You will not shame me.

I have gotten email upon threatening email to rescind what I said last year about the Duke Women’s Lacrosse Team and their uninformed support for the accused rapists in the Duke rape case. The case that was mishandled, manipulated and finally dropped on Wednesday.
I usually ignore emails that intend to *put me in my place* but I think we owe it to our supportive readers to say something outside of “black strippers are lying whores” and the “we won” mentality that seems to have overtaken the public imagination with the dreaded interplay of rape and race.
I just want to say first and foremost, I still stand by what I say and have said. It does look bad for people to support accused rapists, at that point we didn’t know the facts either way. Furthermore, women of color are in fact OFTEN sexually assaulted and usually the criminal justice system and/or the media either overlook it or mishandle it. Women of color often have a higher burden of proof that they are not lying about rape. Case in point (as Amanda and others stated ): when the lack of DNA evidence was announced — before we even knew whether the players were innocent or not — people were quite quick to accuse the accuser of being guilty of lying. So be it.
The charges were dropped. Does this mean that they are innocent? None of us actually know what happened that night. Sorry, unless you were there, you don’t know what happened. Now for the rest of you that have such a die hard belief in the criminal justice system and evidence, well quite frankly I pity you. This is a system that arrests a disproportionate number of people of color, subjecting them to unfair trials, inadequate representation and longer sentences (in a prison system that resembles slavery) SORRY, I don’t trust the courts. When you’re a woman of color who’s a sexworker, up against white kids with money that can afford *good* lawyers, the outcome is not looking so good.

They were not found to be innocent, the charges were dropped from lack of evidence. Moreover, innocent until proven guilty only applies to certain people. Ideally, it would apply to everyone but *a lot* of people are guilty at arrest, just for being who they are and where they are. We are not operating in a vacuum, but within a long history of corruption and injustice in the supposed justice system. So, if these guys were in fact falsely accused, they got a taste of how black men are treated EVERY DAY by the criminal justice system.
And what is the outcome of all of this? The general public now believes that black strippers ARE in fact lying whores and the worst thing that could happen to a strapping Duke lacrosse player is that his lily white reputation is marred by false accusations. Beyond this being a terrible precedent set for women that bring up rape accusations (still something underreported) to never ever report rape again, the racist and sexist reaction from the media and public have been to say the least profound.
I have gotten emails reminding me about not only the details of this case (because you know I can’t read), but how the possibility that this black woman lied shows us that blacks, in general, are liars who play the race card. And strippers are also liars who deserve to be raped.
Why do I say all this? Because the details of the ACTUAL case are only tangentially relevant here. What is relevant is that certain folks are very quick to jump on the offensive when there is a little bit of evidence that perhaps a black woman lied about a rape. You know because people NEVER accuse (random) black people of crimes that they did not commit. I mean, seriously.
So what is the moral of the story? That much of the American public does in fact hold very racist and sexist beliefs and when given the opportunity to air these sentiments, goes ahead full force. It is this same culture of racism and objectification of people of color in most sectors of our society that would create a situation where a black woman would potentially lie about a rape (which we don’t know if she did). And the same culture that would allow for the subsequent manipulation of her story for political gain.
So predictable.

and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  1. Erin
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

    You know what, Ninapendamaishi? I’ve done with you. You’ve already accused me multiple times of “hating women” and now you seem bent on twisting my words to make it sound like I want women to be raped. You make me sick, really sick, that you would either lie like this about my motives or be crazy enough to somehow construe my posts that way in your messed-up head. Being that I’ve actually been through a rape and the closest you can come is some Lifetime TV special, I’m going to assume that you just don’t understand what you’re accusing me of. Either way, I refuse to respond to any more of your posts. Noname can have it out with you, since he’s obviously more patient than I. As for me, there’s no sense in wrestling with pigs because you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it.
    Charity, I’ll descend into the mud ring of pigs with you just once to say that you’ve deliberately and shamelessly quoted me out of context multiple times in that last post. At least three of the quotes were clearly being sarcastic or sardonic when viewed in the context of the entire post. But, hey, I always enjoy a good old-fashioned strip-out-99%-of-the-post-to-make-someone-look-bad smearfest.

