Disclaimer: I am woefully ignorant on a vast number of cultural topics. I get things wrong. I screw things up. Right here, I am reclaiming the sentiment from the hands of thousands of racist diatribes over the years - "At least I'm not THAT guy."
It's been a month of excruciating WTFOMETER needle burials. The only thing we were missing was Eve Ensler's declaration of her new Tribal Art collection... but wait! What's this?
New Internet Dumb Guy, Kevin Flynn, took to the twitters to respond (well, "Nope" isn't really a well reasoned argument - but it's all he had when presented with them) to the slanderous, Oh, right - Not Slanderous - accusation that he wrote an Op/Ed in the University of Saskatchewan newsletter in the name of not knowing a single thing about what he was discussing.
Warning:
Kev is a White Savior Cowboy sporting two pearl-handled revolvers of "Save-you-from-yourself, Lil' Derogatory Nickname For A People Lady," and he's happy to use them. I only have Triggers. Many Triggers. Trigger warnings for Triggers. It gets uncomfortable. How could it not?
A little Background:
Kev is head of the U of SK English Department. I am fairly 110% sure that he is on the game show life-line speed dial list for neither the Social Anthropology department, nor History. Pretty sure Sociology is out as well as Psychology while we're at it. As for his SOLID feminism credentials, one tweet exchange offers a dictionary explanation of the word "Excellent" in response to someone asking why Kate Middleton was called this for having a boy "first try."
A misogyny observing tweeter responded with, "I think he gets that. Point is why is she "brilliant" or awesome or excellent for producing a boy."
Some time later Kevin responds with "Oh. Yeah. Good question."
So, I offer a link to the piece in question: Page four, "Honour traditions but with inclusive ceremonies."
Kevs takes the bold stance of being a white nobody in a line of white nobodies who approach Native People for the last two hundred plus years and tell them how their culture works, and how it's wrong, and how it should run the way the white mans tells them it should. Oh also he doesn't like Jews. But that's not our focus here...
No my focus is that it is very, very ballsy of Kevin to be protecting the rights of Native Women who need the white man to come tell them how to be honored properly because they can't clearly do anything for themselves. That's what white people are for.
Sandy Creek. It's one example. There are so many.
700 US soldiers descend on the camp of Cheyenne peace envoys coming to negotiate in good faith. Such good faith in fact that all the soldiers get to start murdering are women, children, and elderly when they first open fire. John Chivington gets the men good and drunk the night before, and after the dawn they set about committing genocidal butchery. The specifics are horrific. They are indefensible. They are enraging. Among the callous hatred and inhuman carnage is the most vile trophy collecting of fingers, toes, ears, scalps, and genitalia - any body part the Soldiers fancy. They sever the genitalia from men and women, using the women's genitalia as saddle decorations... as hat bands. They parade genitalia on sticks, and hunt those who flee into the brush, killing as many as they can chase down. They throw infants around like balls to land in the road and leave them for dead. Eventually they put on their newly decorated hats and leave.
When John Chivington goes home, he tells tales of a fierce battle and heroism on the part of the brave soldiers, because that is what the oppressor always does - tell you how things were.
Truth comes out fairly quickly, because even then people knew how things actually were, and in two years the US Government is apologizing with a treaty of restitution it does not let dry before breaking.
So please, Kevin Flynn... Sit your entire body and soul down, shut up with every fiber of muscle in your being, and learn a damned something. I am not going to speak for Native Women, because as they have said they do very well on their own. But I can reflect on some history. When the European met the Indigenous person, first he stole North America, then he stole the men, the women, the children, and often made disgusting ornament and toy out of their dissected bodies. Now he steals their culture to wear, as he wore their body, and tells Native People how to do it right. For the women's sake. Kevin doesn't ask anybody about it, because he's white...so he was born perhaps "knowing better." A POC asks him if he has ever actually talked with the "diverse community" around him that he finds" the most rewarding aspects" of his job - and he literally tells them he never had time to talk politics with any of the Native Women because he was "too busy helping them!"
The modern history, from the outside (as might be argued it should be
viewed) is of a culture that is continuously invaded even in the small
space it is left - one which is attacked for it's "otherness" while
being fetishized for it's "exoticness" and never for it's humanity. Native women suffer rape at roughly double the rate of non Native women, and often it is White men.
