She Wasn’t Asking For It

by Belle Waring on August 2, 2006

Feel like getting really angry? Go read this Pandagon post and the zuzu post at Feministe it refers to. And the comments. From Amanda:

Zuzu at Feministe, in trying to write a normal blog post on how this case is being blown up to bolster racist fears, ran into this problem when some of their regular commenters started to bleat about how Moore has only herself to blame for what they considered the outrageous behavior of being young and leaving the house to have fun. Always these people say they mean well, of course, but in this case, the commenter slipped up and showed the true purpose of her bleating:

I don’t know about the whole race thing you’re getting at, but I agree that the coverage seems to be trying to force her into the victim role. It’s tragic what happened, but Jennifer made a number of really stupid decisions that are not terribly sympathetic (to me, at least). Driving into manhattan to get tanked (while underage no less), then not calling parents or authorities for help when she and her friend got stranded was profoundly bad judgment.

You read that right. People are “trying to force…into the victim role” a person who was raped, murdered, and then dismembered and left in a dumpster. I know that there is strong psychological pressure to find some reason why someone else was raped, a reason you could avoid. If I just do this and don’t do this and… Why? Because it’s just really scary to think that you might become a victim for no reason at all. People feel that if they can just do some magical thinking they will stay in the not-victim chalk circle and everything will be OK. The problem is not that women sometimes get drunk or go dancing or get into cars with strangers because someone threatening is following them down a dark city street. The problem is the rapists and murderers. Keep your eyes on the ball, people. Now let’s have the comments thread degenerate into a pointless discussion of what women should be doing to avoid getting raped, because god knows I’ve never heard any of that before. C’mon, Steve, advocate concealed carry! [NB: I am not actually particularly opposed to concealed carry laws (or Steve!), but I don’t think they would put a dent in the US rape rate, because most people are raped by someone they know and no one is likely to tote their pistol around from room to room in their own goddamn house while they talk with a friend. Which nonsensical behavior is also not relevant to concealed carry. And I don’t want to hear about it at all.]

{ 101 comments }

1

agm 08.02.06 at 5:26 am

And cue the 200-post thread over at Dr. B’s in
3..2..1..

2

John Emerson 08.02.06 at 5:39 am

There are all kinds of subtests in this kind of thing. For example, NYC is one of the less dangerous of America’s big cities, but it was brand-named as Gotham and Sodom because the centralization of US media there made NYC a convenient example, and the local tabloids are maintaining the fading local brand in the face of fierce competition from, for example, Miami and Detroit.

And of course, drunk men are more at risk for homicide and less at risk for rape, but rape sells more papers. Especially cute white girls.

The racial thing and the “she asked for it” thing have already been mentioned.

Certainly, people who choose the being-stuffed-dead-into-a-garbage-can alternative lifestyle should not be judged or “forced into the victim role”; that would be othering, and a condescending refusal to accept the diversity of personal life-choices. So liberals are really the intolerant ones, and the conservatives are the ones who are accepting of alternate ways of being, for example the transgressive choice to be stuffed into a garbage can dead.

NOTE: The above paragraph has no paraphrasable point to decode, but it’s not intended a bit of light humor either. (I was trying to get to “Liberals are the real bigots”, a standard trope.) My actual opinion is the standard, common-sense left-liberal one expressed by Belle and at Feministe and Pandagon.

3

Brian 08.02.06 at 7:38 am

I want only to talk about the meta-discussion (clearly the woman, who I had not heard of before this, was a victim). A lot of the commentary there was about whether women’s risky behaviour is unduly highlighted while men’s risky behaviour is unduly muted. Maybe that’s true. But it’s not universal (consider the focus on when politicians say things that can be misinterpreted; a lot of it is on said politician making such a mistake, not on those who are misinterpreting it. And most of the politicians I can think of who’ve done this are distinctly male).

Suppose a tragic crime occurs which is not connected with you at all (you just read it in the paper, or saw it on tv). What is there to talk about? Maybe nothing, in which case it probably just “goes away” — there’s an awful lot of tragedy in the world. Maybe it’s worthwhile to try to get in the heads of the perpetrator — try to figure out why someone would go into the tower and start sniping, or whether there was some twisted justification.

The reason I think rape and mugging cases tend not to draw that sort of discussion is we — at least I — tend to think we know why rapes or muggings would occur. So there’s like 2 minutes of discussion possible about the perpetrator (barring something unusual about the person, such as being a well known sports star). Getting into the mind of the victim is a more interesting line of thought, and I think it’s inevitable to wonder “what would or could *I* have done in that situation to get away?”

Not everything is due to men identifying with rapists, or whatever the claim is.

4

Barry 08.02.06 at 7:45 am

John, don’t even try; it’s impossible to parody these guys.

5

alkali 08.02.06 at 8:06 am

The problem is the rapists and murderers. Keep your eyes on the ball, people.

To get meta for a bit, I’m not really sure what can meaningfully be said about the rapists and murderers. Pretty much everyone thinks rape and murder is bad, and I don’t think anyone is arguing that stranger rapes and rape/murders are not investigated and prosecuted or that there’s some other kind of obvious public policy failure that permits those crimes to occur. It’s therefore not very surprising that discussions of crimes like these drift into discussions of the victim, even though people reasonably find those discussions to be inappropriate and/or offensive, because there’s just not that much to say on the other side of the equation.

To make this a bit more concrete, one commenter at Pandagon writes: “The point is that whenever a rape case is brought up, focus is brought to what the woman did or did not do, NOT what the guy did OR how society perpetuates rape.”

As to “what the guy did,” I’m not sure anything can meaningfully be said about that.

As to “how society perpetuates rape,” I’m equally at a loss: I don’t think stranger rapes are any less disfavored in society than bank robbery, and yet people still commit bank robbery. I don’t know how I would comment on the proposition that “society perpetuates bank robbery.” This is not to say that you couldn’t have a more particularized discussion about aspects of misogynistic violence and its social background — Catharine MacKinnon, for one, has a lot to say about that — but it seems unlikely that a particular case of stranger-rape/murder would provide an useful or interesting angle on that subject.

6

Vizsla1086 08.02.06 at 8:12 am

A bigger question is why you’re continuing to give this case any more publicity than it deserves? (which is to say “Huh?).

7

Vizsla1086 08.02.06 at 8:19 am

A bigger question is why you’re continuing to give this case any more publicity than it deserves? (which is to say “Huh?).

Some of what Malkin says deserves rebittal and comment, but this isn’t one of them. Everyone’s preaching to the choir without any effect.

Why not rebut this? Because her fans will nod in agreement, her oponents will agree with the commenter and Malkin’s profile becomes further injected into colloquoys she shouldn’t have any chance of being invited into.

This is a standard crime story. It’s horrible, hideous, and only illustrates that there are, indeed, bad people in the world. And with every piblished crime story there are those who wish to make it stand for something greater.

In the end a couple of kids did what kids sometimes do: they acted impulsively in search of a good time and then found themselves in trouble beyond anything they had ever imagined. That doesn’t mean they deserved their fate, but only that their ill-considered actions put them in harm’s way in a manner they had either never thought about or thought wouldn’t apply to them. Thisis worth about one sentence in a tabloid.