  2. Erin
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

    Charity, just for the record, let me explain to you why context is so important when quoting someone,
    “Now, feel free to post the emails of the nasty-grams you’re been receiving so that we can all sign them up for women’s literature. (grins)”
    This was a deliberate attempt to soften my post and show some solidarity with Samhita, given that I started out the thread by gently criticizing her. I didn’t want to hurt feelings. It’s called “ending on a nice note”, which you haven’t mastered, I see.
    “Sigh. It’s days like this that make me want to give up feminism. We fought for years to get people to realize that stripping can be empowering, that rough sex can be fun, and that sex with 5 men in one day doesn’t make you a slut, and yet it’s still used as some sort of mental health indicator when the situation suits us.â€?
    This was a sardonic attempt to point out the hypocrisy of saying that it’s okay to be a stripper and sexually empowered in one breath and then insisting that sexually impowered strippers are very likely to be mentally unhealthy.
    No, I don’t actually want to “give up feminism”. Please consult a dictionary re: “sardonic”.
    “Well, I’ve got my suffering feminist credentials, seeing as how I am a woman and I have been raped…â€?
    This was a very snarky attempt to point out Nina’s very bad attitude in claiming that noname was NOT a feminist because he (a) didn’t agree with her and (b) wasn’t involved in rape advocate work. The ACTUAL quote was:
    “Sigh. Popped back in while my breakfast is heating. I see we’ve gone par for the course: Noname isn’t towing the line so he hates women and isn’t a feminist.
    Well, I’ve got my suffering feminist credentials, seeing as how I am a woman and I have been raped, and I’m here to say that I agree with Noname.”

    “…not every stripper is a slutty piece of trash just looking for easy money and more than willing to make it on her back…�
    If you’d included the entire sentence, you would have seen that I was fightina AGAINST stereotypes like this. My ACTUAL words were:
    “Can we all, please, stop making character judgments over these trite stereotypes? Not every wealthy jock/frat member is a complete dick dripping with entitlement and not every stripper is a slutty piece of trash just looking for easy money and more than willing to make it on her back given the opportunity. I’ve known both frat guys AND strippers in college who were wonderful people and to maintain that these stereotypes are accurate is to wallow in ignorance and hate.”
    As for my post to Nina, yes, I reserve the right to tell people to fuck off when they claim that I’m advocating rape.
    Good job, though, in grabbing the tiniest little pieces of my post and trying to blow them into something shocking and incriminating. You may yet have a place in the Fox nightly lineup if you keep up the good work.

  3. Paul G. Brown
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

    Just to clarify something, this was the evolution of my attitude.
    1. Based on initial media reports; “Yeah, well. Glad someone finally stood up to the frat boys.”
    2. On reports that a) witness accounts had changed, b) the defense team were going with the voluntary DNA, “Hmmm. Mebbe the waters are a bit deeper.”
    3. On reading the post on this fine blog to the effect that the female lacrosse players were ‘enablers’, “That’s a bit harsh. Everyone has opinion. They’re entitled to theirs.”
    4. On reading media reports with the details. “What a mess. The individuals involved in this case–the stripper and the frat boys–have been very badly treated by people on all sides who viewed these individuals as objects, as pawns to be deployed in their larger games. What a shame.”
    It’s a complete mess. Don’t look to it for larger lessons about questions of substance. It’s only interesting for what it reveals about contemporary political currents and attitudes.
    From what I’ve read, the sex-workers involved are poster-child cases for why sex-work is a bad thing. My judgement is that she was raped 5 times that night, though not by the people she ended up accusing. My additional guess is that she was treated pretty badly by them. Add to the physical bruises and psychological trauma of a day turning tricks the additional humiliation of a room full of pawing, sweating, privileged white boys, and I’m on her side.

