that has millions of unique readers per day brands the word "rapist" on the subject of an interview, and all evidence supporting this has disappeared? Further to that, how do you prosecute someone without said evidence, and only having witnesses who report having read him brag about this on the internet? Alternately how do you defend the civil lawsuit that is almost inevitable? If they won't call someone a murderer when he's caught on camera murdering, I don't see them calling someone a rapist based on deleted internet posts. I don't think it's part of blame the victim mentality either (sorry poch). Any number of other things certainly are, and CNN is no where near the least guilty in this, but I believe this is one of the rare cases where someone said "whoa hold on, for once we actually don't have anything solid to prove this, we should dial it back".

e: I will take back everything if the cops or someone saved screenprints/printouts of the thread(s) in question whereby he bragged about raping his stepdaughter! I'm not defending this guy at all as much as analyzing CNN's response to this facet of the interview/discussion.

[Solid Snake]

I read the article as well. So did Rai in fact, and we both were pretty well disgusted because you're absolutely right in that they portrayed him as something of a misguided soul. If he'd been black, or gay, or muslim or something? He would have been some godless heathen bent on destroying our children and why isn't there a congressional investigation. I take issue with the majority of their article except for the very last bit, where I know that branding him with accusations of a sexual crime would have far greater implications than the rest of that milquetoast BS.

But, let's just get this straight:
VA has already committed sexual crimes.
(That'd be true even without his bragging over violating his stepdaughter.)

And I know that's a broader discussion, but legal experts who are 'conflicted' as to whether VA's actions were crimes shouldn't be so conflicted. 'Free speech' does not apply to VA's actions here.

[POS Industries]

When the perpetrator actually brags about committing the act, yeah, I think that's a case where we can buck the legal tradition and say that the act is assumed to have happened until proven otherwise.
The major sticking point is that the thread where be admitted to doing it no longer exists and there's all these victim blamey legal loopholes like "butbutbut she was over 18" and "well, it's not like we know whether or not she said NO" even though in all likelihood he abused his position of authority over her to manipulate her into give him a blowjob, which is pretty much totes rape.

And we're perfectly fine making that accusation, but CNN sort of can't. They probably could have done more to make not make it sound like a perfectly consensual thing that happened since it undoubtedly wasn't since the police shouldn't be getting involved in matters of consensual sex between adults, so I dunno something like "sexual misconduct" might have been a been a better fit if PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTIC STANDARDS somehow forbade them from calling it rape.

So they still totally dropped the ball.

[Solid Snake]

You're a lawyer. What do you think if a publication that has millions of unique readers per day brands the word "rapist" on the subject of an interview, and all evidence supporting this has disappeared? Further to that, how do you prosecute someone without said evidence, and only having witnesses who report having read him brag about this on the internet? Alternately how do you defend the civil lawsuit that is almost inevitable? If they won't call someone a murderer when he's caught on camera murdering, I don't see them calling someone a rapist based on deleted internet posts. I don't think it's part of blame the victim mentality either (sorry poch). Any number of other things certainly are, and CNN is no where near the least guilty in this, but I believe this is one of the rare cases where someone said "whoa hold on, for once we actually don't have anything solid to prove this, we should dial it back".

Look, here's where we disagree, and I'll italicize this:
If we lived in a culture that took accusations of rape as seriously as we should, no one would brag online over molesting his stepdaughter and make themselves liable to the moral, social and legal consequences.

...I want to be clear here, this is important. Because, let's say you're right and VA made up a story? He lives in a social environment where making up that story has no profound moral or legal consequences.

That's the real issue here. From my perspective, I don't care whether VA was telling the truth. Given the enormity of his other crimes, the possibility he raped his stepdaughter just reaffirms his grotesqueness.

But if he didn't actually instigate that behavior? He still feels totally comfortable treating sex with his stepdaughter as if it's a joke. Just like he treated taking pictures of underage girls without their consent as all fun and games.

...That's why I have no sympathy for VA even if the media loudly proclaims he's a rapist.

[shiney]

Nobody has sympathy for him. I think we're arguing different points.

