Jeannie C. Riley: "Harper Valley P.T.A."
It Looks Like We're Going to Have a Mansplainer Thread After All
Links relevant to this post:
--Rebecca Solnit's L.A. Times essay, "Men who explain things".
--Zuska, You May Be A Mansplainer If...
--Jennifer Ouellette links to her post "Let Me Explain" in Zuska's thread. It's good reading.
--Zuska's follow-up thread, Men Who Cannot Follow Clear Directions From Women
On Monday morning, Zuska of Thus Spake Zuska opened a thread for her readers to discuss and mock the phenomenon of mansplaining. Zuska quotes Karen Healy’s definition of a mansplainer:
Mansplaining isn't just the act of explaining while male, of course; many men manage to explain things every day without in the least insulting their listeners.The thread is entitled “You May Be a Mansplainer If...”, and the space is supposed to be for sharing hallmark mansplainer behaviors that readers have witnessed, experienced, or even displayed.
Mansplaining is when a dude tells you, a woman, how to do something you already know how to do, or how you are wrong about something you are actually right about, or miscellaneous and inaccurate "facts" about something you know a hell of a lot more about than he does.
Bonus points if he is explaining how you are wrong about something being sexist!
Think about the men you know. Do any of them display that delightful mixture of privilege and ignorance that leads to condescending, inaccurate explanations, delivered with the rock-solid conviction of rightness and that slimy certainty that of course he is right, because he is the man in this conversation?
That dude is a mansplainer.
Here is a great example of the phenomenon from mightydoll, reproduced with permission:
my ex used to do this:
ex: something's wrong with my computer.
me: Oh, looks like there's a phrenicle in the stubert zone
ex: something's wrong with my computer
me: Why not check the stubert zone for phrenicles?
ex: something's wrong with my computer - - I'll ask Dick at work about it.
A WEEK PASSES IN WHICH I MENTION THE STUBERT PHRENICLES A FEW MORE TIMES
ex: Hey, I spoke to Dick at work about my computer. Turns out, (begins speaking really slowly) there are these things called phrenicles which SPEAK ... TO... the molydimes. The molydimes can reside in the jiminy zone, or they can reside in the stubert zone, but WHEN they reside in the stubert zone, sometimes there's a problem with them communicating with the loovarths, so it's best to keep phrenicles out of the stubert zone. All I have to do is move these phrenicles back to the jiminy zone and it's solved. Isn't Dick at work a computer god?
me: ...
Predictably, the thread is littered with arguments and hurt feelings, most of which stem from a failure to understand the original post. (Hint: nobody claimed that all men mansplain, or that women are never tiresome know-it-alls.) And of course, people showed up to laugh at the comments that so aptly prove the post’s point.
I wanted to write a post in response, but foundered almost immediately. I couldn't decide exactly what to say beyond providing my own examples, which I did in Zuska's thread. My inchoate thoughts on the matter included the following:
1) I understand the pressure, at least in the United States, to avoid admitting ignorance. Especially in science and tech fields, everyone competes for the title of Most Knowledgeable, even though admitting ignorance and asking questions is crucial to gaining knowledge. Both genders feel this pressure. But men's opinions and ideas are privileged over women's, and men often receive positive feedback for holding forth, while women tend to be punished for doing the same. Anyone who has been chastised by a supervisor for being "too aggressive" while male coworkers were praised as "go-getters" for similar behavior knows what I'm talking about.
2) Gender-neutral words for "mansplanation"-type behavior include great terms like "rule-crapping" and "info-dumping" (see Zuska's comment thread). As much as I like these concepts, though, they remove reference to the male privilege that makes mansplaining what it is. Mansplaining is not just holding forth; it's holding forth by someone who has the force of society behind him. A girl or woman can be a tiresome know-it-all, but she won't be praised and supported in her efforts while those around her are discouraged from showing her up.
3) I sympathize. Really, I do. Boys grow up hearing that the worst thing they can be is wrong, or weak, or like a girl--indeed, all of these horrible things are lumped together. Gentlemen, those times that you were called a sissy, or a girl, or berated for getting beaten by a girl on a math test, I was there too. I got the same message: girls are less than. Yes, it's hard to prove yourself. Now, prove yourself and try to make up for not being a son at the same time.
4) So, all the sympathy in the world won't make me let mansplaining (or whatever you choose to call it) slide.
I couldn't think of any way to express all of these inchoate thoughts, so I put it off and just included the link in today's blogaround. But comments in that thread convinced me that there is real interest in a similar though broader discussion here, so I'm opening one. Unlike Zuska's thread, this one is not limited to mocking the phenomenon, although examples are welcome. Discussion of social forces behind the phenomenon of Men Who Explain Things is on-topic, as are techniques for dealing with such Explanations. The different ways in which society responds to any and all genders of "rule-crappers" would also be on-topic. Comments about what it’s like to grow up afraid of getting scooped by a girl, or to grow up being that girl, and effects this has had on your communication skills are welcome. Debates over whether mansplaining exists, or is truly gendered behavior, or comments claiming that men are not privileged and/or calling us sexist, will be deleted, because we don't argue with cranks. Feel free to write about those topics on your own blog, but please stay on-topic here.