  4. Ninapendamaishi
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    My saying to you that “This woman does not deserve to be raped, EJ” is /not/ the same thing as saying “EJ you want this woman to be raped”
    I asked you in an extremely straightforward way to take the logical conclusion of saying she brought being plastered all over national newspapers (which we all know and acknowledge results in great danger to her person) to its logical conclusion, or otherwise to acknowledge that your are not interested in all the facts in this situation. Or if I’m somehow missing something altogether, explain it to me. I asked you to explain to me the difference between your word choice and mine, as you saw it. I don’t understand what is wrong with asking a perfectly open-ended question.
    You have never once addressed all the indication that the woman may have been abused and may be mentally ill in a reasonable way, as far as I’m concerned.
    I agree with Charity on a number of her points, including your statement about what “feminists” fought for and how you think about giving up feminism, as well as your rather extreme support of some of the more anti-feminist members of this forum. I would say overall, you have hurled far more personal insults at me (as opposed to insinuations about my political position which I may not like) at me than vice versa.
    I sort of feel like calling “troll” on this one, guys… but *shrug* once again I’m not about convicting people when there’s doubt

  5. Erin
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

    “Extreme support”, huh? That sounds like a hip, young reality TV show.
    And of course I’m a troll: I don’t agree with you and I refuse to be labelled as a rape supporter. I also brag on people for being polite. Why, in this thread alone, I’ve bragged on The Law Fairy, Vervain, EG, Tom Head, atrope, Tom, Mark, noname, and Paul. What’s especially suspicious is that at least four or five of those people held massively opposing views from my one. Classic troll behavior to confuse everyone.

  6. Charity
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

    Actually, EJ, I did “notice” all that super-elaborate context, and I still came to the conclusion that there was something weird and possibly disingenous about some of your comments here. But given that your canned response to anyone who disagrees with you is to accuse them of taking you out of context, I guess I should have known better. And I really think the whole “sarcasm” argument is a bit overdone, but OK, I guess?
    I see you’re not interested in the “99%” rest of MY post, in which I address other systemic issues re: the case that you ignore, or your defense of other commenters who had pretty obvious racist and sexist views.
    I really am sorry if you feel I misinterpreted you by noting themes and patterns and quoting you directly while ALSO giving you the benefit of the doubt a lot and qualifying how I *personally* read or understood certain aspects of your quotes, but it was certainly not a deliberate or “shameless” attempt to smear you. I can (maybe) see why your reaction to me was so strong given an overall sense of being targeted, but really, that was my first response to you, after you’ve been VERY vocal here and there was no way I could reproduce every single word you’ve written. You’ve been allowed to address others’ arguments and word choices, why aren’t I?

  7. noname
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    Funny how you didn’t mention the part where EG said “I don’t think that cutting our losses means throwing this particular messed up woman to the wolves.”
    I decided that my appreciation of one part of her comment would only be diminished by my re-iterating criticism very similar to that which I have already levied.
    If you must know how I feel about this topic, however, here we go: I don’t think she has been thrown to the wolves. I think she is a wolf. I think Mike Nifong is a wolf. I think Mark Gottlieb is a wolf. I think Linwood Wilson is a wolf. I think Victoria Peterson is a wolf. I think Cash Michaels is a wolf. I think Irving Joyner is a wolf. I think Nancy Grace is a wolf. I think Wendy Murphy is a wolf. I think Cousin Jakki/Clyde is a wolf. I think Richard Brodhead is a wolf. There are many more who helped to promote this hoax, but instead of naming all of them, I will get on to my point. How can one be thrown to the wolves when she has been voluntarily running with them for over a year, now?
    EG – I am sorry to respond this way. I was hoping to leave this thread with a nice word for what you said, but Nina called me out, and I have never been good at ignoring the bait. Frankly, I, like EJ, am done with her. At this point she is simply trying to smear EJ, myself, and various others with innuendo and by putting words into our mouths which we never said. Anyway, I still do appreciate what you said and hope that this admittedly angry response to Nina has in no way diminished the spirit of good-will I believe you were trying to extend.

