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.
Ion: If someone is being a disturbing creep, pointing it out isn’t creepy. That’s the “mean words are ad hominem mistake. It’s not shaming, per se.
Now, you may think that’s not what happened. Your perogative. But flinging “that’s shaming language” at me isn’t going to get you much. I think the concept is nonsense, and I explained why. It’s a non-substative response.
As to what you admit to thinking of me… again, it peirces me to the very soul to realise you have little, if any respect for me. I may have to go and pine.
As to the “your creepy because of how you made me feel…” The shoe fits. If I think someone is creepy… I think they are creepy. It’s going to be things about them which makes them creepy. Heck.. the MRA school of rape prevention is all about making sure women don’t seem “slutty” and so “ask for it” (see NWOslave and his ideas on how women dressing in ways that turn men on is causing rape).
Creepy is subjective. Telling someone they are being creepy (or an asshat), is perfectly acceptable. Saying that telling someone they are being an asshat is unacceptable, because it shames them… well maybe they should be ashamed.
Care to cite references for the actual substance of my comment, regarding the claim you made that such questions are, “reasonable (and therefore not creepy) because feminists have made it so all male female interactions can be called rape”?
I can’t even believe that this “shaming tactics” thing is for real. I mean, it implicitly acknowledges that these guys realize that they’re being complete assholes and that they SHOULD feel ashamed of how they’re acting. If anti-feminists truly felt their cause was justified, it would never even occur to them to devote so much energy to categorizing so-called “shaming tactics,” because they’d hardly ever feel ashamed.
Yep. There’s such a “mommy will punish you for having impure thoughts” to the whole thing. I wonder if they’re aware of that?
No, David, I’m going to sue the shit out of you, for libel.
Pecunium – That link to notanodalisque was awesome and very much along the lines of what I was thinking in terms of “grey areas”. Excellent reading, including the comments. Thank you!
Pierce, you’re going to sue me for quoting you and asking what you meant? Good luck with that.
Oh David how could you! How could you libel that poor poor man!? He’s going to sue you now! I’m so afraid for you.
OK, thanks, David.
Snowy, let’s have a few laughs. Define “rape” for me, Snowy.
Come on, this ought to be fun.
What is “rape,” Snowy?
Well, here’s wikipedia’s definition of rape http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape which seems pretty straightforward to me. Not sure what you wanted to have a laugh about there.
Snowy, I think his definition of “libel” is good for a laugh.
FTW Laughing gull!
Pierce, I have added a clarification to the above post:
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:
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 sexual 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.
Ah, the last resort of a miserable coward: the threat of litigation. Go ahead, “Pierce”, sue me for calling you a miserable coward. I will send you reams of discovery demands and take a nice, long, looooong deposition. Have you ever been deposed? Bet not. Had you had any experience with this, you’d think twice before screaming libel when people quote your own words. (Also — expressions of opinion, no matter how unfavorable, aren’t libel.) And in the course of this litigation, I will make sure that word gets out to all those people that you have baselessly accused of being liars, criminals, etc. so that they can sue you for libel. Also, being as you are so in love with litigation, look up this one: malicious prosecution.
And to think MRA’s never stop with this refrain about “shaming language”, even while they try to bully people into silence by making frivolous threats of litigation. What an utterly contemptible crowd.
See, Pierce, David is highly supported here. Maybe if your remark didn’t sound like classism and you were also against women being falsely accused or actually raped, you would have the support of the feminist too. That would make your movement more legit. Instead you sound like we have some kind of conspiracy to take down any man we can.
“So “creepy” is shaming, but implying that your opponents are childish whiners isn’t? ”
Hey, I learned from the best. That’s like the #1 feminist response to anything a male says. Check out pretty much any feminist blog (surprisingly not this one, Dave has actually shown himself to be a pretty fair and reasonable guy, and so have most* commenters), but any female-run and -dominated feminist blog. I guarantee you that the top five responses to a man saying anything that sounds even remotely like disagreement will include the words ‘crybaby’, ‘whining’ and “waaaah!” which by the way is a Code Blue.
* with some notable exceptions
I can’t even believe that this “shaming tactics” thing is for real. I mean, it implicitly acknowledges that these guys realize that they’re being complete assholes and that they SHOULD feel ashamed of how they’re acting. If anti-feminists truly felt their cause was justified, it would never even occur to them to devote so much energy to categorizing so-called “shaming tactics,” because they’d hardly ever feel ashamed.
I can’t even believe that this “slut shaming” thing is for real. I mean, it implicitly acknowledges that these women realize that they’re being complete sluts and that they SHOULD feel ashamed of how they’re acting. If feminists truly felt their cause was justified, it would never even occur to them to devote so much energy to talking about so-called “shaming” because they’d hardly ever feel ashamed.
see what I did there? har.
Ion, how is acting like a sexually available woman and being an asshole the same thing? I’ll give you a hint. They are not similar at all.
That’s called a Bad Analogy (thanks Pecunium for the link – super helpful): http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#analogy
Moreover, pretty well EVERYONE in the interwebs (irl too) uses shaming language, often in the comments sections of blogs where it’s all nice and anonymous. It’s an argumentative tactic. Feminists didn’t invent it. And by the by, the MRM engages in so much shaming language it’s unbelievable. Mangina, anyone?