Let Malkin turn this into whatever she wishes. It ain’t and won;t be that, and for reasoned and seasoned pundits to be astonished at Malkin’s perfidy leaves me wondering why they continue to give Malkin all this attention.

8

Down and Out In Sài Gòn 08.02.06 at 8:39 am

Well said, Belle.

9

Slocum 08.02.06 at 8:42 am

The problem is not that women sometimes get drunk or go dancing or get into cars with strangers because someone threatening is following them down a dark city street. The problem is the rapists and murderers.

Suppose your underaged daughter (or son) had gone off clubbing in New York, gotten drunk, gone for a rides with a stranger, etc, and nothing terrible had happened. Would you have reprimanded your kid the next day? Would you considered they’d done something wrong and dumb? Of course you would. Would that make them responsible of they’d been a victim of a crime — would it mean they’d have had it coming? Obviously not.

From the Pandagon post: “The guy who killed Moore threw her body in the trash like it was a Kleenex. He did that because he lives in a society that endorses treating women like less than human beings but simply masturbation toys and/or baby incubators for male use.”

This is bullshit with a captial ‘B’. The guy who killed Moore wasn’t only a rapist and murderer–he had a long criminal record. Did he commit his earlier robberies because ‘he lives in a society that endorses treating passersby like ATM machines’? No — he committed all of his crimes because he just didn’t give a damn what society endorsed or condemned.

10

Anderson 08.02.06 at 8:51 am

Good comment, Slocum. (Thought I’d better say that quickly.)

What society, exactly, has been free of rape, and thus free of “treating women as masturbation toys/baby incubators”? Bachofen, anyone?

11

SamChevre 08.02.06 at 8:57 am

I think I agree with Slocum and alkali. Forcible stranger rape is in the “very disfavored” category. (And IMO, mixing up “date rape” and forcible rape confuses the issue–concealed carry is actually pretty effective against forcible rape by strangers.) I suppose that it is less disfavored than it used to be, but I’m inclined to think that going back to the “anyone who can get a mob together can hang a rapist” days would not be an improvement.

12

Carlos 08.02.06 at 9:02 am

I declare myself the Spirit of Evolution! I will start with everyone who ever used the phrase “Think of it as evolution in action” seriously.

Guess what I will leave on my calling card.

13

jet 08.02.06 at 9:08 am

Since sexual predators have such a high recidivism rate, we should probably hand out Life Without Parole more often.

14

John Emerson 08.02.06 at 9:17 am

I would like to thank Bro Bartleby for the spiritual Darwinian position on this. RARRR!!!

15

Not Really 08.02.06 at 9:29 am

> I think I agree with Slocum and alkali.
> Forcible stranger rape is in the “very
> disfavored” category.

Really? At one time I was a candidate to join the very low end of the patriarchy, so I got to hear how such people (and other candidates) think when the start to speak their real minds. And while excessive amounts of rape (meaning “my wife” or “my daughter”) is disfavored, I got the impression that a bit of random rape held in reserve to ‘keep the bitches in their place’ was not an unwanted thing.

Not Really

16

Daniel 08.02.06 at 9:39 am

Suppose your underaged daughter (or son) had gone off clubbing in New York, gotten drunk, gone for a rides with a stranger, etc, and nothing terrible had happened. Would you have reprimanded your kid the next day? Would you considered they’d done something wrong and dumb?

Lots of hidden assumptions there. “Underaged” is a legal term, not a metaphysical condition; this woman was underaged to drink in New York City but she was 18, which is an adult.

Going off clubbing in New York and getting drunk are neither of them wrong or dumb, or at least if they are then I don’t want to be right or clever.

And the fact that going for rides with strangers and getting into taxis are dangerous for young unaccompanied women is neither an unalterable fact about the world, nor something that we should accept. There are, actually, plenty of places in the world where it isn’t considered dumb or dangerous to get into a car with someone you’ve just met. New York isn’t one of them, nor is London, but these are facts about those places.

Furthermore, the fact that lots of people consider this behaviour “wrong and dumb” is hardly unrelated to the underlying culture of people’s attitudes to women and sex which is precisely the subject under discussion.

17

John Emerson 08.02.06 at 9:42 am

I’ve also seen expressions of the attitude “not really” describes. Loose women were regarded as fair game because they “give it away”. It was a combination of misogyny, puritanism, and envy of the guys who got some for free. Often with a racial slant too.

I don’t think that this is a rare attitude of individual psychos at all. A lot of the guys were backsliding members of conservative churches for whom sexual orthodoxy (men not gay, women not promiscuous) was a last vestige of decency. “I’m no angel, but there are some things I’d never do”.

18

john m. 08.02.06 at 10:00 am

For the sheer novelty of agreeing with Jet (#14), I’ve long held the view that sex crimes are far too lenitently sentenced (presumeably reflecting a society that does not think they are that bad or one in which laws are mostly made by men) and that the level recidivism means that post sentence conditions may or should be imposed. Unlike traditonal arguments about crime and imprisonment, it appears that the motivation for sex crimes is of a different type to that of larceny etc (and is certainly in a different multiverse to taking drugs) and there is a real need for wider society to protect itself.

19

99 08.02.06 at 10:20 am

Daniel: going to clubs to get drunk is okay? Let’s take a moment to note that two people with, at most, 4 years of driving experience, were attempting to retrieve their car, one so sick she passed out, the other seemingly unable to find her bearings well enough to identify the street she was on. This happens thousands of times every night in Manhattan. Regardless of what happened subsequent to that moment, these two were very familiar with high risk behavior, since they were eager to endanger themselves and the hundreds of pedentrians and drivers they would pass before they made it home.

Has anyone on this thread actually watched what young people look like coming out of clubs at 4AM here? I see it almost nightly. Are y’all arguing that we need to create more ways to enable and protect idiots like this to continue this behavior? The the last thing the actress who got murdered last year said was “what are you going to do, shoot me?” We need a safe space for a person like this to what, actualize themselves into a full bore DUI expert?

20

Barry 08.02.06 at 10:21 am

“I would like to thank Bro Bartleby for the spiritual Darwinian position on this. RARRR”

Posted by John Emerson ·

See what I said, John? I would ordinarily discount Bro (the sixties were not good for him) Bartelby’s opinion as reflecting more LSD than the opinions of anybody in the real world, but that ‘evolution in action’ is a slogan of many right-wingers.

21

Ray 08.02.06 at 10:28 am

“people should be allowed go out and get drunk without getting raped” /= “people should be allowed drive drunk”
are you reading this thread or just looking for a random place to vent?

22

no absolutes 08.02.06 at 10:31 am

“For those who visit the zoo often, being zoo-wise is a given, and when you see someone stick their hand into the tiger cage and the tiger takes the invitation, well, the zoo-wise are naturally horrified at the carnage, yet still shake their head at the failure of, not the zoo keepers, but the failure of common sense.”

wow. so, which group of people are tigers, here? and which group are tiger-keepers? i’m reminded of what Chris Rock said about the Siegfried and Roy tiger incident: “That tiger didn’t go crazy, that tiger went tiger!”
People aren’t tigers. You’re not making any sense. If you’d sooner criticize tigers than criticize men who commit rape, you should probably stay out of law enforcement.

