…and this is a 
Bill Donohue will be so relieved. Here's a story about a youn girl being raped, her assailant protected by the church, and the girl herself getting all the blame…and it's the Baptists! Tina Anderson was raped by Ernest Willis, a Trinity Baptist Church member, when she was 15, and got pregnant. She accused Willis in the church, and here's what happened:
When the pastor heard Anderson's allegations, he told her that if she had "lived in the Old Testament," she would have been stoned to death for not reporting the attack sooner.
"He also said I had 'allowed myself to be put in a compromising situation,' Anderson said. The pastor decided she needed to be "church-disciplined."
"I was completely humiliated," Anderson said, her voice quavering at the memory. "I hoped it was a nightmare I'd wake up from, and it wouldn't be true anymore."
"Church discipline" apparently means sending the victim out of state and asking all church members silent, not bringing the matter to secular authorities. They stayed quiet for 13 years.
Meanwhile, Tina Anderson went on with her life, got married, had kids, and took a job as a music teacher at a Baptist college. When she was contacted by investigators tracking down the case, though, she did something remarkable: she woke up to how she'd been abused.
"I was kind of in shock, but I just answered his questions," Anderson said. "Everything is changing because I'm seeing the things I was taught for so many years are not necessarily correct. It's almost like I had blinders on, believing all of this was my fault."
This is beautiful; this is what it is like to free yourself of religion.
"If they're not dealt with, the cycle will continue," said Anderson, who resigned from the Baptist college the day before Willis was arrested. "I do not, anymore, unquestioningly obey authority, which is what they would teach."
Comments
Posted by: Michelle R
|
May 28, 2010 10:22 AM
Another proof that religion does not bring righteousness and justice but vilifies the law and spits on victims... if they have a vagina.
Women who are christians or jewish or muslim or whatever must be masochist. They hate you, girls! Get out of there! FAST!
Posted by: llewelly
|
May 28, 2010 10:24 AM
A brave step toward free thought. Let's hope she keeps on going.Posted by: Zeno
|
May 28, 2010 10:25 AM
It's what Bill has been trying to tell us all along. Look over there! See? There are bad people over there! (And not just here.)
Instead of the "holier than thou" argument (which Donohue also loves), it's the "no worse than anybody else" excuse.
Posted by: raven
|
May 28, 2010 10:33 AM
This girl managed to live through a religion produced nightmare. A fundie church member raped a 15 year old. She got pregnant. Got punished, shipped off, and her baby put up for adoption. Her parents, cult members with nonfunctional brains, apparently did nothing to defend her and let it all happen.
It is just now being investigated because a conspiracy of silence is breaking down.
Is this that sophisticated theology we keep hearing about? Yet again, another example of xian morality. Maybe Eric Reitan or another "theologian" can explain all this. But probably not.
There is never just one cockroach. The police are investigating and seem interested in this cult. One wonders how many other victims there are.
And some of the church members seem to have committed crimes here. Perjury, obstruction of justice, and accessory after the fact at least.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmqD_mcUIrSfOTlK3iGVsnEDcZmI43srbI
|
May 28, 2010 10:34 AM
It's a wonder she wasn't forced to marry her rapist.
That's the correct response. And, of course, the rapist owed the father thirty shekels. Cuz teh vag was his property, after all.
Posted by: neon-elf.myopenid.com
|
May 28, 2010 10:35 AM
I'm glad this woman is looking like finally getting the justice she deserves and that she has finally woken up to the reality of the religion that controlled her life for so long.
Everyone involved in the cover-up of this rape should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Posted by: legistech
|
May 28, 2010 10:40 AM
How monstrous. I find it impossible to believe the pastor's claim that he reported it to the police the next day. They should be looking to put him in jail as an accessory.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
May 28, 2010 10:42 AM
It's serendipitous that you would post this story today, PZ...
I was thinking about stories like this yesterday a few hours after reading your post on Eric Reitan's Courtier's Reply, and it gave me pause...
People like Reitan and other religious apologists love to dress up theology and religion as this glorious, warm and fuzzy "search for meaning" and fluffy "one-ness with the universe", which is all nice-sounding but utterly meaningless and completely misses the point. At it's heart, religion isn't really about any of those things... if it were it would hardly have enjoyed the success it has, especially the most dominant religions that have had the longest run in our society...
THIS story is a more apt representation of what religion is all about at the end of the day. THIS is why it exists and why it prospers. Control. Fear. Greed. Power.
THIS is the real face of religion, this is the ugly offspring of unquestioned authority as a result of blind faith, a bastard child that can only come as the result of indoctrination and abandonment of reasoned logic, and we need to be rid of it.
Posted by: spaninquis
|
May 28, 2010 10:43 AM
Rape will happen anywhere a man feels he's safe. Be it a dormitory room with a girl under the influence, a dark alley, a major corporation between an employer and employee, or within a church. Religion protects men who would otherwise be immediately accused of a crime.
So yea, no surprise that it's not a Catholic Church. We had a local rabbi convicted of it recently.
Posted by: raven
|
May 28, 2010 10:47 AM
From the AP article.
Don't believe that police report. Fundies always LIE.
Thanks mom.
The current pastor seems to be engaged in and advocating obstruction of justice, a felony. Hope he gets charged, tried, convicted, and sent to prison.
How many other victims has this cult produced? Anyone in an abusive cult like this one should think seriously about just saying no and getting the hell out. Tens of millions of Americans live perfectly normal lives without malevolent cults screwing them up.
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
May 28, 2010 10:53 AM
spaninquis wrote:
What the fuck?
I am a man, and I have been in a dormitory room with a girl under the influence, and in a dark alley, and in an office, and in a church. And every time that’s happened, I’ve felt safe.
And not once in my life has it ever even vaguely occurred to me that I might want to rape the woman I’ve been with.
The same applies, best I know, to all my male friends. Granted, statistics are such that there may well be a hidden sociopath amongst my male friends, but that’s a topic for another discussion.
Kindly pull your head out of your ass, okay? And stay away from the women while you do.
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
May 28, 2010 10:58 AM
Likewise. I've never been at all tempted to rape anyone, not once in my entire life. Just as I've never been tempted to rob a bank or murder anyone.
There is a pernicious attitude that such urges are common and natural, and they're not...but pretending that they are gives the psychopaths who indulge a little cover.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
May 28, 2010 11:02 AM
Fixed that for you, since I'm sure that's what you really meant... right? Right??
Posted by: spaninquis
|
May 28, 2010 11:02 AM
Speaking of heads, did my comment go right over the top of yours? ;)
You'll note that I didn't say all men will always rape under those circumstances.
Have a cup of coffee and tone down the hostility. We're on the same side.
Posted by: garrett.severson
|
May 28, 2010 11:03 AM
@raven: That bit about "I love you tenderly and am confident you will only talk of these matters to our Lord in prayer" sounds an awful lot like something Don Corleone would say.
On that note, maybe she ought to think of bringing suit under RICO. You've got obstruction of justice, probably perjury, widespread fraud; if this were any other group it'd be an attorney's wet dream. Hell, at this point, probably a good 75-80% of churches would be in danger of prosecution and civil suit. But since we're not allowed to question the unimpeachable morality of the church, this is going to fly right on under the radar.
Posted by: Endor
|
May 28, 2010 11:05 AM
"Rape will happen anywhere a man feels he's safe."
And yet, somehow it's *feminists* who hate men.
Posted by: Michelle R
|
May 28, 2010 11:06 AM
I don't think he meant guys are always tempted to. In fact I'm pretty damn sure spaninquis never said that. He meant that a guy WHO IS A RAPIST won't commit a rape when he's in broad daylight in the middle of the street, which makes sense. He'll commit his crime when he feels protected. And religion is one hell of a good protection.
Posted by: spaninquis
|
May 28, 2010 11:08 AM
Thank you Michelle R. Exactly.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
May 28, 2010 11:09 AM
And that's adequate? You may be on the same side, spaninquis, but your point was at the very least poorly phrased.