I wish there were repercussions for him making those "jokes" (I'm not sure they were jokes either). From everyone's perspective here, certainly there are! Morally and publicly to a degree there are too. I just think from a journalistic standpoint, it's bad precedent to ascribe an allegation to your description of a person (alleged rapist VA) unless you have some big time fact to back it up with, or charges laid by a DA or something. They can't proclaim what they can't prove, even if they want to, because he can say "That's assassination of character, I'll have my fat sack of money in tens and fives."

It's easy in an opinion column or the editorials or blogging, but as a front-page article it's not that simple.

I hope someone did keep something though. I'd love for VA's October surprise to be a pair of handcuffs and 3 hots & a cot.

[pochercoaster]

I don't think your comparison holds up, shiney, considering CNN isn't exactly a paragon of journalistic integrity. They're fine with "alleged shooter," but not allegations of sexual misconduct or sexual assault? With alleged shooter, they're at least not implying that there was no crime involved. Saying he had "sex with" his daughter is seriously stretching it. I don't hear of other crimes being referred to in a euphemistic manner nearly as often as I do with rape, even when they are serious and result in greater consequences than rape charges do- such as murder. The difference being that there is rape culture, but no murder culture, so we tip-toe around the "r" word because heaven forbid a rapist is held accountable for his actions. (Ultimately this was a rather small point I made in trying to describe how CNN was biased in its report of the case, though.)

I'm also not calling for him to be guilty until proven innocent. I'm not his lawyer. I think he should have a fair trial just like everyone else.

My problem is cultural biases that prevent charges from ever being laid in the first place, which is the ultimate legal conclusion to the majority of rapes.

Nobody has sympathy for him. I think we're arguing different points.

Nobody in this thread has sympathy for him. Elsewhere? It's not so rosey.

[Solid Snake]

We're not arguing different points.

...I'm just confused as to why you believe that the media is somehow hampered in their reporting and is unable of accusing citizens of committing inappropriate actions without first acquiring evidence sufficient to prove a crime in a court of law.
(/run-on sentence)

All the reporter would really be exposed to in terms of negative consequences is a libel accusation -- which VA would never bring legally because doing so would result in his entire history of inappropriate comments online being exposed through discovery.

EDIT: In VA's case, he's also basically an alleged sexual assaulter by his OWN admission. (Admission here covers both acts and speech, so I'm including his moderating an Incest forum on Reddit as well as his verbal admission.)
Of all the possible evidence you could have to prove an allegation, one's own admission ranks highest in a court of law, let alone from a journalistic perspective where burdens of proof are irrelevant.

[shiney]

I realize I'm arguing myself into a hole here. :B I appreciate you guys understanding at least that I'm not defending this clown, or rape culture itself.

I just don't think they're actively playing blame the victim/defend the rapist. I think they're playing "Don't say something that can get us sued."

My comparison does kind of suck, but then I'm not CNN so I don't know their actual motive! Just armchair analysis I guess, you guys are poking some pretty good-sized holes in it though.

Case in point Snake's thing, because I guess if he's suing on libel, he'd have to prove they were telling an untruth. Whiiiich would require bringing up the evidence that currently is saving him through its absence.

[Marc v4.0]

Well 'alleged sexual misconduct' isn't something they can really get in trouble over. That is actually a thing that happened, police don't investigate allegations of consensual sex between two willing adults. Calling it what it is doesn't open anything up for a lawsuit. Skipping over/Sugar coating it can't be read as anything but rape defense in this situation.

[Amake]

Whiiiich would require bringing up the evidence that currently is saving him through its absence.
And then every single woman whose picture he's published without their permission can sue him for violating their privacy in about six different ways. That would be pretty fantastic if it happened. . .

[shiney]

Skipping over/Sugar coating it can't be read as anything but rape defense in this situation.

See, that's a big stretch if you ask me though. Them not calling him a rapist doesn't mean they are covering for him as a rapist. Rape culture is surely a thing that exists but that is a very large leap of assumption to make, to say that the only reason they didn't call him a rapist is because of rape defense.

I'm not calling him a rapist right now because I haven't been able to weigh the facts of what happened, just that I know he was visited by cops because of stuff he said on the internet. Am I defending rape now?

Maybe the cops went and found she was 18+ the whole time, or it was consensual, or nothing at all happened and he was bloviating. It's every single bit as likely as that he raped her. I'm not going to place my reputation on the line to call him out as a rapist based strictly on hearsay and then have the official police report come and make me look like an idiot.