  8. Erin
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

    Charity, I accept your explanation that you didn’t deliberately misquote me to try to make me look bad but that it was, in fact, an accident.
    I understand that I have been “VERY vocal here” and that if you’re going to try to cast aspersions on me with my own words, it’s going to be necessary to parse those quotes down to only a few words per sentence.
    Come off it, Charity. You were trying to paint me as a concern troll and you know it. You really thought you had me with your double-hit that I supported Tom (I called him “polite”, how audacious of me!) and that I was nice to the “regulars”. Unfortunately for you and your concern troll theory, I’ve been posting at feministing for over two years now, so it’s kind of hard to pick me out as a johnny-come-lately.
    I *did* like your attempt to make it look like I thought all strippers were prostitutes when I was actually arguing the opposite. That was classic, ha. You should write for Mr. “I use cocaine because it’s a lot of fun” Colbert (whom I adore next only to Jon Stewart).
    Oh, and Charity, before you pick up Nina’s tactic of whining that I didn’t respond to the rest of your post, since your entire post foundation was based on misquotes, I felt no need to respond to it. It was the intellectual equivalent of asking me if I have stopped beating my husband: the question itself is invalid because the premise is false.

  9. Erin
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

    Noname, can I give you a hug? (Damn, there’s my sycophania acting up! Hehe.)
    BTW, you forgot Al Sharpton in the wolf list. ;)

  10. noname
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

    So I think I am going to leave this alone for now, or at least try to ;) . Thanks to everyone here for an interesting thread, and especially to EJ who defended me far better than I was able to defend myself. Thanks also to Samhita, for letting this thread continue this far.
    Things have gotten a bit testy at the end, but hopefully there are not too many hard feelings overall.

  11. Erin
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

    Here, here! (Or is it hear, hear?)
    Either way, I’ve gone right off this thread. I reckon 400 or so is a good stopping place. :p
    Here’s a big thanks from me to everyone who was polite, especially EG and Law Fairy who were polite even when I disagreed with them. And here’s to noname and atrope, who somehow manage to completely disagree with me about half the time and completely agree with me the other half, which is just WEIRD! ;D

  12. noname
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

    EJ – Al Sharpton was actually pretty quiet in this case. Jessie Jackson, however, should have been added. As should Houston Baker, Karla Holloway, and many more.
    Tme for a late lunch.

  13. Erin
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

    Noname, really? I believe you, but I “can’t believe it”, if you take my meaning. :) I try to stay as far away from the TV as I can and just rely on the ‘net and papers, but I sort of assumed he did his usual look-before-leaping act.
    Well, I owe him an apology then.
    Have a good lunch.

  14. Charity
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

    Wow, EJ. Actually, my point about your quote about “strippers” was NOT that you believe they are all prostitutes or are all *insert bad attribute here*, but that you make careless word choices. I fully appreciate you said something derisive about jocks in the former half of that quote. My point is that to assume we can toss strong language around about a) powerful people and b) powerless people and expect that it should be or will be weighed equally, or that it’s OK to make damning remarks against culturally disempowered groups IF you also make remarks YOU think are equally damning against rich powerful people. The impact is simply not the same. So, yes, I still take issue with your choice of words about “making it on their backs” even though you implied *some* rich frat jocks are entitled dicks. THAT’s my point. Off to apply for Colbert now, thanks for the endorsement! Although first it was Fox…now I don’t know which I should choose! :)
    And they weren’t “misquotes”…they were direct quotes of yours, thanks, and they certainly weren’t obviously sarcastic to me, or I would not have questioned them.