Flynn leaves a Twitter trail of denial of white privilege while discussing the cultural inferiority of Native men and traditions in nurturing and supporting women. "Learn how to spell "privilege" right and then we'll talk" is one tweet. Another deals with his insistence that he doesn't come from a place of privilege, "I don't have it!" Throughout is the New White Male Ally Script. It starts with attacking the group you purport to be allied to (on the topic of native spiritual beliefs, "It is time we moved beyond superstition and fully embraced the modern world"), mocking dismissal of protest follows in every imaginable patriarchal, racist, classist way, (one tweet establishes that any POC who challenge him are "not up to the intellectual" caliber of FN that agree with him, so he "prefers" to talk to them).
Finally an inability to handle all the mean accusations of White Savior meaning exactly what White Savior says erupts into their furious departure.
This time it was a matter of hours. @ProfessorFlynn is no more, the account deleted to pop up as another sock savior sometime later. They should all be so brief.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Monday, September 2, 2013
The Uncensored Diologue of Betsy Karasik
48 hours ago I read something which stupefied and infuriated me in a way which I had thought years of reading mainstream news and general internet fuckery had divorced me from.
I was wrong.
It wasn't just that "Fire!" had been called in a crowded theater, but that the Washington Post had loaned the caller its bullhorn. No, more... had paid the architect of this outrage - for promotional interest - for a brazenly damaging piece.
The Washington Post had willfully committed an act of social terrorism against every woman in my life that I cared about, would ever care about, had ever cared about, would ever even have opportunity to meet. Certainly against every woman who died from domestic violence or rape (at her own hands or at the fingertips of others)before we would ever get a chance to say hello. Anyone who is a woman, anyone who is a man who knows three women beyond their mother? Hey this statistic is you too.
It's days later, and while my demanding accountability and calling out came nearly as quickly as my outrage, I did not take the time to put anything down longer than 140 characters. Not only am I a middle aged, white, cis, hetero male who is probably an inappropriate voice to be any authority on the experience of American women and the marginalized subsections of WOC, gay, and transgender within them, but I was filled with the dueling and mutually exclusive desires to both aggressively kick the thing to watch it die and to scrape it from my shoe.
Betsy has changed and modified her position in a deft display of moving goal posts in a number of ways, but she has maintained from the start (the very first paragraph in fact) that we require an "uncensored dialogue about the reality of sex in schools." Her dialogue. Her reality. One type of sex - Teachers fucking underage children. So here it is. Let's dig deep...
Betsy begins her opinion with a thought construct from Louis C. K. in which he suggests that perhaps more abducted sexual assault victims would survive if the penalties for sexual assault were less severe. Already we've hit our first untruth and we're not even to our second sentence. Lets run to the Google machine and randomly pull up the first hit. "Sexual Assault is a Class C Felony punishable by a prison term of up to 10 years, a fine of up to $10,000 or both. By Federal guidelines, anyone convicted of the crime must serve a minimum of at least nine months. The court may suspend all or part of the balance of the sentence." Kidnapping carries a Federal sentencing guideline of any number of years or life. Stop and consider - Kidnapping carries a harsher base sentencing guideline than rape. In the link above to CT averages for a given time frame, the average sentencing for Sexual Assault was around 40 some months. Considering penalties for murder, that's a hell of a roll of the dice.
All of this presumes you actually get convicted, much less tried, much less even have charges pressed... as Elyse writes very candidly at Skepchick there are almost as many reasons a rape may not be reported or charges pressed as there are rapes. As RAINN details, an estimated 54% of rape cases go unreported, chasing the data down further, of every 100 rapes, 46 get reported, 12 LEAD TO AN ARREST, 9 get prosecuted, 5 lead to a felony conviction and of those 100, 3 will spend one day or more in prison. That's 3% conviction rate (for a minimum of 9 months) everybody. God Damn, but isn't that just harsh.
Sentence two: Betsy says it's pretty horrible, but there's a kernel of truth in what C.K. says. ...Yeah. About that. Here is where our real troubles begin...
Sentence three: Betsy states that she has "a similar ambivalence about the case involving former Montana high school teacher Stacey Dean Rambold." Ok, get comfortable because this will take a minute. Ambivalence not really the word I'd choose for a case involving a 49 year old teacher grooming and then repeatedly raping a 14 year old female student of his over several months. Particularly when this 14 year old child committed suicide at 16 while the case was pending. Particularly when the child molester dodged a bullet with a plea deal and got a ten year suspended sentence on the terms that he attend a support group and not engage in sexual activity with or have unsupervised visitation with minors. Particularly when said Child Rapist was back in court only because he could not fucking keep to that plea deal, and the judge gave him 31 days, minus time served, leaving him with a 30 day sentence for the multiple sexual acts he perpetrated on this little girl who then killed herself. Particularly when the judge in the case made the bold sentencing statement he did (*more on that later). Particularly when the Montana Statutory laws carry stepped minimums depending on victim age, age spread between victim and rapist, and special circumstance clause for rapists in positions of authority over victim, specifically mentioned are educators/school faculty due to their inherently elevated position and because rape is always about power. The minimum is 8 years for this. But we're not done.