[Marc v4.0]

The logistical process is as follows.

He brags about sexual contact with his step-daughter-> If true it is an abuse of authority to coerce sexual contact-> That is Rape-> The police seriously investigated the claim-> Alleged Rapist.

If not true, he was still investigated for it-> He still violated the privacy of females both of age and underaged by posting their pictures for sexual gratification-> It's still sexual violation.

Not being upfront about that, easing off terminology or 'sugar coating' the facts involved is them willingly misrepresenting the case. It is rape defense.

They didn't 'accidentally' make it sound like he and his step-daughter had a completely consensual sexual relationship, nor were they completely blind to the fact that they were trying to further humanize him by playing the family man angle.

Maybe the intent wasn't to defend his rapist actions, but intent isn't a magical shield that absolves them of defending a rapist. Plain and simple.

[shiney]

Given the context of the rest of the article at least, I do agree it seems they are trying to downplay his actions.

As far as If not true, he was still investigated for it-> He still violated the privacy of females both of age and underaged by posting their pictures for sexual gratification-> It's still sexual violation. - this is a violation but calling it rape is not appropriate. More like sex offender or something of that nature?

They could have called him a sex offender and I wouldn't have given a damn. He's earned that title in spades!!

[Marc v4.0]

It would have been better to go with If not true, he was still investigated for it-> Alleged Rapist for my argument.

As far as this entire debacle re:Snake and whatever the hell all has been going on here, I tend to default to the tone of the OP. If Poch had an issue with Snake's post veering off the subject too much or not being relevant to what she wanted to address with the thread than many outlets exist for her to express that. A polite reminder herself or asking a mod to nudge things back into place. I feel this entire stampede has done just as much damage dragging the subject around as any of the old derailment tactics that you are trying to crack down on. I'm not advocating that an OP have the power to moderate their own topics freestyle at all. Some consideration for the person that set the tone and topic, when they actually defend the relevance of the 'offending' post, might be in order.

[shiney]

I agree with you in regards to OP for the most part, but in this forum we're trying to avoid that kind of thing more or less altogether at this point. I take no issue with the rest of his posts though, in fact I liked the debate!

[stefan]

I dunno about the article, but the video interview was pretty thoroughly on the side of "this douche is a sick fuck and reddit is terrible for supporting him."

[Loyal]

That's true, but every major (and most minor) news outlets do it anyway so the point is pretty moot, isn't it?

I know that's not really what you intended, but I'd like to believe we've pretty thoroughly established by now that "everybody does it already" is not a valid defense nor an argument for "acceptance" of a thing being terrible. Whether that thing be rape culture or spin-tastic media outlets.

And then every single woman whose picture he's published without their permission can sue him for violating their privacy in about six different ways. That would be pretty fantastic if it happened. . . Unlikely. Even among the women who know and can prove that their photo was published by VA (probably a mite bit difficult at this point), and even among those who be willing to go through the trouble of pressing charges, they must acknowledge that VA is a pretty hot name in news right now. Making a media issue of it by going to court would probably invite more perverts to do their thing and repeat the whole episode all over again for the poor wom(a/e)n.

My decision to vacate the thread (which I've apparently now renounced?) was related to the subject matter, not the forum. It was my attempt to concede that there's no way I'm personally engaging in a 'quiet', 'civil' discussion about this man. I'm not a position where I feel I can discuss VA or respond to Loyal's arguments in a civil manner -- in that case, it's far better for me to take my leave than make things infinitely worse via my participation.Try not responding to a post (or, after seeing it, not looking at it again) until four or five hours have passed. You'd be amazed what the time does for your composure. I was about ready to knee-jerk it up and get myself into an argumentative hole, but then I went to work and I came back and I was like, "Yeah you guys probably have a point."

[Marc v4.0]

I know that's not really what you intended

Well, my intention was to point out that you were just completely wrong, that media just straight up DOES that all over the place already, and that the position was a moot one to argue from.

Especially since you were arguing against media being objective, which it really needs to do?

I'll just be out with it that I don't really understand why you were arguing with Snake at all on that. Since...

I don't need CNN to spell out an opinion for me to form on this man, but given societal constraints I sure as hell need CNN to do its job and spell out the objective facts -- including, yes, the fact that this man is a despicable misogynist -- to everyone else.

Is the complete opposite of...