  15. Ninapendamaishi
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

    “If you must know how I feel about this topic, however, here we go: I don’t think she has been thrown to the wolves. I think she is a wolf.”
    Whether or /not/ we think she was deliberately lying (and if you don’t ignore the facts we have some doubt about whether she was) the way she has been publicized is a great danger to her person. And that’s wrong.
    “but hopefully there are not too many hard feelings overall”
    Well, I /have/ learned some things. Like I kinda suspect that when I early on tried to downplay the impact on an individual of being falsely accused of a crime, that was what pissed EJ off at me to holy hell past the point of being able to read a lot of my posts straight or respond to most of the major points myself or others were making.
    Overall, though, I’m sickened by this thread. Sickened at the double standard with which several people use the principle of “reasonable doubt,” sickened at the way you guys believe through and through that this woman deserves to be thrown in prison and/or to be plastered next to the word “LIAR” on national news sources. To say nothing of the numerous other points people were trying to make in /starting/ posting on this thread.
    Fact is, our judicial system is not going to start convicting people whose rape allegations are dropped anytime soon, just b/c the international community recognizes laws like that as so damn regressive. Like I said, I read some articles lambasting the presence of that law in some other countries a week or two ago. I feel bad that those of us who wanted to talk about the “larger issues” (or bullshit, if that’s the camp you fall in) were not allowed to. I would say we have regressed with this thread.

  16. Erin
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 5:11 pm | Permalink

    Charity, I didn’t cast aspersions on jocks OR strippers. I pointed out a set of common stereotypes that I felt some posters were operating under (that all jocks are dicks and that all strippers are sluts and prostitutes) and then I said that maintaining that stereotype was to “wallow in ignorance and hate”. In other words, I disagree with the stereotype. I don’t know how to make that any more clear.
    I’m really sorry that you can’t seem to understand what I’m saying, but it’s not my fault if you can’t understand the basic points in my posts.

  17. Ninapendamaishi
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 5:20 pm | Permalink

    Wait a sec… did “Erin” just answer for “EJ”‘s quote, or were there two quotes about jocks and strippers referenced by Charity?

  18. Erin
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

    Heh. Nina, I figured out how to change my Typekey nickname. It was sort of a problem last year when people were mixing EG and EJ up all the time. There’s also an ES that showed up the other day, so I thought it was time to go with a less confusing moniker.
    You’ll notice that in one of my conversations with you, I quoted myself as “Erin” which is my usual handle and I forgot I was EJ here.

  19. Charity
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

    I was really, really, really, just talking about the language choice, and I understand your point fully; you will notice I distinguish between your beliefs and your choice of words. Word choice matters, because it reinforces certain dominant paradigms that certain other commenters use to bolster their anti-feminist arguments. I’m sorry if you can’t understand that basic point of MINE.
    And wait, you’re Erin now? In any case, I feel we’ve reached an impasse but I don’t want it to be uncivil or hurtful anymore and I apologize for my role in making it that way. This was a very emotional thread for a lot of reasons.

  20. Erin
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

    I completely agree that word choice matters. I chose the words I did because I wanted to make it clear that to believe that strippers are prostitutes is ignorant and hateful. Strippers are not prostitutes. Period.
    I find it odd that you have a prolem with what I said or how I said it or however you want to parse it. You’ve devoted three or four posts at this point to what I said which would indicate that you think it’s pretty damn important.

  21. 16oz
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 5:43 pm | Permalink

    Charity read her post again. The point was that that language is NOT ok! She was *not* saying that strippers are prostitutes!
    “I fully appreciate you said something derisive about jocks in the former half of that quote.”
    Ha ha…the irony. The point is that “strippers are prostitutes” is not appropriate and neither is “jocks are assholes.” Charity you are endorsing the hate speech that Erin is rejecting.
    The problem with throwing out lame stereotypes about jocks is that once you do that you can’t really complain about people throwing around lame stereotypes about strippers, women or anyone else. You think most jocks suck, fine maybe I think that most black people suck. What are you going to say about that, that I’m not allowed to invoke lame stereotypes but you are? (And for the record, no I don’t believe that)
    This thread has gotten rich. Now EJ is a troll! Just because someone disagrees with you it doesn’t make them a troll. To the outside observer many people would think that Charity and Ninapendamaishi are the trolls!
    But you know what? There is no need to call anyone a troll, especially not Erin who has argued in good faith and made detailed, well-reasoned posts.
    Calling someone a troll simply because they disagree with you persuasively just reflects poorly on yourself.