This: "Rape will happen anywhere a man feels he's safe." can not be left to stand on its own... it needs more context and qualification...
I think you know that... I would stop trying to defend it and simply retract it with a rewording... we're more than happy to accept apologies for a poorly worded mistake, once admitted.
We're also more than happy to jump all over people for refusing to accept fault for such an obvious mistake...
The choice is yours...
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
May 28, 2010 11:13 AM
It's settled, then. The church is obviously morally superior (just look at how few rape convictions there are for priests!), so we should not pursue this rape case, as the church is morally superior.
Next, I shall prove that all members of congress are law-abiding, as they make the laws.
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
May 28, 2010 11:14 AM
spaninquis wrote:
Actually, you did. Your original line:
According to the standard rules of the English language, those two sentences are equivalent.
PZ has already agreed with me. Granted, he’s a professor of biology and not of English, but that’s still well within his area of expertise.
If you don’t want to have people jump down your throat because you’ve just accused them of wanting to rape women, you damn well better learn how to communicate.
English, motherfucker. Do. You. Write. It?
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
Posted by: Michelle R
|
May 28, 2010 11:14 AM
Apology?!
Just calm down, he only used bad phrasing and I don't think it warrants any apologies. We're not all awesome communicators that rethinks every little word to be sure it can't be twisted around or used as a generality by someone who seeks to bite someone else's ankle.
He never said all men. He didn't mean all men. He probably didn'T feel the need, as a sane human being, to add a ton of specifications as to which kind of men rapes women. Don't we all know who does? It's certainly not the majority, thankfully. It's just a tiny misunderstanding getting overblown.
Posted by: Biddy
|
May 28, 2010 11:14 AM
Along with grief for Anderson I can’t help but reflect on the fate of her baby that was put “up for adoption at Phelps'(evil pastor) urging, with a family he had chosen”. Hopefully the kid grows up to be as strong as Anderson and can throw off those shackles.
Posted by: Michelle R
|
May 28, 2010 11:19 AM
(By the way I didn't read his thing like you guys did. Only when I read your reactions I noticed they could be misinterpreted and he was in hot water. I didn't feel the need to get a machette when I read it because it was so obvious he meant the select creepy fucks out there. Come on. SERIOUSLY people?)
Posted by: tsg
|
May 28, 2010 11:21 AM
And which English language is that where "a man" is equivalent to "all men"?
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
May 28, 2010 11:24 AM
Sounds rather creepy to me...but par for the retardo course!
The whole congregation should be rounded up and interviewed on pain of lies will make de 'bhabi jeebus cwy!'
Use their own insipid rubbish against the clones and bust pasta asses both under the full majesty of the law...simples!
Crime is not covered by church indemnity.
Mum & dad need a short sharp shock as well, not reporting a crime and child abuse,cos that was what it was,they should be on a sexual crime register,see what jeebus might make of that?
Mind you that goes for the whole congregation actually,no defence in not knowing anything,a congregation are well aware when someone stops worshipping and 'praisin bhabi jeebus' publicly, and it is beyond belief that it was not common babble amongst the afflicted.
Sexually deviant gits like the raping jeebus lover should be dealt with by Floyd Rubber,but jail time might encourage a more sober reflection on life that Floyd might not impart, seeing as he is rather more errmmm! tactile and not given to over philosophical reflection!
Posted by: MickyW
|
May 28, 2010 11:26 AM
If Bill Donohue is relieved, his relief is no doubt mitigated by the fact that there don't seem to be any gays around to blame for this one.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
May 28, 2010 11:28 AM
Michelle R -
I think you need to calm down, yourself...SERIOUSLY.
Pointing out that spaninquis' poorly worded statement was waaaaayyy too broad and open to very poor interpretation was certainly appropriate. And doing so in a way that points out exactly why that's the case is also appropriate.
You say something stupid, it's perfectly reasonable to be expected to apologize for it, yeah... why do you find it so damned unreasonable to expect that?
Posted by: spaninquis
|
May 28, 2010 11:31 AM
Thnaks again Michelle.
Didn't mean to start a flame war. Sheesh.
Since apparently even PZ read it differently, (and I greatly admire his command of the English language. 20 minutes for Courtiers Reply. I'm in awe. Seriously.), I must not have been clear enough. As a non-rapist myself, I wrote from an non-rapist's POV. I didn't feel the need to write
I mistakenly thought that was self evident.
So I apologize to those of you who need that sort of precision. I'll do better next time.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
May 28, 2010 11:33 AM
Let me say that I will agree that I think it's reasonable to point it out to spaninquis and give him a chance to reword without completely jumping his shit... I think I've tried to do that... (a couple other's might have been a little harsh... but hey, this is nothing new here... it happens)... either way, I can certainly see why those who found it questionable did so (including PZ), so I don't think asking for a re-phrasing is all that unreasonable.
Posted by: tsg
|
May 28, 2010 11:33 AM
When I first read it I had the same hostile reaction, but then I realized it could be taken a different way and gave him the benefit of the doubt. I know it's a novel concept, but I figured that if it was an unreasonable assumption for him to make, it was unreasonable of me to assume he was making it.
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
May 28, 2010 11:34 AM
tsg wrote:
Oh, I don’t know…perhaps the one documented in any dictionary you’d care to consult?
A man could learn something by reading the dictionary, you know. So could a woman, for that matter.
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
Posted by: boboniboni
|
May 28, 2010 11:35 AM
rape will happen when the sociopath feels urge, specially when he feels protected by a big institution, like de Church, who has a intimate desire to hide these events,
Posted by: SteveM
|
May 28, 2010 11:36 AM
re:
Rape will happen anywhere a man feels he's safe.
Yes, poorly worded, but I thought it clearly intended to mean "When there is a rape, it is where the rapist felt safe." That "Rape will only occur where the [rapist] feels safe", not "Rape will always occur where the man feels safe"
Posted by: tsg
|
May 28, 2010 11:36 AM
He didn't say something stupid. You assumed he said something stupid and you think that's his fault?
Posted by: spaninquis
|
May 28, 2010 11:37 AM
Am I back in good graces?
Posted by: Michelle R
|
May 28, 2010 11:37 AM
Celtic: I'm perfectly calm, just defending the innocent here. I'm also staring at my screen in "WTF? at your reaction.
To quote TSG up there:
"And which English language is that where "a man" is equivalent to "all men"?"
Maybe I was too attentive in my second language classes, or maybe it's the way I understand things, but I NEVER EVER thought spaninquis meant all guys are potential rapists. It doesn't make any sense. If spaninquis would have meant so, he would've just shouted "ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS AND WILL RAPE YOU IF THEY FEEL SECURE!"
So yea, it can be misinterpreted, but I think it is TOTALLY far fetched to think he meant "all men". I think it can be only if the reader wants to give the poor fellow some bad intentions.
Lay off him will ya.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
May 28, 2010 11:40 AM
tsg -
Agreed... although I don't think it's unreasonable that his poor wording was pointed out.
spaninquis -
Apology accepted... now go fuck yourself, smart ass.
Posted by: tsg
|
May 28, 2010 11:41 AM
Like this one perhaps?:
Feel free to point out which of those definitions means "all" and why it is the only one applicable in this case. Until then, fuck right off.
Posted by: Michelle R
|
May 28, 2010 11:44 AM
@TSG: Uh... #7...
Posted by: tsg
|
May 28, 2010 11:47 AM
@MichelleR:
"and why it is the only one applicable in this case."
Posted by: rident
|
May 28, 2010 11:48 AM
Have you people heard of this book?
http://www.metalhammer.co.uk/news/roxana-shirazi-the-last-living-slut-book-to-be-published/
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
May 28, 2010 11:49 AM
Which reaction was that, exactly? Show me where I have warranted YOUR reaction exactly?
In #13 I wrote a snarky FTFY, I understood that's not what he meant, but I still felt it was very poorly worded... which is why I put it the way I did. I don't think that reaction warrants a WTF.