Finally, if you find that your comment boils down to "I've got hurt feelings", please refrain from posting it, and enjoy instead this lovely video:
Flight of the Conchords, "Hurt Feelings". Season 2, Episode 3, "Tough Brets"
The State of the Union Pub Is Open
Drink up, Shakers. It's gonna be a long night.
Late in the day, CNN reported that Obama will ask Congress tonight to repeal "Don't Ask Don't Tell." Paul Campos captures the perfect tone of cynicism on this one:
Of course "asking" could mean everything from making this a legislative priority to engaging in a largely empty symbolic gesture. Given that Obama almost certainly has the authority to stop discharges based on sexual orientation by issuing an executive order, it will be interesting to see how seriously he pursues what up to now has been perhaps his most egregiously broken campaign promise.As ever, I expect the worst and hope for the best! Bottoms up! Glug glug glug.
[If you're searching for an online broadcast, C-SPAN will be streaming it.]
Question of the Day
What's your favorite political movie?
(By which I mean, a movie specifically about politics, as opposed to a movie that generally makes a political statement.)
There are a lot of political movies I like: The Girl in the Café, The Constant Gardener, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Milk, The Man, Dave, The American President, My Fellow Americans...
But my absolute favorite is one which was recommended to me last time we did this question (in 2007): The Contender. If you haven't seen it, do.
Clinton on Her Future
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tells Tavis Smiley in an interview airing tonight that she doesn't envision being a two-term cabinet member:
TAVIS SMILEY: Finally, there's already speculation about whether or not Secretary Clinton is going to do this for the full first term, and whether or not she has any interest if asked to stay on to do it for eight years? You see how tough the job is, can you imagine yourself doing all four years and, if asked, doing it for another four years?I get the feeling that most of the people who ask her that question are relieved when the answer is still no.
HILLARY CLINTON: No, I really can't. I mean, it is just…
TAVIS SMILEY: No to what? All four or eight?
HILLARY CLINTON: The whole, the whole eight, I mean, that that would be very challenging. But I, you know, I don't wanna make any predictions sitting here, I'm honored to serve, I serve at the pleasure of the President, but it's a, it's a 24/7 job, and I think at some point, I will be very happy to [LAUGHS] pass it on to someone else.
TAVIS SMILEY: That opens the door for the obvious question, what would Hillary Clinton want to do when she is no longer Secretary of State?
HILLARY CLINTON: Oh, I, there's so many things I'm interested in, I mean, really going back to private life and spending time reading, and writing, and maybe teaching, doing some personal travel, not the kind of travel where you bring along a couple of hundred people with you. Just focusing on, on issues of women, girls, families, the kind of intersection between what's considered 'real politique' and real life politics, which has always fascinated me.
TAVIS SMILEY: And finally, just for the record, you have said before, emphatically, in fact, that you are not interested in running again for President of the United States, I’m taking your answer now to mean that that's still the same?
HILLARY CLINTON: Absolutely not interested.
Elizabeth and John Edwards Separate
According to The Guardian:
[A] source close to Elizabeth Edwards told ABC News that she and John are now legally separated. Under North Carolina law they can't get divorced until at least a year later.
Discuss. Or not. I don't really care.
Daily Kitteh
It's frequently commented upon that Olivia is Big McLargehuge, not merely fat but long and tall, though the actual breadth of her enormity is rarely cast into such stark perspective as in this pic I snapped of her cuddling with Iain Sunday night. This is not a trick of the camera, nor is it Photoshopped, and Iain is not a small fella. (He's 6'1, broad-shouldered, and barrel-chested.) She is really just. that. big.
Another one with Iain. And here she is with Sophs, who is ridiculously titchy, but still.
Olivia is a lady of remarkable substance.
Watch Your Mouth - Part 1: Explain Yourself
(Part 1 of An Ongoing Series)
Recently, I participated in a conversation about certain words and phrases and when they do (or whether they can) become used as common vernacular to the extent that they lose any derogatory or degrading meaning inherent in their origins.
It isn't particularly important what the exact phrase being discussed was at this point, but it is a subject I see come up frequently, especially on blogs where people are making an effort to use language responsibly, inclusively, and non-oppressively.
So, I'm going to offer up what I use as my general guideline (aka "rule of thumb" -- see more about that in part 3 of this series, arriving in a few days) when thinking about what language I will use when communicating with others, especially on the internet.
I'll start with a wee story: A number of years ago, when I was first studying Hebrew, I would occasionally send an email in Ivrit to a friend in Israel. I was learning formal Hebrew, so to him, I'm sure my emails read as if I was a real stuffed shirt (fortunately, he knows me better than that). He would tease me a bit about my proper language and was infinitely good-natured and supportive when he corrected some of my word choices to a better reflection of day-to-day speech.