Look again at the sentence. One word not there? Rape. It's "the case" not "the rape case." What did make the cut? The rapist's resume, and his now shamed "former" status (which, coincidentally, is identical to how Betsy describes her Lawyer background. Parallel structure anyone?).
What else is missing? Oh... yeah... of course, the victim.
Cherise Moralez is the dead girl not in evidence because this case is about Stacey Dean Rambold. He's the face that this former trial lawyer wants us to put on this case. He's the one to humanize and give focus to. Not Cherise Moralez (*Who has her name misspelled by Betsy throughout as Morales, but to really explore the concept of Devil's Advocate, that is how many news agencies outside of her home town have been spelling it, and hey, she is just some dead, raped little brown girl anyway. Plenty of those, right?)
Sentence four: Betsy ties up her Louis C.K. intro with a paraphrasing of his end note that stated he didn't know what to do with that information. And here Betsy misses a critical point... If the premise, that rape penalties are harsh, were true for sake of argument - C.K. says that he has no answer for that. That this information cannot be used, cannot be processed, because there is no resolution for it. C.K. says in essence, that even if it were true, the depravity and horror of rape is such that the penalties against it may perhaps not be lessened in clear conscience even under the threat of death for the victim, and therein lies an intractable conundrum. It is a damning statement. One which Betsy co-opts to opposite effect.
Sentence five: Something, something, our social expectations are failing us - we need to have an "uncensored dialogue about the reality of sex in schools." But uncensored with a twist, if you will. Because we're not talking about children's development, or of sexual negotiation or confusion among peer groups, or even - Dear God - of making sure our children learn in a safe place. No. We are talking about 50 year old men fucking 15 year old children and making that more socially acceptable, and that is the start and the end of the possibilities Betsy has on tap.
Holy shit paragraph two... "As protesters decry the leniency of Rambold's sentence - (case details intercut) - I find myself troubled for the opposite reason."
Hold me back.
Things Betsy will later say: She didn't mean he shouldn't be punished. She didn't mean he wasn't guilty (she notes in the trial details that he pleaded guilty). She wasn't even talking about him. She wasn't even talking about Cherise. She wasn't talking about this case at all, it was just a prompt. That what she meant was something magically different than the actual words she actually typed, and GOSH YOU GUYS why could you not see that? Just read it!! (through social media she will demand that her detractors have not read, or perhaps could not understand her writing due to implied lack of comprehension skills in a stunning display of casual classism and white privilege at various times, and repeatedly urge that protesters refer back to the original document to adjust their understanding of it and of this sentence in particular. Her cognitive dissonance that demands anyone not sharing her viewpoint must not have even heard it yet may suggest she really is not faking this for a paycheck.)
Something she does (sometimes)say people get right, and is largely the point of her piece: Sex between adults and children should be decriminalized. In fact, the original title (which she later protests and is changed) is "Sex Between Students and Teachers Should Not Be a Crime." Betsy will also say that this title was inflammatory and nothing she would have chosen, opting instead for suggestions of the same exact concept rephrased. She affirms that yes, she does mean that, simultaneously she does not mean that. This will be a theme.
Oh look, her very next sentence: "I don't believe that all sexual conduct between underage students and teachers should necessarily be classified as rape, and I believe that absent extenuating circumstances, consensual sexual activity between teachers and students should not be criminalized."
Well, here we see why "the rape case" became "the case" up top (via social media Betsy will later assert both perspectives on that) and pretty clearly it is established not only that she does not think teachers who choose their own students as sexual objects over the entire biomass of humanity available outside that ridiculously small sample group should be made criminals, but also that children below the age of sexual consent can consent. She believes the law is wrong, and presumably should be struck down. Here is the first step to her explanation of Hot Blooded Latina 14 year old victim as natural born Harlot. Pay attention, because she disowns this statement too...
Second paragraph, third sentence: Betsy says that while she isn't defending the judge's statement that Cherise was "as much in control of the situation" as the rapist (rapist is my word, not hers) which the judge "appropriately" apologized for, "tarring and feathering him for attempting to articulate the context for this sentence will not do much to advance this much needed dialogue."
