#metoo and the impact of rape culture

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > #metoo and the impact of rape culture

fool of sound: Oct 10, 2012

GreyjoyBastard posted:

i'm in a position where i get irritated with most reade skeptics and everyone who seeks to weaponize her accusations against bidenlikers

For myself, there would have to be something extremely smoking-gunny to disbelieve Reade. At this point, given that any possible low-hanging fruit would have been plucked, it would be along the lines of "Russian Intellligence announces that yes they plotted with Tara Reade to go after Biden and here is a video of the interview in which Tara Reade says 'yes, I will lie publicly about Joe Biden raping me, thank you for the rubles'". So practically speaking, no, I am not actually open to disbelieving her.

I do not believe the marine who announced alongside Jacob Wohl that Elizabeth Warren hosed him into therapy, and I do not believe the woman who was approached by Project Veritas to accuse Robert Mueller. Absent that sort of incredibly obvious bullshit business or extremely clear evidence of deliberate falsehood, I feel an obligation to default to believing women. See also, Keith Ellison, who I am obligated to assume is a domestic abuser.

This incidentally means that I am not actually personally all that interested in the details of either Reade's possible past perjury or circumstantial concerns about the accusations, except insofar as I have to moderate them, which is certainly going to be Fun. They're just not relevant to the position I must take as far as whether I, personally, believe the accusation.

This is largely identical to my position.

# ? Feb 7, 2021 23:39

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 29, 2024 17:53

socialsecurity: Aug 30, 2003

Fallen Hamprince posted:

Statute of limitations, for a crime committed in the 1990s only murder could still be prosecuted.

Unfortunate but unsurprising, something like sexual assault where victims can be pressured by society itself to not report the crime should not have statute of limitations.

# ? Feb 7, 2021 23:40

goethe.cx: Apr 23, 2014

I'm still a little confused why right-wing media didn't do anything with the accusation. Sure, you could say that Trump's a rapist too, but hypocrisy never stopped them before.

# ? Feb 7, 2021 23:41

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

socialsecurity posted:

Huh I hadn't heard about that, now I understand why people question that one neighbor that did not remember until Reade not that I agree with them. This whole thing is a mess did Reade ever press charges so there could be a full real investigation or has it been too long I'm not sure if sexual assault has a statute of limitations.

Please take a look at https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system and https://www.propublica.org/article/false-rape-accusations-an-unbelievable-story. Trying to bring up the criminal justice system and trusting them to conduct a "real" investigation into it when it comes to sexual assault/rape is laughable.

# ? Feb 7, 2021 23:41

socialsecurity: Aug 30, 2003

Kalit posted:

Please take a look at https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system and https://www.propublica.org/article/false-rape-accusations-an-unbelievable-story. Trying to bring up the criminal justice system and trusting them to conduct a "real" investigation into it when it comes to sexual assault/rape is laughable.

I mean isn't that why we should bring it up about how the system failed this woman and continues to so we can figure out what needs to change?

# ? Feb 7, 2021 23:42

Malleum: Aug 16, 2014; Am I the one at fault? What about me is wrong?; Buglord

goethe.cx posted:

I'm still a little confused why right-wing media didn't do anything with the accusation. Sure, you could say that Trump's a rapist too, but hypocrisy never stopped them before.

because they probably (correctly) assessed that dems wouldn't give a poo poo, because he's their guy, and neither would republicans, because he was already a commie usurper here to destroy mom and apple pie

# ? Feb 7, 2021 23:44

Owlspiracy: Nov 4, 2020

Zook posted:

It is not gross to speak up about a rape victim who the entire media suppressed in order to propel her rapist into the most powerful office in the world, I don't know how you even square that.

Edit: Something that WAS especially gross to me is the number of people who are on the Bernie/"socialist" left who dropped Reade's allegations like a sack of hot potatoes once it became clear Bernie was out of the race.

i don't think its inherently gross to discuss the allegations, and i think its fine to do so, i just think that with any of these type of allegations for most people in general, outside of SA its not about the victim or the allegation, its just a convenient way to score points, and i find it super gross. there is a huge element of 'my political party is my sports team' to this, which why none of these conversations ever get the care and nuanced discussion they deserve. like why the gently caress did they make ford testify?

independent of that, someone needs to add a content warning to the OP.

Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Feb 7, 2021

# ? Feb 7, 2021 23:45

christmas boots: Oct 15, 2012; To these sing-alongs 🎤of siren 🧜🏻‍♀️songs
To oohs😮 to ahhs😱 to 👏big👏applause👏
With all of my 😡anger I scream🤬 and shout📢
🇺🇸America🦅, I love you 🥰but you're freaking 💦me 😳out; Biscuit Hider

Malleum posted:

i havent found anything that specifically states that Ellison was abused, only that the video that instigated the claims never surfaced

you might be confusing him with lee carter, who was also accused of being an abusive partner before writing an article about how he was the one who was abused, with a copy of a protective order the court granted him
https://twitter.com/carterforva/status/1126522033494474753

Here's what I was thinking of, although it's not so much definitive proof as it was him alleging physical abuse in a 2015 divorce filing

https://apnews.com/article/4d7391c3bb9f46cf8d24f0c26f69e41c

# ? Feb 7, 2021 23:45

Abhorrence: Feb 5, 2010; A love that crushes like a mace.

goethe.cx posted:

I'm still a little confused why right-wing media didn't do anything with the accusation. Sure, you could say that Trump's a rapist too, but hypocrisy never stopped them before.

This also mystifies me. Were I head of Fox news, and trying to smear Biden, you wouldn't be able to watch a minute of Fox without hearing Tara Reade's tale.

# ? Feb 7, 2021 23:47

World Famous W: May 25, 2007; BAAAAAAAAAAAA

Thorn Wishes Talon posted:

I want to ask the following:

If you believe that Biden raped Reade, what would it take for you to change your belief? Are you even open to changing it?

If you don't believe that Biden raped Reade, what would it take for you to change your belief? Are you even open to changing it?

Reade herself saying it didn't happen or some new major* evidence. Cause everything else has been character assassination

*(literal video of her making plans to falsely accuse)

World Famous W fucked around with this message at 05:32 on Feb 8, 2021

# ? Feb 7, 2021 23:47

Oh Snapple!: Dec 27, 2005

Abhorrence posted:

This also mystifies me. Were I head of Fox news, and trying to smear Biden, you wouldn't be able to watch a minute of Fox without hearing Tara Reade's tale.

I think the short answer is that the people most likely to be affected by the story are not watching Fox News, and there's other things they'd rather use (such as, say, immigration) to get their viewers' blood boiling

# ? Feb 7, 2021 23:48

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

socialsecurity posted:

I mean isn't that why we should bring it up about how the system failed this woman and continues to so we can figure out what needs to change?

The statute of limitations isn't the issue though, like your post seems to suggest. The issue is we have a criminal justice system that doesn't take sexual assault/rape seriously AND treats women as liars by default (e.g. Fallen Hamprince is this thread). This is why I included those links in my previous posts.

# ? Feb 7, 2021 23:49

Owlspiracy: Nov 4, 2020

Oh Snapple! posted:

I think the short answer is that the people most likely to be affected by the story are not watching Fox News, and there's other things they'd rather use (such as, say, immigration) to get their viewers' blood boiling

also opening the door into 'candidate's sexual assault history' is uhh not great when the other candidate is donald trump

# ? Feb 7, 2021 23:49

Fallen Hamprince: Nov 12, 2016

Zook posted:

It is not gross to speak up about a rape victim who the entire media suppressed in order to propel her rapist into the most powerful office in the world, I don't know how you even square that.

I truly do not understand the �media suppressed it� argument. It was a top news story for months!

# ? Feb 7, 2021 23:49

Fallen Hamprince: Nov 12, 2016

Abhorrence posted:

This also mystifies me. Were I head of Fox news, and trying to smear Biden, you wouldn't be able to watch a minute of Fox without hearing Tara Reade's tale.