23

Belle Waring 08.02.06 at 10:45 am

I see it almost nightly. Are y’all arguing that we need to create more ways to enable and protect idiots like this to continue this behavior?

wait, creating a society with lower levels of rape than we have now would amount to protecting idiots who may go on to drive drunk, and would thus be a bad thing? you’ve got some fucked-up priorities, dude.

24

mpowell 08.02.06 at 10:49 am

Somehow, I think there is a middle ground here between ‘the girls deserved it’ and ‘society encourages rape’. The first position is pretty grotesque and deserves condemnation, but I’m still not signing on to the second position. I’m not that big on the prospects of anti-rape training. Is anyone who actually needs it going to be paying attention?

25

99 08.02.06 at 10:52 am

Um, I was addressing Daniel’s point that the behavior of these two was entirely above reproach. Because she ended up dead, that excuses the fact that she was about to pour herself drunk into the car at 4AM?

So if she was carrying a concealed weapon, dispatched Mr. No Good to Anyone, then found her way back to the pound, and armed herself with her second deadly weapon of the night, this story would have had a happy ending? You’ve got some fucked up standard, babe.

26

Ben 08.02.06 at 10:59 am

Interesting. I think we can sometimes criticise common sense without assigning responsibility.

I also think we can sometimes assign some responsibility without taking away from the awfulness of a crime or by any means thinking that someone “deserved” what they got.

Without directly equating the value of someone’s life to that of someone’s possessions, we do often assign responsibility to victims.

For example, I naively leave my BMW in a rough part of town with the keys in the ignition and come back to find it gone.

Do I bear some responsibility for having it stolen? Common sense says I do, although that doesn’t make the person who stole it any less of a thieving *&^%.

I’m not familiar with this case so my comments don’t necessarily relate to it, but in some cases victims have to take some responsibility for exposing themselves to risk that a reasonable person would not have done.

We understand that sick, unpleasant, untrustworthy people exist in the world and merely shrugging off the responsibility of avoiding them on the grounds that no-one deserves to be a victim is wilfully absurd.

27

Sean 08.02.06 at 11:06 am

Ray, the issue isn’t whether she should have been allowed to drive drunk, the issue is whether the fact that she was trying to drive at all showed bad judgment.

I think the thing that is so frustrating about this debate is that many seem to recognize no distinction between saying that someone has shown bad judgment and saying that that person deserves whatever terrible thing happens to him or her. I think Slocum makes the argument pretty well: you can say that someone has done something “wrong and dumb” without saying that they deserve whatever they get.

It’s pretty self-evident that the two victims in this case showed terrible judgment. This is not simply because, as Daniel says, they went out clubbing and got drunk. They attempted to drive home when they were so drunk that they were unable to stand. When they weren’t allowed to get their car, Ms. Moore left the lot and begun wandering aimlessly around an area of New York that she didn’t know at all but that she would most definitely have been able to see was completely deserted (as 12th avenue is pretty much all of the time, let alone very late at night)–at 5 AM. This is stupid, high-risk behavior, and it is so completely independent of one’s gender. The idea that to say that somehow makes one a bad feminist and an apologist for rape is offensive.

Let’s consider some of the implications of that position. If I’d been at the tow lot with Jennifer Moore and I’d told her that she ought to stay there, that it was a bad idea to go wandering around the neighborhood, would I have been apologizing for criminality? What if I were the bartender at the club and I’d told them that they’d had enough to drink? What if I were their parents and told them to drink responsibly, because it could be dangerous to be wandering around New York in the middle of the night blind drunk?

Let’s put it another way–let’s say that they’d succeeded in getting their car, driven home, and died in an accident along the way because they were driving drunk. After all, if the parking attendant had just given them their car, this could very easily have happened. Would criticizing their behavior have been out of bounds then? The fact that they were the victims of a crime doesn’t excuse their behavior, any more than their behavior excuses the crime.

I feel really silly arguing about this, because I agree with a lot of the substance of this post’s argument. There are strong misogynistic currents in our culture that need to be fought, and the “she was asking for it” response to rape is an all-too-common manifestation of those currents. But I just don’t think it does much for that cause when people make extreme, unconvincing arguments for the sake of consistency, which I think is what’s going on here.

28

99 08.02.06 at 11:09 am

Ray:

Rape is the one crime major crime that hasn’t dropped in Manhattan over the past ten years. Based on the discussion here, we are all probably familiar with the issues there (higher rates of reporting may finally be happening due to a bettter police response, so the total number may be dropping vs. an unwillingness to pursue acquaintance rape vigorously, thought the one anedcotal story I have is that the sex crimes unit was willing to help a friend pursue prosecution for an acquaintance rape that was years old and occured in a different jurisdiction). So it’s a zero sum game to argue whether or not we are seeing incremental improvement on rape, like we are on murder and other felonies.

But you can run up the flag of unfettered behavior is absolute, but what is more important? Reducing rape, or spending hours arguing about whether or not women should be allowed to wear short skirts and feel absolutely empowered (most men I know support the slutty look, and near as I know, most aren’t rapists)? Because nothing refutes the argument that reducing alcohol consumption across the board reduces rape. Nothing. And there is little evidence that binge drinking is as prominent in adults as it is in college students. Most people just call that maturity. But since we can’t enforce maturity, we can at least do something about drinking.

Given the thousands of people who do drink to excess every night in Manhattan, focusing on what is statiscally neglible (we have more harrowing stories about children being abused and murdered, or non-white girls being murdered, mostly because they were standing in the wrong place at the wrong time, but neither Malkin or Belle seem to find this worthy of such outrage) doesn’t change anything. Of those thousands of drunks, who know how many unforutnate decisions were made — unsafe sex, risky but elective decisions by women and men expressing their freedom, etc — happened while two blind drunks girls were stumbling over the west side? If all of them had been less able to consume in such quantity, none of this would have happened.

29

Henry 08.02.06 at 11:12 am

bro. bartleby

You’ve been trolling persistently for a long time now. You (and your various aliases) are banned permanently from commenting on Crooked Timber threads. Any comments that we find will be removed immediately. We also reserve the right to use any future ridiculous comments on Cafe Press coffee mugs, t shirts and other Crooked Timber memorabilia (any action on your part to comment in spite of our banning policy shall constitute your acceptance of these terms).

30

jet 08.02.06 at 11:13 am

Bro. Bartleby seems to be saying that the world is full of tigers (rapists), and since the tiger-keepers (cops) can’t protect everyone, then people shouldn’t stick their hands through the cages (get drunk and walk lonely streets at 4am). I’m unsure if this is a bad way of phrasing it or not. But how would you refer to a young girl who got drunk and tried to cross a busy street at 4am and got hit by a car?

We all face risk every day, and to some extent we can control that risk. To the ability we are able to control that risk, we are to some extent responsible for our fate.

That said, I’m all for felonious sexual assult being a no exit stay in prison. Maybe if we thinned down the heard of wild tigers in our mist, it wouldn’t be so risky to be drunk on lonely streets at 4am (which probably should be a constitutional right as nothing wraps a fun evening clubbing better than The Walk Home).

31

jet 08.02.06 at 11:15 am

Henry, you make this place suck. I’m outy. Fark off!