Take note, Betsy has just stated previously that she does not take issue with the brevity of the sentencing (quite the opposite, she is "troubled for the opposite reason") Now she doubles down on the doublespoken gas-lighting by saying that she doesn't defend the judges statement, and throws out the obligatory spoonful of "appropriately" apologized sugar, to better aid the bitter medicine of completely agreeing with the sentiment and logic that drove it.
She won't own his statement herself in the harsh light of day, but she fully supports the context he's articulating and believes he was unfairly maligned for speaking it. Betsy refers back to this line several times on Twitter later, to show how much she meant/didn't mean the same thing. A point which should be observed - the judge made several horrific blunders in the statements he gave regarding sentencing, and even more (worse?) about "legitimate rape" in his apology. But one thing I do not see a lot of comment on is that many stories copypasta media bits to include that he said "old beyond her years" of the victim (a trope that Betsy also echoes in concept) though many reports include the phrase "looked" not "acted" before his statement... she "looked old beyond her years," which underscores the physicality, the disposable sex-object idea which this dead girl is being viewed under.
Let's take a paragraph break to recap. She's upset that the rapist got a sentence as lengthy as 30 days? Check. Believes children who have neither the experiential nor developmental skills to process sexual encounters with adults should be legitimately groomed as sex toys and refuses to address power differential in belligerently obtuse narrative of victim culpability? Check. Believes that 14 year old victim who became withdrawn, sullen and academically challenged according to family and friends, then killed herself, was in as much control as the 49 year old teacher who set this downward spiral in motion and has been to this rodeo (I promise you) multiple times? Check. She was asking for it? Oh, Check.
Here Betsy throws us a bone... just when we thought she might seem unreasonable she offers this gem: "I do believe that teachers who engage in sex with students, no matter how consensual..." Oh. Oh, I see what you did there. You've made the reader the agent asserting that the act is consensual in the narrative. You are the lady protesting too much to strengthen the myth. Sly. "...should be removed from their jobs and barred from teaching unless they prove that they have completed rehabilitation." Wow. Sabbatical then? That's sure a hard line. She then goes on to call anyone upset about adults fucking children "utterly hysterical" in their reactions, and generally self-serving tragedy-porn junkies in so far as it's all about the need to make us feel like we've done something good for the kids, their actual welfare be damned. Because getting assaulted, manipulated, groomed for a lifetime of abuse and dysfunctional, destructive interpersonal relationships is clearly in their best interest.
Betsy says she doesn't know what triggered Morales's [sic] suicide, (I will give you one guess) but that she finds it tragic and deeply troubling that it happened as the rapists case was working through the justice system. BK can't help but wonder if the pressure from the case played a role. Let's look at what she's just done here - we've established that (sorrynotsorry) Betsy considers Cherise an active and equal, curious participant. She wonders if the exposure of the trial, the prosecution of her abuser - not the emotional after effects of the abuse - drove her to kill herself.
She has just post slut-shamed a dead under age brown girl she doesn't properly know the name of for her own rape and suicide. You know where you can go, Betsy? Rape being taken seriously equals less suicides. Rape not being tolerated. Rape not happening. Betsy has suggested a legal ramification which is the only possibility more insulting than the actuality of this case - paid vacation.
Words have consequences, any survivor will tell you that. Data will tell you that. In international programs in which offenders are partnered with groups that do not take any bullshit from them, like this one reported by the Independent, recidivism rates are lower. Tell a sex offender what he or she does is OK? Let them hide under the rock? The problem multiplies, and they get bolder.
Betsy throws out a few anecdotal and completely unbelievable statements like that she had multiple friends who were molested by teachers *(not her phrase, natch) and they certainly seemed undamaged in her opinion. What her basis for that description is is anyone's guess, but I'm sure she might have checked them for adequate number of fingers and toes. This is a woman who would seem wholly unable to properly diagnose her own psychological state, much less anyone else if we are to believe her regular assertions of self-contradictory statements.
She makes the claim that when she was growing up in the 60's and 70's, the sexual boundaries between teachers and students were much different. We are left to understand that times were different then - that everything is more rigid and shallowly politicized now and that we've lost a natural sexual freedom which left teachers to molest their students not yet half way through their teenage years in peace. And that it worked. Betsy makes a point to underscore that high school students are sex crazed hormone gutters (and presumably what they want more than anything is likely an unhealthy, emotionally damaged relationship with someone not their equal to use them as sex workers to be discarded, confused, in their search for validation and approval that they find no where else). She says that the idea that high school students can't consent to sex is a fantasy.
The legal position for Statutory Rape laws are that under age children are not capable of making equal consent because of their years. Let us be clear - what BK is stating is that children are not children.