Trump, in an example of that famous message discipline he is so well known for, publicly implied that he doesn�t think it�s true.

# ? Feb 7, 2021 23:50

Victory Position: Mar 16, 2004

Aruan posted:

independent of that, someone needs to add a content warning to the OP.

Done.

# ? Feb 7, 2021 23:52

Insanite: Aug 30, 2005

Fallen Hamprince posted:

I truly do not understand the �media suppressed it� argument. It was a top news story for months!

You saw no difference between Ford's treatment in the media and Reade's?

# ? Feb 7, 2021 23:53

Abhorrence: Feb 5, 2010; A love that crushes like a mace.

Fallen Hamprince posted:

Trump, in an example of that famous message discipline he is so well known for, publicly implied that he doesn’t think it’s true.

What a south facing compass.

:sad:

# ? Feb 7, 2021 23:57

navigation: Sep 30, 2009

Fallen Hamprince posted:

And obviously �beyond a reasonable doubt� is not a reasonable standard of evidence for �should this person hold the most powerful elected office in existence�.

Heya; I'm getting a bit lost in this thread, sorry to single you out specifically but you brought up a bunch of the stuff I'm confused about. I'm glad you've been citing sources here since that's always helpful, but the context around how that material is used for discussion is important too and that's where I get lost.

Based on that, I was hoping you could talk a bit about :

If Reade did somehow grift her way past the bachelor degree requirements for her graduate degree, how specifically should that influence this discussion? From prior discussions with other folks, in my experience it has generally been "sounds like she was a liar once, which means she might not deserve the benefit of the doubt in the rest of this"; do you agree with that? Not saying you mean that, but like I mentioned I've run into others having that mindset.
When evaluating an abuse story, is it important that the details remain consistent in discussions spread over decades? Does a victim telling someone that they were abused in one way and then later describing different, more invasive and more disturbing details to another person later imply that both stories are false? Related to that, there's a variety of research on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_memory; are you familiar with the neurological factors at play here?
What other context does the Larry King call make sense in? You've mentioned it essentially not being a smoking gun due to it being ambiguous, but what would be the alternative picture here? You linked to staffer statements about her having trouble performing her work, but the call specifically mentioned not wanting to embarrass the senator in the press. Is the idea that there was some other kind of toxic environment there that she felt affected by but didn't want to speak of? I'm not sure what other kinds of problems make sense in that "don't want to embarrass" context.

I'm interested in others thoughts on those questions too, but since you've seeded these subtopics into the thread (at least in my reading of it) it seems like understanding your context around that material is important for understanding this discussion.

# ? Feb 7, 2021 23:58

Abhorrence: Feb 5, 2010; A love that crushes like a mace.

Cloaked posted:

When evaluating an abuse story, is it important that the details remain consistent in discussions spread over decades? Does a victim telling someone that they were abused in one way and then later describing different, more invasive and more disturbing details to another person later imply that both stories are false? Related to that, there's a variety of research on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_memory; are you familiar with the neurological factors at play here?

For this, her story drifting over time increases the credibility, at least to me. If she told the exact same story in 2020 as she did in 1993, I would find that extremely suspicious.

# ? Feb 8, 2021 00:10

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Just generally the whole poo poo about "oh well the story wasn't totally consistent and we can't verify the exact specifics of X and Y" is just... like... yeah that's how witness accounts work, literally everywhere and always, you wouldn't expect things to be consistent all the time or even with material things like building layouts, memory isn't exact, it's a series of emotional impressions, but you as a memory haver don't need to know the finely calibrated specifics of an event to know that it happened.

And it is difficult to know if people are just genuinely unaware of how unreliable memory is re: specifics, whether they are deliberately pretending not to know to discredit her, or whether they do know but are not making the connection because they are subconsciously skeptical of her for whatever reason and end up finding reasons to discredit her without realizing that's what they're doing, as if the problem of covering up or denying allegations is something only conscious conspirators who are overtly evil can do, rather than being an institutional effect created by a thousand little cognitive biases.