32

Cryptic Ned 08.02.06 at 11:28 am

Um, I was addressing Daniel’s point that the behavior of these two was entirely above reproach. Because she ended up dead, that excuses the fact that she was about to pour herself drunk into the car at 4AM?

I would say that driving drunk should not be punishable by rape and murder, but should instead be punishable by taking away one’s license for a very long time.

On the other hand, maybe we should have undercover cops prowl the streets looking for people who seem like potential drunk drivers, so they can then rape them, and possibly murder them if they are REALLY drunk. This would be a pretty good deterrent. We could call them “fingermen”.

33

mds 08.02.06 at 11:44 am

Because she ended up dead, that excuses the fact that she was about to pour herself drunk into the car at 4AM?

Of course, all this ignores that it’s neither illegal nor particularly immoral to be a drunk passenger, as it was her friend’s car. You know, the young woman who wasn’t murdered. Perhaps we can turn more of our moral outrage on her, since I’m sure that otherwise she’ll be singing and dancing with gleeful unconcern. Or telling a vengeful deity, “You missed!”

34

Daniel 08.02.06 at 11:46 am

Um, I was addressing Daniel’s point that the behavior of these two was entirely above reproach.

Well when you address a point I actually made, you might get a reply.

but neither Malkin or Belle seem to find this worthy of such outrage

wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for a response from Belle either.

Ray, I reiterate. The fact that New York is dangerous at night for women (if it is a fact) is not a physical fact, and not something that should be regarded as acceptable. There is no very great social problem with respect to the judgement of young women, but a very big social problem with respect to the levels of sex crime in New York.

35

99 08.02.06 at 11:51 am

Even though I thought this statement was clear: Regardless of what happened subsequent to that moment, these two were very familiar with high risk behavior (meaning what happened later = bad and inexcusable, and unrelated to their present decisions, but that their present decisions were indicative of criminal intent), I better get in line, or I’ll get my progressive card revoked (Henry seems testy): rape and murder by a stranger is a very bad thing. I wish it happened to no one. And being a guns and land type, it wouldn’t really bother me if these guys got popped. Hell, if the cops just deposited him a dumpster as well, I wouldn’t have thought twice about the morality of it.

To go back to Belle’s comment: The problem is not that women sometimes get drunk.

Um, no, that actually is a problem unto itself, particularly when they get drunk enough to pass out while trying to get in a car and drive.

It’s a different problem, but, aside from the one really bad instance we saw last week, versus the far larger number of nasty things that don’t get written up that arise from the exact same circumstance, it would seem to make discussing what we consider normal or reasonable behavior worthwhile. Cause I don’t want to give blank checks to drunk 18 year olds.

And, interestingly, if we addressed that problem, fewer rapes would happen as well. An ancillary benefit at best, but we’re talking about reducing rape right? If reducing alcohol consumption across the board (men and women) by 10% resulted in a 10% drop in reported rape, would anyone here support it?

36

99 08.02.06 at 11:54 am

I don’t think there’s any conclusive evidence that either was legally able to drive a car.

37

Elliot 08.02.06 at 12:16 pm

Daniel, I’m pretty sure New York is dangerous at night for men too, though I don’t have any figures.

I’m a bit confused about the relevance of the (obvious and correct) point several commenters have made about the crime rate in New York being a socially caused fact rather than a law of nature. I don’t see why this should impact whether someone’s behavior exhibits poor judgment. Isn’t prudence about reacting to the circumstances that actually exist in reality rather than those that would exist in Utopia?

38

Matt Kuzma 08.02.06 at 12:25 pm

Posts like this are the reason I read CT and not Pandagon. Thanks for avoiding the peripheral argument and sticking with the core issue.

I will say that, given the degree to which our society seems to be incapable of protecting the weakest among us, it’s a good idea to try not to be weak. But you should never blame someone for being naive. Naivete may be a reason someone is taken advantage of, but it’s never a justification for taking advantage.

So thanks for staying on topic: we shouldn’t live in a society where women have to fear for their lives just because they’re alone.

39

Jake 08.02.06 at 12:47 pm

Ray, I reiterate. The fact that New York is dangerous at night for women (if it is a fact) is not a physical fact, and not something that should be regarded as acceptable. There is no very great social problem with respect to the judgement of young women, but a very big social problem with respect to the levels of sex crime in New York.

Indeed. Or in New Jersey, which is apparently where the crime actually took place, after she got into a cab with the rapist (a “low-level drug dealer and pimp”) and his girlfriend and went to the motel where they were staying.

But the level of sex crime in urban America is a much stickier subject that I suspect most people don’t want to get into – is the problem that people think that “No” means “Give her another drink and ask her again?”, or that there are too many low-level drug dealers and pimps running the streets who should be in jail, and would be, if it wasn’t for that pesky 4th amendment?

Far easier to use a photogenic victim to push whatever your pet agenda is (stopping young women from partying? why on earth for?)

40

99 08.02.06 at 12:55 pm

Since when it ‘sex crime in urban America’ stickier than ‘sex crime in American’? Thousands of young stupid people come here every night, get drunk, do stupid things, and go home without anything bad happening to them. If anything, this is probably the safest place in the country to do that.

Considering the massive racial and economic inequities that occur here, the striking lack of care for the marginal, mentally ill, and homeless, we do an amazing job protecting the weakest among us, once you get over the fact that being poor, not-white or homeless is not a sign of weakness.

41

Marcella Chester 08.02.06 at 1:16 pm

Daniel (in #16) “And the fact that going for rides with strangers and getting into taxis are dangerous for young unaccompanied women is neither an unalterable fact about the world, nor something that we should accept.”
Response (#19) “Daniel: going to clubs to get drunk is okay?”

The unintended implication of #19 is to make what happened to this woman into a punishment for wrongdoing. It’s that implication that fuels the rationalizations of those who tell themselves their victims were asking for trouble. That leads to people saying things like: All those who did wrong and weren’t punished escaped their fate.

This mindset makes us powerless to do anything except take actions that warrant a better fate. And that would be great if rape worked that way, but it doesn’t. Ministers rape too, but we aren’t telling girls and women that they asked for it by going to church alone.

42

Steve LaBonne 08.02.06 at 1:16 pm

Since I run a forensic DNA lab, helping to get rapists off the street is a major part of what I do for a living. I certainly don’t know anyone in or out of law enforcement who thinks rape is a good thing. If any of the people calling above for reducing the frequency of sex crimes (a goal I very heartily endorse- I’m also all for motherhood and I enjoy apple pie) have any actual ideas for accomplishing that, please bring them forth- we need them.

43

bi 08.02.06 at 1:41 pm

“no one is likely to tote their pistol around from room to room in their own goddamn house while they talk with a friend”

Hey Belle, are you thinking what I’m thinking?

44

SamChevre 08.02.06 at 1:43 pm

Just commenting to say that I agree with Steve 100% on this issue.

Remember, too, that there’s a ditch on both sides of the road. We want to deter rape, but not punish non-criminals. (Which is why mob justice, even for rape, is not a currently favored practice.)

45

dsquared 08.02.06 at 2:11 pm

I don’t see why this should impact whether someone’s behavior exhibits poor judgment

The matter at issue is not whether someone’s behaviour exhibited poor judgement, but whether it makes sense to have an assessment of their judgement as a major part of our reaction to the case, as opposed to an assessment of the social factors which make some places dangerous for sex crimes.

