Categories
evil women idiocy MRA PUA rape reactionary bullshit violence against men/women

MRAs respond, predictably awfully, to the arrest of IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn

There have been some strange, but hardly surprising, reactions in the MRA-verse to the arrest of IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn on attempted rape charges.

On The False Rape Society blog, Pierce Harlan seems bothered that the police would arrest such an important man, citing an assortment of articles saying that Strauss-Kahn’s arrest will likely have a big effect on markets and on the global economy.

Harlan titles his piece: “So rape claims aren’t taken seriously? Reuters says the claim against Strauss-Kahn could impact “the well-being of the global economy.”  After quoting from an assortment of news stories that suggest that, yes, Strauss-Kahn’s arrest has already affected markets and could affect the global economy, Harlan ends with this petulant conclusion:

All because of a disputed rape allegation. Right now, that’s all it is. I have no idea if a crime was committed, and neither do you.

But I know one thing: the entire world is taking very seriously — and perhaps way too seriously — the word of an unnamed maid it knows nothing about.

First of all, just as we don’t know whether or not Strauss-Kahn is guilty of this alleged attack, we also don’t know what evidence the police have. What we do know from other media accounts suggests that there is more to go on than the “word of an unnamed maid” – including DNA and other evidence at the scene, footage from the hotel’s security cams, injuries suffered by the maid, who was treated at a local hospital. There may well have been witnesses too; we simply don’t know. (Also, the maid has now been named in the French press. Wonderful.)

Second, and more importantly, why should the fact that the arrest has affected world markets have any bearing whatsoever on the case? By this logic, no important political or financial figure should ever be arrested for anything.

To make myself perfectly clear here:  Harlan does not say explicitly that DSK is too important to be arrested on the word of a lowly maid, but that seems to be the implicit suggestion of his post, the whole reason to quote several articles about the effect this is having on the world economy, all because of  “the word of an unnamed maid [the world] knows nothing about.”  I have asked him to clarify what exactly he did mean, and he has refused. In a followup post he asks rhetorically “Have we handed an unnamed maid too much power to destroy a presumptively innocent man?” and answers himself by saying “The question scarcely survives its statement.” Which I will take as a “yes.” He goes on to say:

We reported yesterday what the world press is saying about the sexual assault claim against Dominique Strauss-Kahn. About how it could impact not only the IMF he heads, and France where is a presidential hopeful, but the global economy itself.  It is widely believed that Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s reputation has been marred beyond repair, regardless of the outcome of this affair.

To say this is morally grotesque does not capture the evil of what is happening to a presumptively innocent man. …

If there is a running theme in this blog, it is this: we have handed anonymous women and children far, far too much power to destroy the lives and reputations of presumptively innocent men before even a scrap of evidence has been introduced to prove their guilt.

If I am reading this correctly — and please correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Harlan — he is saying that ALL men are too important to be arrested on sexualk assault charges based on the word of “anonymous women and children.”

Again, let me ask you, Mr. Harlan, is this what you mean? I invite everyone here to read the two posts in question —  the first one here; the second one here — and tell me what you think he is trying to say.

Mr. Harlan, if you want to clarify what you mean here, I will put that clarification up without comment as a post, under a neutral headline (Pierce Harlan clarifies what he meant in his posts on the Dominique Strauss-Kahn arrest”).

I would also like to point out, again, that the police seem to be going on a lot more than the “word of an unnamed maid,” including surveillance tapes, statements from those who spoke to the maid immediately after the alleged incident, DNA evidence in the room. There may also be DNA evidence on her clothing; that we don’t know. But it seems fairly clear that there is evidence beyond the maid’s testimony.