One day, though, I sent him an email about Halloween, and I indicated that many children had come to my door "begging for candy". He wrote back and warned me with uncharacteristic sternness that the word I had chosen for "begging" would be offensive to many native Hebrew speakers in this context, even if I was just being hyperbolic about the Trick or Treat traditional threat/demand chant of costumed children on a pagan-esque holiday.
I asked him to explain this to me, and he said that the word would imply, in Israeli culture, a certain level of poverty and powerlessness so abject that it would not be a joking matter, especially when referring to children.
He went on to talk about the complexity of attitudes re: begging and charity in Jewish and Israeli culture, and how using such a word in this context might even subtly indict the community referred to of failing in their responsibility to care for their children.
This experience was very enlightening to me. My friend's explanation took some time -- he had to provide me with history and context in order for me to fully comprehend, as someone outside both the culture and the language, why one word next to "Beg" in my Hebrew dictionary implied wretchedness and cultural failure, and another simply meant "asking emphatically".
Since then, I've used this as a tool for determining whether a commonly-used idiom can be successfully detached from any oppressive history or present-day offensiveness.
This is how I use the tool:
(Note: In this example, I'm going to use a fairly innocuous phrase, rather than something as highly-charged as "that's so gay", or "shuck and jive" or "bitch", but this technique can be applied to pretty much any phrase that some people receive as offensive because it's racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ablist, etc., while other people argue that commonality of use has rendered inert any roots in racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ablism, etc..)
I'm going to use the phrase "Pardon My French".
Let's imagine that I am conversing with a person who is just learning English, has a fairly good word-by-word vocabulary, but who knows nothing about France except that it's a country, and nothing much about the culture of any country in which this idiom is used.
I say: "Damn this fucking pickle jar lid! -- Oh, pardon my French."
And they say, "Hmmm. Why are you wishing to send to hell the lid of a jar? And what do the French have to do with it?"
First of all, I would have to explain to this person what I mean by "damn this ___" (that what I really mean is definition 5 in the OED -- an expression of frustration).
If they ask (and why wouldn't they?) how a word whose first meaning is "be condemned by God to eternal punishment in hell" came to mean that I'm annoyed, there might be conversation about Judeo-Christian attitudes, and why some words which are considered "bad" come into use only in moments of great frustration. I might also need to relate this to any words considered to be "cussing" in the speaker's own language (which might involve the etymology of the word "cuss").
However, let's assume, for the moment, that the listener understands the concept of cursing, but is scrambling to comprehend the Gallic influence on my U.S. potty-mouth.
I would need to explain to this person a least a little bit my culture's historical attitudes and stereotypes about residents of the country of France, who are assumed to be libertine from birth, and why some members of other countries attempt to excuse their "salty" language by claiming that they are just speaking French (and then, of course, I'd have to explain why "salty" language has nothing to do with sodium chloride), and I'd probably need to put in some stuff about why some people in our culture think that using the word "damn" in any context is bad/wrong, and I'd probably touch on why they are likely to hear the word damn on broadcast television at some hours, but never the word "fuck", even though they are both "cussing". Phew!
The point is -- I consider that if I can't explain an idiom without also describing a system of bias or discrimination or oppression that gave rise to it -- the term is fundamentally discriminatory and/or oppressive.
And this is "just" Pardon my French! -- something I doubt most people think of as demonstrating bias (although I think it does) -- and the residents of France are not really all that disenfranchised as a group. Think about how the energy of oppression in these casually-expressed idioms are amplified when they involve groups and individuals who are more deeply other-ized.
You may be breathing an exasperated sigh at this moment and saying to yourself: "Oh PortlyDyke, do I have to always be thinking about every single word and phrase I use?"
No. You don't have to do anything.
However, in the text-saturated environment of the blogosphere, words and phrases are often the only tools we have -- and ostensibly, we are here to use those words and phrases to communicate to, and connect with, other people.
So, if there are words and phrases that I use, but haven't actually thought about -- idioms that may be so common that I don't have a clue about their etymology, but which I find are undeniably rooted in discrimination and oppression when I use the "explain it to a non-native speaker" exercise above (such as the phrase: "I got gypped" -- a slur against Romani people that I'm often surprised people don't know about) -- if I continue to use these words and people are offended by them and I say: "Hey, it's common usage! I didn't mean it like that" . . .
Well, if I do that, I think that what I'm really saying is:
"I want to use these phrases because they are an easy short-hand for me, and/or they make me sound hep, or edgy, or current -- and I want that more than I want to effectively communicate and connect with you."
Which, when I put it like that, sounds really shitty of me.
Quote of the Day
"I haven't donated to the Haitian relief effort for the same reason that I don't give money to homeless men on the street. Based on past experiences, I don't think the guy with the sign that reads 'Need You're Help' is going to do anything constructive with the dollar I might give him. If I use history as my guide, I don't think the people of Haiti will do much with my money either."—Former NBA player and huge privileged asshole Paul Shirley, who also penned an open letter to the people of Haiti which is even more execrable. [H/T to Shaker Nicole.]
Coincidentally, my dad and I were just talking about this exact attitude two nights ago. Now, my dad, who is a very devout and fairly conservative fella, and I disagree about a lot of stuff. But one thing on which we passionately agree is the importance of volunteering and charitable giving.
