Facebook
You've probably heard that a woman at Hofstra University accused a group of men of raping her, and then, a few days later, recanted her accusation. I'm not going to repeat the things people are saying about this young woman. Suffice it to say they're not kind.
For my part, my heart sank when I heard she'd recanted. I felt worry for everyone involved, and I also knew that anytime someone appears to have lied about a rape accusation, it's used forever to discredit any woman who dares to speak up about being raped. This case has already proved no different.
I hardly want to draw more attention to the story, but so much bile has been spilled and there are a few things that need to be said. Four, to be precise:
1) Anything that exists gets lied about sometimes. The fact that someone may have lied about being raped proves nothing except that human beings occasionally lie. What we know about rape reporting is that, of rapes that are reported to the police, somewhere between 2-8% turn out to be false or are recanted. And that's to say nothing of the vast majority of rapes, which are never reported to the police at all.
2) Did you notice how I just said "turn out to be false or are recanted"? Let's not confuse the two.
There's a widespread assumption that recanting an accusation means that you're admitting you lied. But in reality, lots of victims recant not because they made it up, but because they come to the unfortunate realization that it will cost them more, emotionally, to pursue justice than to let it go. We'll probably never now what happened in this case, but it's entirely possible that she was threatened by the accused perpetrators or their associates, interrogated by the police about her sexual history or what she might have done to "provoke" the attack, or blamed and slandered by the media or people in her community. All of these things happen all too often to rape victims who speak out. Let's not ignore the possibility that they happened here.
3) Why is this an international story, featured in the New York Times and sent out over the AP wires, when somewhere between 150,000 and 300,000 young women will be actually raped on college campuses this year? Why does our culture and our media insist on broadcasting the rare instance of a false or recanted accusation, and largely ignoring the actual public health crisis that's threatening a yet another generation of girls? (I wrote all about this crisis and what we should be doing about it last week in The American Prospect.)
4) Honestly, this case just makes me so sad. I think it's highly likely that something bad happened that night, whether or not she literally consented. It's hard to imagine something like this happening if all the parties had engaged in direct sexual communication and sought enthusiastic, affirmative consent - not just lack of protest. For me, this whole mess just demonstrates how badly we need a real sea-change in how we talk about and view sex in our culture.
Here's where a conclusion should go, but this column has none. Because this case has none. And this crisis has none. At least none so far. But we're working on it. Right?
I am surprised again at again by the amount of people, men and women alike, on my college campus who don't understand what sexual violence is and what consent consists of. It's so frustrating. Victim blaming and antagonizing needs to end.
The only problem is that this case doesn't appear to match the case issues you've written about. The recantation received international attention only because the media had already plastered the names and mug shots of the accussed rapists all over the world--largely because they fit a convenient profile.
If we believe rape is a horrible crime, then everyone should believe it's a horrible crime--including men. The stigma of being one of the relatively few people falsely accused of rape must be horrible as well--or we will never gain traction in reducing the incidence of rape.
Unfortunately, too many people will probably find also out what actually happened that night in this age of open video access. It's not likely to be pretty for anyone involved, but prejudging is wrong for both the accussed and the accusser.
Like it or not, we are still aiming to craft a society where one is innocent until proven guilty. Jumping to conclusions or using rank supposition don't cut it. The Central Park rape case was a horrific crime, but the obviously trumped up charges led to the imprisonment of 5 innocent young men. Justice was also denied the victim who's true assailent was allowed years of additional rapes due to society's race to "justice".
It's too early to say how this case will pan out, but IF an actual false accusation is involved, then it's that individual who must be hold accountable as she has also harmed actual victims of rape. We can't force this case to fit the typical case profile , and we certianly can't allow a small number of false accusations to subdue our zeal for supporting victims or punishing rapists. To do either trivializes the horror of rape.
So she says in the article her heart sunk when she found out the accuser had 'recanted'. This is because she assumes the men are guilty of rape. She assumes that the girl could not have made up the story. She assumes that any female who engages in group sex with males must be crazy.
Does she feel the same way about females who engage in group sex with each other? Or men who engage in group sex with each other?