Meanwhile, over on In Mala Fide, a guest blogger from Human-Stupidity.com, an MRA site that devotes a lot of its attention to railing against child porn laws, attacks the accuser and dismisses the charges. It’s hard to know what in the post is sarcasm and what is simply astounding stupidity. But as far as I can figure it, Mr. Stupidity is far more distressed by reports that the maid accidentally walked in on a naked Strauss-Kahn than he is by the possibility that he sexually assaulted her:

The story is very strange, and dominated by clear mistakes and screwups committed by the accuser. A five-star hotel maid trespasses into a naked client’s room?  Unforgivable. …

This is not supposed to happen in a high-class hotel. Were the sex roles inverted, were a male employee to walk in on a prominent female guest, like Mrs. Hillary Clinton, the male employee would be fired and arrested for sexual harassment.

Mr. Stupidity then goes on to suggest that such a powerful man would never try to rape anyone because, you know, powerful men don’t do that sort of thing.

A hitherto well behaved, civilized man, suddenly goes crazy? Just because he was naked, he wanted to take advantage of her and rape her?

A man pictured on the covers of magazines, admired by millions of women, who could get any woman he wanted with a snap of his fingers. A man from a country with legalized prostitution who could afford two luxury prostitutes per day, if he happened to be a sex addict. And this guy, exactly the moment the woman walks in, illegally, incorrectly, grabs her and rapes her?

Never mind that other women are coming forward with stories of assaults by Strauss-Kahn, suggesting that he may not be quite so well-behaved as Mr. Stupidity assumes.

So what does Mr. Stupidity think really happened? After raising the possibility that this is all some political setup, he ends the piece suggesting that the maid – who, he says “committed a serious professional lapse, almost a crime” by accidentally walking in on Strauss-Kahn – simply made up the story in order to protect her job. Because maids are instantly fired for accidentally walking in on guests? Because never ever in the history of hotels has a maid walked in on someone naked? (A quick Google search suggests not only that this is relatively common, but also that it’s a sexual fantasy of quite a few men.)

Meanwhile, Ben Stein – not, as far as I know, an MRA, but a neocon and a bit of a dick – has offered his own highly problematic defense of Strauss-Kahn, which boils down to, well, envy:

this is a case about the hatred of the have-nots for the haves, and that’s what it’s all about. A man pays $3,000 a night for a hotel room? He’s got to be guilty of something. Bring out the guillotine.

More on this as it develops. And it’s developing fast.

146 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Pecunium
13 years ago

darksidecat: I am not convinced. In part because I think violence is an issue of mens rea,, and a large number of men (and no few of women) don’t think that lack of consent is an issue of violence.

They think it’s like changing one’s mind about where to go for supper. Or they think, “since we’ve done it before,” it’s ok if their partner isn’t really in the mood.

I’d also argue that your gendered language (without saying that female on male rape is as large an problem as male on female rape) is part of the issue. Yes, I did say this was a larger problem amongst men. That’s because more men commit rape than women do, but (and I can attest from personal experience) that pressure to consent, and the resultant unwilling sex, does happen to men.

And no one is “forcing a penis” into a man when that happens to them. And it’s not, “violent”, even though it violates autonomy.

And it’s still rape, even when it’s not violent. I don’t think the language has a good way to explain it. I also think that lack of explanation; the inability to make the, presently, gray areas into more black and white distinctions, is part of the wider resistance to getting all the ways rape happens admitted to being rape.

Pecunium
13 years ago

EWME: That’s bullshit. That’s like saying war isn’t about power, it’s about killing people. Rape is way some men express their need to dominate women. It’s a way to show them they have zero autonomy. That any man can have his way with her.

That’s power, not lust. Saying it’s about sex is another power play. It lets people say, “she asked for it.” It makes it possible to say, “if women didn’t do, ‘x’, they’d be safe.”

Which is nonsense. There have been rapes of 70 year old nuns and two year old babies. That’s not about the sex. It’s about something else, and the common element in those is social power and control.

Shayna
Shayna
13 years ago

@Pecunium

“Then there is… there isn’t a good phrase for it… failed consent rape? poor consent rape? persuasion rape? I am not sure those are all about, “rape”, so much as they are about control, self image, status.”