In unrelated news, I am aware for certain of plenty of men, including police officers, who regard rape (although not under that description) as acceptable behaviour for a man who has been prick-teased, and the thing about attitudes like that is that there are a lot of borderline cases about who have a structural tendency to believe that they have been teased.

46

Steve LaBonne 08.02.06 at 2:16 pm

If anybody is doubting that in the US (I can’t speak for the UK) the kinds of acquaintance-rape cases of which d^2 speaks are aggressively investigated and prosecuted nowadays, allow me to reassure you. Indeed, they represent the great majority of my sexual assault cases.

47

Another Damned Medievalist 08.02.06 at 3:10 pm

Oh, hell. I am sooooo tired of this. DO they ever publicise rape cases where it isn’t easy to take cheap shots at the victim??

48

Andrew Brown 08.02.06 at 3:24 pm

Daniel, it’s much more within my power to improve the judgement of potential victims than to change the social factors that make some places dangerous for sex crimes. So I don’t think it is necessarily irrational or callous to look at a story like that and have as a first reaction, “listen, girls, don’t be so bloody stupid”. I can do that with some hope that eg my daughter will take notice, whereas I can’t do much about improving the social conditions of New York or Hackney except voting and hoping that something will come of it.

49

ralph 08.02.06 at 3:35 pm

dsquared has summed up the issue for me well.

The matter at issue is not whether someone’s behaviour exhibited poor judgement, but whether it makes sense to have an assessment of their judgement as a major part of our reaction to the case, as opposed to an assessment of the social factors which make some places dangerous for sex crimes.

Yes, and I think the question seems to be what constitutes “major”. Minor is OK? Where is the balance that makes you happy? I agree that some people get to the poor judgment issue too fast to be trusted….

50

Cala 08.02.06 at 3:52 pm

Look, it’s not that anyone doesn’t think that it’s common sense advice to refrain from getting so drunk you can’t help or protect yourself. But oddly, it’s only trotted out when a girl is raped. I have never heard that it wasn’t a big deal that a guy was robbed because he should have known better wearing his Armani suit on the way to his car in the parking garage near his law firm. I’ve never heard it said that it was his fault for being white and chet-like and looking like a target.

You see it enough times and it starts to look less like common advice and more like a magical incantation. Because here’s the weird thing; almost no choice a girl might make would stand up to such scrutiny. Walk in a reasonable neighborhood? You took your chances. Walk home late? You took your chances? Wearing makeup? Sleeveless shirt? A skirt? Single? Heels? Naive, naive, naive.

I am quite certain that were I to become a rape victim, my ordinary boring life would become scandalized in the news.

51

99 08.02.06 at 4:01 pm

cala: you can start here.

52

bi 08.02.06 at 4:07 pm

99x: am I the only one who doesn’t equate “throw girls out of a bar” with “do girls and kill them”?

53

Seth Edenbaum 08.02.06 at 4:27 pm

Spend 3 bucks and read Joan Didion

54

Jake 08.02.06 at 4:27 pm

The chief of the Met made some public statement a while back suggesting that people not listen to their iPods in public, or if they were going to, to replace the white headphones, to reduce their chances of being mugged.

I thought that this advice was incredibly offensive – you should be able to have something nice and not have to worry about it being stolen.

They tell motorcyclists to never depend on having the right of way, because even if it’s the car’s fault you’re dead, you’re still dead. I find that less offensive, partly because most car-motorcycle accidents do not involve malice, and I’d rather be alive than in the right, while I might rather be in the right than have my iPod.

And, naturally, having an iPod and riding a motorcycle are choices in a way that being a woman is not.

55

Walt 08.02.06 at 4:40 pm

Cala has it exactly right. It’s like that scene near the beginning of Brave New World where the kids who’ve listened to the tape in their sleep who say “The Nile is the longest river” who automatically repeat it whenever prompted. You mention that a woman was out late and got raped, and automatically someone will recite a little speech about how they’re not blaming the victim, but she shouldn’t blah, blah, blah. It’s like watching a computer program run. I wish Windows offered that kind of reliability.

56

joe o 08.02.06 at 4:56 pm

I agree with cala too.

What the hell is 99 talking about? That bouncer website is stupid, but not stupid enough to suggest customers should be raped and killed for drinking too much.

57

99 08.02.06 at 4:59 pm

Acutally, a man was shot, along with two companions, while arguing with a bouncer a few weeks back. Many of you probably didn’t hear about it because it didn’t involve a white woman. The link posted was to a site written by a bouncer at a club; I did some searching for a quote he gave elsewhere, to the effect of “don’t fight with bouncers”.

So we have two examples, in the same neighborhood of two murders, one male, one female, to which much of the local reaction was ‘what did you think would happen’?

Is that not the exact evidence you were looking for?

In the very local coverage (blogs), it was intially reported only that they found her body. I was seeing ‘what was she doing wandering drunk on 12th avenue at that time’ before there was any mention of sexual violence. No one was asking what her outfit looked like.

58

99 08.02.06 at 5:09 pm

here’s what he wrote in response to the most recent murder:

When you’re Bridge and Tunnel, as Jennifer Moore was, things get a bit dicier. You cross the river, you pay your toll, and you’re part of the show until last call. After that, for us, there’s a process involved. You need to get home, and home is hardly a short cab or subway ride away. No. It’s more complicated than all that. And in the interim — the time between, when commuter trains are caught, or cars retrieved — shit happens. When you’re young, and from the suburbs, and don’t know where to legally park or how to get back to the PATH or the LIRR, you’re exposing yourself to 4 am New York — the Manhattan of Darryl Littlejohn, Steven Sakai and Draymond Coleman.

59

dsquared 08.02.06 at 5:22 pm

If anybody is doubting that in the US (I can’t speak for the UK) the kinds of acquaintance-rape cases of which d^2 speaks are aggressively investigated and prosecuted nowadays, allow me to reassure you. Indeed, they represent the great majority of my sexual assault cases

Respectfully, Steve, you see the ones that get prosecuted. This isn’t a sample that is going to give you a representative picture. If you count the cars people are buying at a Ford dealership, you will reach the conclusion that people are buying a lot of Fords.

60

dsquared 08.02.06 at 5:27 pm

Daniel, it’s much more within my power to improve the judgement of potential victims than to change the social factors that make some places dangerous for sex crimes. So I don’t think it is necessarily irrational or callous to look at a story like that and have as a first reaction, “listen, girls, don’t be so bloody stupid”.

Andrew, if your main means of communicating with your daughter is the comments section of Crooked Timber then I have to tell you that isn’t normal and you need to do something. This is where we talk about social policy in general, but it seems to me that people systematically make this switch to giving personal advice and recommendations whenever the general subject is women. I think this is a big part of what’s wrong with the whole man woman thing.

61

Crystal 08.02.06 at 5:32 pm

The anthropologist Peggy Reeves Sanday has written quite a bit on “rape-free” societies where rape rarely or never occurs, versus “rape-prone” ones where rape is frequent. (For reference, she talks about this on her website at the University of Pennsylvania as well as in her book, “A Woman Scorned: Acquaintance Rape On Trial.”