In #19 I was responding to his claim that we should all just know he didn't mean that. I thought a retraction and re-phrasing was probably appropriate, and we could all happily move on... again, is that a WTF moment?
In #28 I'm making the point, again, that pointing out that something was very poorly worded is not unreasonable, and it's also not unreasonable to apologize for stating something in a very poorly worded way... maybe that caused you to WTF?
In #30 I even go out of my way to qualify #28 it by saing I think we could probably refrain from totally jumping on his shit and give him a chance to rephrase.
Posted by: spaninquis
|
May 28, 2010 11:50 AM
I'll take that as the compliment you clearly intended it to be, with the emphasis on "smart". ;)
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
May 28, 2010 11:51 AM
To Michelle’s #7, add #1. If it refers to “not any particular or certain one of a class or group,” it therefore applies equally well to all members of the class or group.
As I wrote above, a man could learn a lot by actually comprehending what he reads in the dictionary.
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
Posted by: Michelle R
|
May 28, 2010 11:53 AM
@Celtic: Oh I'm terribly sorry! I meant your as in "you all", plural and everything! Oh my, Sorry, must be my silly french kicking in again. Man, is it easy to mix up small words! Ha, ha, ha!
Seriously dude. I meant starting at #19 where you asked for an apology for something so ...mundane. But well, you got it now. And told him to fuck off.
@TSG: Good point, lots of other selections up there.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
May 28, 2010 11:57 AM
It isn't. But then again, no-one said it was the only one applicable. But it is one of the applicable meanings... and as such, is it not reasonable to ask that he rephrase it?
In the phrase "All a man needs is the sun on his face and the wind in his sails", the word "man" is clearly meant to describe the majority of men, as a whole... no?
How is that phrase distinctively different from "rape will happen anywhere a man feels safe", insofar as its use of the term "man"?
Yes, I suspected he did not mean all men, but I was immediately taken aback by it initially and thought it could use rephrasing.
Posted by: tytalus
|
May 28, 2010 12:03 PM
<sarcasm>Well if there's anything I love, it's dictionary wars.</sarcasm>
Anyway, what I take away from the news article is just how powerful organized religion can be in creating its false sense of authority. Pretty horrible just to imagine that a girl could get abused like that, both by the rapist and her church, sent away in shame to rot...ends up working at a church associated college, even...and finally runs into someone who can snap her out of that unquestioning-authority mindset.
I wonder what the investigators said or did that helped her do that. Offered a more legitimate sense of authority, perhaps?
Speaks to the powerful hold over some believers that the skeptic has to overcome to make a point with them.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
May 28, 2010 12:04 PM
I didn't demand an apology in #19. That would be silly. I simply suggested that one might be appropriate, and would probably help smooth over any possible misunderstanding... I've been guilty of similar gaffes myself and it's the approach I try to take when that happens. But I even stated "the choice is yours".
And, my telling him to fuck himself was meant jokingly tongue in cheek as a response to his equally tongue-in-cheek smart ass apology.
I think he got it. ;^)
Posted by: Endor
|
May 28, 2010 12:06 PM
Both Celtic_Evolution and Ben are obviously correct. The statement was "Rape will happen anywhere a man feels he's safe."
A man. Meaning, the "everyman", i.e. any of them. Without qualifiers, it could easily be mistaken as the op meaning "all". The Op says this isn't what he meant. Fine. Doesn't magically change how the original statement could be misread.
Why does it always comes back to shouting down people for not intuitively just knowing what someone else meant. On an internet forum. Full of strangers.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
May 28, 2010 12:08 PM
So the Baptists have rapists too, color me unsurprised.
Maybe it's the refuge and authority a church environment provides rather then being catholic that's at work here ?
Begging the question, I know...:-)
Dont care much for the rhetoric freedom fighters btw, the guy's comment was ambiguous, but it's been clarified hasnt it ?
Posted by: tsg
|
May 28, 2010 12:13 PM
It's not, but why assume, of all the interpretations available, the most unreasonable one is the one he meant?
Because "a man feels safe" is a descriptor of "anywhere". The focus is on the place, not the man. Given that the story in general and the comment in particular was about out how religion can provide such a safe haven, it's not only a reasonable interpretation, but, in my opinion, the most likely.
That's fine. Ask for clarification. Don't jump on his shit just because you (general you, not you in particular) assumed the most unreasonable assertion was the most reasonable interpretation.
There's basically two ways this can go: 1) you give him the benefit of the doubt and ask for clarification, he says that's not what he meant, you say okay, we all move on; or 2) you accuse him of being completely unreasonable, he gets defensive and angry at the accusation, you defend your interpretation insisting on an apology, we get into a fucking pointless argument over an offense that was never there to begin with. You tell me which one is better.
Posted by: Lynn Wilhelm
|
May 28, 2010 12:14 PM
Not to beat a dead horse, but the problem with the sentence was not the "a man" part, but the basic "Rape will happen anywhere"
That alone implies rape will happen under the circumstances that follow.
Better to have said, "A rape may happen anywhere..." or "Rape will happen only when..."
Just my opinion.
I know what was meant now, but when I first read that comment...
Posted by: rn.massey
|
May 28, 2010 12:15 PM
I hope so, so we can all get back to being outraged at the disgusting story at hand, something methinks we can all agree with.
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
May 28, 2010 12:15 PM
I've read some boring and circular arguments in these here comments sections, but I think the one above (especially when the original commenter has clarified his position and offered a polite appology for confusion) might take the cake.
Posted by: garrett.severson
|
May 28, 2010 12:16 PM
Sometimes it's enough to just treat the situation like what it is - a crime that she was the victim of. In order for the rapist to succeed (and for the pastor to succeed in perpetuating the patriarchal domination scheme peddled by the church), it's imperative that she doesn't even think that she's not to blame. She likely just never thought that she wasn't responsible for the terror she was put through until someone pointed out that it was perfectly reasonable to assume that it wasn't her fault at all.Posted by: spaninquis
|
May 28, 2010 12:16 PM
I think you're right.
Posted by: raven
|
May 28, 2010 12:20 PM
Sorry about posting something on topic on the thread.
Yeah, this Trinity fundie baptist church seems to be an authoritarian mind control cult. The rape happened 13 years ago and it is just now coming out.
Among other puzzles; where in the hell were this girl's parents? Near as I can tell, they didn't do anything except whatever the cult leaders decided. Not impressed, this is your brain on toxic religion.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
May 28, 2010 12:24 PM
Yup... now just trying to douse the flames of those who took umbrage at the suggestion the clarification might be warranted.
Posted by: Lynn Wilhelm
|
May 28, 2010 12:26 PM
Raven #58
I recall that only her mother was mentioned.
My quess is she was a single mom deemed long ago by the church to be incapable of making decisions about her own family. The church made her decisions for her.
Even if she wasn't single, the church made decisions for everyone, still does given the email the new pastor sent to cult members.
Tug your forelock and bow your head to the all powerful authority of the church. They'll keep you in line until you die so you can go to heaven.
Posted by: raven
|
May 28, 2010 12:30 PM
Good question. It might be more that someone finally showed up who cared and knew what to do.
This girl's church, family, and probably many of her friends played "blame the victim" and otherwise ignored her as an autonomous person. This was a 15 year old kid in a mind control cult. That isn't going to give anyone a whole lot of knowledge and power to figure out what to do when you are raped, pregnant, and everyone is telling you it is your fault.
Posted by: spaninquis
|
May 28, 2010 12:31 PM
Now, back to PZ's post, someone above mentioned how the girl was "sent away to rot". This seems to be a result of the mindset that comes with religion. Anything of a scandalous or sexual nature is best moved out of sight and ignored, or at best dealt with in secret.
My grandmother, a devout Catholic like the rest of my family, was the housemother for a "home for unwed mothers" back in the 60's, run by Catholic Charities. When a girl got "knocked-up", this was how the good Catholic families dealt with the shame - by sending her away to have the baby far from home, then giving the child up for adoption. I was young then, and didn't understand. (I always wondered why my grandmother lived with all those fat women.)