But what you are describing here as failed consent rape or whatever IS about control and self image. All rapes are about control and self image be they aggravated or date style rape. In the end it’s still some psychotic arsewipe who is intent on steamrollering over another person’s sovereignty over their own body.

Lyn
Lyn
13 years ago

I think there is a problem with saying rape is only about violence and not at all about sex (which is not necessarily what people are saying here). And my reasons are NOT EVWM’s reasons. Cos, seriously, pussy pass? Women should take responsibility for the way they…dress?

Basically, the perspective we’re working off is the rapist’s. So, the logic goes, rape for the rapist is about power and violence. Rapists are not motivated by sex. I think the victim’s perspective should have more of a part in the definition…and many victims/survivors feel violated in a way that is not just about the violence and disempowerment they suffered, but about the fact that it was a sexual attack. It is not the same as getting punched in the face. I’m not saying rape is not violent, but I’m saying that rape is also sexual. Oppositions oversimplify things.

The main problem with setting up an opposition between violence and sex is that it reinforces for lots of people that rape (and the lead up to it) should not resemble sex in any way. But of course they do resemble one another.

Also, I think it is possible to rape someone without meaning to, particularly in our society where consent is rarely asked for and spelling things out is constructed as unromantic. This does not mean that the person has not harmed another person.

And fyi, there are plenty of criminial acts for which ignorance is no defense. If you run someone down in your car, even if you didn’t mean to, you are guilty of harming that person and can go to prison. And if you engage in behaviours which are dangerous, like speeding or changing lanes quickly or talking on the mobile, you are criminally liable. I think that, likewise, if you engage in sexual activity without trying to ascertain if its consensual, then you’re engaging in dangerous behaviour and you might harm others.

Lyn
Lyn
13 years ago

…and should be held criminally responsible.

Simone Lovelace
13 years ago

http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/

This is not a direct reply to anyone in particular, but I think this needs to be linked at least once in any discussion of rape.

Basically, men who “date rape” their acquaintances often know exactly what they are doing, even if they don’t call it rape. All the talk about innocent misunderstandings is more-or-less a smoke screen that gives predators plausible deniability.

Shayna
Shayna
13 years ago

I posted 2 comments David. Were both over the line? Which bits were over the line? Was it the swearing? Was it the rape apologists are festering pustules comment? I’m curious so that any future anti MRA, anti rapist, anti pedophile comments don’t offend your beautiful ocean pool eyes.

It’s awesome by the way that you think evilwhitemalempire’s comments are just grand enough to leave.

Chukkas to you David!

Lyn
Lyn
13 years ago

Just to avoid misunderstandings – note that I said it’s ‘possible’ to rape someone without knowing it (not probable or likely to happen all the time), and that not knowing is actually no excuse.

And yeah, Simone that’s a seriously awesome post from yes means yes. I heart that blog (and book and movement)!

Pecunium
13 years ago

Simone: I wish the navy study included the questions (as I continue to be concerned with reportage from studies), not because I doubt the methodology on this one, but because the questions in the first study were primarily about the use/threat of force.

Do I think men target women in vulnerable (which includes intoxicated) states? Damn straight.

Do I think that’s rape? Damn straight.

Do I think it counts as violence? I don’t know. I do think it’s predatory, and the predisposes me to think of it as “violent”.

Do I think it starts out that way? Depends. Was he taught to do it? Was it something that happened on a date and he found out, “worked”? Did he encounter women who like to get drunk and screw, and decide that was a valid model (this is not an attempt to victim blame; it’s failure on his part to limit his model to the specific women, and treat all women the same).