Saying that the way to correct a bad spin on a story is to spin it harder in the exact opposite direction is just a terrible practice to even consider, let alone adopt.

A News outlet being objective in presenting the facts, instead of spinning things around to make this person look better or to downplay this horrible thing, is what should be the normal practice.


Unlikely. Even among the women who know and can prove that their photo was published by VA (probably a mite bit difficult at this point), and even among those who be willing to go through the trouble of pressing charges, they must acknowledge that VA is a pretty hot name in news right now. Making a media issue of it by going to court would probably invite more perverts to do their thing and repeat the whole episode all over again for the poor wom(a/e)n.

Yeah, being outed as a disgusting pedo is the wet dream of every sexual predator. They just can't wait to watch their lives get ruined across national media while a long line of women wait patiently to sue him for everything he has and will have.

Like, that entire paragraph is just completely off the wall. They should just sit quietly and not kick up a fuss because it'll make him famous!? No, fuck that. Every single person he posted pictures of should take him to court and he deserves every single ounce of grief they give him for violating their privacy like that!

[POS Industries]

Unlikely. Even among the women who know and can prove that their photo was published by VA (probably a mite bit difficult at this point), and even among those who be willing to go through the trouble of pressing charges, they must acknowledge that VA is a pretty hot name in news right now. Making a media issue of it by going to court would probably invite more perverts to do their thing and repeat the whole episode all over again for the poor wom(a/e)n.
What.

[Loyal]

Yeah, being outed as a disgusting pedo is the wet dream of every sexual predator. They just can't wait to watch their lives get ruined across national media while a long line of women wait patiently to sue him for everything he has and will have.

Like, that entire paragraph is just completely off the wall. They should just sit quietly and not kick up a fuss because it'll make him famous!? No, fuck that. Every single person he posted pictures of should take him to court and he deserves every single ounce of grief they give him for violating their privacy like that!At no point did I say the concern was making VA more or less famous. No clue where you read that. So, let's try again:

A lot of victims of sexual assault and harassment, for one reason or another, choose not to report their assailants. They might be embarrassed or fear some retaliation or ridicule, I won't pretend to know the details. Point is, way too many cases of rape and sexual harassment go unreported, and I'm saying that not only will it be no different here, but the women may be even more reluctant to speak out because at this point in time, media outlets will happily look for any story they can connect to VA, because ratings. And the woman, by merit of having revealing pics of her posted online, will be at the center of that story.

Do you understand, now?

[Marc v4.0]

You really, really need to work on your wording, then. A suggestion for next time would be to actually mention a concern for the women being slut shamed, instead of dropping things about hot media coverage and a concern of copy-cats. Neither of which has anything to do with the women being mistreated by the media and implies you are talking about people openly offending to seek attention.

I am very glad to see that you didn't suddenly go completel insane, I was worried and Internet Mad for a moment there

[POS Industries]

I, too, am glad that Loyal meant something totally different than what it looked like he was saying.

Because what it looked like was pretty monstrous.

EDIT: I've got something "useful" to add.

In the grand scope of things, I don't think it's even necessarily a thing to be that concerned over--not to say that you shouldn't--because we do have confidentiality protections in place for victims of sexual crimes. There is a risk of the victims being further victimized by people loyal to the cause of being gigantic assholes, but the fact is that doing nothing doesn't stop the violation of their rights, since the photos continue on being distributed. Lawsuits can't stop it, either, but at the very least they can get the recompense they deserve under the law for it and set a standard for people who wish to follow in VA's footsteps. It's a hard road and I can understand if they aren't willing to do it, but I'd still encourage them to go through with it if for no other reason than to get some amount of closure.

And, frankly, I will stand by my "what" reaction if anyone suggests they should do otherwise. I think it's all the respect anyone who makes that case deserves.

[pochercoaster]

See, that's a big stretch if you ask me though. Them not calling him a rapist doesn't mean they are covering for him as a rapist. Rape culture is surely a thing that exists but that is a very large leap of assumption to make, to say that the only reason they didn't call him a rapist is because of rape defense.

I'm not calling him a rapist right now because I haven't been able to weigh the facts of what happened, just that I know he was visited by cops because of stuff he said on the internet. Am I defending rape now?