# ? Feb 8, 2021 00:15

Lester Shy: May 1, 2002; Goodness no, now that wouldn't do at all!

I can understand being agnostic towards both or believing both, but outside of partisanship, I don't understand why someone would believe Christine Ford and not believe Tara Reade (or vice versa). Each case seems to have about the same amount of evidence, both have 30-40 years between the event and the public accusation. If anything, Reade has more contemporary witnesses.

# ? Feb 8, 2021 00:51

Corky Romanovsky: Oct 1, 2006; Soiled Meat

goethe.cx posted:

I'm still a little confused why right-wing media didn't do anything with the accusation. Sure, you could say that Trump's a rapist too, but hypocrisy never stopped them before.

Abhorrence posted:

This also mystifies me. Were I head of Fox news, and trying to smear Biden, you wouldn't be able to watch a minute of Fox without hearing Tara Reade's tale.

Reade has mentioned in interviews that she was cautioned against doing interviews with FOX and other right wing outlets because people would be suspicious why only FOX, et al, are interviewing and reporting on this.

# ? Feb 8, 2021 00:55

7c Nickel: Apr 27, 2008

Malleum posted:

if there was proof that tara reade had made similar claims of rape or sexual harassment from other men or women previously that were proven false, it would shake my belief of her story's credibility

i'm definitely open to the possibility that i'm wrong, but it would have to be something more than "there is some murkiness relating to a liberal arts degree decades ago"

At one point she claimed the FBI secretly contacted her to tell her they thought her ex might be a serial killer. Now I can't prove a negative, but it seems unlikely they would tell her this even if it was true.

# ? Feb 8, 2021 00:55

Insanite: Aug 30, 2005

Lester Shy posted:

I can understand being agnostic towards both or believing both, but outside of partisanship, I don't understand why someone would believe Christine Ford and not believe Tara Reade (or vice versa). Each case seems to have about the same amount of evidence, both have 30-40 years between the event and the public accusation. If anything, Reade has more contemporary witnesses.

This is, to be frank, a more interesting direction for this thread than attempting to determine--beyond a shadow of a doubt--who is telling the truth.

Ford's story rode the Me Too wave, as it should have. Reade's story, meanwhile, seems like it mortally wounded the movement.

From a thousand foot view, it seems like the only real difference between the two was that one served the interests of the Democratic party at the time, and the other endangered them. :shrug:

# ? Feb 8, 2021 01:00

navigation: Sep 30, 2009

7c Nickel posted:

At one point she claimed the FBI secretly contacted her to tell her they thought her ex might be a serial killer. Now I can't prove a negative, but it seems unlikely they would tell her this even if it was true.

From here: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/us/politics/tara-reade-joe-biden.html

quote:

Ms. Reade would go on, actually, to describe him as a potential murderer. Mr. Dronen�s probation officer, she told her friend Wendy Dale, with whom she briefly worked on a biographical project a few years later, had warned her that her life was in danger, and that she should flee the state and change her identity. (The probation officer declined to comment.) Later, Ms. Reade would write that she learned her ex-husband�s �DNA was collected by the F.B.I. for two missing women�s cases.�

Apparently because of his record with Ms. Reade, Mr. Dronen was in fact among scores of local men questioned in the disappearance of two local women, two people familiar with the investigation said. But within weeks in 1999, the police had traced the women�s murders to a convicted serial killer, Rex Allan Krebs; a senior investigator said DNA was used only sparingly and was not collected by the F.B.I.

I don't think she said that the FBI went out of their way to contact her and her hearing about him getting questioned could've happened another way, especially with the mention of her being in contact with the probation officer. Dronen might not even have been secretive about it; I can see someone complaining to others about a chapter of their past coming back to them like that, we can't really know. And then going from "was questioned/considered" to "had DNA taken" doesn't seem like a weird leap to me especially with how popular DNA was getting in the true crime zeitgeist over recent decades.