Because sex is so complicated, and there are so many ways in which it can be misunderstood (the blog “Not an Odalisque” points out that in “vanilla” culture the sex comes before the spankings, and in the “kinky” culture the reverse is true. Her posts on how she deals with consenting to her rape fantasies is… educational. I don’t think I can do that sort of play. No, I am certain I cannot, but there isn’t any way for me to prove it. I just know that in other arenas I’ve dealt with related issues, and it’s not in me), that defining “all rape is ‘x’ way of thinking” is a fast way to get lost in the weeds.

My definition is simple. A lack of ongoing, and enthusiastic consent, is rape.

Lyn
Lyn
13 years ago

Pecunium: I’ve only recently discovered (like, last week) that the idea of enthusiastic consent, as currently framed, does marginalise some people. If you’re interested, check this:

http://writingfromfactorx.wordpress.com/2011/02/27/lets-have-a-conversation-about-compromise-and-consent/

Pecunium
13 years ago

I think we have a different problem of definition here. I have had sex where it wasn’t the thing I most wanted to be doing, but I was taking part in it willing, and actively. That strikes me as meeting the definition.

I’ve had the same thing where a partner wanted to move past active snuggling, and I wasn’t in the mood. My, ‘enthusiastic’ consent stopped at snuggling.

Lyn
Lyn
13 years ago

I think the definition of enthusiastic consent is far from clear – different people do describe it differently. I tended to think of it in a way similar to you (from what you’ve posted), but I can’t deny that the implication of ‘enthusiastic’ is that everyone involved really wants and enjoys the sex. And I think sex can be consensual without that (particularly when trying new things – often not great the first few times, if ever). As I said, new to the idea, have not formed conclusions. I thought I would share the link more as food for thought than as a rebuttal.

Ion
Ion
13 years ago

Not talking about an old dude who should know better here, but I think at least part of the problem with ‘rape culture’ is the incessant hammering by the media, popular culture and dating experts of the message that young men should be aggressive and take-charge, that danger is sexy, that women play ‘hard to get’ and secretly want to be ravished, that a guy who asks for permission and stops when asked is a wimp, nice guys finish last, etc. It’s not a long road from this to a rape accusation, I think.

darksidecat
13 years ago

@Pecunium, I specifically included the phrase “or otherwise engaging in sexual activity upon”, which includes non-penetrative assaults and male victims with female perpetrators (who would also be engaging in sexual activity upon their victims), so I think you misread my claim there.

As to the issue of violence, violating another’s bodily autonomy IS violent. “And it’s not, “violent”, even though it violates autonomy.” There is no such thing. Violations of bodily autonomy are violence, by their very nature.

” In part because I think violence is an issue of mens rea…” It is not in other violent crimes, why should it be such in crimes of sexual violence? The mens rea of murder is not violence, it is intent. Negligent and reckless homicide have recklessness and negligence as the mens rea. The violence, the “death of a person” is a result element (the actus reas is the causing of said death). The violence is a crime of sexual violence is that a sex act occured upon a non-consenting person, the mens rea, in my opinion, should be “at least negligent”, for criminal law purposes. Is it possible to non-negligently end up doing a sex act on a nonconsenting person? Perhaps, but failure to get consent is a case of negligence, so such cases are likely to be extremely rare. Knowing the victim does not consent and doing it anyway is not a case of lacking mens rea, it is a case of not giving a shit, a basic failure at right and wrong-just like how knowing your actions will kill someone and not caring does not excuse homicide.

NWOslave
NWOslave
13 years ago

Y’all sure fell all over yourselves to give DA Kellet the benefit of the doubt, why not now? Cuase it’s not the saaaaaame!

@Pecunium
“I think men target women in vulnerable (which includes intoxicated) states? Damn straight.

Do I think that’s rape? Damn straight.”

If a woman can claim rape after even 1 drink, why can’t a man? I’m guessing if a man is blasted and he sleeps with a woman he normally wouldn’t sober she “targeted” him, right? If they’re both drunk I say we lock up the one with the lowest blood achohol content.