In a nutshell, Sanday concluded that rape is far more likely to occur in societies where women are considered second-class citizens and inferior to men (true in the past for the US though much, much less true now), “real men” are supposed to be tough and aggressive, and interpersonal violence (male-on-male as well as male-on-female) is common. Rape is part and parcel of a larger pattern of violence; the American cowboy mentality bites us in the ass here.

The psychologist Neil Malamuth has also done extensive studies of rape, and he concludes that rapists, as opposed to men who don’t rape, are marked by narcissism and an acceptance of violence to get one’s way. A normal, nonviolent man would see a woman, and regardless of whether he thought she was a “tease” or out late at night dead drunk or etc., would not rape her. A rapist, on the other hand, would think he was entitled to “what was his” because she was a tease or out late at night drunk or etc.

As a point of comparison, I’ve heard rape rates are far lower in Scandinavia, also a modern Western culture but where the values are quite different.

I don’t doubt that most Americans, male and female alike, think rape is abhorrent. I also don’t doubt that our culture glorifies violence, toughness and the I’ve-got-mine mentality and that spills over to our interpersonal relations, often with tragic results.

62

Steve LaBonne 08.02.06 at 5:37 pm

Respectfully, David, I work very closely with local law enforcement in a suburban county that’s both quite vigorously policed and of sufficiently moderate size (about a quarter million people) to allow for everything that’s going on to be pretty well known- while I will grant immediately that I can’t speak for the entire country, I can tell you that EVERY complaint is investigated and our prosecutor’s office has a very active victim’s assistace program to make sure complaints do get filed and victims do get to the hospital for evidence collection. I also see a synopsis of every case and I can assure you they’re not cherrypicked “good” cases, in fact a significant number are clearly rather dubious. So I’m quite confident there are few potential assault cases in my jurisdiction that go uninvestigated.

Where this is less true- as I will grant it probably is in some big cities- it may still be partly a matter of police culture and also partly of insufficient resources. But I see little evidence of a broad societal disinclination to take such cases seriously, and my county is just the kind of rather conservative place where one might expect the “old-fashioned” “values” of which you spoke to be fairly prevalent.

63

Steve LaBonne 08.02.06 at 5:41 pm

I apologize for addressing Daniel as “David”- the godawful heat wave we’re suffering through must have warped my brain!

64

99 08.02.06 at 5:51 pm

So adding to the already seemingly limitless pile of evidence that Michelle Malkin is an idiot is discussing social policy?

The CDC (and a local prof in the NY Times) note alcohol is a contributing factor in a large number of crimes, both victim and predator (though I could not find any evidence that sexy dancing or halter tops contribute to crime, unless you are enforcing New York’s Cabaret Laws).

But mentioning this is blaming the victim. Good policy.

65

Walt 08.02.06 at 6:12 pm

99: The reason Belle drew this to everyone’s attention was not that Michelle Malkin was an idiot, but that as Zuzu discovered on her weblog (where her initial point was that the case was being blown up out of proportion) there are lots of idiots.

66

Marcella Chester 08.02.06 at 8:30 pm

it’s much more within my power to improve the judgement of potential victims than to change the social factors that make some places dangerous for sex crimes.
I disagree. What’s easier, is lecturing potential victims. But that is inaction disguised as action.

Action is supporting programs that help improve crime-ridden neighborhoods and supporting funding needed for crime prevention programs and other programs that allow people like parole officers to know when their assignees should be returned to jail — before they murder someone.

67

Kepon 08.02.06 at 9:59 pm

it’s much more within my power to improve the judgement of potential victims than to change the social factors that make some places dangerous for sex crimes

Mmm, yeah, good luck with that. Potential victims are women, and of course women are so stupid that no amount of explination on our parts seems to get through to the little imbeciles. You’d think, from the way they act, that they spend most of their lives worrying about their physical safety, and they resent big brave smart guys like us condescending to them and acting like they’re simpleminded two year olds, telling them all things that they already know. Listen up, girls, wear your burquas and get those sex change operations, and you probably won’t be raped, and if you are it’s because you did something to bring it on yourself. This girl shouldn’t have been walking, and she shouldn’t have taken a cab so she sould stop walking,a nd she shouldn’t have been in New York, and she shouldn’t have been born female. It’s that simple.

And jet, thanks for that awesome analogy. Clearly, if someone is wandering around drunk at 4 am and wanders into the street, thus increasing the possibility that someone will hit her, endangering both the oncoming drivers and passengers and herself, that’s exactly the same as wandering around at 4 am forcing someone to rape and murder her! In the first case, her actions are potentially forcing someone to accidentally hit her, in the second she’s forcing someone, most unwillingly, to rape and murder and dismember her and stuff her into a trash can. Exactly the same. I see now why it’s true that the victim bears responsibility, why won’t you women just stop forcing us to violate and massacre you? Just stop!

68

lurker 08.02.06 at 10:17 pm

Those who cherish freedom must assume some risk. Few would choose to live in state that attempted to control society to such a degree that risk of personal harm was eliminated.

Many Arab societies keep their woman at home or covered in burka’s. Is this a better life? Or would it be better to keep the men in chains?

It’s interesting that many that complain about the injustice of our society where woman are raped, are also the ones that complain about the overall rate of incarceration for criminals.

There’s no free lunch folks.

69

bi 08.02.06 at 11:32 pm

Look on the bright side people. If Malkin gets raped, killed, and dismembered, we can find some reason to put some blame on her.

70

Walt 08.02.06 at 11:33 pm

Lurker: You don’t hear those people complaining about the incarceration rate of rapists.

71

Ragout 08.02.06 at 11:42 pm

So no one’s going to criticize the NYC government, for towing her car in the first place? Instead of just writing a hefty ticket?

It’s hard to believe that her car was impeding the flow of traffic late on a weekend night. The practice of towing cars for minor infractions is often just a corrupt way of channeling money to certain towing companies.

In the best case, towing a car means the driver has to spend hours retrieving it. In the worst case, I’m sure that many people get stranded in the scary neighborhood around the impound lot, just as these two were.

72

Ray 08.03.06 at 2:49 am

I posted once in this thread (comment 21) to say that going out and getting drunk is not the same thing as going out and driving drunk. Somewhere along the line the opinions of people replying to me seem to have been attributed to me…

73

daelm 08.03.06 at 3:05 am

i stopped reading early on, so forgive me if the point i make has already been made (as it should have been).

a) this is not the point: ” the society we live in encourages rape”. it probably isn’t even true, except possibly indirectly, and then the argument is difficult to make.

b) this is the point: “when a woman is raped, abused or killed, societal sympathies only vest in her if she can be shown to have adhered to a victorian moral code. this rule does not apply to men.”

c)this is also worth making as a point: “vesting societal sympathy in the vicitm is a crucial step towards developing a general interests in ways to reduce the incidence of male on female crime.”

74

daelm 08.03.06 at 3:08 am

sorry about the typos

75

daelm 08.03.06 at 3:16 am

having skimmed the rest, kudos to dsquared.right on both counts in 45, and both funny and right in 60.

76

lurker 08.03.06 at 6:46 am

Walt, You don’t hear those people complaining about the incarceration rate of rapists.

Maybe not in this thread.