Tellingly, from the link above, we might compare here her fond memories of the halcyon days of public educational orgies with the following statement given by a man who served time for molesting young children including his own son and stepson for three decades:
There is a sick sexual culture which America fosters around the school girl. Catholic schoolgirl Halloween costumes are not worn by girls who go to catholic school, they are inherently a perverse power dynamic of older men vs the concept of sexually exploitable underage girls. The element which made American Beauty a work of obvious fiction was that when the moment presented itself for the lead character to engage sexually with the underage object of his fetish, he stopped. He looks at her and thinks "holy shit, this is a child" and did what Betsy is arguing should be rarer than already is - he said no thanks.
Betsy descends into the cesspool of "If priests can't keep their pants on," why can't teachers hump students? Because to Betsy, Not Fucking Your Student is a highly unrealistic level of expectation to demand. Her approach to the inevitability of pederasts acting on impulse despite legal ramifications sounds as if she were making an argument against Prohibition. Child molesters don't get soft because suddenly now it's legal. You're not instituting a state student sex tax to pay for awareness courses Betsy.
She alleges that a more realistic approach would be to remove the offending teacher in a way that would not traumatize the student as much as having an actual rule of law. Yes that's right - make the process even more arbitrary. Let the PTA decide? Cafeteria staff? How does the victim report it without reporting it anyway?
Betsy's argument, and her platform given to her by Washington Post have real victims right now - in every person reading it in rage and being denied the voice of their abuse. It has real victims in the future, in the moral approval that she offers like candy from a stranger to every would be pederast further relaxed into victimizing someone by her stamp. It is visible already throughout the collection of sympathizers that she has attracted. people who allege that rape simply doesn't happen - ever, anywhere. Rape deniers. Misogynists and Homophobics.
This travesty will have a body count, in souls, in scars, and it will cost some men, women and children their lives.
I was wrong.
It wasn't just that "Fire!" had been called in a crowded theater, but that the Washington Post had loaned the caller its bullhorn. No, more... had paid the architect of this outrage - for promotional interest - for a brazenly damaging piece.
The Washington Post had willfully committed an act of social terrorism against every woman in my life that I cared about, would ever care about, had ever cared about, would ever even have opportunity to meet. Certainly against every woman who died from domestic violence or rape (at her own hands or at the fingertips of others)before we would ever get a chance to say hello. Anyone who is a woman, anyone who is a man who knows three women beyond their mother? Hey this statistic is you too.
It's days later, and while my demanding accountability and calling out came nearly as quickly as my outrage, I did not take the time to put anything down longer than 140 characters. Not only am I a middle aged, white, cis, hetero male who is probably an inappropriate voice to be any authority on the experience of American women and the marginalized subsections of WOC, gay, and transgender within them, but I was filled with the dueling and mutually exclusive desires to both aggressively kick the thing to watch it die and to scrape it from my shoe.
Betsy has changed and modified her position in a deft display of moving goal posts in a number of ways, but she has maintained from the start (the very first paragraph in fact) that we require an "uncensored dialogue about the reality of sex in schools." Her dialogue. Her reality. One type of sex - Teachers fucking underage children. So here it is. Let's dig deep...
Betsy begins her opinion with a thought construct from Louis C. K. in which he suggests that perhaps more abducted sexual assault victims would survive if the penalties for sexual assault were less severe. Already we've hit our first untruth and we're not even to our second sentence. Lets run to the Google machine and randomly pull up the first hit. "Sexual Assault is a Class C Felony punishable by a prison term of up to 10 years, a fine of up to $10,000 or both. By Federal guidelines, anyone convicted of the crime must serve a minimum of at least nine months. The court may suspend all or part of the balance of the sentence." Kidnapping carries a Federal sentencing guideline of any number of years or life. Stop and consider - Kidnapping carries a harsher base sentencing guideline than rape. In the link above to CT averages for a given time frame, the average sentencing for Sexual Assault was around 40 some months. Considering penalties for murder, that's a hell of a roll of the dice.
All of this presumes you actually get convicted, much less tried, much less even have charges pressed... as Elyse writes very candidly at Skepchick there are almost as many reasons a rape may not be reported or charges pressed as there are rapes. As RAINN details, an estimated 54% of rape cases go unreported, chasing the data down further, of every 100 rapes, 46 get reported, 12 LEAD TO AN ARREST, 9 get prosecuted, 5 lead to a felony conviction and of those 100, 3 will spend one day or more in prison. That's 3% conviction rate (for a minimum of 9 months) everybody. God Damn, but isn't that just harsh.
