[pols, psych] A few notes on rape culture and Steubensville
1) I observe much struggling out there around how to articulate and frame the nature of the problem with the way media was sympathetic to the convicted rapists.
Some parties are making excuses for the media, claiming that the media is merely exemplifying charity and non-stone-throwing. *coff* Ignoring the patent absurdity of attributing those motives to the media involved, let us address the particular question of how to regard perpetrators.
I kinda feel I have a bead on how to relate to people who do horrific things. I worked as a therapist in the criminal justice system, and have treated violent criminals (and continue to do so now outside the criminal justice system); having close emotional relationships with reprehensible people has been, you know, my job. So allow me to suggest a few things.
First of all, that we don't all have to have the same reaction. This is not a one-size-fits-all situation. In fact it's better for society as a whole if there is some diversity of response.
Which is not to say all responses are equally good, or that all constellations of diversity of response are equally good.
Society works better if most people emotionally focus on the harm done the victim, and a small number of specialists handles the suffering of the perps. These specialists may be religious devotees or clergy, or mental health specialists, or the people who are close to and love the perpetrators.
Society doesn't require you to be a saint, all-forgiving and all-sympathetic. In fact, society would not benefit by everyone being a saint. Not least because in trying to be a saint, you, not being a saint, would almost certainly fuck it up, aping what you thought being saintly entailed and being egregiously wrong. Do not attempt to do the work of saints unless you have saint-level training; it is not your work to do.
For instance, and this brings me to my second suggestion, sympathy for perps is problematic and what is virtuous is pity.
Sympathy is when you identify with someone else's suffering: "OMG, I would feel so terrible if I were in their place". While it's not wholly morally suspect to have sympathy for rapists, that's kind of an advanced spiritual maneuver which really most people shouldn't be engaged in for reasons of safety, theirs and others. Really, your first response to finding out somebody is going to get punished for committing rape shouldn't be "What if I were in their place?" It should be more along the lines of, "Gosh, raping people sucks." Also acceptable is, "Gosh, what a terribly mean thing to do."
Pity is when you feel bad about someone's circumstances: "Wow, how awful those two kids fucked up their lives by raping someone."
Pity has a bad rep for reasons I'll discuss some other time, but don't let that stop you. The neat thing about pity is that you can have it for rapists without identifying with rapists.
Which brings us to...
2) Can we knock it off with the passive voice? Their lives were not ruined, they ruined their lives.
3) The word/concept yall are groping for is "hubris" (also).
4) I'm not usually one for attempting to change popular culture by legislation, but I have to say, this looks like one of those rare opportunities to do exactly that: if there really are (and apparently there really are) so many people who ardently believe "she was drunk" is exculpatory of rape, let us pass law establishing the criminality of "rape by means of an intoxicant" as a form of Aggravated Rape.
Here in MA, there is already such a thing as Aggravated Rape, but it does not address the use of intoxicants. I think perhaps it should. I think it would have an interesting effect on our culture if the response to "but she was drunk" was "So not only did he commit rape, but he committed rape by means of an intoxicant".
2b) I think it's important not to argue against the point that the rapists' lives are now ruined. The contention is who did the ruining. When someone says, "Those poor boys! Their lives are ruined!" the response is not "No they aren't" or "Not as much as the victim." It's "Yes, what a shame those boys did that to themselves. Raping ruins your life. I wish somebody had gotten that message into them before that awful night when they savaged that poor girl. They had it all and threw it away." Really, "raping ruins your life" is a fine take-home for the more resolutely thick-headed, i.e. the ones for whom "rape is wrong" is proving too challenging. See, if necessary we can translate these things into a lower Kohlberg level to make them more accessible.
As to whether the rapists' lives are now more ruined than the victim's, well, one can sincerely hope so. That would be the deterrent aim of our criminal justice system: it attempts to make committing the crime sufficiently not worth it as to discourage repetition or emulation. It is not unreasonable to feel the consequences for despoiling someone's life for sport should be similarly life-altering and durable.
And, for all the harm done the victim, at least she doesn't have to wake up every morning for the rest of her life knowing she's a rapist.