Nearby that bit the article has an example of the bad-faith framing she received in the media; a flat recital of an opinion of "look at how DRAMATIC this woman is being about her confessed abuser maybe hurting their child"

quote:

On the night of Feb. 21, 1996, Ms. Reade said in a court document, Mr. Dronen �slammed me up against the wall with such force that my neck, arms, shoulder and back are bruised. He punched my stomach and upper chest with a closed fist.�

Public divorce records show that Mr. Dronen admitted to spousal abuse, and that Ms. Reade got a temporary restraining order.

During an ensuing custody battle, Ms. Reade said she feared Mr. Dronen would beat their daughter if left alone with her for too long.

An official evaluation attributed Mr. Dronen�s eruptive anger to a tumultuous childhood, but suggested that Ms. Reade was exaggerating the threat, describing her as having �personality characteristics that predispose her to dramatically respond to a variety of situations.� Ms. Reade�s fear for her daughter, the evaluator wrote, was based less on a realistic assessment of risk than on her �unresolved anger towards her ex-husband.�

# ? Feb 8, 2021 01:28

Name Change: Oct 9, 2005

Abhorrence posted:

This also mystifies me. Were I head of Fox news, and trying to smear Biden, you wouldn't be able to watch a minute of Fox without hearing Tara Reade's tale.

Trump has dozens of rape and sexual harassment accusers, best for them not to open that ark.

# ? Feb 8, 2021 01:31

Lester Shy: May 1, 2002; Goodness no, now that wouldn't do at all!

I think Reade was also in the unenviable position of not wanting her rapist to become the president and not wanting Donald Trump to be reelected.

# ? Feb 8, 2021 01:34

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

Sodomy Hussein posted:

Trump has dozens of rape and sexual harassment accusers, best for them not to open that ark.

Eh, since when does Fox News/Republicans care about being hypocritical?

# ? Feb 8, 2021 01:34

Name Change: Oct 9, 2005

Kalit posted:

Eh, since when does Fox News/Republicans care about being hypocritical?

It's an accusation that the media has credibility problems with versus take your pick of just-as-well or better-documented and corroborated stories. The president was on tape stating that he sexually assaulted women all the time, still won, and this is the hosed up world we live in.

If there was no coronavirus it may have been a bigger issue, but generally you can tell Trump nixed this line of attack personally because he didn't want it brought up, for obvious reasons. Instead they politicized a plague.

# ? Feb 8, 2021 01:39

Abhorrence: Feb 5, 2010; A love that crushes like a mace.

The idea that Trump et al. Didn't want to open pandora's box re: sexual assault allegations doesn't ring true; remember both the adage that "every republican accusation is also a confession" and that Trump got caught on camera uttering his "locker room talk" and seemed to recover from that in time to win the election. If sexual impropriety was a deal breaker, Clinton would be running for re election in 2020.

I think it's more likely that the walking peice of poo poo just didn't believe her out of hand and directed his campaign accordingly.

# ? Feb 8, 2021 01:58

Ghost Leviathan: Mar 2, 2017; Exploration is ill-advised.

goethe.cx posted:

I'm still a little confused why right-wing media didn't do anything with the accusation. Sure, you could say that Trump's a rapist too, but hypocrisy never stopped them before.

I'm pretty sure for a while they did, but again, Trump and Biden are on the same side of making sure you don't believe women, and it was signalled early on that the Democrats were doing a campaign of total silence and gaslighting over it.

# ? Feb 8, 2021 03:18

Relevant Tangent: Nov 18, 2016; Tangentially Relevant

goethe.cx posted:

I'm still a little confused why right-wing media didn't do anything with the accusation. Sure, you could say that Trump's a rapist too, but hypocrisy never stopped them before.

They're all okay with rape op. They might pretend otherwise, briefly, and they did but when nobody bit they stopped, FOX is all about the patriarchy.

Abhorrence posted:

This also mystifies me. Were I head of Fox news, and trying to smear Biden, you wouldn't be able to watch a minute of Fox without hearing Tara Reade's tale.