The adoption aspect made good sense, but the sense of shame didn't. The girl in the OP clearly suppressed the matter until asked about it when she got older. She bought into and believed that she was the source of the shame she felt, rather than the scumbag that raped her. I hope we know better now, but most religion still seems to deal with this sort of thing the same way.
Posted by: Cthulhu's minion
|
May 28, 2010 12:32 PM
I wonder how much the pastor was paid to arrange the adoption?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
May 28, 2010 12:50 PM
Oh, absolutely... misogyny is a cornerstone of christianity in particular. I'm currently reading Bernard Cornwell's latest Saxon Chronicles book ("The Burning Land"), and while it is historical fiction, it is based on real events and incorporates aspects of the actual culture of King Alfred's time, according to research and historical text. It takes place around 870 - 890, about the time when Christianity overtakes paganism as the primary religion throughout most of England, very much due to Alfred's influence and push to increase Christianity's presence in every English town and village...
At any rate, one of the common themes that Cornwell repeats over and over again is the refrain from Alfred and his bishops that women are cause of sin, are instruments of the devil, due to the story of Adam and Eve from Genesis... this theme was quite prevalent throughout early christianity; it was built on the premise that women are to be looked down upon.
(Great series of books, by the way...)
Posted by: garrett.severson
|
May 28, 2010 12:54 PM
This, basically. I do volunteer work with youth, and have had to deal with situations where abuse is suspected. It's bad enough when it's one person of authority telling the kid that this sort of behavior is perfectly normal and besides, it's her fault anyway, but when you have a larger group that reinforces these destructive ideas, any abuse is that much more likely to go undetected. Really, the takeaway from this ought to be to educate kids that if this sort of thing happens, it's wrong and it's not their fault. This sort of crime requires secrecy to be successful, so educating kids that it's ok to alert the authorities helps both in catching and punishing offenders and in preventing them from feeling secure enough to commit the crime in the first place. Unfortunately, the authority figures that the girl in this instance would likely have felt most comfortable in alerting failed her miserably. Had someone had the guts to stand up for what they must have known was right, this girl might have only been assaulted once before justice was had. Once is still far too much, but it's a damn sight better than repeat offenses, a coverup, and 13 years of guilt for the victim.Posted by: ktesibios
|
May 28, 2010 12:57 PM
It shouldn't be at all difficult for investigators to find out whether the cult chieftain's claim to have reported the rape to police is true. Cops do keep records of that sort of thing. And if it turns out that he didn't, I seem to recall our laws having something to say about concealing evidence of a felony.
I hope that Ms. Anderson's awakening leads her to spare her children the kind of cult indoctrination that she herself was subjected to.
Posted by: garrett.severson
|
May 28, 2010 12:59 PM
Unfortunately, since the pastor got to pick the family that adopted the child, this may not be an option. Certainly, though, we can hope for the best for any future children.Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
May 28, 2010 1:23 PM
Is that legal?...I thought state secular authority would be required to vet every placement family?
And they would be rather remiss not to ascertain history and access to the mother surely?
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/O.jullMj0I2VvJaxMMVeNKSfOPf73voLSxJAe9PdlOWwi8Y-#258ec
|
May 28, 2010 1:25 PM
some times just the open discussion is enough. There is a reason that secrecy is involved. If no one can talk about "it" then everyone who knows anything about "it" has to think about "it" alone. Just being able to think and talk about things in an open way is a freeing . If you feel you can not talk about something you might end up trying to repress thinking about so or remembering "it"
It does not take much to start "the ball rolling" and recover repressed memories though peoples reactions to them can be very different.
When I react strongly I sometimes find it interesting to look at what my reaction is about before I go off half cocked unfortunately I am not always successful.
uncle frogy
Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french
|
May 28, 2010 1:27 PM
#67
Reading comprehension bro. PZ said in the opening post that she "went on with her life, got married, had kids, and took a job as a music teacher at a Baptist college." Emphasis mine, obviously.
Posted by: boboniboni
|
May 28, 2010 1:29 PM
As garrett.severson, this HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. I've had a girlfriend who was abused by a family member. Her parents were conservative and moderately religious.
They ignored her as autonomous person, as a human being, as a child at the time the abuses happened. Out of shame and several other things, they simply tried to hide everything.
Posted by: garrett.severson
|
May 28, 2010 1:31 PM
The article says that "She placed her daughter, born in March 1998, up for adoption at Phelps' urging, with a family he had chosen." Likely what happened was they went through all the legal hoops and she just so happened to decide that the family suggested by the pastor was the best choice.Posted by: Samphire
|
May 28, 2010 1:35 PM
Ben Goren @ #21 ejaculated: "English, motherfucker"
Well, Ben, that's not very grammatical, is it? The comma is so otiose it is not even an Oxford comma. Whether you meant to accuse spaniquis of being English and being a motherfucker or only having intercourse with English mothers we cannot tell from your poor prose.
In any event, we English do not use the word to any extent finding it vulgar and primitive. It remains almost exclusively an American usage and, presumably, habit. Rarely on this side of the ever-widening (thank God for plate tectonics) Atlantic do we indulge in penetrating our mothers. We leave such practices to religious figures of the first century.
However, I do remember on a tedious visit to America some years ago fucking a Mrs Goren a few times. I thought at first it might be a close relation of yours but perhaps not as I don't remember you trying to get between us while we were at it.
Posted by: spaninquis
|
May 28, 2010 1:38 PM
Depends on the state. I know in PA, private adoption are perfectly legal. I used to have an Eastern Orthodox priest who would refer adoption clients to me. The state still does a home investigation, but anyone can be the intermediary.
Posted by: Mak
|
May 28, 2010 1:44 PM
I wonder what the results would be if you analyzed how long the comments sections of every blog post about women getting mistreated could go before the conversation became about men's egos and/or suffering.
I'm not hating on you guys specifically, it's just, y'know, the patriarchy. Smash it. And stuff. After breakfast, maybe, as I'm not quite awake yet. *shuffles off to find pancakes*
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
May 28, 2010 1:48 PM
#72
Your point is well taken...but she was 15 years old...that is statutory rape is it not....although I am not 100% on that...even so certain pertinent questions must have been asked given her young age...surely?
And was it her or her legal guardians(sic) that would sign the papers given her age and being from a specific community meaning she was not of no fixed abode?
That I find odd..if not rather careless of the authorities.
I suppose the pastor could have strung a line...but then he would now be up for perjury!
Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french
|
May 28, 2010 1:50 PM
#73
Daaaaaammmnnn. Ben, you gonna take that shit dawg?
On a side note (Y'know, one that concerns the actual topic of the thread) this is all absolutely, horrendously disgusting. I look at it and I think "Surely, if people know of this, they cannot stay with religion. Surely this will open their eyes."
Then I remember all the other occurrences of this nature that failed to change hearts and minds. What does it take? How much is needed before humanity as a whole just says "Yeah, fuck this shit"? Because the more I see, the less I understand how religion can be so popular in any civilized society.
Posted by: Nepenthe
|
May 28, 2010 2:03 PM
Mak @ 75
Right on. Myself, I never smash the patriarchy on an empty stomach.
Posted by: garrett.severson
|
May 28, 2010 2:04 PM
Hey now, that's another offense covered by RICO. Maybe she ought to think about that - RICO civil actions allow for triple damages; never mind the fact that it'd be hilarious to see a Baptist church labeled as a "Criminal Enterprise"Posted by: zeromh
|
May 28, 2010 2:05 PM
"PZ has already agreed with me. Granted, he’s a professor of biology and not of English, but that’s still well within his area of expertise."
You'd be surprised. You know how experts in sciences other than biology sometimes get evolution hopelessly wrong? Linguistics is no different. In fact, it's possibly worse, because everyone thinks that because they can speak their native language, they're qualified to explain why, say, "a man" in spaninquis's comment above refers to all men.
