Category Archives: Media Missteps

Enduring, For Nothing, Sandusky’s Latest Public Words

Jerry Sandusky has again been given a forum in which to claim he is innocent of the charges he was convicted of 9 months ago, this time through a NBC “Today” show interview with filmmaker John Ziegler, whose apparent ambition is to clear Joe Paterno of any responsibility for inaction or worse during the terrible years Sandusky hunted children within the Penn State community.

Several groups, most prominently the dynamic support group Male Survivor, have rightfully called out NBC and Today for airing the interview in what looks like an effort to boost ratings with a draw backward to a sensational case rather than any real effort to shed further light on the story.

The fact is, Sandusky’s reign of terror, heartbreak and destruction is widely documented, legally and factually established, and thankfully over. What matters now is not this miserable predator and whatever delusions he wishes to entertain in the twilight of his life. What matters is only the well-being of the men and boys who survived what Sandusky subjected them to, and what lessons can be learned in order to make such horrors less and less common.

The only positive thing, perhaps, that emerged from Today’s bad choice and Ziegler’s tone deaf crusade is the Paterno family’s distancing themselves from the effort. As Wick Sollers, a family attorney said, Sandusky’s comments were “transparently self-serving and yet another insult to the victims.”

Amen.

So now, please, give this criminal no further exposure.

 

Media Rundown on Steubenville from ThinkProgress.org: It’s Her Fault

Left-leaning Think Progress posted an excellent and highly instructive series of paragraphs today (with clear documentation) on how various national media outlets chose to report on the verdict handed down yesterday in the Steubenville sexual assault case.

CNN, ABC and NBC all focused primarily on the promising careers and positive aspects of the convicted teenagers. USA Today and the Associated Press focused on the fact that the victim was drunk, as if she were frankly complicit in bringing on what happened to her.

Yahoo, though, went the furthest in blaming her, suggesting that her choice to report being repeatedly sexually violated, filmed and humiliated, was to blame for tearing the town apart.

So it’s her fault for “ruining the lives” of such promising young athletes. Her fault for being drunk. Her fault for coming forward and “tearing a town apart.”

And we wonder why so few victims report.

 

 

Zerlina Maxwell and Sexual Violence: We Agree On One Aspect, Not on Another

4 Replies

iStock women w gunI have great respect for Zerlina Maxwell and no desire to contradict her on what are thoughtful and well stated positions on the prevention of sexual violence. I support fully the central argument she makes:

Stopping rape is an issue men must take up rather than women.

She’s right, and that cannot be underscored enough (I’ve addressed the issue previously here). Women cannot “stop rape” by being better behaved, smarter, more intuitive, or even by being better self-protected (i.e., with a firearm). Colorado state senator Evie Hudak has absorbed  much criticism for challenging a witness at a legislative hearing on the efficacy of firearms in the protection of women.  But while Hudak’s remarks might have been perceived as inartful, they are not baseless. The vast majority of sexual assaults on women are perpetrated by men they know, and whom they’ve invited into their physical environments with their guards down; thus, in situations where a gun- no matter how proficient the owner- would make no difference. The gun lobby and its gun-worshipping echo chamber have of course demonized Hudak, Maxwell, and everyone else who dares to contradict the intoxicating, Hollywood scenario of street justice meted out by a gun-toting woman against some horrific offender. But the sad fact is that guns don’t prevent the kind of rape most often perpetrated on women, men or anyone else. It just doesn’t work that way (as an aside, it’s funny to me how conservatives blame Hollywood for everything but will stand beside the “Death Wish” narrative as a real prescription for addressing interpersonal violence).

To be clear: I would never discourage any woman- a stranger or my little sister- from owning and training with a handgun for personal defense. Nor would I refrain from applauding heartily if her possession of the gun, willingness to use it, and skill and good fortune in its use resulted in the neutralization of someone who meant her harm. But I deal in reality and not macho fantasy. I know that a gun is a sword and not a shield; that simply owning one is several steps away from its utility as a protective measure. And I know that that reality almost never involves a Tarantino-esque bloodbath against the unjust and in favor of the righteous.

My only disagreement with Ms. Maxwell’s prescription for a safer world is with her apparent belief that men (and more to the point boys) can be taught to be less sexually aggressive, i.e., “taught not to rape.” Research does not bear this out. In fact, most men are not sexually violent. Many if not most have learned objectifying and unhealthy attitudes toward women and sexuality, but most will recognize discomfort or terror, or a state of unconsciousness (or semi-consciousness) on the part of a potential victim and back off. Most men don’t need to be taught to refrain from sexual violence.

Again, to be clear: This does not mean for a second that I don’t favor teaching boys as they grow into manhood more about decency, equality, and non-patriarchal gentleness toward women. It only means that, when it comes to the urge, desire or proclivity to commit felonies, the violators are generally not teachable, and the non-violators are not in need of that kind of instruction. A healthier societal attitude toward women will probably encourage more bystander intervention (which I do think is a good area to invest time and effort) and may generally make men think twice before objectifying in the first place. But that’s a distant dream in a media environment saturated with sex and objectification, and currently selling everything from toothpaste to tires.