Patriarchy.

# ? Feb 8, 2021 03:38

navigation: Sep 30, 2009

I'd like to try to tackle what I see as the core world view difference that comes up when discussing Reade and Biden.

For the sake of this, assume that the rapist in question is unrepentant; rehabilitation is a separate topic. And no debate around the validity of any particular accusation; we base this on your personal take of what you think has occurred. I don't understand the people that genuinely don't believe Reade, but they at least don't have the dissonance that I'm going to attempt to describe.

For each of these, we ask ourselves whether the 'you' is supporting rape and/or rape culture. I really hate treating this topic this coldly, but I don't know of another way to convey this.

If you knowingly provide material support (transportation, shelter, etc) that you believe directly enables a rape.
If you believe you observe someone providing material support that enables a rape and you do nothing.
If you socially (words/etc) directly encourage a rape.
If you believe you observe someone directly encouraging a rape and do nothing.
If you provide material support to someone you believe is a rapist.
If you continue to socially associate with someone you believe is a rapist.
If you socially advocate for someone you believe is a rapist to continue to belong to a particular social group or organization.
If you singularly oversee an organization that you believe takes actions to materially or socially support a person that you believe is a rapist.
If you "middle manage" in an organization that you believe takes actions to materially or socially support a person that you believe is a rapist.
If you labor and/or otherwise routinely materially support an organization that you believe takes actions to materially or socially support a person that you believe is a rapist.
If you advocate for and encourage positive social evaluations of an organization that you believe takes actions to materially or socially support a person that you believe is a rapist.
If you choose to interact in a self-beneficial way with an organization that you believe takes actions to materially or socially support a person that you believe is a rapist.

I'd say that last one is voting for Biden, if you believe Reade and you believe Biden becoming president benefits you and the world. Somewhere along this chain of indirection, some people decide that the action is diffuse enough such that it no longer contributes to rape culture. I don't understand where that can happen.

I know that our actions against or for large systems are small motes of dust in the wind, but those actions still have tiny consequences and meaning. Most people when you start talking like that can acknowledge these tiny consequences and make cost/benefit trade offs. If you're a leftist, that's what you're doing every day when you choose to go to work or buy a thing in capitalism. But the people that assert that they are not even making that calculus and that they can do self-beneficial transactions with a bad individual or organization and round any small negative impact they cause to the world down to zero (usually because they ideally would not want to cause it) are the ones that are most frustrating to interact with.

I haven't spoken at all about intention here, only actions; that is another potential worldview difference worth noting, since folks taking these actions often don't intend for the bad impact to occur. I don't really care about intentions though, since they don't affect the world and humans are hardwired to fill those in after their actions are already taken anyways.

# ? Feb 8, 2021 04:00

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

I would suggest it also very easily constitutes point 7, if a man can have unresolved sexual assault claims and still be elected president, that's a problem whether that person is trump or biden. Voting is a very quantified form of social advocacy.

# ? Feb 8, 2021 04:20

rare Magic card l00k: Jan 3, 2011

Abhorrence posted:

The idea that Trump et al. Didn't want to open pandora's box re: sexual assault allegations doesn't ring true; remember both the adage that "every republican accusation is also a confession" and that Trump got caught on camera uttering his "locker room talk" and seemed to recover from that in time to win the election. If sexual impropriety was a deal breaker, Clinton would be running for re election in 2020.

I think it's more likely that the walking peice of poo poo just didn't believe her out of hand and directed his campaign accordingly.

If sexual impropriety was a deal breaker, Clinton wouldn't have been the nominee in 2016 due to her husband's actions.

# ? Feb 8, 2021 04:43

silicone thrills: Jan 9, 2008; I paint things

rare Magic card l00k posted:

If sexual impropriety was a deal breaker, Clinton wouldn't have been the nominee in 2016 due to her husband's actions.

2016 was a very different time. I was raped in 2003 and I only felt comfortable even talking to people close to me once the whole MeToo conversation got going. Everything felt like it was moving in a good direction for a minute there

Like my grandma and my aunts - we all talked about things that had happened to us through out our lives and it was a really good moment.