Maybe the cops went and found she was 18+ the whole time, or it was consensual, or nothing at all happened and he was bloviating. It's every single bit as likely as that he raped her. I'm not going to place my reputation on the line to call him out as a rapist based strictly on hearsay and then have the official police report come and make me look like an idiot.

Being 18+ doesn't put you in a default state of constant consent (I understand that this wasn't your intention and it was just a badly worded sentence, but I'd like to use it as a jumping point). The only thing that makes sex consensual, is consent, which is why the "or it was consensual" part of the sentence stuck out to me. It's not an either/or question. In the AMA VA said his stepdaughter was 19 years old but he didn't specify if she was 19 at the time of the assault or in present time. But her age ultimately is irrelevant because from every possible angle nothing about this looks consensual. I actually specifically didn't mention that she was 19 from the outset of the previous thread because I anticipated that someone might say "well, since she's the age of consent she probably found her pervy stepfather irresistible." And I'm really not prepared for that headache.

So let's talk about definitions of consent. Let's talk about how hard it is to actually prove that an assault/rape was non-consensual, and how it's wrong that by default we assume victims are lying. Let's talk about how the law's definition of rape and consent are deeply flawed and more often than not defined by rapists themselves, and therefore fail rape victims.

This is gonna be a bit rambly but there's a bunch of points I want to touch on. First of all: what is consent?

I came across a very simple and effective metaphor for consent isn't awhile ago: consent is not a lightswitch. (http://amplifyyourvoice.org/u/Yes_Means_Yes/2010/11/9/Consent-Is-Not-A-Lightswitch)

See, contrary to what seems like popular belief, sexual consent isn’t like a lightswitch, which can be either "on," or "off." It’s not like there’s this one thing called "sex" you can consent to anyhow. "Sex" is an evolving series of actions and interactions. You have to have the enthusiastic consent of your partner for all of them. And even if you have your partner’s consent for a particular activity, you have to be prepared for it to change.

See, consent isn’t a question. It’s a state. If, instead of lovers, the two of you were synchronized swimmers, consent would be the water. It’s not enough to jump in, get wet and climb out — if you want to swim, you have to be in the water continually. And if you want to have sex, you have to be continually in a state of enthusiastic consent with your partner.

[...]

Back to the case at hand. It’s hardly confusing. She said "yes" to one act (the asphyxiation which rendered her unconscious). She never said yes to the anal penetration. The only world in which this case is a question of "advance" consent is one in which we’re still thinking of consent as a lightswitch. As a single question with only two possible answers and no takebacks. Sex? Yes/No? She said yes to a sex act (a kinky one at that, so she’s probably that kind of woman, wink wink, nudge nudge, rape apology rape apology), and therefore she said yes to ALL sex acts. (And don’t forget, no takebacks!)

Do I really have to break down the levels on which this model of consent fails? I guess I do. Let’s start with "no takebacks." There are a million reasons someone might say yes to a sexual activity and then later withdraw consent. Some of them are uncomfortable to think about (maybe your partner says or does something that makes you feel suddenly unsafe), but some of them are pretty mundane. Maybe your leg cramps. Maybe you’re getting sore. Maybe you thought it would be hot but now that you’re doing it (whatever "it" is) you realize you’re not into it, or you’re just no longer in the mood. Maybe IT DOESN’T MATTER WHY. If you no longer want to be doing something sexual with another person, and you let them know that, and they don’t stop? That’s sexual assault. Period.

But that’s not even what happened in this case, because she. never. consented. Not to anal penetration. How is that hard to understand? How does "yes, let’s try some breath play" somehow sound like "yes, please shove a dildo into my anus"? Only in a world in which both of those sentences sound like "Yes to sex. Kinky sex! All of it! Woo!" And that’s exactly the problem with the lightswitch model of consent. It makes sex into a yes-or-no question, the same way it separates women into sluts and prudes. And if you’re a slut, if you say yes to sex, you say yes to all sex, whenever, however, and if you don’t like it, well, tough — you should’ve thought of that before you said yes. In other words? The lightswitch model of sex is one of the main pillars holding up the entire rape culture.

Yes, "everyone" "knows" that consent isn't a lightswitch, but... In light of how many people rape/are raped (http://www.rainn.org/statistics), and perhaps more importantly in light of how many people excuse rape and disbelieve rape victims, how many people do know what consent actually is?