Not that I'm qualified to explain it either, but there are a lot of bogus arguments in this thread, on both sides. Look, a statement about X, without qualification, is a statement about X, without qualification. If I say that "a pencil is a slender tube of wood, metal, plastic, etc., containing a core or strip of graphite, a solid coloring material, or the like, used for writing or drawing," without adding any qualifications, then the default meaning is that I'm describing ALL pencils, without qualification. This is, in fact, what the dictionary does. This holds for other parts of speech as well. If I say "Cars drive on the right side of the road in America," you can't drive on the left and get away with it because I didn't say "always." Always is the default interpretation of the sentence, because I didn't qualify it. This should not be controversial.
I write this not to give spaninquis a hard time (that's already been done), just to point out that some of the linguistic judgements going on here have been pretty uninformed.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/SaqGVG0xvJEQVwURVamS3DTCdvov0BLhXK1jOsYPPJQ-#b4893
|
May 28, 2010 2:22 PM
Every now and then, I get to meet or hear about a hero -- someone who inspires, teaches, shows bravery. Sometimes the hero is 80; sometimes the hero is 5. The acts performed can be truly random.
Tina Anderson is my hero today, not just for the last 13 years, but also for what she said at the end of those 13 years. Many other people would have shrunk away, but not her.
I've said it before, and I'll keep right on saying it: If your head is still stuck in the bog of religion, you have the power to get out. You can do it. And it is for the best.
Leave the swamp of religion; alligators live in swamps. When you find one of these alligators, expose him or her (yes, there are female ones -- Melissa Huckabee, anyone?). But get out.
MikeM
Posted by: condignaction
|
May 28, 2010 2:23 PM
I'm glad someone reacted to the "all men are rapists" assertion implied by #9 whether that was the author's intent or not. Frankly, I'm sick of it. Not to change the topic from a sociopath using religion to rape children to a rant on the spurious allegation that all men are rapists or all men are potential rapists. But the allegation is so common and so prevalent yet is rarely challenged. Nice to see someone call the haters out on this garbage.
The men I know are not rapists or even potential rapists. They are computer programmers, medical doctors, loving husbands and fathers. The haters not only ignore reality but also ignore the facts: actual crime statistics from the U.S. Justice department show that last year there were less than 70,000 reported rapes in a population of 300,000,000. You do the math. It's fine to assume that some rapes are not reported and thus increase the number of actual rapes by an estimated percentage, but then you will need to subtract incidences where adult women rape male children and subtract the number of false rape allegations (which the FBI places at 8%) if you want to make the assertion that all men, or most men, or a majority of men are rapists - or potential rapists, or covert rapists. Honestly, I am sick of it.
Are the women who spout this garbage all dating violet crack addict street thugs? Where the hell are they getting this delusion from? Is is mass hysteria? I don't get it. I assume the haters are never challenged because [1] no one wants to seem insensitive to rape and [2] an attitude of "we'll let the angry women have her ridiculous rant" because pointing out the facts or explaining to her that her wild assertions are not based on reality will cause her to go completely hysterical and we are working from the assumption that she is little more than a bratty child who will have a tantrum if challenged.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
May 28, 2010 2:32 PM
#82
See, now that's over-reaction done right!
Posted by: Nepenthe
|
May 28, 2010 2:33 PM
@ 82
For what it's worth, which is probably nothing, the man who raped me is a well regarded scientist. I imagine that at least a few people who read this blog will be friends or colleagues with him at some point. We were also engaged and I don't imagine he would have stopped after the wedding. I know computer programmers who also commit sexual assault in their spare time. I know fathers who have raped their children.
Rapists are not all violet crack addicted street thugs. (Some of them are mauve.) They are mostly people not outwardly different from you or I. Why do you think they get away with it so often?
Posted by: garrett.severson
|
May 28, 2010 2:37 PM
@condignaction: Sure, there are a lot of false rape reports, but rape is hugely underreported. The figures I found from the DoJ (admittedly from 1997) put the report percentage at about 16%. That means that 84% of rapes go unreported. This doesn't factor in that many women forced into having sex by their husbands or boyfriends do not consider themselves as rape victims, which they are if they did not give consent. Certainly, it's not fair to imply that all men are rapists or that all men want to be rapists, but your rather incoherent and frankly childish rant there at the end isn't doing any favors for those of us with a Y chromosome who sincerely want to see rape and sexual assault become a thing of the past. I assume that you are with me on that point, but you're not approaching the issue in a way that is appropriate to the situation, or that is likely to earn you many admirers amongst the readership here. If you really want those sorts of conceptions about men to be changed, then act as you think men ought to act and do everything in your power to educate other men to act the same way. Hijacking a discussion about the tremendous suffering a woman endured over the course of 13 years to call those you disagree with "bratty child[ren]" is only going to reinforce that perception of you in their minds.
Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french
|
May 28, 2010 2:43 PM
#82
I am also often annoyed by the "All men are rapists" crowd. Being a man, and not being a rapist will generally cause that. I'm sick of it too.
However, that was a giant fucking textwall with almost no substance, that was off topic, and that addressed a comment which has already been dealt with (And was not actually meant to imply that all mean are rapists, even if it seemed like it).
In other words, please shut the fuck up and discuss the actual post. I mean god damn.
Posted by: eandh99
|
May 28, 2010 2:45 PM
Nobody's saying that all men are rapists- the trouble is that rapists don't go around with flashing warning lights on top of their heads. There is no truly reliable way to predict which man you meet in the course of a day is and which man isn't (ps google "Schroedinger's Rapist" for a much longer and better analysis of this). In fact a woman is at much higher risk of being raped by a man she knows - acquaintance, friend, relative, colleague, partner or ex-partner, than by a stranger. So how do you live with "most men aren't but any given man could be" - because being a "nice guy" or a "professional" or an "upstanding citizen" is no guarantee. Look at the stats on how many women in the armed forces are raped BY their fellow soldiers.
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
May 28, 2010 2:47 PM
Samphire, that wasn’t Mrs. Goren, I’m afraid. It was Mrs. Wallace.
Now, say, “What.” I dare you.
zeromh, PZ teaches undergraduates at an excellent liberal arts college. As such, I have no doubt that he grades his students on their English skills in papers they submit in his biology classes. I’m also sure he is regularly depressed by the quality of the writing of his students….
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
Posted by: condignaction
|
May 28, 2010 2:54 PM
#84: I completely agree! Scientists are rapists. In fact, PZ raped me. But that was before his sex-change operation (when he was a woman) and of course I'm referring to "PZ Meyers" - the evil-twin with the goatee. This of course proves that ALL ATHEISTS are rapists... not just evil-twin pre-operative female-to-male transexual atheists with goatees. No! This anecdotally proves that all atheists, anyone with a goatee (moronic fashion anyway), and all scientists are rapists. If not all, at least most, or a majority, or maybe lots and lots of sociopathic atheist scientists with goatees... are rapists and inclined to rape their children, co-workers, and random people they encounter. Yes, I agree. I mean, I wouldn't want to disagree and have you throw a tantrum.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
May 28, 2010 2:56 PM
Starfart on aisle 89...
Posted by: Nepenthe
|
May 28, 2010 3:00 PM
I was wondering what starfart meant. Condignaction, thanks for the illustration, you fucking asshole.
Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french
|
May 28, 2010 3:07 PM
#87
Yes, some men are rapists. Men from all walks of life. It is still a very small percentage of the whole. Going around thinking "THAT GUY MIGHT BE A RAPIST" is kind of silly because, yes, while he MIGHT be one, he very probably isn't. It'd be like never eating because some food MIGHT have diseases in it.
#89
Holy Magic Ghostjizz dude. You might have a valid point there. Too bad no one will never know because we're not fluent in Giant Asshole-ese.