  22. Charity
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

    Erin, I still think tt is damn important. But I can also sense we’re not getting anywhere and I’m not into masochism. And I guess you’re not into the whole truce thing. Although I am still sorry.
    You’re entitled to find many things odd, but I have tried repeatedly to explain my “problem” with that particular quote of yours and several other of your quotes. I think the issue I’m having is that some of your sarcastic remarks don’t get delivered in a way that I, (or possibly others), could readily read them as sarcastic or as a critique of what “other people” believe. So I questioned them.
    Also on the subject of odd, I, *personally* find it odd that you said you were leaving the thread when we knew you as “EJ,” made a dramatic sign-off with props to people who *actually listened* to you, and have now reappeared with a new name. Just an observation, mind you, which is what all of my posts have been – observations of what I find weird or unsettling. There have been plenty of others on this thread who disagreed, held dissenting viewpoints, whatever. I observed some things about Tom, and Richard, and, lastly, you. I’ve never said people who disagree with me are trolls, nor do I think that should that be any kind of gauge for defining a “troll.” Nor have I ever called you a troll. If I were really so ingenious and diabolical as you paint me to be, I’d be a hell of a lot more rich and successful than I actually am, and I wouldn’t have put myself on the line as really needing this community. I do still need this community so I’d like to end on a somewhat peaceful note.

  23. Charity
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 5:50 pm | Permalink

    16oz, take an English class. “Appreciate” in my post means understand, not “gee-I’m-happy-about.” As in, I understand and observe that she prefaced the stripper statement with a statement about jocks. Show your cards a little more prematurely, why don’t you! poor thing.

  24. Erin
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

    Thank you, 16oz, for the support. I was beginning to feel a bit “twilight zone”.
    I agree with you on the “troll” point – I find that term is almost always used as a dodge to debate someone. In fact, I even said at the beginning of this thread:
    “One last thought to everyone, and then I’ll sign off for the evening: Do we need to call everyone with a different viewpoint a “troll”? I don’t agree with everyone here 100% of the time, but they’re obviously not trolls. Mark and Tom have not been rude here that I’ve seen, but they’ve been referenced as “trolls” a few times already (or so it seemed to me). I think that’s a bit worrisome in the blogosphere – how can we rationally discuss points of views when all opposing points are “trollish”? I understand when someone’s being rude, but I don’t feel like Mark and Tom have been. That’s just my crapilicious thought for the evening.”
    Ironically, that “validation” of Tom was later used by Charity to insist that I could very well be a troll! :D

  25. Erin
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

    Jeebus, Charity, I’ve never met someone as suspicious as you. I posted months back that I was planning to redo my name because of the EG/EJ confusion, and I only just got around to it. I’ve made it clear multiple times that this is my new name, so why are you trying to pretend that I’m attempting to pull a fast one?
    And, what? You’ve never intended to leave a thread but been drawn back in? Guess I’m the only one then.
    Seriously, what is with your vendetta against me? You think everything I do is somehow suspicious? Get a grip. But, hey, whatever, anything to prove that I’m the troll you’ve already decided I am, huh?

  26. Erin
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

    By the way Charity, on the subject of Tom:
    You said that his posts had racist and sexist overtones. I went back and reread every single one of his posts. Funny thing, I couldn’t find a single racist/sexist remark. Maybe I’m overlooking one, but I’d love to see you put your money where your mouth is since you seem determined to drag his name through the mud.
    But since I’m a troll I don’t expect that you’ll listen to me.