Why is this relevant? Well, cause a hell of a lot times the media covers sexual assaults they are quick to point out that the victim was out on a date with the rapist and clearly enjoying their company, such as here. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2193641/Julian-Assange-rape-claim-Is-photo-clear-him.html) And if they were on a date she must've consented to every other activity that occurred on that date or in the previous 48 hours! </sarcasm> They might even note that they "aren't acting like rape victims. (http://herbsandhags.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/youre-not-like-rape-victim.html)" They fail to note that is completely plausible- common, even- for victims to excuse the rapist because 1. the victim might be scared of provoking their attacker 2. the victim has been socialized to believe it is their fault and try to convince themselves they weren't raped and 3. the victim knows it is unlikely anyone will believe them.

Sidenote: I had a relatively comprehensive sex education in elementary and high school. Various forms of birth control methods were discussed along with accurate statistics about their failure rates. Sexuality was not talked about a whole lot but I do think there was some "it's okay/normal to be gay" stuff in there. This seems like a lot more comprehensive than many other sex ed classes, which is rather sad because it was still incredibly lacking. But where the hell were the discussions of consent? Okay, actually, my class did briefly cover consent, with "yes means yes, no means no" rhetoric. And that's where it stopped. Why is this a problem? Well... (http://herbsandhags.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/saying-no.html)


“Yes means yes, no means no
However we dress, wherever we go”

[...]

The basic implication behind that slogan, is that women are being posed the question, which they then answer or not - with yes or no. Men ask “do you want sex?” and women say “yes please” or “no thank you”.

[...]

The mindless latching on to the slogan by the media, is not a positive thing for the understanding of sexual dynamics between men and women. Firstly, the premise that the man asks the question and the woman answers, taps into the age-old idiotic idea that men’s sexuality is active and women’s is passive - we wait to be asked the question. Secondly, the media have completely dropped the first bit of the slogan: “yes means yes”. The absence of “no” does not equate to the presence of “yes”. When women do not say no, that does not mean they are saying yes and the absence of yes, is as much lack of consent as the presence of no. It is also more common than the presence of no, which is why the media do not want to engage with it.

For many people, “no means no” has come to mean that a woman has to say “No!” loudly and clearly, before a man penetrating her body when she doesn’t want him to, can rightfully be called rape.

And there’s a problem with that. A big one. Women are socialised not to say no, ever. Actually, men are socialised not to say no as well, just not as strongly as women are. All of us use hedging language when people ask us to do things we don’t want to do. If you don’t believe me, try saying just “No” next time a colleagues asks you if you fancy going for a coffee or if you have time to look at something s/he’s working on. You won’t be able to do it. You’ll say “I’d love to, but …” or “I don’t have time just now, but…” etc. If you do manage to get the big, bald “No” out there, your colleague will think you are incredibly rude and aggressive - and you will feel incredibly rude and aggressive.

Also, women are socialised to accept the boundaries that they put down, being over-ridden. Men constantly interrupt us, talk over us, ignore what we’ve said, ignore the signals we send out to them. We’re used to it. So we have learned that saying “No” isn’t actually an effective means of getting men to take notice of what we want. Saying no, just offends men and sounds like a challenge, not a boundary-setting, so it may well be quite a dangerous thing to say in a tense situation where somebody who has probably already broken lots of other boundaries to get to that point, wants to do something the smaller, physically weaker person doesn’t want them to.

[...]

How much more likely is it that women, who have been taught that setting clear verbal boundaries is aggressive and rude, will come out with a massive No when they are in a vulnerable situation with a man who they are not sure is going to respect that No? If even men can’t bring themselves to do that, when they are in no danger of violence, when they are bigger and stronger than the woman who wants to have sex with them, when they have been taught that they have the right to have their boundaries respected, why on earth do we all expect women to do it and why do we pretend that if they haven’t done it, then it’s not really rape?

Because here’s another thing that research shows. It shows that men are perfectly capable of understanding every single non-verbal cue a woman gives about her willingness or otherwise, to have sex. Normal men don’t need to be told “No” to understand that they don’t have the right to penetrate a woman’s body. They know that the absence of no, isn’t the same as the presence of yes. They know that unless a woman is actively showing you she wants you inside her, then you shouldn’t, um, get inside her. The least you should do, is check she wants you there. How difficult is it to ask “OK?”