Posted by: eandh99
|
May 28, 2010 3:13 PM
And in a place without FDA or food inspectors or hygiene rules, not eating, or only eating food prepared by oneself, is in fact EXACTLY what smart people (who have no desire to pick up, say, dysentery)choose to do. And many people see rape as more damaging than food poisoning, and thus, worth more effort to avoid. Sorry, avoiding being raped is more important than hurting some dude's feelings by putting him in the "possible rapist, not going to make myself vulnerable to him" box.Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french
|
May 28, 2010 3:32 PM
#93
There is a vast difference between putting some dudes in that box and putting all dudes in that box.
Avoiding all but the barest contact with half of the human population of earth because a small fraction are assholes is ludicrous. Even if you extrapolate the 16% of reported rapes up there to the total including non-reported ones, you get less than one percent of all American men as rapists. I would doubt that even if you add in marital rape and the like you would end up with a substantial percentage.
Yes, keeping some mace or a tazer or something just in case is a good idea. Don't assume that all men are rapists because they might be. Certainly don't make hysterical claims about how all men are rapists/potential rapists and avoid them all as penises are evil.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
May 28, 2010 3:40 PM
And the WTF award for the day goes to comment #89
Posted by: crowepps
|
May 28, 2010 3:45 PM
Couldn't - he was already married, the father for whom she was babysitting and 38 at the time (she was 15). But the church did shame him for adultery! I would note there was apparently no explicit connection made between Willis being 'unfaithful' and the other person involved being the 15-year old who was pregnant.Posted by: garrett.severson
|
May 28, 2010 3:45 PM
@Shplane: The point is not that a woman should constantly be terrified of every man she meets, but rather that she should know that the stereotypical rapist is not the only sort of rapist and she should therefore keep an eye out for warning signs that the guy talking to her doesn't doesn't actually view her as a person. This sort of caution is totally warranted, particularly when dealing with a crime as heinous as rape. Put simply, the trauma that comes with being raped is so tremendous that it's worth taking the time to make as sure as possible that she won't have to suffer it. A man shouldn't take a woman's caution toward him in a social setting as an indictment of his character in particular, but should view it instead as the perfectly reasonable reaction towards a situation in which she is potentially at extreme disadvantage.
I also don't think anyone here is making the claim that all men are rapists or are even potential rapists. Rather, the safety and peace of mind a woman gets from treating men she doesn't know as potential rapists far outweighs any hurt feelings that men might experience from being "put in the box", regardless of whether any particular man is a potential rapist. Besides, the process of "getting out of the box" is a whole hell of a lot easier than the process of recovering physically and psychologically from being raped.
Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french
|
May 28, 2010 3:55 PM
#97
Being suspicious of strangers and creeps is reasonable for anyone, and especially women who don't work out a lot (Because I've known a few that would totally kick the shit out of most rapists). Not just because of rape, but because of any number of other horrible things that people do to each other. So yes. General caution is good around strangers and those who show some form of warning sign.
However, that did not seem to be what the posts I was responding to were advocating, so much as a general suspicion of all men, period, forever. If that's not what they meant, they can feel free to say so, and I will say "Oh ok, guess I misunderstood bro" and drop the issue.
Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com
|
May 28, 2010 4:06 PM
Just imagine how much worse things would be if we (here in the USA) had Bible-based laws. Unfortunately, there are people (The Christian RightTM) who want to run the country on Christian PrinciplesTM.
Posted by: condignaction
|
May 28, 2010 4:08 PM
Third post - my final post of the day.
Well yes, I was trying to make a valid point.
How about this... a shorter version of this thread:
PZ: Some scumbag used religion to rape a young girl
HATER: All men are rapist.
ALT: That's ridiculous.
HATER: That's not what I meant.
ALT: Just to be clear, your average Joe is not a rapist.
HATER: I was raped by someone named Joe. I am a completely anonymous person posting a spurious assertion on the internet, yet anything you say from this point on is insensitive.
My attempt to parody, and not be intimidated by, the shut-up post: "I was raped by a scientist, I know computer programmers who also commit sexual assault in their spare time. I know fathers who have raped their children. Yes, I am implying that most men are potential rapists but having made the assertion that I am a rape victim you are not allowed to disagree with my implied assertion that most men are in fact potential rapists or I will accuse you of being insensitive to a rape victim."
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
May 28, 2010 4:14 PM
Hmm. I did think #89 was probably satire when I first read it, but I wasn't sure.
The Poe strikes again.
Posted by: Nepenthe
|
May 28, 2010 4:16 PM
What is it with the misogynists and the "keep digging" theory of holes?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
May 28, 2010 4:18 PM
Even if that were an accurate summation of the thread (which it hardly approximates, frankly)... how does that warrant your complete cliff dive off the edge of rationality at #89?
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
May 28, 2010 4:19 PM
I think this "all men are [potential] rapists" meme actually has a religious origin. It's a sex-specific aspect of original sin.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
May 28, 2010 4:23 PM
amphiox:
This is also where you get the "it's always the woman's fault" meme and the "it's an appropriate punishment" meme.
Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french
|
May 28, 2010 4:24 PM
#100
And you probably would have if you had calmly and rationally explained that a single anecdote about a single scientist being a rapist does not make all scientists rapists.
Instead, you went on a giant dick-swinging rage tirade and flung shit all over the place like a bipolar chimp. Calm the fuck down and post things that make sense. Some of the things you're saying are logical, if you'll just express them logically.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
May 28, 2010 4:25 PM
Unless I'm missing some trolling history, I am puzzled why people didn't think #89 was pretty funny. I had a giggle, at least.
Of course all men aren't rapists. All Baptist preachers, now, that might be different...
Posted by: Nepenthe
|
May 28, 2010 4:29 PM
Also, for the record, I was responding to condignaction's ridiculous claim that because the men he knows are "computer programmers, medical doctors, loving husbands and fathers" they could not be rapists. I provided counterexamples. I did not at any point either claim or imply that all men are rapists. I was merely pointing out that otherwise upstanding citizens are sometimes rapists. You don't have to believe my story to know that.
And gosh, I just don't have the facility with cursing to say exactly how I feel about this condignaction fellow, but I think, if I may steal from :
Fuck you sideways with a burning barrel cactus you goat-ball licking motherfucker.
That last bit was mine. I'm pretty proud of it. *grin*
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
May 28, 2010 4:29 PM
His first post was at #82... which was a complete (non parody) over-reaction to the post at #9 that spawned this little sub-conversation... it was an over-reaction even compared to some of the other over-reaction that was argued over.
#89, following that, was just... out there...
Posted by: Aquaria
|
May 28, 2010 4:31 PM
#102
Not just digging the holes, but hijacking the thread to make everything about them.
Maybe we could call it the Kobe effect.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
May 28, 2010 4:37 PM
Too true. For fairness sake, I will raise the possibility that these memes did not originate with the religions in question, but had their genesis some time in the prehistoric past before religion, and that the religions just inherited them.
And then took off with them, promoted, expanded, spread, enforced, indoctrinated, etc, with wide-eyed, blazing frothing mouthed zeal.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
May 28, 2010 4:37 PM
@Celtic - Yeah, I went back and read that. It was a pompous overreaction. But #89 was pretty funny even so, and none of it addressed the Baptist rapist problem.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
May 28, 2010 4:42 PM
Eh... I went back and re-read it again... and I'm sorry, it still read weird and completely misplaced to me. I still wound up thinking "wtf"?
Posted by: Endor
|
May 28, 2010 4:43 PM
#108 - you gave a reasonable response to a batshit crazy rape-denying whiner. You did much better than he deserved.
I mean, seriously: "The haters not only ignore reality but also ignore the facts: actual crime statistics from the U.S. Justice department show that last year there were less than 70,000 reported rapes in a population of 300,000,000. You do the math"
he thought THAT was a good point to include? Once again to quote: Boy privilege land must be so comfy!
Posted by: Endor
|
May 28, 2010 4:47 PM
Question, as I am no mathematician: Assuming accuracy, how can 1 in 4 women be a victim of sexual assault and yet less then 1% of men commit sexual assault?