  27. Ninapendamaishi
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

    “But you know what? There is no need to call anyone a troll, especially not Erin who has argued in good faith and made detailed, well-reasoned posts.” -16 oz.
    “Thank you, 16oz, for the support. I was beginning to feel a bit “twilight zone”. -Erin
    Oh please Erin, of all the people who feel more or less exactly the way you do about the case, I’d be naturally inclined to take your views most serioiusly because you do have personal experience with somewhat similar (not the same, but related) situations.
    But that kind of feeling a need to pick teammates, or to judge people’s ability to reason just because they support you on a point or two is just not conducive to any kind of a discussion. You Erin, have effed up several times with your language and your representing of other’s posts, I’ve effed up several times with my language and representing of other’s posts (I would argue no more than you, however), Charity has effed up a few times, many more people on this thread on both sides of the issue have as well. That is what tends to happen when you have a humongous thread with many posters, many of whom are emotionally-invested people.
    NOTICE: Lest it be said I am trying to Smear anyone or accuse anyone of exhibiting fallibility when such a thing is impossible, I am only speaking what I believe.

  28. Charity
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

    Right. “Race-baiting” is not a racist remark. Talk about “twilight zone.” And I’m really touched by your concern for Tom and now wanting him to get dragged through “the mud.”
    Now, I’ll be going…and not coming back under a new identity! :) And I’ll thank you to remember I never, ever called you a “troll”! :) Even now.

  29. Erin
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

    Charity, of COURSE you never called me a troll. You just noticed how “odd” it was that I was nice to the “regulars” (whom I’ve missed since I’ve been away) and how “odd” it was that I “validated” Tom for saying he was polite and how “odd” it was that I strangely changed my name after announcing that had been planning to, and how “odd”….
    One doesn’t have to call someone “troll” without strongly implying that someone is, in your opinion, a troll.
    Nina, you’re not even being addressed at this point. My remark to 16oz was about Charity’s continued misunderstanding of my point that strippers are not prostitutes. I was relieved to see that she was the only one who felt my point was some sort of problem.

  30. Erin
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

    And, Charity and Nina, you two need to understand that being polite online isn’t about picking teammates or picking sides or giving props to people who agree with you or anything else of that nature. I try very hard to be polite to people who are polite to me, and I thank people for their consideration. For all the hoohah you two have both made about my “validation” of Tom, I notice that you are both very pregnantly silent over the fact that I also was very affectionate toward Law Fairy, even though he and I disagreed strongly on this issue.
    I try to thank everyone when they are polite because, frankly, the blogosphere will turn into a giant clusterfuck if we don’t at least try to be nice to one another.
    You’ll note that I am not nice to you two because you’ve been incredibly rude to me by stating that I think this woman deserves to be raped (Nina) and implying that I’ve got some sort of agenda in this thread (Charity). I’m polite, not a saint.
    And, Charity, I’ll note that I’ve been looking back over the threads I’ve missed the past few months and you are regularly very rude to anyone who disagrees with you, often telling people condescendingly to “go read a book” if they disagree with you. So, I find it “odd” that your name is “Charity” when it seems like “Snarky” would be more appropriate. :D

  31. Erin
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

    By the way, that should have been “she and I” as Law Fairy is female. Dang typos. :P

  32. Ninapendamaishi
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

    I thought you weren’t addressing me?
    “I notice that you are both very pregnantly silent over the fact that I also was very affectionate toward Law Fairy, even though he and I disagreed strongly on this issue.”
    I personally, am not pregnantly silent. I couldn’t care very much who you congratulate for being polite and who you do not. You also happen to be the individual to use the strongest language on this thread (in multiple places), asides from the people Samhita had to delete, so I find it odd that this idea of politeness is so important to you.
    “I’m polite”
    Please don’t make me start quoting previous posts of yours.
    “You’ll note that I am not nice to you two because you’ve been incredibly rude to me by stating that I think this woman deserves to be raped (Nina)”
    Yeah, and see the way I see it I don’t think that was exactly what I was saying, and I spent a couple of posts trying to explain to you where I was coming from. I also think you have misrepresented me in not-a-small-number of posts. But apparently, my perception is not important, on much of anything. I actually asked you to further elaborate on some things about how you saw the result of her being widely publicized, which you were not interested in.
    “implying that I’ve got some sort of agenda in this ”
    I still sort of think that seeing as you are (if memory serves) the only strongly feminist-identified member of this thread who think the woman should be publicized and thrown in prison that you are projecting heavily on this case from what you perceived happened in your husband’s situation. Can I prove it? No. Whether that is at all right or not, I find the way you can ignore the possibility that this woman has experienced past trauma or is mentally ill, or the precedent doing such things as publicizing her or sending her to prison would set for future rape cases to be deeply troubling.