Both of us have heard variations on the old "I won't give money to a homeless man because he might spend it on booze" chestnut from people during discussions of Haiti relief. I said, "When I give money to someone who's homeless, I don't give a flying fuck what zie spends it on, whether it's a bottle of booze or a hit of weed or a sandwich or a paperback, because I respect hir autonomy." And my dad said [I'm paraphrasing], "Ditto."
Respecting the right of humans to make decisions for themselves isn't—or shouldn't be—an exclusively conservative or progressive principle. (And disrespecting people's right of self-determination is found in varying degrees on both the Right [anti-choicers] and the Left [paternalism, or nanny-statism].) It's something we all ought to be able to handle.
As is navigating the obvious distinction between giving money to a person (or people), whose choices are none of your business, and an organization, whose charter delineates how contributions will be spent and is thus answerable if they are misspent.
Shirley, and not a few other privileged folks, are willfully blurring that distinction in a shameless attempt to justify their despicable victim-blaming, which isn't justifiable by any measure, anyway. It's one thing to not be sure which charity is the most effective (although accessing information on vetted charities is easier than ever—thanks, Al Gore!); it's quite another to lay the blame at the feet of aid recipients, belligerently dismissing them as intrinsically unhelpable, because they haven't demonstrated sufficient ability to overcome centuries of privileged exploitation and institutional neglect to satisfy your pithy, ignorant expectations.
No one (especially people struggling themselves) is obliged to contribute to relief efforts. But anyone who has the means and doesn't want to give ought to at least have the integrity to be honest about why they're not giving, to say, with unapologetic avarice: "It's not you; it's me."
[Contributions are still needed. Donate to CARE here. Donate to Habitat for Humanity here. Donate to Doctors Without Borders here. Donate to Hope for Haiti Now, which benefits a variety of organizations (who can be found at the link), here.]
Vloggin' with Blogginz, Episode 11
[Episodes One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten.]
A poem. An ode. A tribute. With dancing.
[Also available at Daily Motion. Full transcript below.]
Title Card: Vloggin' with Blogginz
KBlogz: Hey, all you Shakers out there on the internet! It's me, Kenny Blogginz, again—and boy, do I have a heck of a poem to read to you guys! Uh, you know, everyone knows I'm a huge Whitney Houston fan—
[cut to scene of KBlogz dancing to "I Wanna Dance With Somebody"]
KBlogz: —I wrote a poem that was inspired by her 1986 smash hit single, "The Greatest Love of All."
[cut to shot of the cover of "The Greatest Love of All" single]
KBlogz: So sit back and enjoy this poem, you guys! [looks down; begins reading from paper]I believe the children are the future
Flying around with tiny jetpacks
Wearing their futuristic hover slacks
And eating their freeze-dried fruit snacks.
They shake hands with the alien explorers
Because their minds are free of prejudice.
The children of the future will wear
No-nonsense, durable, and inexpensive jumpsuits.
Schools and playgrounds will be the same
Except that they hover two feet off the ground!
I believe the children are the future
Minimum wage will be eighty million dollars.
Adjusted for inflation, however, it's not very much.
[makes face at camera and shakes head]
I believe the children are the future
They will get jobs as laser repairmen
But they won't get jobs as jet pack salesmen
Because jetpacks sell themselves.
Yeah. Thank you.
[cut to image of KBlogz flying around with a jetpack saying "Gleep glorp!"; text on the image reads: "The future is…now??!!"]
[cut to video of KBlogz grooving to "Greatest Love of All"; he mouths some of the lyrics, then sings along out loud with Whitney on "dignity!" clenching his fists]
Title Card: The End!!!
Today's Edition of "Conniving and Sinister"
Strips One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103. In which Liss reimagines the long-running comic "Frank & Ernest," about two old straight white guys "telling it like it is," as a fat feminist white woman and a biracial queerbait telling it like it actually is from their perspectives. Hilarity ensues.
I Write Letters
Dear Whatever Piece of Gritty Shit Has Taken up Residence in My Right Eye and Cowardly Refuses to Reveal Itself:
Get the fuck out!
Love,
Liss
Healthcare Schmealthcare
I really have no fucking idea what is going on in the Obama administration. Reports about the president's State of the Union address tonight suggest that Obama's not going to use the opportunity to rally the troops and rekindle passions for flailing healthcare reform, over which the Democratic Congressional caucus is in utter disarray. Instead, as the WaPo notes, he "is not expected to call for a precise way forward, although he will reiterate his commitment to the cause."
Yeah, good call. We wouldn't want our president getting all distracted with leadership and shit.
Lest you think that's merely a bit of acerbic hyperbole, Ezra Klein reports:
Every Hill office I've spoken to in the past week has had the same complaint. "Where," they ask, "is the White House?"If health
There's been no clear message on the way forward for health-care reform. No clear articulation of preferences. No public leadership to speak of. The administration is taking temperatures rather than twisting arms. The White House press team is blasting out speeches where the president says he'll never stop fighting on health care but pointedly refuses to throw a punch. The president is giving interviews where he seems to endorse paring the bill back and also seems to argue against doing anything of the kind. The daily message has run from banks to freezes, and early leaks suggest that tonight's speech will focus on education.