Sure, those who commit sexual assault tend to do so more than just once or to more than just one victim, but doesn't that seem waaaaaay out of proportion?
Esp since college aged men self report committing sexual assault at a rate of over 60%?
Posted by: crowepps
|
May 28, 2010 4:48 PM
I don't think I would classify it as "general suspicion of all men, period" but I do think that many women will tell you that they are alert to possible 'warning signs' when interacting with most men in circumstances that increase the woman's vulnerability.
That may seem like misandry to men who personally would never take advantage of that vulnerability but for women it is a sensible self-defense move of constantly being alert and evaluating how dangerous men are so they minimize their risk.
Women do not have an obligation to be less alert or stop evaluating risk because doing so might hurt somebody's feelings. Usually, however, they just don't openly state that this is a normal routine in their life because when they do so they are scolded by men who assert they don't like being treated as potential rapists.
Balancing the 'harms' of one person having hurt feelings versus the other person being at a higher risk for rape, I'm sorry it makes you feel bad but I and a lot of other women will continue to be wary in situations that make me vulnerable.
Posted by: Samphire
|
May 28, 2010 4:49 PM
Samphire, that wasn’t Mrs. Goren, I’m afraid. It was Mrs. Wallace.
Mia culpa. Cum Uma cum cunctus
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
May 28, 2010 4:53 PM
crowepps:
I'm alert and cautious as hell. I've been raped once, and I'm not exactly looking for a repeat performance. I won't apologize for being careful or for being suspicious. The majority of men know why women are careful and don't have a problem with it.
Posted by: crowepps
|
May 28, 2010 4:59 PM
I agree, which makes me wonder just exactly what is going on in the heads of the men who apparently DO have a problem with it.Posted by: garrett.severson
|
May 28, 2010 5:06 PM
This. A thousand times this. These behaviors are totally reasonable, regardless of who the individual man involved is. Why so many men insist on claiming that it's part of some batshit expression of misandry will be lost on me for all time. It's not about the individual guy in question, it's just playing it smart and safe. A guy playing it up to make himself look like the victim of some vast feminist conspiracy only serves to make himself look like a fool and provide cover for those who actually are potential rapists by making women feel guilty for having perfectly reasonable behaviors. It's a safety strategy, and if it hurts your feelings, tough shit.Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
May 28, 2010 5:09 PM
crowepps:
*nods* I'll tell ya, I'm not that interested in what's going on in their heads. If I was around a man spouting off in that vein, I'd be damn sure to get away from him - safely.
Posted by: Nepenthe
|
May 28, 2010 5:11 PM
Endor @ 114, 115
Sometimes I wish I could vacation in boy privilege land.
No one I know who has told me about being raped or sexually assaulted reported it besides someone who was abused as a child and didn't report per se but who raised suspicions when she didn't want to go to Daddy's house anymore. But clearly the numbers can't be that much off.
The three actual rapists in this country must be awfully busy. Just think of their day planners. "Rape, rape, rape. Lunch. Rape, rape, rape. Afternoon tea. Rape, rape. Quick shower."
Posted by: crowepps
|
May 28, 2010 5:27 PM
In addition, it creates another pressure on women to censor what they say to men about their perfectly reasonable THOUGHTS because women get really, really tired of men using the truths that women tell them as a jumping off place to inform women that they shouldn't have told the truth because 'real/good/healthy women don't think that'.Posted by: virologistd
|
May 28, 2010 5:28 PM
re. disparate statistics on assaults and assaulters.
How many individuals actually would think or admit of themselves as perpetrators of rape or sexual assault? As society we've constructed an image of those who commit such attacks as complete monsters. Few people are going to place themselves into such a mold.
Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french
|
May 28, 2010 5:34 PM
#116
I would not find fault with anyone who watches for potential Asshole Signs in those around them. In fact, I would advise everyone to watch out for signs that anyone around them may very well be some kind of sociopathic sick fuck.
I can understand a woman not making herself vulnerable around men she is not close to. Hell, I'll even commend her for her caution and good sense.
I just find it sensible to wait to file a guy under the "Potential rapist" folder until he's done SOMETHING to deserve it. Living in constant fear of something that will probably never happen, and automatically labeling half of the population of the world as horrible monsters is not really good for the woman, or for the majority of men that have noble intentions.
Not that I think you're advocating that last part, and I don't see the point in continuing to post on the matter since you don't seem to think that all or most men are rapists. So yeah. Keep up with the basic caution. It's pretty cool. Just don't get upset when I get a tiny bit annoyed when someone else says "ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS LOL" for the hundred thousandth fucking time when statistically, that's not even a remote possibility. Or, well, when I misinterpret something someone else said to mean that because I've heard it so goddamn much that it's hard to think through to anything else. I apologize, but I probably will get a bit jumpy when someone calls me a rapist.
Posted by: garrett.severson
|
May 28, 2010 5:41 PM
But no one's calling you a rapist. They're saying that it's reasonable to treat you as though you might be one if they don't know you. These are two radically different statements. If someone were to walk up to you on the street and try to get you to invest money in some random venture, you wouldn't assume that it was all fine and dandy until they ran off with your monthly paycheck. Instead, you'd demand that they prove to you that they're on the level. Why is it that it's suddenly unreasonable for women to take similar precautions when dealing with something that is much more valuable than any amount of money?Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
May 28, 2010 5:46 PM
Shplane:
This ^ is a bunch of shit. I don't live in "constant fear" and rape is not a rare occurrence. I don't automatically label half the population as anything. As for "noble intentions", really, this isn't the King's Court or anything, and most people aren't wandering around looking for someone to bestow their "noble intentions" on.
Posted by: crowepps
|
May 28, 2010 5:48 PM
Like rape? I agree it's not really good for women to think of men as "horrible monsters". It is, however, very smart of women to think of men as "potentially dangerous" when the women are vulnerable because that is the truth. Unfortunately, the rapists and the men with the noble intentions cannot easily be sorted out.I really don't see how women recognizing that and assessing it does much harm to the majority of men, especially since rants like this discourage women from admitting this truth about their lives and men can proceed smugly in the belief that all the women around them feel safe in their company and universally recognize them as having 'noble intentions'.
Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french
|
May 28, 2010 5:58 PM
#126
And I see that now. It did not, however, seem that way from some of the initial posts. It especially did not seem that way due to the number of times that I HAVE seen the "All men are rapists" meme spouted.
I misinterpreted a few statements because of my past experience with similar ones. I am sorry. I can't say it won't happen again, because while the posts here have revealed themselves to be more logical, far more of the statements I have read at other times were not. I'll try to be calm and rational about it (I like to think that I was, comparatively) instead of doing a crazy motherfucking flying pirouette so far off the handle that I reach escape velocity and smash face-first into the moon. I'll still probably at least ask the poster if they think that all men are rapists or if I'm just misreading, though.
And again, as I said in like five different posts, showing basic caution is not bad. It's when you start assuming that all men are probably rapists automatically that you've gone a bit overboard. You guys don't seem to be doing or advocating that now that your positions have been elucidated, though, so there's not really a problem besides me not being able to stop arguing until the argument reaches a definite end or I get so pissed off that I have to leave. Especially when my insomnia kicks in and I haven't slept for days.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
May 28, 2010 5:59 PM
1)Re OP: good that the woman is freeing herself from the mental cage of her religion, but how horrid that she had to suffer this much abuse
2)"a man" is indeed a placeholder for any man at all; it doesn't mean all men, but it does usually mean any man, which may or may not be just as bad.
3)It wouldn't be accurate to say that rape may occur in places where men are systematically protected from the consequences of their actions; rape will happen in such a situation, if only because in modern society, too many men still are "unclear on the concept" of consent; and there will be at least one of those in any sufficiently large group of men.
4)I second the suggestion for anyone to go and read "Schroedinger's Rapist"; it's not a question of all or most men being potential rapists, but of the rapists being virtually indistinguishable from the non-rapists to the onlooker.