Talking about it before was treated as very uncouth and always presented as your own fault. Things that Bill Clinton probably did and then the things Hillary did to shut down rape victims was all par for the course.

silicone thrills fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Feb 8, 2021

# ? Feb 8, 2021 04:45

rare Magic card l00k: Jan 3, 2011

silicone thrills posted:

2016 was a very different time. I was raped in 2003 and I only felt comfortable even talking to people close to me once the whole MeToo conversation got going. Everything felt like it was moving in a good direction for a minute there

It's really loving horrifying to hear that happened to you, and I'm glad there was a period of time where you felt a little better about talking to people about it.

We might get back there eventually, maybe?

# ? Feb 8, 2021 04:49

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy
(and can't post for 21 days!)

Cloaked posted:

I'd like to try to tackle what I see as the core world view difference that comes up when discussing Reade and Biden.

For the sake of this, assume that the rapist in question is unrepentant; rehabilitation is a separate topic. And no debate around the validity of any particular accusation; we base this on your personal take of what you think has occurred. I don't understand the people that genuinely don't believe Reade, but they at least don't have the dissonance that I'm going to attempt to describe.

For each of these, we ask ourselves whether the 'you' is supporting rape and/or rape culture. I really hate treating this topic this coldly, but I don't know of another way to convey this.

If you knowingly provide material support (transportation, shelter, etc) that you believe directly enables a rape.

If you believe you observe someone providing material support that enables a rape and you do nothing.

If you socially (words/etc) directly encourage a rape.

If you believe you observe someone directly encouraging a rape and do nothing.

If you provide material support to someone you believe is a rapist.

If you continue to socially associate with someone you believe is a rapist.

If you socially advocate for someone you believe is a rapist to continue to belong to a particular social group or organization.

If you singularly oversee an organization that you believe takes actions to materially or socially support a person that you believe is a rapist.

If you "middle manage" in an organization that you believe takes actions to materially or socially support a person that you believe is a rapist.

If you labor and/or otherwise routinely materially support an organization that you believe takes actions to materially or socially support a person that you believe is a rapist.

If you advocate for and encourage positive social evaluations of an organization that you believe takes actions to materially or socially support a person that you believe is a rapist.

If you choose to interact in a self-beneficial way with an organization that you believe takes actions to materially or socially support a person that you believe is a rapist.

I'd say that last one is voting for Biden, if you believe Reade and you believe Biden becoming president benefits you and the world. Somewhere along this chain of indirection, some people decide that the action is diffuse enough such that it no longer contributes to rape culture. I don't understand where that can happen.

I know that our actions against or for large systems are small motes of dust in the wind, but those actions still have tiny consequences and meaning. Most people when you start talking like that can acknowledge these tiny consequences and make cost/benefit trade offs. If you're a leftist, that's what you're doing every day when you choose to go to work or buy a thing in capitalism. But the people that assert that they are not even making that calculus and that they can do self-beneficial transactions with a bad individual or organization and round any small negative impact they cause to the world down to zero (usually because they ideally would not want to cause it) are the ones that are most frustrating to interact with.

I haven't spoken at all about intention here, only actions; that is another potential worldview difference worth noting, since folks taking these actions often don't intend for the bad impact to occur. I don't really care about intentions though, since they don't affect the world and humans are hardwired to fill those in after their actions are already taken anyways.

Well, since you put in the effort to make this post (which I appreciate), allow me to respond. Regarding item 12, suppose you work for an organization and the CEO is one day accused of having raped someone. Do you quit immediately and on the spot, knowing that every minute of your continual employment will benefit the organization, and by proxy, the CEO? What if it's not just the CEO who is an accused rapist, but a significant portion of leadership? What if you're someone who lives paycheck to paycheck and you and your family's survival depends on you remaining employed?