…[E]veryone agrees on one thing: Tonight's speech is the most important of his young presidency, and it will be the most revealing of his career. Does he stand and fight for a health-care bill he believes to be a historic and necessary step forward? Or does he back away from it, letting some gestures toward his commitment to the issue stand in for the determined leadership — and the political gamble — that would represent real commitment to the issue?
What a sad tale.
Today in Rape Culture
[Trigger warning.]
This story from today's Seattle Times is an especially egregious example of how our culture minimizes the gravity of sexual crimes—particularly crimes committed against sex workers, because ha ha, they must see it as a compliment:
Lusty Lady performers had admirer from above.This—again—is rape culture—normalizing and thereby minimizing the severity of sexual assault and coercion (and perpetuating the belief that sex workers can't be sexually assaulted) by treating what must have been a terrifying experience as a compliment. A misunderstanding. A hilarious "lark" by a well-intended, if bumbling, "admirer."
Maybe he was just confused about how peep shows work.
Seattle police arrested a man around 2 a.m. Saturday for investigation of malicious mischief after he climbed into the space above the ceiling at the Lusty Lady in an apparent attempt to get into the women's dressing room.
According to a police report, the man came in the front door of the famed downtown peep-show club — backward — then went into a viewing stall. He somehow got into the ceiling crawl space overhead.
Then, he crashed partially through the glass-panel ceiling above the dance floor, startling a performer below when his legs came through the glass.
The man was still in the crawl space when police arrived, and was arrested after he jumped down, the report says. He was booked into King County Jail for investigation of malicious mischief.
The man made no statements to explain his actions, the report says. But his Lusty Lady lark caused so much damage the club had to be shut down for the night, the report says.
The man was released from jail Monday night.
Teaspoons? Aim 'em here.
Wednesday Blogaround
This blogaround is brought to you by Shaxco, makers of Behe's Black Box Bean Burgers. Behe's: Intelligently Designed For Good Eating!
Two from snarkysmachine at Shapely Prose: Black Women Need Not Apply (bonus: plussizedfeminist leaves a link in the thread to this must-read post from Alienated Conclusions: What if Black Women Were White Women? Possible TW for references to sexual assault.)
Fluff: Tron Legacy or Tron 2: Electric Boogaloo
Zuska: You May Be a Mansplainer If... (There is also a follow-up thread that's a master class in trolling).
(TW) Jenny Diski: Rape-Rape. (Here is the full text from the London Review of Books) Again, sexual assault trigger warning applies, but if you can safely read this essay, please do.
Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth blog: Welcome to the Teen-Artist Project! If you know any high school students in the Fort Worth area, pass this one along.
16 Miles of String: Santiago Calatrava's Liège-Guillemins TGV Railway Station
The BLT: Lawyers Announce Deal for Veterans With PTSD
Kaiser Health News: New Federal Law Expands Mental Health Coverage. Or does it? More on the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and The Defenders Online.
Ideas in Food: Cabbage and Gouda and Sourdough Waffles
Today in Rape Culture
[Trigger warning. Cross-referenced with Rape Is Hilarious. Thanks to Shaker Elke for the heads-up.]
Today, we welcome a repeat offender, CNN's Rick Sanchez, last seen diminishing the gravity of "date rape." Here, he introduces a segment on a story out of Ohio, in which a woman was raped in broad daylight, but no one stopped to help (though several people did call 911). Now, there is a lot wrong with this segment (which I will leave you to dissect in comments), but in Sanchez's introduction, he says one of the most ghastly things I've ever heard in all the terrible reporting about sexual violence that I've seen:
[Full transcript of entire segment below. For the record, I used CNN's show transcripts.]
We're going to take you now through something that's very interesting. It's a terrible and puzzling story. A young man, a teenager, is in jail today in Toledo, Ohio. The reason he's in a jail in Toledo, Ohio, was because of an alleged sexual assault. The case is still pending in large measure, but people call it out-out rape, and he has told police, "I was doing what I was doing," but here's the punch line, right?! It all happened in plain view of witnesses, in broad daylight, next to a street while people were driving by!The punch line? Wow.
I can think of fewer turns of phrase that are less appropriate to use in relation to a story about sexual violence than "but here's the punch line."
Even leaving aside the particular insensitivity of the specific phrase, the entire construction of the premise is horseshit. No well-informed anchor should be expressing surprise that a woman was raped in broad daylight, in front of witnesses, without physical intervention. It's dishonest to treat such a thing as a rare event, to regard the details as a "punch line," or a "catch," or any other euphemism that suggests they are remarkable.
In the five years I've been doing this, I've written up numerous stories of women being attacked, sexually or otherwise, in front of witnesses who failed to help (and calling 911 isn't failing to help, btw). (Apparently the recent gang rape in California has already fallen completely out of Sanchez's head.) Even given the most charitable interpretation of Sanchez's grim "punch line" term, that he intended merely to indicate a shock rather than a joke, it's still wildly inappropriate and irresponsible.