5)one in six women will be sexually assaulted. That's not "something that will probably never happen"; it's something that's very likely to happen, and is entirely reasonable to protect oneself from, even "erring on the side of caution" and not wanting to be around a guy who doesn't respect your boundaries, even if he's not ever going to be a rapist, but is merely socially awkward and clueless.
6)If men want women to stop being "paranoid" about this, they're welcome to become feminist activists and help with destroying the rape culture, learn (and teach to others) respect for personal boundaries, and promote the concept of enthusiastic consent instead of the inadequate "well, she didn't say no" crap. that way, we may actually eventually get to the point where sexual assault will become rare enough, and people will become aware enough, that women won't have to be careful and looking for potential red flags in every guy.
Posted by: crowepps
|
May 28, 2010 6:15 PM
And yet this is not ALL ABOUT YOU.We were discussing an article in which a girl was raped by the man taking her home from a babysitting job and how her Pastor blamed and shamed HER because she 'should have been more careful not to give him the opportunity to rape her'.
In light of that, your protest that women are wrong to treat all men as potential rapists because doing so includes you in the group is both egocentric and fails to recognize that in our culture acting as though all men are rapists is part of women's TRADITIONAL JOB in which they fail at their peril. If you think that's sick, and it is, direct your efforts towards convincing the conservatives to remove it from our job description.
Posted by: DaveL
|
May 28, 2010 6:35 PM
I read the first sentence of this article:
...and knew there was no way this was going to end well.
Why should the girl apologize to the congregation? She hasn't wronged them. This is the point at which any decent parent would stand up and say "fuck you all, she doesn't owe you anything."
Posted by: raven
|
May 28, 2010 7:18 PM
Bunch of slackers really. I thought they were supposed to make her wear a Scarlet A for the rest of her life. Nethaniel Hawthorne must be spinning in his grave.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
May 28, 2010 7:33 PM
Buuuuuullshit. The comma makes clear that "motherfucker" is an address; lack of the comma would mean there's an English motherfucker somewhere out there.
If I wrote "do you understand that Samphire?", that would mean there's a potentially incomprehensible Samphire out there, and that I'm not asking you, Samphire, but someone else, about what to make of that fact.
Almost everyone gets this wrong on the Internet (only in English, strangely enough), and half of the time I trip over it and have to read the sentence again to figure it out! <deep breath>
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
May 28, 2010 8:03 PM
Crowepps: "Women do not have an obligation to be less alert or stop evaluating risk because doing so might hurt somebody's feelings. Usually, however, they just don't openly state that this is a normal routine in their life because when they do so they are scolded by men who assert they don't like being treated as potential rapists."
Perfectly phrased! I can't think how many times I've tried to explain this.
Posted by: Joel
|
May 28, 2010 8:13 PM
And the Baptists are no different from the Muslims in this regard. It's the slutty slut-slut's fault she got raped, because she showed a little leg and had a vagina and made the Penis act of its own accord.
I am going to go vomit a bit.
Posted by: eandh99
|
May 28, 2010 9:50 PM
To save people the trouble of googling:
a salient quote from the beginning of Schroedinger's Rapist
and a link to the whole post HERE
Posted by: crowepps
|
May 28, 2010 10:08 PM
Must admit, considering the statistics I have a little problem imbuing men that I am around with 'noble intentions' just because they aren't going to force me to have sex with them today. Isn't not physically assaulting each other sort of the minimal position for human interaction between ANY two humans?
Posted by: crowepps
|
May 28, 2010 10:17 PM
I am constantly boggled by the number of men who insist that they just can't get any traction on having a real relationship with a woman because they just can't figure out why women do the things they do and who ALSO respond to women's clear and truthful EXPLANATIONS of their actions by responding with "a crazy motherfucking flying pirouette so far off the handle that [they] reach escape velocity and smash face-first into the moon".Golly, I wonder why women don't bother to share?
Posted by: llewelly
|
May 28, 2010 10:29 PM
Nepenthe | May 28, 2010 4:16 PM:
Dunno, but every now and then it results in an insane Deepwater Horizon of misogyny.
Posted by: circleh
|
May 28, 2010 11:54 PM
I followed the link on the blog entry and found none of the quotes PZ posted. Where did they really come from?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100528/ap_on_re_us/us_church_rape_case
Posted by: Julia
|
May 28, 2010 11:59 PM
Police have said their 1997 investigation was shelved because they could not locate the victim, and they are now investigating how much church leaders knew about the allegations.
Not to downplay the church's and pastor's role in this, but is anyone else not really buying that the police did all they could do in the beginning? Seems to me like the police and the pastor are both scrambling to point fingers at who's to blame.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
May 29, 2010 12:13 AM
A quick google search shows that about a million other news outlets quoted those passages more or less exactly from an article by Lynne Tuohy for AP, for example here.
Posted by: turegum
|
May 29, 2010 1:21 AM
Study of Reported Child Sexual Abuse in the Anglican Church May 2009 Full Report (PDF)
Posted by: Samphire
|
May 29, 2010 7:45 AM
Hey, David @ #134 - keep breathing. It was just a handle on which to hang a piece of gentle humour.
Ignoring the address to the alleged participant in homely American indoor pastimes, the line reads:
English. Do. You. Write. It?
If you think that is English then I'm 华人
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
May 29, 2010 8:11 AM
...好啊...
Posted by: spaninquis
|
May 29, 2010 10:00 AM
And I laughed. Gently, but I laughed.
Posted by: kariedgerton
|
May 29, 2010 10:45 AM
@122
They must get up very early in the morning... I can't even get down to the gym!
Posted by: interliminal
|
May 29, 2010 5:15 PM
I don't remember if someone on here mentioned David Lisak's work [I've been link-following for an hour, so I've lost track] but it's really great. He does work on "undetected rapists" or basically, men who, when asked without using terms like "rape" or "assault", report having committed behaviors that amount to such.
Here's a report that he did:
http://www.crisisconnectioninc.org/pdf/undetected_rapist.pdf
The stats cited in this article indicate:
about 15% of women have been raped at some point in their lifetime [close to the 1 in 6 someone mentioned earlier]
5%-15% of men surveyed indicated that they engaged in a behavior that could be classified under rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault [14 different studies noted in the article with the lowest percentage being 4.8 and the highest being 14.8]
Rape is stunningly common. If these studies are right, it is not a "very small minority" of men who are dangerous. Wikipedia says that Asian-Americans make up 4.4% of the US population. You are more likely [even at the lowest estimate above] to meet a man who is a rapist in the US than an Asian man. At the highest estimate you are more likely to meet a male rapist in the US than a black man [12.4% of US population is African-American] or an athiest man [highest estimates of athiest-agnostics usually run at 12% or so].
At these sorts of percentages I would say that there is no question that women are justified in being wary of any particular man or any particular situation. At these levels, every one of us is pretty much guaranteed to meet a rapist on our daily travels downtown or to the grocery store. Of course, I am not claiming all men are rapists, or that any individual man here is a rapist [I don't even know why I have to say this at this point, it should be obvious]. But these statistics [if representative] ought to give all of us pause.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/1XOLiSNn3NRDbtCp2LThjmXK3gT5lxJLj3DzarHU#8749a
|
May 29, 2010 5:32 PM
Scientology has covered up numerous child sexual abuse cases in Australia, one of the victims speaks up on Lateline on the 19th of May 2010.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpMeEJESwc8
Also: Interview with Amy Scobee about child abuse coverups
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-sw7e44F9c
Posted by: Nebula99
|
May 30, 2010 4:42 PM
Okay, this is disgusting. But what I want to know is where do the quotes from the OP come from? As far as I can tell, not from the linked article.
Also, if those rape statistics you showed are true I am severely creeped out right now. On the upside, it's probably a bit less likely than that that one of your friends is a rapist. Rapists generally aren't the sort with a lot of friends, after all.
Right?
Posted by: crowepps
|
May 30, 2010 9:35 PM
Link re "compromising situation" "public confession":
http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/pastor-no-cover-up-of-alleged-rape