And yet the whole of public discourse on this subject, assumes that there is absolutely no onus on men whatsoever, to ensure that the woman whose body they are about to enter, welcomes that entry. The whole of public discourse talks about the need women have, to ensure that they tell men they are unwelcome and never talks about the need men have, to ensure they are actually welcome.

The problem with that, is that if you tell someone who is bigger and stronger than you, who may already have ignored other boundaries, that he is unwelcome in your body, then you are placing him in a position, where both of you know, that what he is doing is categorically rape and that is a serious crime. And if a man knows that he has been recognised as a rapist, if he is so ruthless that he is prepared to enter the body of another human being when he knows s/he doesn’t want him to, then what other violence is he capable of? How many women are going to risk bringing this out into the open and maybe upping the ante and suffering worse violence than rape at the hands of this man?

Not many. And that’s why “No means no” is a bit of a problem. Yes, no means no, but allowing the public discourse to be about women’s “no” instead of men’s duty of care to ensure “yes”, reinforces the idea that men have the right to penetrate women unless women actively stop them from doing so, instead of needing to ensure that women actively invite them to do so. It reinforces the idea that the onus is on women not to get raped, rather than on men not to rape.

Who benefits from this framing of the public discourse?

Rapists of course.

So every time someone asks “Did she say no?” about a rape victim, they are unintentionally (or not) supporting the status quo which makes it so easy for rapists to rape women and get away with it. If you don't want to be part of the problem, don't ask if a rape victim said no - ask if she said yes. Ask if she invited him in. The very least a normal man expects to hear from a woman is not silence, which he can pretend is acquiescence, it is “yes”, or "yes, yes, yes, yes, yes..."

Any man who says that a woman not saying no, is by definition one who has consented, is a man to avoid in my book.


Okay, so now that I've illustrated the contrast between a healthy and unhealthy model of consent, let's see how this applies in the real world, when two weeks ago a court ruled that a severely disabled woman wasn't raped because she didn't 'bite, kick or scratch' her assailant. (http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/court-rules-severely-disabled-woman-wasnt-raped-because-she-didnt-bite-kick-or)


In a 4-3 ruling Tuesday afternoon, the Connecticut State Supreme Court overturned the sexual assault conviction of a man who had sex with a woman who “has severe cerebral palsy, has the intellectual functional equivalent of a 3-year-old and cannot verbally communicate.” The Court held that, because Connecticut statutes define physical incapacity for the purpose of sexual assault as “unconscious or for any other reason. . . physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act,” the defendant could not be convicted if there was any chance that the victim could have communicated her lack of consent. Since the victim in this case was capable of “biting, kicking, scratching, screeching, groaning or gesturing,” the Court ruled that that victim could have communicated lack of consent despite her serious mental deficiencies:

When we consider this evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and in a manner that is consistent with the state’s theory of guilt at trial, we, like the Appellate Court, ‘are not persuaded that the state produced any credible evidence that the [victim] was either unconscious or so uncommunicative that she was physically incapable of manifesting to the defendant her lack of consent to sexual intercourse at the time of the alleged sexual assault.’

According to the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network (RAINN), lack of physical resistance is not evidence of consent , as “many victims make the good judgment that physical resistance would cause the attacker to become more violent.” RAINN also notes that lack of consent is implicit “if you were under the statutory age of consent, or if you had a mental defect” as the victim did in this case.

Anna Doroghazi, director of public policy and communication at Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services, worried that the Court’s interpretation of the law ignored these concerns: “By implying that the victim in this case should have bitten or kicked her assailant, this ruling effectively holds people with disabilities to a higher standard than the rest of the population when it comes to proving lack of consent in sexual assault cases. Failing to bite an assailant is not the same thing as consenting to sexual activity.” An amicus brief filed by the Connecticut advocates for disabled persons argued that this higher standard “discourag[ed] the prosecution of crimes against persons with disabilities” even though “persons with a disability had an age-adjusted rate of rape or sexual assault that was more than twice the rate for persons without a disability.”

(I also want to note that VA's wife is disabled. I'm not going to make any assumptions beyond that.)