Talking about every one of these cases as if it's extraordinary is an eminently useful way of concealing the rape culture. By denying the iterations of its manifestation, by persistently ignoring the evidence of connectivity, we can shake our heads gravely at each totally unique and unrelated incident, thus collectively freeing ourselves from any responsibility for addressing a cultural problem.
Which always works out pretty well for rapists.
RICK SANCHEZ: We're going to take you now through something that's very interesting. It's a terrible and puzzling story. A young man, a teenager, is in jail today in Toledo, Ohio. The reason he's in a jail in Toledo, Ohio, was because of an alleged sexual assault. The case is still pending in large measure, but people call it out-out rape, and he has told police, "I was doing what I was doing," but here's the punch line, right?! It all happened in plain view of witnesses, in broad daylight, next to a street while people were driving by! Right?
BROOKE BALDWIN: Right. That's the thing. It's one of those stories that certainly was on our radar, and it made me think, what would you do if you were driving by? You would hope you would stop and do something. But that's the thing. No one did anything as far as getting out of a car. Imagine, especially, ladies, you're 26, you're walking -- this woman was walking to the library, like you said, broad daylight. This guy popped out of nowhere, takes a pair of scissors to your neck, forces you to the ground, and rapes you. No one stops to help.
SANCHEZ: And this is that area, by the way -- I'm drawing a picture for folks, and we'll be able to see part of it. It's like the easement between the sidewalk and the street, right?
BALDWIN: Right. Broad daylight, again. One woman who drove by did call 9-1-1. Here is a portion of that call. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED 911 OPERATOR: 9-1-1.
CALLER: I think there is somebody either taking advantage or raping somebody on Royalton by Birchell, about two streets more west or something. It's a black guy is taking off the pants of a white woman and they are laying on the sidewalk.
UNIDENTIFIED 911 OPERATOR: You say this is a black male?
CALLER: Yes. With a white girl on the ground and her legs are all exposed. He's between her legs.
UNIDENTIFIED 911 OPERATOR: You didn't see any weapons, did you?
CALLER: No, I didn't.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: So we should point out, you know, yes, we reached out to that woman to try to have her on. She was so emotional she broke down on the phone. She relives it every day. It happens next week. She has nightmares.
SANCHEZ: And it was hard to make the call. I understand --
BALDWIN: They're not quite sure if it was consensual or not.
SANCHEZ: Exactly. It's easy to blame people. Why didn't you immediately go over there? Sometimes you're so uncomfortable with things you see, you're not quite sure what to make of it.
BALDWIN: What's going on? Is she consenting or not? The bottom line, there were a number of people who passed by in cars. They were honking at the suspect, 15 years old. He did not stop violating this woman.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SGT. SAM HARRIS, TOLEDO, OHIO POLICE: People had seen you and you knew you were interrupted and why did you continue? And the only explanation he could say is that I wanted to finish.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: "I wanted to finish." Now, that suspect was caught just hours later. Here he is pixilated. He's a juvenile. Police claim he hid confess to not only raping this woman, who was a total stranger, but also to stealing her cell phone afterwards. Why did he do it? Apparently, he told police he saw the woman walking alone, made up his mind he wanted to have sex with her.
He did sit in juvenile court with his mom by his side where he was arraigned on charges of rape and robbery. He has no criminal record. Prosecutors will try him as an adult, which means a much heftier sentence if he's convicted.
SANCHEZ: There is absolutely no evidence that you have seen that would lead us to believe that his defense might be that she consented in any way, correct?
BALDWIN: Not that I have seen.
SANCHEZ: It was as described by police at this point, and what seems to sound to us -- not a legal definition, but certainly a common sense definition -- of an admission he's given about this.
BALDWIN: Absolutely. And people just passed by.
SANCHEZ: What do we know about the woman?
BALDWIN: We know that was she was 26. Apparently there are reports from others that she lived in a home, she suffered from bipolar disorder and also Asperger syndrome on the spectrum of autism, which makes it worse.
SANCHEZ: That's makes her probably more of a victim in this case than what we originally even thought of.
BALDWIN: It's tough for any woman. It's just tough for anyone.
SANCHEZ: Let's do this -- hang out here, if you can. We're going to do some more on this story. I think it's important.
In just a moment, if you stick with us, I will talk live to one of the women that you heard moments ago, one of the women that actually witnessed the sex crime as it was happening. What did she see? What did she do?
She's going to take us through her story -- a difficult story, we understand, and we consider her courage for coming on and wanting to share this. But stay there and we'll get through this in just a little bit. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Let me go back to the story that we were sharing with you just moments ago that has so many people in Toledo, Ohio appalled. I want to show you the crime scene. This is where it happened. See it right there? Broad daylight. You don't see a lot of cover. It's not like there are bushes somebody can hide behind, as it was described by police. It's out in the open. If someone is on that sidewalk doing something and motorists are driving by, they will see it. It's a busy cross street in Toledo.