77

bi 08.03.06 at 7:21 am

lurker: well, as Rumsfeld tells us about Iraqi WMD or something: “as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”

78

Steve LaBonne 08.03.06 at 7:34 am

Re #73b: I’ve seen convictions in which the victim was very far from being a candidate for canonization; for example, in one case (which resulted from my first major cold database hit here), not only was the victim a crackhead, but the defendant’s cover story was that she had simply traded sex for drugs. Yet the jury believed her.

Jurors are a pretty average cross-section of “society”; I think they’re a better indicator of underlying social attitudes than what gets hyped in the news media. So color me sceptical about this oft-repeated claim. I think that there are residues of such an attitude but that they are diminishing quite perceptibly.

79

Andrew Brown 08.03.06 at 8:11 am

Daniel, yes, ha ha. There is a serious point lurking, which is that this kind of story is one of the few things to appear in a newspaper which allow a practical response in people’s everyday lives, rather than a quick bloviation, however satisfying. The victim was not stupid or blameworthy to be a woman; it was however stupid and blameworthy to be very drunk late at night in a dangerous part of town. Of course she didn’t deserve what happened to her but her actions made it more likely that it would happen.

To take a parallel example, quite free, so far as I know, from sexual politics: if anyone rides a bicycle on the lanes where I live they are quite likely to be knocked down and killed by a car. Of course this is the driver’s fault if it happens, and they shouldn’t drive like that. That won’t stop me from urging people not to ride bicycles on dangerous roads. I may also campaign to make the roads safe. That’s less within my power to affect and so in some senses less urgent.

80

Marcella Chester 08.03.06 at 8:23 am

Lurker, you sure have a lousy opinion of men if you believe we either have to lock up the women or lock up the men to reduce the incidence of rape.

81

99 08.03.06 at 8:43 am

71: Most of the large clubs are located in districts that have “night regulation” parking. Often this is because they are tight up against businesses that sometimes require nighttiime delivery; mostly they are high traffic commerical areas during the day, and sweeping/cleaning happens at night (or the trucks arrive early enough to cause conflict with early morning departees — in the club world, this can be 6-10AM). Oftentimes encroaching residential units lead to massive complaints (screaming, rowdy drunks on the street late). The night regulation parking serves to push crowds off the block more quickly (cabs move more quickly, and no one has a car nearby).

A popular club, Tramps, used to have signs the size of the front door discouraging parking. And, without fail, leaving at show at 11, one would see literally a line of NYC trucks taking away every car on the block.

But none of these clubs is more than a block from easily accessible, if not cheap parking (but considering that drinks in these clubs start at $7 for water and cover is north of $20 meaning that it’s relatively affordable), typically becase of the puacity of on street parking.

NYC already heavily subsidizes out of state drivers with our on street parking availability. Tows and tickets are important sources of revenue. But to keep in the spirit of the tenor here: so you are saying writing tickets will prevent rape? That’s a policy we can all get behind.

Oh, and if that car wasn’t towed, do you think the city should have strict liability for enabling a felon (drunk driving, since as many people point out, the driver, not the victim, was the falling down and passing out drunk one)?

82

Marcella Chester 08.03.06 at 8:43 am

Andrew (in #79)I may also campaign to make the roads safe. That’s less within my power to affect and so in some senses less urgent.

This lower urgency for making roads safer is exactly the problem. Wouldn’t it be better if roads were designed for the safety of all of the traffic and not just for automotives?

To me true prevention should be of the highest urgency. And true prevention isn’t saying highway ## is a killer or that no sane woman belongs there.

All that says is that we failed to plan and those we failed the most now have to adjust to our failure or pay the price for our mistakes.

83

Daniel 08.03.06 at 10:00 am

Andrew: I genuinely apologise for that one, but when you come up with a joke like that you’ve got to use it.

The point I was trying to make is that, for example, when we have a thread on unemployment on CT (even one based on an individual experience of poverty, like one we had a couple of years ago), nobody posts “the thing to do is wear a nice business suit and use your network of contacts and make sure you do some positive action every day”, even though that’s actually good advice for someone looking for a job. Everyone recognises that it’s a social problem that needs a social/political solution and that’s what we’re talking about. And this is generally how things go. But when something like this comes up, everything’s different and self-defence tips are now on topic. I don’t understand why that’s the case, although I am pretty sure it has something to do with teh sexisms.

84

Ragout 08.03.06 at 10:13 am

99,

Most of the arguments you make justify a parking ticket, but not towing. In the case of forbidding parking to keep loud, drunken patrons from bothering the neighbors, it even seems that towing will worsen the problem. Patrons without cars are just going to stay around longer.

And about drunk driving, I haven’t seen it reported that the victim (as opposed to her friend) was drunk. Yet many commenters seems to assume that she was. Even you, 99, despite being aware of this fact, assume that car wouldn’t be driven by the victim, but instead by her falling-down-drunk friend. What’s up with that?

85

lurker 08.03.06 at 10:40 am

Marcella,
you sure have a lousy opinion of men if you believe we either have to lock up the women or lock up the men to reduce the incidence of rape.

You misunderstand completely. There’s absolutely no doubt that there are men out there who are rapists. Just as there’s absolutely no doubt that the personal actions of women can increase or decrease their risk of becoming a rape victim.
These are immutable facts of the human condition. No moral judgement here, it’s just the way things are.

Noting that a woman’s behavior increased her risk of rape is not “blaming the victim”. It’s just acknowledging reality. And it seems that those that complain that this is unjust, do not acknowledge that any socially imposed solution, imperfect as any other human endeavor, would involve the loss of freedom to some class of people.

Of course the perfect solution would involve identifying rapists prenatally, and then placing them straight into detention upon birth. Of course, justice imposes on us the restriction that we must wait for a rape to occur first, especially since we can never know with certainty who will be a rapist. Unless of course, we consider the opinion of some whereby “all men are rapists”. This would make the solution quite clear, wouldn’t it?

From the opposite view, “all women are rape victims” and so should be “protected”. That means never allowing to leave home or always remain in the company of a male relative if they do. We have actual societies that subscribe to this formula if any would wish to study the effect of such policies. We must assume that this is an acceptable solution since all cultures are equally valid.

Personally, I think none of these solutions are just. If you agree, then you must also acknowledge that justice demands that rape can never be eliminated! And trying to do so would restrict freedoms for some innocent folks to an intolerable degree.

The imperfect system we have trys to convict and incarcerate actual rapists, which unfortuantely means that a rape must have occured.

I submit that this is the best we can do. We should do a better job of keeping these rapists in jail, but many here don’t like that solution either, based on the various social justice concerns. Another possiblity is encouraging more woman to arm thmeselves. Alas, this isn’t a popular opinion here either.

So unfortunately in the case of rape, some burden does fall on women. We as a society ask them to consider that actions have real consequences; because responsible behavior on their part will go a long why to preserve a more just society.

You can, of course, generalize this principle to everyone, since we’re all potential victims of violent crime.

86

99 08.03.06 at 11:25 am

Um, how does passenger cars blocking commercial vehicle parking not justify towing? But this comments speaks to the general attitude here, which is, never having spent five minutes in the vicinty of these clubs and the behavior evident, is a whole pile of advice on how we could do better. Sounds like telling young women to not get drunk. Remember, NYC is a victim in all this.