Sentence two: Betsy says it's pretty horrible, but there's a kernel of truth in what C.K. says. ...Yeah. About that. Here is where our real troubles begin...
Sentence three: Betsy states that she has "a similar ambivalence about the case involving former Montana high school teacher Stacey Dean Rambold." Ok, get comfortable because this will take a minute. Ambivalence not really the word I'd choose for a case involving a 49 year old teacher grooming and then repeatedly raping a 14 year old female student of his over several months. Particularly when this 14 year old child committed suicide at 16 while the case was pending. Particularly when the child molester dodged a bullet with a plea deal and got a ten year suspended sentence on the terms that he attend a support group and not engage in sexual activity with or have unsupervised visitation with minors. Particularly when said Child Rapist was back in court only because he could not fucking keep to that plea deal, and the judge gave him 31 days, minus time served, leaving him with a 30 day sentence for the multiple sexual acts he perpetrated on this little girl who then killed herself. Particularly when the judge in the case made the bold sentencing statement he did (*more on that later). Particularly when the Montana Statutory laws carry stepped minimums depending on victim age, age spread between victim and rapist, and special circumstance clause for rapists in positions of authority over victim, specifically mentioned are educators/school faculty due to their inherently elevated position and because rape is always about power. The minimum is 8 years for this. But we're not done.
Look again at the sentence. One word not there? Rape. It's "the case" not "the rape case." What did make the cut? The rapist's resume, and his now shamed "former" status (which, coincidentally, is identical to how Betsy describes her Lawyer background. Parallel structure anyone?).
What else is missing? Oh... yeah... of course, the victim.
Cherise Moralez is the dead girl not in evidence because this case is about Stacey Dean Rambold. He's the face that this former trial lawyer wants us to put on this case. He's the one to humanize and give focus to. Not Cherise Moralez (*Who has her name misspelled by Betsy throughout as Morales, but to really explore the concept of Devil's Advocate, that is how many news agencies outside of her home town have been spelling it, and hey, she is just some dead, raped little brown girl anyway. Plenty of those, right?)
Sentence four: Betsy ties up her Louis C.K. intro with a paraphrasing of his end note that stated he didn't know what to do with that information. And here Betsy misses a critical point... If the premise, that rape penalties are harsh, were true for sake of argument - C.K. says that he has no answer for that. That this information cannot be used, cannot be processed, because there is no resolution for it. C.K. says in essence, that even if it were true, the depravity and horror of rape is such that the penalties against it may perhaps not be lessened in clear conscience even under the threat of death for the victim, and therein lies an intractable conundrum. It is a damning statement. One which Betsy co-opts to opposite effect.
Sentence five: Something, something, our social expectations are failing us - we need to have an "uncensored dialogue about the reality of sex in schools." But uncensored with a twist, if you will. Because we're not talking about children's development, or of sexual negotiation or confusion among peer groups, or even - Dear God - of making sure our children learn in a safe place. No. We are talking about 50 year old men fucking 15 year old children and making that more socially acceptable, and that is the start and the end of the possibilities Betsy has on tap.
Holy shit paragraph two... "As protesters decry the leniency of Rambold's sentence - (case details intercut) - I find myself troubled for the opposite reason."
Hold me back.
Things Betsy will later say: She didn't mean he shouldn't be punished. She didn't mean he wasn't guilty (she notes in the trial details that he pleaded guilty). She wasn't even talking about him. She wasn't even talking about Cherise. She wasn't talking about this case at all, it was just a prompt. That what she meant was something magically different than the actual words she actually typed, and GOSH YOU GUYS why could you not see that? Just read it!! (through social media she will demand that her detractors have not read, or perhaps could not understand her writing due to implied lack of comprehension skills in a stunning display of casual classism and white privilege at various times, and repeatedly urge that protesters refer back to the original document to adjust their understanding of it and of this sentence in particular. Her cognitive dissonance that demands anyone not sharing her viewpoint must not have even heard it yet may suggest she really is not faking this for a paycheck.)
Something she does (sometimes)say people get right, and is largely the point of her piece: Sex between adults and children should be decriminalized. In fact, the original title (which she later protests and is changed) is "Sex Between Students and Teachers Should Not Be a Crime." Betsy will also say that this title was inflammatory and nothing she would have chosen, opting instead for suggestions of the same exact concept rephrased. She affirms that yes, she does mean that, simultaneously she does not mean that. This will be a theme.
Oh look, her very next sentence: "I don't believe that all sexual conduct between underage students and teachers should necessarily be classified as rape, and I believe that absent extenuating circumstances, consensual sexual activity between teachers and students should not be criminalized."