This is a piece written by a feminist for whom men are always guilty of whatever anyone says they did. There need be no trial, no evidence, no witnesses, nothing. The accusation is sufficient to convict.
Every day she breaths she should thank God (or Goddess, or whomever) that she was born female.
As a man, I understand the desire not to be falsely accused. But we need to ask ourselves: how often does this really happen? We've heard of a handful of cases in the past year. And even though we won't see them reported in the news, thousands of women and men will be sexually assaulted. To me, the numbers are not even enough to make me afraid of a false accusation. Instead, let's focus on what is much, much more often the case. An individual who gathers the courage to tell her/his story, knowing full well how they will be seen in the public eye, is almost certain to be telling the truth. Not everytime... but almost.
I'm sorry, but I can't accept the conclusion your comments might suggest. To assume that all men accused of rape are guilty because most are is a dangerous concept. If we believe that, then we should just vacate the judiciary system.
Perhaps you don't fit a profile that would result in you ever being falsely accused, but everyone is not so fortunate. Rape victims deserve to be protected and encouraged to come forward. The system really starts to go awry when the media publicizes the names and photos of people who have been accused, but not yet convicted. In most cases it's ok because most are guilty, but what do you propose to tell the men convicted in the Central Park case--it's no big deal, just suck it up?
I have no respect or use for rapists; in fact they disgust me. They should be severely punished and stigmatized. If you are one of the few who are not guilty through either false accusations or simple error, you have been significantly harmed--unless you are some kind of animal who doesn't think rape is a big deal. Bringing rapists to justice is critical and we can't risk trivializing it by intellectual short cuts or an incomplete cycle of justice.
Also, did I use the word "crazy" anywhere? I think people of all genders can engage in group sex quite responsibly and have a great time. But I have a feeling (note - I'm not saying I *know,* just what I worry about - that didn't happen here - at the very least, I suspect that all the people involved didn't practice open, direct sexual communication and seex *enthusiastic* consent from all the other people. Enthusiastic consent is different than absence of objection or willingness in that it means that in any sexual interaction, it's every partner's responsibility to make sure whoever else they're being sexual with is *enthusiastic* about doing what they're doing. if everyone in this situation had sought and received enthusiastic consent, it seems unlikely that things would have turned out this way.
But there is one thing, intrinsically, that seems to be missing: feminism is about EQUALITY. As women, we expect to be treated equally, regardless of our gender (or any other factor).
And in so being feminist, it means that we must ACCEPT culpability for our actions if they pose a detriment to others around us. CONSTANTLY making the woman the "victim" is VERY infantalizing and reductionist -- by automatically assuming that every woman placed in a precarious situation is, indeed, a victim, you're stripping them of their power and their autonomy (reminds me of a time when women in England would be allowed to "plead the belly" as a defense). Not very feminist, is it?
When I was younger, I was in an abusive relationship. It took lots of strength, courage, and therapy, but I FINALLY got out of it. Nevertheless, I REFUSE -- ABSOLUTELY REFUSE -- to label myself as a "victim" of an abusive relationship. First of all, NO ONE will EVER be allowed to have agency over me again -- and I refuse to be labeled as ANYTHING to further someone's cause, however noble in their intentions. Second, the decision to get into the relationship was mine -- the decision to stay was mine (he could only mess with my head for as long as I ALLOWED him to) -- and the decision to leave was mine. This stance doesn't excuse my (now ex) boyfriend's abusive actions, but by accepting my role in it (i.e., turning over my power to him), I have learned to NEVER turn my power over again. And, thankfully, now I am in a relationship with a man who loves me, honors me, respects me, and treats me like the queen that I am (and it's BECAUSE I had that bad experience, that I KNOW I will NEVER be there again -- I WILL NOT ALLOW IT).
To bring it back to this case (which, mind you, I graduated from Hofstra with a master's degree): there has been NO evidence to suggest that something "bad" happened that night. In fact, it's quite the contrary. I am NOT saying that rape isn't a problem on college campuses...but that is NOT what happened here.
There was a VIDEOTAPE of the incident. If she was truly a victim, she (and the prosecutor, who truly IS an advocate for rape victims) would have looked at the videotape as a Godsend. After all, as difficult as rape cases are to prosecute -- let alone to report -- what better way for a slam-dunk case than a VIDEOTAPE of the incident?