@Snowy, unless you have seen what legal codes like that look like in practice-i.e. so terrible that screaming and crying or being verbally threatened with death from a hidden weapon are not taken as good enough evidence that one was threatened. Not to mention that in rapes that are not stranger rapes, threats are often more subtle (physical imposition) or may not be of “death or serious injury” which is what some legal codes consider a coercive threat in many other situations (such as in a coercion defense to murder). In practice, modeling one’s penal code in this way increases the rape rate and lowers the conviction rate. Imposing a “no means no” standard where the rule that negligently having sex with a nonconsenting person is enough and a verbal expression of non-consent is considered negligence per se has much more consistent results, can actually apply to most rape as it occurs in real life, and has been demonstrated to actually lower the rape rate in states where it is imposed.
I wonder what Harlan thinks should happen when an “anonymous woman or child” accuses a man of rape.
darksidecat, I’m not quite sure I understand what you’re saying are you talking about the wikipedia link I posted? Or some other comment I made?
I don’t think he is being unjustly brought to court. The evidence David spoke of in his post (DNA, witnesses, and so on) is enough probable cause to arrest him. But he is naturally innocent until proven guilty, as are all in the American justice system. He is also not being held without bail. Another point for sticking to the rules, Justice System.
I simply fail to understand all of the howling outrage from the MRAs. All of the legal boxes are being checked off. I’m sure if proven guilty, he’ll have a chance to appeal. If they had simply thrown him in prison and charged him right then and there, that would be a serious miscarriage of justice. Also arresting him only on the “word of a maid [the world] hardly knows” would be a miscarriage. But they didn’t. They have evidence.
Ion, how is acting like a sexually available woman and being an asshole the same thing? I’ll give you a hint. They are not similar at all.
The original point was that guys know they should be ashamed of themselves, which is why they talk about ‘shaming language’, which is BS. I turned it around and showed the same thing can be claimed in women’s case about ‘slut shaming’. In both cases, they are the defined by the shamer as something bad. Whether you don’t agree that being a slut is bad is up to you, just as some men don’t agree with the negative connotations of the shaming charges brought against them, which is what the shaming language catalogue is about. Shaming language is nothing but another form of personal attack, meant to cast aspersions on the character of the author and silence him/her, rather than answer their points. I can’t believe I have to spell this shit out like I’m talking to grade schoolers.
Moreover, pretty well EVERYONE in the interwebs (irl too) uses shaming language, often in the comments sections of blogs where it’s all nice and anonymous. It’s an argumentative tactic. Feminists didn’t invent it. And by the by, the MRM engages in so much shaming language it’s unbelievable. Mangina, anyone?
Hmm, so we go from “we didn’t use any shaming language but MRAs use it, like, all the time!” to “everyone uses it!” and so the circle is closed.
I will give you ‘mangina’, though. That is shaming language. Just like ‘flounce’, ‘mansplaining’ or ‘creepy’.
You know, if some guys are so offended by people calling them assholes, maybe they should just, you know, stop being assholes? I mean, is being an asshole such an integral part of their personality and self-image that they can’t bear to give it up?
The thing about slut-shaming is that, according to society, woman are supposed to be ashamed of having sex, while men are supposed to be applauded for getting some. Being an asshole is abhorred in anybody, regardless of gender-identification.
Ion: Yes, we saw what you did there. You said that being insulting, abusive and derogatory (MRA sorts of comments which tend to get, “shaming language” used on them) i.e. interactions with another person (which is the same, actually, as the questions about, “what can I do that won’t be called rape”…, an interactive action), and dressing in some way someone else finds offensive, i.e. that is an action which isn’t interactive (even though it may be public).
You compared apples to oranges.
Flounce isn’t shaming language, it’s mockery. Someone says, “Ok, I’ve had enough, I’m not coming back to this thread/site, ever again.”
Then they do. That’s a flounce. It’s stomping off in a huff, and then coming back, and it’s worth mocking. You want to leave, leave. You want to make a dramatic statement and leave, fine.
But don’t come back. You’ll be mocked. anit said s/he was done, and hasn’t come back. No mention of flouncing has come up. Why? Because it wasn’t a flounce. And flouncing is a gender-neutral behavior. Anyone can do it,.
“Shaming language.” Indeed. It’s a very silly concept.
See, when feminists talk about slut-shaming, they’re not complaining about the existence of “shaming language.” They’re just pointing out that being a slut isn’t a bad thing.
When MRAs talk about “shaming language,” they’re not actually making the argument that being an asshole, or a misogynist (big overlap there, though they aren’t always the same thing), isn’t a bad thing. That’s the revealing thing to me. If anything, they go out of their way to reject the misogynist label, while still acting like misogynists, and also simultaneously demanding that people stop telling them that they’re misogynists. Because “you’re a misogynist” is “shaming language” and “shaming language” is bad.
It’s just like with racism (again, I keep harping on this, but that’s because it’s true): people who act like racists hate it when you call them out about it. They act like being accused of racism is a far, far worse offense than actually being racist towards someone. That way, they get to continue acting like racists, while avoiding feeling bad about it. “You’re a racist” is “shaming language,” just like “you’re a misogynist” is. In point of fact, both statements are factual, descriptive statements which will not inspire shame unless the listener feels that racism and misogyny are things worth being ashamed of.
Feminists aren’t arguing that “shaming language” is a universally bad thing. It’s only bad when applied to things of which one shouldn’t be ashamed. MRAs aren’t making that distinction, because they don’t really seem to own the conviction that they have nothing to be ashamed of.