Well, here we see why "the rape case" became "the case" up top (via social media Betsy will later assert both perspectives on that) and pretty clearly it is established not only that she does not think teachers who choose their own students as sexual objects over the entire biomass of humanity available outside that ridiculously small sample group should be made criminals, but also that children below the age of sexual consent can consent. She believes the law is wrong, and presumably should be struck down. Here is the first step to her explanation of Hot Blooded Latina 14 year old victim as natural born Harlot. Pay attention, because she disowns this statement too...
Second paragraph, third sentence: Betsy says that while she isn't defending the judge's statement that Cherise was "as much in control of the situation" as the rapist (rapist is my word, not hers) which the judge "appropriately" apologized for, "tarring and feathering him for attempting to articulate the context for this sentence will not do much to advance this much needed dialogue."
Take note, Betsy has just stated previously that she does not take issue with the brevity of the sentencing (quite the opposite, she is "troubled for the opposite reason") Now she doubles down on the doublespoken gas-lighting by saying that she doesn't defend the judges statement, and throws out the obligatory spoonful of "appropriately" apologized sugar, to better aid the bitter medicine of completely agreeing with the sentiment and logic that drove it.
She won't own his statement herself in the harsh light of day, but she fully supports the context he's articulating and believes he was unfairly maligned for speaking it. Betsy refers back to this line several times on Twitter later, to show how much she meant/didn't mean the same thing. A point which should be observed - the judge made several horrific blunders in the statements he gave regarding sentencing, and even more (worse?) about "legitimate rape" in his apology. But one thing I do not see a lot of comment on is that many stories copypasta media bits to include that he said "old beyond her years" of the victim (a trope that Betsy also echoes in concept) though many reports include the phrase "looked" not "acted" before his statement... she "looked old beyond her years," which underscores the physicality, the disposable sex-object idea which this dead girl is being viewed under.
Let's take a paragraph break to recap. She's upset that the rapist got a sentence as lengthy as 30 days? Check. Believes children who have neither the experiential nor developmental skills to process sexual encounters with adults should be legitimately groomed as sex toys and refuses to address power differential in belligerently obtuse narrative of victim culpability? Check. Believes that 14 year old victim who became withdrawn, sullen and academically challenged according to family and friends, then killed herself, was in as much control as the 49 year old teacher who set this downward spiral in motion and has been to this rodeo (I promise you) multiple times? Check. She was asking for it? Oh, Check.
Here Betsy throws us a bone... just when we thought she might seem unreasonable she offers this gem: "I do believe that teachers who engage in sex with students, no matter how consensual..." Oh. Oh, I see what you did there. You've made the reader the agent asserting that the act is consensual in the narrative. You are the lady protesting too much to strengthen the myth. Sly. "...should be removed from their jobs and barred from teaching unless they prove that they have completed rehabilitation." Wow. Sabbatical then? That's sure a hard line. She then goes on to call anyone upset about adults fucking children "utterly hysterical" in their reactions, and generally self-serving tragedy-porn junkies in so far as it's all about the need to make us feel like we've done something good for the kids, their actual welfare be damned. Because getting assaulted, manipulated, groomed for a lifetime of abuse and dysfunctional, destructive interpersonal relationships is clearly in their best interest.
Betsy says she doesn't know what triggered Morales's [sic] suicide, (I will give you one guess) but that she finds it tragic and deeply troubling that it happened as the rapists case was working through the justice system. BK can't help but wonder if the pressure from the case played a role. Let's look at what she's just done here - we've established that (sorrynotsorry) Betsy considers Cherise an active and equal, curious participant. She wonders if the exposure of the trial, the prosecution of her abuser - not the emotional after effects of the abuse - drove her to kill herself.
She has just post slut-shamed a dead under age brown girl she doesn't properly know the name of for her own rape and suicide. You know where you can go, Betsy? Rape being taken seriously equals less suicides. Rape not being tolerated. Rape not happening. Betsy has suggested a legal ramification which is the only possibility more insulting than the actuality of this case - paid vacation.
Words have consequences, any survivor will tell you that. Data will tell you that. In international programs in which offenders are partnered with groups that do not take any bullshit from them, like this one reported by the Independent, recidivism rates are lower. Tell a sex offender what he or she does is OK? Let them hide under the rock? The problem multiplies, and they get bolder.