The alleged rape of a woman by a 15-year-old boy occurred there in broad daylight, cars going by. The victim says she was screaming. How could it happen? Cars honked and said, stop. According to one description police gave us, the suspect looked up and then continued.
Joining me now from Toledo is Ashlee McCoy. She knows this neighborhood. In fact, she grew up in the neighborhood. She was driving by that day as well, and she is one of the people who saw this happen. Also joining us is Brooke Baldwin who has been drilling down on this story as well.
And before we even start the interview, we also should say we have tried to contact the other side. We called the attorneys.
BALDWIN: We reached out to the defense attorneys, as well.
SANCHEZ: No comment so far.
BALDWIN: No comment so far.
SANCHEZ: All right, let's start with you, if we can, Ashlee. What time was it? What did you see? Describe for our viewers what you saw that day.
ASHLEE MCCOY, WITNESS: It was 2:30 in the afternoon. I was driving down the street with my kids and my babysitter. And, you know, he had noticed something up above on the sidewalk. And I looked and we were like, wow, that's crazy.
SANCHEZ: Can you see a monitor right now?
MCCOY: No.
SANCHEZ: All right, I'll describe it for you. We are looking at a corner intersection. There seems to be a fire hydrant there on the right.
MCCOY: OK.
SANCHEZ: And there is a street. And it looks like the street goes straight, but there is a left turn. Can you tell our viewers where this incident was happening so we get a better idea?
MCCOY: It was right before a corner.
SANCHEZ: Right.
MCCOY: On the left-hand side.
SANCHEZ: Right. MCCOY: On the side of somebody's house, on the sidewalk.
SANCHEZ: So we are looking basically then as you describe it, I think the picture we're looking reflects the area we are talking about. It's not like it was behind a bush. It wasn't behind, you know, a placard or -- it was literally out in the open.
MCCOY: Yes. Yes.
We weren't sure on what was happening. We just seen two people having sex, and that's what it looked like. We didn't see no signs of struggle or a cry for help or anything.
I had laid on my horn because we thought it was two teenagers. So I laid on my horn to tell them, you know, get up, that's not right.
Well, we had a drove off and the person that I was with -- he said that, you know, that's just weird. That doesn't seem right. So he had went back to the scene, and that's when the police and the fire trucks and all that was there.
SANCHEZ: Wait. The person who was riding in your car with you after driving by...
MCCOY: Yes.
SANCHEZ: So when you first drive by your impression was, this is weird, but maybe it's just two people having sex. Let me just go on.
MCCOY: Oh, we thought for --
SANCHEZ: Later on -- go ahead.
MCCOY: I said, we thought for sure that it was just two people having sex. There was no other -- you know, anything that indicated that anything else but them having sex.
SANCHEZ: So interestingly enough, other motorists went by and reported to police as in the sound we shared with viewers moments ago that, to them, it was a rape. Obviously that could be because they saw something you didn't see when you went by, right? You didn't all go out at the same time. I get that.
MCCOY: Right. Right.
SANCHEZ: I get that.
Has there been a lot of criticism in town? Have you felt like, my god, maybe I should have been more on top of this? I should have been more aware?
MCCOY: Well, yes, there's been a lot of criticism. But I had my kids in my car, so even if I did see something that showed she was being raped, I probably would have just called 9-1-1 because I had my babies in my car.
SANCHEZ: That makes sense.
BALDWIN: Ashlee, let me ask you this, and I don't know if it was perhaps female intuition eventually that you thought, you know, this probably wasn't consensual sex. Something wasn't right.
Do you think -- because I feel like there have been a lot of stories the news lately where we wonder after the fact, why didn't someone speak up? Is there something you and perhaps all of us can glean from this kind of incident?
MCCOY: I didn't think anything of it. I just thought it was consensual sex. There was no signs of her being raped as far as any struggle or a cry for help.
SANCHEZ: What about now?
MCCOY: I laid on my horn.
BALDWIN: Now...
MCCOY: Now?
BALDWIN: Now do you wish you had stopped?
MCCOY: Yes. I mean, of course. But I -- like I said, there is nothing else I could have done besides call 9-1-1 because I had my kids in my car.
SANCHEZ: One more thing -- I have to ask you one more thing, because I heard you say "I laid on my horn," which doesn't sound like a quick beep, toot-toot thing. You laid on your horn.
MCCOY: Yes.
SANCHEZ: So it was a loud sound?
MCCOY: Yes. And basically it was just like telling them to get up and move because that wasn't right, because I thought they were just young teenagers having sex on the sidewalk.
SANCHEZ: Right. But my question is when you laid on your horn, that act was taking place, what was his reaction? What happened?
MCCOY: His reaction was he just looked up and he just continued doing what he was doing.
SANCHEZ: Wow.
MCCOY: She just -- it was nothing different.