***There are still a bunch of things I want to write about but I have to be somewhere right now, so I'll just leave this here and touch on the other topics later.***

[shiney]

A missive directed at rape-supporting politicians. WARNING: CAN BE TRIGGER-Y (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/10/25/a-fan-letter-to-certain-conservative-politicians/)

I wanted to share this as I just read it. I think it's entirely relevant both to rape culture and to the abortion topic that is dominating discourse as asinine republicans try to get their followers to the polls.

Edit: The author, John Scalzi, you may recognize from science fiction and poltiical commentary. The comments threads on his site are something he watches, manages and prunes with alarming clarity. In this thread, he is ensuring the discussion remains on topic: Who has the rights to control a woman's body, the woman or her rapist? Many keep trying to drag it off-topic into a more general discussion about abortion and the rights of the infant, and he is not allowing this, instead keeping the topic, well, on-topic.

The thread itself, from what I am seeing in the comments, is also very trigger-inducing. So, be cautious.

[shiney]

Here's another interesting piece (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brooke-bastinelli/dear-mr-mourdock_b_2057016.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false), written to Mr. Mourdock by a survivor of rape. This one pretty much directly calls him out on blaming the victim and making life harder for rape survivors.

Seems to be getting picked up more and more. This is a good thing...

[pochercoaster]

So reddit continues to be shitty by sexually harassing 15 year old girls, no one is surprised! (http://skepchick.org/2011/12/reddit-makes-me-hate-atheists/) Actually, this post is quite old. Surprise, VA is not an anomaly when it comes to sexually harassing behaviour.

And here is a story about a student-run "fantasy slut league," where male students try to earn points by engaging in sexual behaviour with female students! (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=8855158)


PIEDMONT, Calif. (KGO) -- An alert by the principal of Piedmont High School has raised concerns among parents. In a letter sent last week, the principal says his staff discovered a so-called "fantasy slut league" among students.

In the letter, Principal Rich Kitchens describes "a 'Fantasy Slut League' in which our female students (unbeknownst to most of them) are drafted as part of the league...Male students earn points for documented engagement in sexual activities with female students."

According to the letter, school staff learned about this during a recent assembly about date rape prevention.

An investigation was launched on campus and they learned this has been going on for five to six years.

The principal wrote, "Participation often involved pressure/manipulation by older students that included alcohol to impair judgment/control and social demands to be popular."

ABC7 News spoke with Superintendent Constance Hubbard about the letter.

"We wanted to make sure that parents were aware of things that were going in their kids' lives," Hubbard said.

Many parents said they were surprised to hear about the "fantasy slut league," but most didn't want to talk about it. They said Piedmont is a small town, and that is a very sensitive subject.

"I'm really glad that there's a strong administration that's willing to take on these kinds of issues; as a mother of four girls I couldn't be happier," parent Bianca Forrester said.

Piedmont school administrators say they issued the letter in an effort to be proactive.

"The main thing is that I don't want to blow this out of proportion; I don't want to make is something that is some horrible big event that we found out about," Hubbard said.

They are planning a series of on campus assemblies with lessons about preventing this in the future.


Source 2. (http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/local/parents-alerted-piedmont-hs-fantasy-slut-league/nSjmg/)


Piedmont High School officials are currently investing a controversial organization started by the male varsity sports teams – the "fantasy slut league."

The school's been investigating the fantasy league and the school principal recently sent a letter home to students and parents alerting them to the existence of the group.

"Over the past five to six years such a league has existed in one form or another as part of bonding for some varsity teams during their seasons of sport," the letter said.

The league consisted of female students being drafted and then male students would then earn points for documented sexual activities with the female students.

Most people in Piedmont wouldn't comment on the issue, but those who did said they are disappointed.

"The title alone to me is just very demeaning," said Geri Ferrer-Chan, of Piedmont High School.

Carolyn Ballis of Emeryville said hearing about this was a surprise. "But it happens a lot more that you'd like to think it does," she said.

The principal also said in the letter: "Students felt pressure to participate and or lacked confidence to overtly stop it."

In some cases, alcohol was involved, the letter said.

The principal released a statement Sunday day where he said, "The letter speaks for itself in that this is a matter of school and family working together to support our teens to make good choices and to treat each other with respect and dignity."

The school's principal also stated in the letter that there will be an assembly to address the issues; however, since the incidents appeared to happen off of school grounds no disciplinary action will be taken.


But it's not like sexualized aggression is socialized into people or anything!