  33. Erin
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

    I didn’t say women should be publicized and thrown in prison.
    I DID say that women who lie in order to make themselves public figures can’t complain about the publicity.
    I also said that people who lie to frame innocent people should be prosecuted for their lies and, if found guilty by a jury, put in jail. Funnily enough, our legal system is kind of set up that way. Strange, that.

  34. Erin
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

    And, of course, if the woman in this case IS mentally ill, then she would be found “not guilty by reason of insanity” or whatever the exact wording is, and she would receive the treatment she needs.
    Which would be a lot more charitable than leaving an insane woman to fend for herself and her two kids by stripping.

  35. Erin
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

    Oh, and if you don’t like my language, why do you come to feministing? Jess et. al use “fuck” frequently, or at least they used to…
    And, if you’re going to claim that I said women deserve to be raped, well, I’m going to tell you to fuck off.
    Let’s try an experiment: You go tell Jess or Samhita that you think THEY want women to be raped, and we’ll see if their language is lily-white.
    I’m sorry, but true feminists don’t think rape is something to be tossed around as a punishment. The fact that you even considered claiming that I said such a thing makes me doubt your real intentions.

  36. Richard Aubrey
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 6:47 pm | Permalink

    ref my “racist and sexist” overtones:
    The accusation of “racism” is, about 99% of the time, a manipulative scam. The accuser knows it. However, it used to have some weight. But now, everybody knows it, not just the accuser. So it’s an obvious, transparent BS way to handle a discussion you can’t handle any other way.
    Ditto “sexist”.
    Got any real thoughts?

  37. Erin
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 6:52 pm | Permalink

    Richard, I also thought it was amusing that they were “overtones”, which of course is why the sensible people can’t demand facts or quotes or something. They were just there.
    Kind of like how this whole post has the overtone that I like oatmeal and hate puppies. What? You can’t see it? Well, it’s there for anyone to see and you’re just being stubborn. ;)

  38. noname
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

    60 Minutes is coming on right now. They are interviewing the AG and the players.

  39. Erin
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 7:07 pm | Permalink

    Thank you, noname. I’m switching over now. :)

  40. Ninapendamaishi
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 7:08 pm | Permalink

    “And, if you’re going to claim that I said women deserve to be raped, well, I’m going to tell you to fuck off.”
    I never said that you thought women deserved to be raped. I apologize for offending you in that way. I was not questioning your intentions, but rather questioning the realistic result of her being widely publicized. Considering that the possible realistic results of her being publicized is a large part of the reason so many feminists are against it, it seems like relevant facts to me.
    I’m confused now. Is politeness important to you or is it not? Not only did you tell me to “fuck off” (or was it to “go fuck myself” I forget), you also called posts of mine un-addressed to you which I felt were making important points lots of “unrelated crap” and you called me “racist” and “sexist”. Incidentally, /I/ take the last two terms reasonably seriously.
    Another thing, Erin. Do you think Richard is one of the “sensible people”? I think some of us are curious about your take on that.

  41. Samhita
    Posted April 15, 2007 at 7:36 pm | Permalink

    Woah, alright I am done. Thanks for playing! But I have to finish my thesis.

One Trackback

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

200 queries. 0.666 seconds