Theft is about power cause they had the power to steal. Extortion is about power cause they had the power to extort. Kidnapping/ransome is about power cause they had the power to kidnap. But it’s not the saaaaaame.

It seems like no matter what happens between a man and woman, Man = Bad, Woman = Good.

eilish
eilish
13 years ago

WHOslave, maintain the rage. You are much funnier when incoherent.

I am really sorry to say the MRA view regarding the DSK rape case can be found in the mainstream media.

If the man wasn’t a threat to Sarkozy, I’m pretty sure he’d be on his merry way. Same situation as Assange.

thefemalespectator
thefemalespectator
13 years ago

Alcohol is the elephant in the room here, for me. My previous school had a demographic of religious, conservative, undergrads who had attended religious high schools and had not interacted with the opposite sex very much (homosexuality was beyond the pale). The campus culture also encouraged high alcohol consumption. This resulted in a lot of sexual encounters between stressed out, inexperienced adolescents. They get drunk together, they want to experiment (many for the first time), they finally get rid of their inhibitions and….the next morning someone has been raped and the rapist doesn’t know s/he has raped someone–or is also confused, shocked, horrified by having had sex at all. The situation is worse because of the shame about losing one’s virginity before marriage. I’m not saying men don’t get raped in this situation, they do, but it’s definitely a widespread problem for the undergrad women. Women don’t react to alcohol the same way that men do, their physical limits are different, and we should be helping young women to understand that they are putting themselves at risk when they binge drink and try to “be one of the boys.” Is this unfair? Maybe. But so is having to make sure you park your car underneath a lamppost in the morning because you’ll be staying late at the office. Women have to do things like this, we have to protect ourselves. Distrusting one’s ability to handle alcohol is a necessary tool of self defense that women need. Alcohol is not women’s friend. The culture of binge drinking interlocks with rape culture.

Comrade Svilova
Comrade Svilova
13 years ago

NWOSlave, a lot of feminists do feel that no one should have sex if they’re too intoxicated to give clear, coherent, enthusiastic consent. Men and women. And that means that a lot of one night stands probably shouldn’t happen, because if it’s alcohol-fueled and either party isn’t totally clear that the other seems sober enough to be enthusiastic, then it’s risky.

Just as someone pointed out above, it’s risky to text and drive and in most states you could get a ticket, so be careful.

If you (second person plural) have sex with someone who is intoxicated, you’re risking that you might be raping them. If you don’t have clear, coherent, and relatively sober consent throughout, there’s a risk you might be raping your partner.

And even if you’re not raping your partner, sex without clear, coherent, enthusiastic consent is kind of terrible sex. I prefer it when my partners are saying “yes, yes, yes” or “that’s amazing” or “don’t stop.” (Credit to Portly Dyke)

Lyn
Lyn
13 years ago

@thefemalespectator – I really only agree with the last sentence (though, I think the mix of inexperience, sudden freedom and booze is most certainly a bad one). I don’t think women should be expected to ‘protect’ themselves against rape. Particularly when most rapes are committed by partners.

I do think that the culture of binge drinking (fyi, I’m from Australia – we do lots of it) and the particular construction of drinking as an excuse for unethical or violent behaviour is a problem.

Comrade Svilova
Comrade Svilova
13 years ago

I do think that the culture of binge drinking (fyi, I’m from Australia – we do lots of it) and the particular construction of drinking as an excuse for unethical or violent behaviour is a problem.

Especially when certain behavior (fighting, stealing, speeding) when drunk is always nonetheless viewed as WRONG but having sex with someone who is drunk and can’t consent is seen as a gray area or perfectly acceptable. Get the person’s number, sober up, call them the next day. If you really had good chemistry, it won’t disappear when sober. And if you don’t get sober consent, then you just saved yourself from violating someone.

nunya
nunya
13 years ago

Do MRA’s take any accusations of rape seriously or all accusations of rape a “false allegation” to them?