[edit]
SANCHEZ: —the alleged perpetrator, a high school freshman. I want you to hear what the police officers are saying about this accused.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SGT. SAM HARRIS, TOLEDO, OHIO, POLICE DEPARTMENT: If someone's brazen enough at age 15 to grab an unknown female off the street in the middle of the day, I think the chances of his actions continuing are very likely.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: That was sergeant Sam Harris of the Toledo Police Department, 33 years on the force. He is my next guest. We're going to talk about the kid in a moment, this high school freshman.
First, though, let me ask you this, if we could, Officer. What is a citizen's duty in a case like this? Broad daylight, crowded street, if I were to see something like this, or here -- better yet -- suppose my wife were driving down the street and she was to see this, how would you want her -- how would you want her to respond?
HARRIS: Just exactly as the caller whose 911 tape you played. Call the police immediately. Supply them with as much and complete information as they can, and then let the police respond from that point on.
SANCHEZ: At what point, Sergeant, would you want someone who feels capable of going in there and trying to either break it up or save this young lady?
HARRIS: Well, we don't encourage people to become involved in a physical nature on their own, due to the risks they may entail on their own. In this case...
SANCHEZ: Ever? Ever?
HARRIS: Well, you know, it's a personal decision. I would like to think that, if a young, virile male was to, you know, be able to stop the assault, they would, but, in this case, the suspect was armed with a pair of scissors, which he had already threatened the female with, his victim.
And if he was brazen enough to threaten and rape a female on a city street in broad daylight, who's to say what he might have done had someone tried to intervene?
New Thing: Shakesfilk!
There's this thing called filk*, see. Started some long time ago, and I know there are enough fen** hereabouts that there might be some amusement if I were to irregularly post things that amuse me, and which I have written. Irregularly, because as you may have noticed, I'm not especially good at "every $TIME_PERIOD" things. I try, but life interferes, or depression does, and then it doesn't happen.
Besides, Liss said I could, so yahboo, sucks to you. :P
The idea is to take a known song, and shift the lyrics til they say what I want them to say. I don't call this parody, because I'm not doing it to parody the original song, far from it: I tend to use songs I enjoy, in fact, often the Smiths, even (someday I'll finish No Rush And No Bush, I hope!). My hope, when I can get it just right, is to do a lyric set which maintains the spirit and emotion of the original, but puts them in a new light, or applies them to a new topic.
I'll start off today with a short one, this from last April:
Somewhere Absent of Rainbows
Somewhere, absent of rainbows, no one's gay
And so hetero marriage stays absolutely safe.
Somewhere, absent of rainbows, states aren't blue
And the dreams of evangelists really do come true.
Someday I'll pray so very hard and wake up where the values are just fine, see?
Where gays will marry girly girls
And dykes please men with curly curls
That's where you'll find me.
Somewhere, absent of rainbows, guys stay guys.
Trans folk stay where they were born
Or even better, die.
If hetero people safely wed
Somewhere that all the gays are dead
Why then oh why can't I?
Copyright 2009, CaitieCat.
* Filk.
** Fen.
Conservative "Journalists" Busted
Yesterday, James O'Keefe, best known for dressing like a "pimp" and catching ACORN employees on hidden cameras offering advice on how to conceal various illegal acts, and three other "conservative journalists"—Joseph Basel, Stan Dai, and Robert Flanagan, son of William Flanagan, the acting US attorney for the Western District of Louisiana—were arrested and charged with entering federal property under false pretenses for the purposes of committing a felony, after trying to tap the phones in a district office of Senator Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana).
According to the news release Tuesday and an affidavit by FBI Special Agent Steven Rayes, who is based in New Orleans, Basel and Flanagan attempted to gain access to Landrieu's office Monday while posing as telephone repairmen.Think Progress notes that "Fox News has been one of the biggest supporters of James O'Keefe," and conservative media figure Andrew Breitbart, who runs the blog Big Government, "which helped make O'Keefe a star and pays him to be a contributor, claims that it had no knowledge of what the four individuals were up to."
The two men were "each dressed in blue denim pants, a blue work shirt, a light green fluorescent vest, a tool belt and a construction-style hard hat when they entered the Hale Boggs Federal Building," the release noted.
...O'Keefe, who had been waiting in the office before the pair arrived, recorded their actions with a cell phone, said the affidavit by Rayes.
..."This is a very unusual situation and somewhat unsettling for me and my staff," Landrieu said in a statement Tuesday night.
Last Thursday, O'Keefe "gave a speech to the Pelican Institute for Public Policy, a libertarian group in New Orleans."
The New Orleans event was promoted with this glowing statement about O'Keefe by the Pelican Institute: "James has been a pioneer in the use of new media to drive these kinds of important stories. He will discuss the role of new media and show examples of effective investigative reporting."Just a silly prank! Let's all chalk it up to boys being boys and call it a day! Because how could anyone expect four men in their 20s to understand the difference between "investigative reporting" and "committing a felony"...? The nerve!
...Robert Flanagan's attorney, J. Garrison Jordan, said he believes his client works for the Pelican Institute. Asked the motivation for the alleged wiretap plot, he said: "I think it was poor judgment. I don't think there was any intent or motive to commit a crime."
This is all the fault of the liberal media, somehow.