You might wonder how that applies to the Biden vs. Reade situation. You might say, "well, TWT, surely you did have a choice, which was to not vote for Biden, and that it wasn't a matter of literal survival?" And you're right: for me personally, it wasn't. I can't say the same about my social circle however. For example, I have multiple friends who are DACA recipients, and I knew that their status would continue to be in question if Trump won another term. Another friend is undergoing leukemia therapy, and Trump had tried, and would continue to try, to take away her healthcare. Yet another friend is Yemeni, and her family, back in Yemen, is being crushed by the Saudis, whom Trump supported unequivocally. And more broadly, I genuinely did not think that the country would survive another four years of Trump. So I held my nose and voted for Biden in the general, despite knowing that there is a non-zero chance he sexually assaulted someone in the past. Similarly, no one I know was happy to have to decide between Biden and Trump (and no, don't give me the "you could have voted for Howie" talk), but at the end of the day they did what they thought was right within the larger calculus of their circumstances and that of their social circles.

Speaking more broadly, these situations are rarely black and white. It is not "support rape culture vs. don't support rape culture." The vast majority of the time, people have to operate in murky gray areas, with imperfect information and conflicting priorities, and have to make the choice that they think is the most optimal one, either for themselves or their communities or both. Demanding that they instead put their foot town and make major sacrifices by picking a side and radically changing their behaviors based on that decision will only make you frustrated, because they won't do it. And labeling them "such-and-such apologist" and vehemently arguing that their behaviors are contributing to such-and-such culture will only make it harder for you to win them over � and you absolutely do need to win them over if you want to actually make actual progress.

# ? Feb 8, 2021 04:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 29, 2024 17:53

Catgirl Al Capone: Dec 15, 2007

Thorn Wishes Talon posted:

Well, since you put in the effort to make this post (which I appreciate), allow me to respond. Regarding item 12, suppose you work for an organization and the CEO is one day accused of having raped someone. Do you quit immediately and on the spot, knowing that every minute of your continual employment will benefit the organization, and by proxy, the CEO? What if it's not just the CEO who is an accused rapist, but a significant portion of leadership? What if you're someone who lives paycheck to paycheck and you and your family's survival depends on you remaining employed?

You might wonder how that applies to the Biden vs. Reade situation. You might say, "well, TWT, surely you did have a choice, which was to not vote for Biden, and that it wasn't a matter of literal survival?" And you're right: for me personally, it wasn't. I can't say the same about my social circle however. For example, I have multiple friends who are DACA recipients, and I knew that their status would continue to be in question if Trump won another term. Another friend is undergoing leukemia therapy, and Trump had tried, and would continue to try, to take away her healthcare. Yet another friend is Yemeni, and her family, back in Yemen, is being crushed by the Saudis, whom Trump supported unequivocally. And more broadly, I genuinely did not think that the country would survive another four years of Trump. So I held my nose and voted for Biden in the general, despite knowing that there is a non-zero chance he sexually assaulted someone in the past. Similarly, no one I know was happy to have to decide between Biden and Trump (and no, don't give me the "you could have voted for Howie" talk), but at the end of the day they did what they thought was right within the larger calculus of their circumstances and that of their social circles.

Speaking more broadly, these situations are rarely black and white. It is not "support rape culture vs. don't support rape culture." The vast majority of the time, people have to operate in murky gray areas, with imperfect information and conflicting priorities, and have to make the choice that they think is the most optimal one, either for themselves or their communities or both. Demanding that they instead put their foot town and make major sacrifices by picking a side and radically changing their behaviors based on that decision will only make you frustrated, because they won't do it. And labeling them "such-and-such apologist" and vehemently arguing that their behaviors are contributing to such-and-such culture will only make it harder for you to win them over � and you absolutely do need to win them over if you want to actually make actual progress.

The frightening thing about rape culture is that this is the moral calculus that it relies on to stay alive. There's always "more important things", always something more "serious" to prioritize. And when rape culture is at its most powerful, it is always its victims that are thrown under the bus first.

# ? Feb 8, 2021 04:58

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > #metoo and the impact of rape culture

«‹›49 »