Betsy throws out a few anecdotal and completely unbelievable statements like that she had multiple friends who were molested by teachers *(not her phrase, natch) and they certainly seemed undamaged in her opinion. What her basis for that description is is anyone's guess, but I'm sure she might have checked them for adequate number of fingers and toes. This is a woman who would seem wholly unable to properly diagnose her own psychological state, much less anyone else if we are to believe her regular assertions of self-contradictory statements.
She makes the claim that when she was growing up in the 60's and 70's, the sexual boundaries between teachers and students were much different. We are left to understand that times were different then - that everything is more rigid and shallowly politicized now and that we've lost a natural sexual freedom which left teachers to molest their students not yet half way through their teenage years in peace. And that it worked. Betsy makes a point to underscore that high school students are sex crazed hormone gutters (and presumably what they want more than anything is likely an unhealthy, emotionally damaged relationship with someone not their equal to use them as sex workers to be discarded, confused, in their search for validation and approval that they find no where else). She says that the idea that high school students can't consent to sex is a fantasy.
The legal position for Statutory Rape laws are that under age children are not capable of making equal consent because of their years. Let us be clear - what BK is stating is that children are not children.
Tellingly, from the link above, we might compare here her fond memories of the halcyon days of public educational orgies with the following statement given by a man who served time for molesting young children including his own son and stepson for three decades:
At one point in the meeting attended by The IoS, Barry tries to suggest that "times were different" when he committed his offenses and "it was viewed more casually in society". But his new friends are quick to interject. "No, I don't agree," a retired probation officer, Colin Robson, 59, interrupts. "That's just not true."Betsy talks in the language of, and makes the same points as sexual predators, and that is alarming. She makes the claim that painting the nuanced continuum of sexual predatory behavior between adult and student with the same brush is a mistake. It "sends a damaging message to students and sets the stage for hypocrisy and distortion of the truth." Betsy here says that giving students the idea that they might enter into a learning environment in which one wouldn't expect glances down the blouse, or a random penis in a given orifice is actually somehow dangerous. That they shouldn't learn boundaries by grown ass peoples who say, "You know what? No." Because, paradoxically she argues, if they aren't exploited and abused by an adult they trust, they will somehow not then trust an adult to approach with questions about their bodies.
There is a sick sexual culture which America fosters around the school girl. Catholic schoolgirl Halloween costumes are not worn by girls who go to catholic school, they are inherently a perverse power dynamic of older men vs the concept of sexually exploitable underage girls. The element which made American Beauty a work of obvious fiction was that when the moment presented itself for the lead character to engage sexually with the underage object of his fetish, he stopped. He looks at her and thinks "holy shit, this is a child" and did what Betsy is arguing should be rarer than already is - he said no thanks.
Betsy descends into the cesspool of "If priests can't keep their pants on," why can't teachers hump students? Because to Betsy, Not Fucking Your Student is a highly unrealistic level of expectation to demand. Her approach to the inevitability of pederasts acting on impulse despite legal ramifications sounds as if she were making an argument against Prohibition. Child molesters don't get soft because suddenly now it's legal. You're not instituting a state student sex tax to pay for awareness courses Betsy.
She alleges that a more realistic approach would be to remove the offending teacher in a way that would not traumatize the student as much as having an actual rule of law. Yes that's right - make the process even more arbitrary. Let the PTA decide? Cafeteria staff? How does the victim report it without reporting it anyway?
The intensity of criminal proceedings, with all the pressure they put on participants, the stigma, the community and media scrutiny, and the concurrent shame and guilt they generate, do the opposite of healing and protecting the victim. Laws related to statutory rape are in place to protect children, but the issue of underage sex, and certainly of sex between students and teachers, may be one in which the law of unintended consequences is causing so much damage that society needs to reassess.She loves that slut-shaming. But notice that she rates comparative value of sex between teacher and student ABOVE sex between similar aged students. How would reporting it within a system of "no consequences" make it more likely that reporting would occur and the victim would receive the closure needed for healing? Betsy is wrong on every count as 20 year child abuse investigator Patrick recently wrote up here. Why are we to think that absent a legal system, predators would suddenly shrug and say, "ok, you got me!" when abuse is reported?
Betsy's argument, and her platform given to her by Washington Post have real victims right now - in every person reading it in rage and being denied the voice of their abuse. It has real victims in the future, in the moral approval that she offers like candy from a stranger to every would be pederast further relaxed into victimizing someone by her stamp. It is visible already throughout the collection of sympathizers that she has attracted. people who allege that rape simply doesn't happen - ever, anywhere. Rape deniers. Misogynists and Homophobics.
This travesty will have a body count, in souls, in scars, and it will cost some men, women and children their lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)