An impound attendant tells the Daily News that Moore “was toasted. The state she was in, anybody could have taken advantage of her.” The attendant added that Keenan only realized that Moore was missing when she was in the ambulance and tried calling her.

Story here

87

99 08.03.06 at 11:28 am

Also, to those upthread who don’t feel like reading firsthand material, the lot clerk refused to release the car because they were evidently drunk, a cabbie who brought them encouraged them to wait, so there were two people (trying to do other jobs at the time) who tried to intervene.

88

Fat Doug Lover 08.03.06 at 11:46 am

I notice all the men in here blaming a woman for getting raped are ignoring the statistic that 1 in 20 men are admitted rapists. How is 1 in 20 not a social problem?

89

Ragout 08.03.06 at 12:25 pm

99,

Sure, some of the reasons you gave for towing a car are valid (when a car is actually blocking something), but others aren’t.

Anyway, thinking about it some more, my point is that the best policy response is to make it easier for young people to go out clubbing. Why were they driving into the City in the first place? Probably because there’s no mass transit, there’s no local clubs, the local clubs enforce the drinking age more strictly, and so on.

PS, thanks for the link. It seems the Daily News has better coverage of this story than the NY Times.

90

99 08.03.06 at 12:49 pm

Ragout: Except that you might only be importing a lot of problems.

FDL: Um, who specifically is blaming the victim? Pointing out that their behavior that night is nothing a young person should emulate is not blaming them for the events at the end of the evening. I didn’t see any causation. But it’s rare that you see such detailed coverage of how dangerous (counting only drunk driving and alcohol poisoning as possble outcomes) some of the behavior is when going to clubs. I’m still fine with them dressing slutty and dancing (boys and girls). If you have a list of rapists handy, send it over. I’ll take care of it.

91

serial catowner 08.03.06 at 1:06 pm

This all reminds me of our former naive belief that being an astronaut was not a dangerous job. The first launches went so well (as far as we knew) that we forgot just what exactly was involved.

Put yourself in the predator’s shoes for a minute- where would you go to hunt? Check, check, and double-check.

But frankly, I’m more scared of Wall Street than I am of the sexual predators of Manhattan. Wall Street depends on putting hundreds of millions of Americans into wage slavery, or worse, creating the environment in which social ills incubate.

It is no wonder to me that among respondents many odd opinions will be found. It is their way, probably mistaken, of saying they think they have bigger problems than the rape of a stranger.

92

abb1 08.03.06 at 3:57 pm

Everyone recognises that it’s a social problem that needs a social/political solution and that’s what we’re talking about.

Isn’t it possible, though, that analysis of the typical missteps the victims make (that is if they do typically make missteps – I don’t know) could be helpful in identifing some parts of this social/political solution?

93

sprite 08.03.06 at 5:09 pm

Anyway, thinking about it some more, my point is that the best policy response is to make it easier for young people to go out clubbing. Why were they driving into the City in the first place? Probably because there’s no mass transit, there’s no local clubs, the local clubs enforce the drinking age more strictly, and so on.

Ragout, there is tons of mass transit in the New York metropolitan area. The subway and city buses run all night. Granted, the commuter trains don’t, but one could get a cab to Grand Central or Penn Station and wait for the first train in a well-lit area patroled by police officers. Or use a cell phone to call a car service. Or get a hotel room. I’m not surprised many teens and college students don’t think of these things, but it’s not as if the options aren’t there.

It may be easier for some kids to go clubbing in New York because their local clubs enforce the drinking age, but I don’t see an easy solution. Should a club increase its liability by admitting underage locals? Seems like a big risk for them. Besides, the point of our ridiculously high drinking age is to cut down on drunk driving. In the long run, I think there would be more deaths and injuries if the cops winked at underage drinking in local clubs than we have among the smaller number of kids who come into the city. But I admit I have no statistics, so that’s just speculation.

94

99 08.03.06 at 7:09 pm

It interesting to me that every man seems to carry the responsibility for that 1 in 20 rapist stat quoted up thread, but no one expresses shock, anger, or dismay at the instutionalized processes of demeaning young women at these clubs. They are a tradable commodity, pursued by inequitable entry standards (many clubs enforce an entry ratio of women to men), cost (women often don’t have to pay), or alcohol availability (free or reduced price drinks). This is empowering? This is what generations of feminism wants to go to the mat for? Ladies Night?

You people really need to get out more. Cause I live in NYC, consider myself reasonably well adjusted and enlightened, and look at every attractive woman willing to show a little leg, but I find this entire subculture gross beyond description. Yet y’all seem to want to defend it. That’s not my battle. But can someone at least explain to me what the benefits to a humane society it provides.

Before you answer that, perhaps you should check out this, or this (NB: links to the Cobra Snake and Last Night’s Party, sites which chronicle the goings on in clubland).

95

Barbar 08.03.06 at 8:37 pm

I very much enjoy going clubbing and staying out until well past 4 in the morning in NYC. I do this maybe once every month or two. I think it’s been good for me.

96

Ragout 08.03.06 at 11:53 pm

99,

You’re exactly right, from the point of view of any particular city, allowing night clubs just imports problems, so many don’t allow them. But from the social point of view, banning night clubs doesn’t eliminate problems, it just dumps them off on to someone else. The result is that kids are forced to travel long distances, the incidence of drunk driving is increased, and we get tragedies like this one.

Sprite, I’m well aware that there’s tons of transit in the NYC area. At the moment, I happen to be visiting friends and family in the NYC suburbs, so I’m also aware of how lousy commuter rail service is on nights and weekends. Moore’s commuter rail line (the Pascack Valley line on NJ Transit) has no service at all on weekends.

97

Daniel 08.04.06 at 12:53 am

Pointing out that their behavior that night is nothing a young person should emulate is not blaming them for the events at the end of the evening.

in that case, may I point out, non-judgementally, that you’re coming over as one hell of a sexist dickhead here.

98

Andrew Brown 08.04.06 at 2:42 am

d^2 – no offence retained. If I had thought of a joke like that I would used it too.

99

99 08.04.06 at 1:56 pm

Daniel: whoa! That’s some fancy ad hom. Did you get that from Judith Butler? Since we are doing College Freshman (oops, First Year) Spot the Oppressor here, may I ask how you legitimate this observation? After all, you are on the Wrong Team. Or is it you have Overcome Your Inherent Failings, and want to Enlighten Me?

You must of been one of those hug-dispensing, grope-scoring SNAGs. Sweet talkin’ the ladies about how down you were trying to fight the patriarchy, even though you it is was impossible in theory, but were still a Pro-feminist Guy. Maybe played a folk song before trying to get in their pants.

100

bi 08.05.06 at 4:33 am

Hmm, maybe Daniel’s in favour of playing a folk song to get into ladies’ pants, but 99 seems to be in faour of simply tearing off their pants by brute force. After all, the ladies had it coming.

101

99 08.05.06 at 4:59 pm

It took awhile, but we got there — I got tired of all these posts, but I knew someone would finally deliver. We can construct a corollary to Godwin’s Law. Call it Dworkin’s Law. Except under Godwin’s Law, declaring someone you disagree a Nazi is seen as a rhetorical failure. I doubt the shining lights of logic at work here feel the same way about accusing strangers or rape.

Comments on this entry are closed.