CSotD: Defaming the victim
Skip to comments
Matt Bors raises an old issue with all sorts of new implications.
Victims of sexual assault have always faced the daunting prospect of proving a crime took place. Barring bruising, scratches and other signs of a physical fight, much of the evidence is based on an interaction often conducted without third party witnesses.
In this case, while DSK is innocent until proven guilty, there seems little shortage of actual physical evidence. In fact, from what has emerged in the case, it appears that things could not have gone more favorably for law enforcement, from the use of major physical force to the fact that the victim was so clearly traumatized that her friends and co-workers had the cops on the case in time to both preserve the evidence and keep the guy from getting out of town.
But the levels of cultural bias that exist in sex crimes make this type of (apparently) clear situation less common than it should be. That is, you shouldn't need this level of physical evidence to prove that a crime took place. Nor should the fact that the report came in so promptly be anything notable.
For all the improvements of the last 20 years, however, there remain problems. It's not as bad as it used to be, but it used to be so awful that improvement is not the same as a solution.
We're moving from occasionally hearing "Fortunately, I ran into a really sympathetic cop" to occasionally hearing "Unfortunately, the cops were idiots," which is great. But there are still those idiots who mishandle these cases, just as there are still cops who beat the hell out of innocent people on the street. And there are still prosecuters who don't have the time, or who won't take the time, to pursue a case that isn't a slam dunk.
Still, things are improving.
Part of the improvement has been that women are less reluctant to pursue justice for themselves for fear of being blamed, of not being believed, of being publicly shamed.
Which brings us to the media, and to Matt's cartoon.
Just as police and prosecutors have worked to improve the handling of sex crimes in the past few decades, responsible media has grappled with the reporting of sex crimes throughout this time of change.
In her 1974 memoir of dysfunction, "Bed Time Story," Jill Robinson notes that drunken guys get beaten up and drunken women get raped. It is a distinction that helps clarify what we are talking about, even in cases, such as this one, in which there was no element of diminished capacity, because it helps spotlight the difference in how those parallel crimes, and those parallel victims, are treated.
If some guy in a bar got too drunk to watch out for himself and got beaten and robbed in the parkinglot, there would be no presumption that his assailant merely misunderstood his intentions and thought he wanted to share his money.
And not only would the defense never dare to argue that, by flashing large bills in the bar, he had brought it on himself, but reporters would not, in the immediate aftermath of the assault, go back to ask bar patrons if the guy had seemed to be asking for it, or delve into his past to find out if he had lost money before. His behavior, past or present, would never be seen as a positive defense for robbery, whether it involved bashing him over the head or simply picking his pocket.
And, even if he felt he had acted foolishly, he would still expect justice.
In addition to making sure police and hospital emergency rooms had rape kits and were using them, the movement to criminalize sexual assault began to persuade women not to be ashamed of reporting the crime, and a few pioneering victims not only allowed their names to be used in the papers, but insisted upon it, saying they had done nothing wrong and wanted to encourage other victims to feel the same.
Still, the default was not to name victims, and that appears to remain the preference not just of most media outlets but of most victims of sex crimes.
Yet here we are with every personal fact about the victim except for her name splashed all over the media, and it would be simplistic to suggest that the cartoon is only commenting on this particular case. The toxic media scrum around this crime will make every victim of a sex crime wonder if the seeking of justice will be worth running the gantlet of blame, doubt and intrusion on privacy.
It should be noted that the media is also behaving with reckless disregard in the case of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Granted, the man is vastly famous, recently held prominent public office and is in the process of getting a divorce from a member of American royalty. We can't expect a media blackout on the story.
But referring to the hidden baby as a "love child" is not simply inaccurate but insulting to both the employee involved and to all subordinates who are pressured to have sex and keep it a secret. "Love" didn't have anything to do with it.
More than that, referring, as several headline writers have, to the housekeeper as "his baby momma" is degrading to every person who sees the words. Trivializing this situation with juvenile gutter slang literally adds insult to injury.
Matt Bors has a talent for pointed sarcasm. Perhaps, in the face of such an irresponsible, toxic media tsunami on the topic, that's the only sane response.
Which once more raises the question, why is it that our cartoonists and comedians seem to be the only sane people among us?
(BTW, Matt Bors, Jen Sorensen, Mark Fiore, Tom Tomorrow and Eric Lewis can now be found at the Daily Kos.)
Comments 4
Comments are closed.