But that isn't what happened. Instead, the "victim" recanted her story. And in the process of finding out that she was, indeed, a LIAR, she not only ruined the lives of young, promising black men (why isn't there a rallying cry against THAT? Or do we still label them as "rapists" after the girl recanted because it's convenient to pin the so-called "crime" on the Big Black Boogeyman? Did you know that one of the accused, upon the accusation, was FIRED from his job, and STILL can't get it back even after he was cleared of the charges? He has EVERY right to go after her in civil court (for lost wages, pain and suffering, etc.) AND possibly criminal court (she LIED to a District Attorney; that's kinda-sorta a big deal) -- and still, he doesn't do that? So much for the Big Black Boogeyman, waiting in dark corners to pillage our land and rape our women...*eyeroll*), she caused a HUGE detriment to the feminist cause, the anti-rape cause, and indeed the equal rights cause.
At what point do we actually have her ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR HER ACTIONS? What kind of "feminism" is THIS, that allows a woman to get away with something so vicious simply by virtue of the fact that "well, there IS a rape problem on campuses, and even though this isn't a case of a campus rape, we'll still use her as an example because -- even though it's been proven that no rape occured -- something MUST have happened by virtue of the fact that she's a woman, and you KNOW women have been SO oppressed..."?
What's next? A feminist symposium featuring Tila Tequila, Dina Lohan, and Cindy McCain?
As an aside: Yes, women HAVE been oppressed -- we were the last "group" to get the right to vote in this country, and that's only the least of our oppression problems -- but TODAY, if you ALLOW a man [or ANYONE] to marginalize you, YOU WILL BE MARGINALIZED. My mother is the most feminist woman I know -- not because of her accomplishments [Teamster President at 21 in the 1970's, head of her own Dunn and Bradstreet-rated, multi-million dollar company today], but because she simply DID IT without regard for a myriad of marginalizations -- not ONCE did she get on a feminist soapbox and PREACH about equality; she LIVED equality, and she LEAD by example. She didn't need a soapbox, or to hide behind the comfort of a computer screen -- the message was conveyed simply by being WHO SHE IS. I DARE ANYONE in her VERY male-dominated industry to marginalize her, or treat her less than the queen that she is -- it would be a VERY bad move. And through her example, I learned the same thing -- NEVER ONCE was I told that I couldn't do something simply by virtue of the fact that I was a woman, and anyone who TRIED was immediately shot down and made a fool of. From academia, to the music and entertainment industries -- NOTORIOUS for referring to women as "groupies" and "video bitches" and "hoes," -- NO ONE EVER dared to marginalize me. More often than not, I am the sole woman on a panel conference of ALL men -- both in entertainment AND in academia -- and NOT ONCE was I ever called a "groupie" or a "video bitch" or a "hoe," ESPECIALLY not by a man. (The WOMEN, on the other hand -- especially the ones that WERE "groupies" -- were the FIRST to try to throw me under the bus while claiming "feminism" [they didn't succeed, but that's not the point]. How very progressive.)
I am NOT advocating "victim blaming" -- especially not in rape cases -- BUT THIS WOMAN WAS *NOT* A VICTIM. She freely, and willingly, engaged in a "gang bang" with other men (which, mind you, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with, so long as all parties consented, WHICH SHE CLEARLY DID); she cried "rape" when she feared that her choice would adversely affect her existing relationship; and when she was presented with exculpatory evidence, she recanted her story.
I'm tired of people, especially women, DEFENDING this sorry excuse of a human being. She's no more of a champion of a feminist cause than Phyllis Schlafly. She single-handedly gave an arsenal of weapons to men who actually DO rape women, leaving the door open for COUNTLESS numbers of them to get off scot-free. She set the campus anti-rape movement back SEVERAL steps. She caused irreparable pain and suffering to innocent black men, who -- for a myriad of reasons -- may NEVER shake this false stigma.
In short, she makes me ASHAMED to be a college graduate, a PhD candidate, and -- most of all -- a WOMAN.
Why, again, is she some kind of "feminist example"?