The most perplexing and frightening aspect of sexual violence is the mystery of its origins. Most who believe in an ordered universe assume that evil is not innate but inculcated, and thus preventable or at least reversible. Would that I could agree, but it’s not what recent and replicated research on the subject suggests. Similarly, supposed “equalizers” like handguns are floated as panaceas, but they are not the answer either- and they carry terrifying potential downsides.

The answer, as Ms. Maxwell suggests, lies within the perpetrator. Unearthing it, sadly, is still an elusive proposition.

 

 

 

 

 

Nonsense at the Good Men Project: “Nice Guys Commit Rape Too”

14 Replies

Alyssa Royse, apparently a sex educator and feminist dedicated to empowering women, is nevertheless dead wrong in everything from the title of this article to her contentions within it. Briefly, she has a male friend whom she believes to be a genuinely decent guy. He confided in her that he had been accused of rape, and then admitted that he had penetrated his victim sexually while she was unconscious. To be fair, Royse labels this as rape and never backs down on that characterization. But (as far as I can tell simply because she feels she “knows” the rapist) she then launches into a grandiose examination of mixed signals, societal imperatives, nuances and subtleties etc, in order to explain how this “nice guy” did such a bad thing.

I quote the brilliant sex offender treatment-provider and victim advocate Nikki Vallierie, PhD: “Nice is a behavior, not a trait.”

Royse takes pains to avoid victim-blaming by repeatedly acknowledging her friend committed rape. But she then describes how she had seen the victim aggressively flirting with him, sending “signals” that clearly indicated a desire for sex. But both Royce and her friend must understand that no signals can be sent from a human body that is unconscious. And whatever signals went out before, they are vitiated by that lack of consciousness.

It sounds simple. It is simple. But not enough for Royse, who bemoans the fog of alcohol and the necessity of nuance and innuendo that pervade sexuality in our culture. She remarks (baselessly) that 50% of men are probably committing these same “accidental rapes” because of the terrible tangle that is the modern hook-up culture.

I’ll end with the comment I posted to her piece, as I think it says what’s most relavant:

Ms. Royse, while I appreciate what you have tried to accomplish both with this piece and by moderating this discussion, I believe you are terribly misinformed and being dangerously misleading. To the extent that readers are rushing to accept both your (or others) inaccurate portrayals of the reality of sexual violence, there is potential harm being done. Briefly:

-You have continued to insist, because of the “countless hours” you’ve apparently spent with him, that your friend (the original subject of this piece) is a “sweet” guy. A nice guy. And you know this because….? Nice is a behavior, Ms. Royse. It is not a trait. Nice is what this man does- apparently to you as well- but it is hardly what he is. Sexually penetrating an unconscious person is rape (as you fairly point out) but it is not the kind of thing that is in any way difficult to avoid or easy to fall into. One doesn’t mistake a lack of consciousness. It is often accompanied by urinating on oneself, vomiting, or at least closed eyes, somniferous breathing, and an utter lack of cooperation/participation in the act. My guess? He was horrified not by his “mistake” but by her accusation. Since the vast majority of women who are violated even more clearly than his victim do not report, he was acting rationally in believing that he could rape her and get away with it. He probably has before. He probably will again, despite your protestations regarding his character to the contrary.

-I beg you to google one name: David Lisak. Dr. Lisak is a ground-breaking researcher in this area who has determined with far more scientific discipline how undetected rapists like your friend actually work.

-I’m sorry, but the issues at work here are far less complicated than you are attempting to make them. And forgive me, but when you attempt to make them more complicated you are putting more women (and some men) in danger. That’s right- that’s my contention. What you’re doing here is creating an elaborate cocktail party conversation with many willing participants about a highly misunderstood and controversial issue. But instead of clearing the air, you’re darkening it. In so doing, you are in fact being an apologist for the relatively few but highly prolific rapists out there who depend on a well-intended but foolish obfuscation of their crystal-clear intent. Please refrain.

The 11 Year-Old “Spider” in Texas, Luring Her Rapists

So she was described by a defense attorney in the trial of one of the roughly 20 men charged with gang rape against an 11 year-old girl in Liberty, Texas in 2010. Describing her as having lured the attackers on cross-examination, the lawyer in question, Steve Taylor, proved he’s not only a child victim blamer but also a terrible cross-examiner. Let the lawyer jokes continue; it’s richly deserved.

Media note: The article linked above from the Houston Chronicle says, in a photo caption, that the defendants in the case are charged with “having sex” with an 11 year-old girl. That isn’t possible in Texas or any U.S. state. The act is rape, not sex. The Chron should know better.