One of the most important points of Jacklyn's post is that WE DON'T KNOW what happened, won't, shouldn't, never will, and need to remember this during all analysis. I do not believe that being an alum gives you the status of knowing clearly what happened the entireity of that night. You don't know what came before or after such a videotape. I'm not asssuming she was raped, or assaulted or whatever, all I'm emphasizing here is that WE DON'T KNOW.
What set the anti-rape movement back even more than this woman is rape culture in media and the analysis of the situation. YES, she potentially did something horrible. If she was 100% lying, part of what makes such a lie such a big deal is how our society handles rape culture.
And if she was lying, analysis shouldn't just insult her, it should look at any possibilies of how societal norms encouraged her to do so. Looking at motives is important whether one is talking about rape lying, or terrorism.
Your fear about an individual false victim or several false victims reminds me earily of when African-Americans used to say that individuals in the race who acted disgracefully were setting back the civil rights movement. Well, that's an impossible standard, and the movement was too just and too strong for some "bad apples" to spoil the bunch. IF this woman lied, the anti-rape movement is not damaged by her individual actions, and must simply reject any implications that it is somehow required to be responsible for the actions of an individual.
At the end, IF she was lying, motives are secondary to personal responsibility. While I'm interested in analyzing motives to assist in reducing the number of future criminals, for the individual case I don't see it as a mitigating factor in that individual's punishment. I'm more interested in seeing that person brought to justice. That's true for lying, and even more so for rape and terrorism.
I have read some very interesting points and I do agree with a few. Yes this issue is on an exceptionally larger scale than just college. People are raped everyday and for whatever reason, wont tell. Maybe their scared? Probably don't want to be judged. I understand all of that.
But I cannot have any love for her. I am an african american male. And this whole situation honestly pissed me off. First off the guys should not have got involved with her. With all the STDs and HIVs present that is just a horrible move to make. Plus I'd be disgusted honestly. Im not going to have sex with someone who allows something like that to happen. It makes no sense.
And her recanting should hold no weight. Im glad she was honest but the reailty is she put them men in a dangerous position. Labels stick with you. I can imagine them trying to get a job and not being hired because the manger recognizes them from "that rape case".
I beleive she needs to be punished. RAPE IS RAPE!. She was about to change them gentlemens lives forever.
Please stop acting as if it was a little bump. She needs to be charged with something. Lawyers work it out.
But past her them boys need a reality check as well. Thats why you dont have sex with a woman as a ggroup. Because you always put your self in the position to be charged even if it is consential. And why were they celebrating? Were they happy that their dumb actions didn't get them in TOO MUCH trouble? Reeducate yourselves people.
GEEZ!
More troubling, though, than the misinterpretation of my words, is the way the issue of this woman's sexuality is being treated here and elsewhere. Let's assume for a moment - just as a thought exercise, not because we know this to be true or false - that the acts that happened that night were on a base level consensual. That is, that no one objected to them. (Not the same as enthusiastic consent, which, if everyone involved had sought and received it, could very likely have prevented this whole awful incident for everyone.) Why does that mean this girl is "slutty" or has STDs? Why is she a "disgusting" person who "allowed" something "like that" to happen? If what happened was consensual between all the parties (we don't know it was, but like I said, for this moment, to explore this issue, let's assume), why would there be anythng wrong with it? And why would it reflect worse on the woman involved than the men? Is there something wrong with a woman who enjoys sex - even group sex? Because I don't think there is, and I think that's a really troubling attitude toward sexuality.
Some of the comments that Jaclyn expressed concern at were in response to one of the respondents and not her original piece. Jaclin is right to be concerned the media will over reach on the implications of this case. She further clarified her intent, and I completely believe her intentions were pure. The additional comments on the sexual double-standard were right on point. I believe that there is virtually no scenario possible whereby everyone present acted responsibly.
This discussion is an opportunity for everyone to learn from similar and differing viewpoints. To assume a lack of intellegence or "hard-headedness" because people offer a differing perspective really raises the question of who is being hard-headed. "You don't agree, so you must be slow" is not a convincing argument.
There are no sound evidence that the actual false rape cases only add up to 2-8% but there are 3 decades worth of evidence pointing towards 50-60%