Interesting Additions to my Previous Entry

Mar 11, 2011 01:27

First of all, this in no way changes any of my previous entry about the way the article was framed, especially in regards to the victim-blaming that I still feel was very prevalent in the NY Times article. However, more information has come to light making the reporting more complex, as there are several more issues at play.

BUT LET'S BE CLEAR. ( Read more... )

i will destroy humanity, whiskey tango foxtrot, rant-tastic, linkmeister, race-relations, on my high horse, political

Leave a comment

Comments 20

acousticshadow2 March 11 2011, 13:22:06 UTC
While I wholeheartedly agree with your angry and the hideous writing within the article I would like to play devil’s advocate on 2 points. 1 would be on why the author would include the child’s dress and behavior. Although my first reaction would be that this is the author underhandedly insinuating that the girl herself was to blame (and seriously how on earth would an 11 year old girl understand the consequences of her actions in any more way that any 11 understand why doesn’t something stupid might put them in a dangerous place. I think the horribly ill written intention of the author was rather to point out the lack of parental protection. I mean really what mother would let their 11 year old daughter say... “date” a 24 year old man? So yeah I feel like some negligence falls on the girl’s mother. It is not the mother’s fault that the girl got raped, but rather it is her mother’s fault for not being a good parent. The mother should have known who her daughter was hanging out with. The mother should have chosen to steer her daughter ( ... )

Reply

etherial March 11 2011, 13:44:34 UTC
The mother should have chosen to steer her daughter into more age appropriate clothing.

Have you seen what clothing is marketed towards 11-year old girls lately? Any clothing-related blame here belongs to Wal*Mart, not the mother. And, frankly, there is a constant give-and-take for dealing with kids. Too much pushing and they run in the direction you were warning against.

11 is a perfectly appropriate age for someone to travel home alone from school or to have unsupervised outdoor time alone. 11 is not an appropriate age for someone to be having sex, which is why, even if she was wearing skimpy lingerie and on her hands and knees literally begging to show them a good time, it's still rape. Thus, again, clothing=red herring.

However, what if this is a witch hunt fueled by racial tension?Yanno, I totally had that thought myself, until I remembered that they took videos of themselves raping an 11-year old. Sadly, it is much more realistic that they felt this was a means of relieving the racial tension by taking their frustrations out ( ... )

Reply

acousticshadow2 March 11 2011, 14:00:21 UTC
So what if clothing is marketed towards 11 year old girls... a responsible parent says "let's compromise" You don't get to wear negligie, but I'll give in and allow the miniskirt. So yes... it is the mother's fault. There were pleanty of things my mother put her foot down on and said absolutely not you are not leaving my house in that. and sure I bucked and I got away with pushing the evelope as far as I could, but that doesn't mean the mother doesn't have the obligation to be a mother. But even if the girl was running around naked it isn't an excuse to rape her. I'm just saying that from what little little little I know from a badly written article it seems like some parental neglect might be an issue ( ... )

Reply

tinylegacies March 11 2011, 14:40:14 UTC
It is not the mother’s fault that the girl got raped, but rather it is her mother’s fault for not being a good parent.

NO

If we're going to blame any parents, let's blame the parents of the men and boys who chose to violate an 11 year old for not raising those men and boys to respect women. HOWEVER, the ONLY blame lies with those men and boys. They made the choice to do harm.

11 year olds do not need 24/7 supervision. Hell, I started babysitting at 12. You're buying into the same patriarchal, misogynistic bullshit as the victim blamers. THE ONLY PEOPLE TO BLAME FOR A CRIME ARE THE PEOPLE WHO COMMITTED THE CRIME. Full stop.

Reply


balsamicdragon March 11 2011, 15:08:25 UTC
First, let me say that the article was atrocious. I am really pissed at the NYT, especially since I just started reading it because the Globe has gone to shit ( ... )

Reply

acousticshadow2 March 11 2011, 16:26:49 UTC
to Tinylegacies I guess you did not read my post, nor understood what I was trying to say. If you had, you would have noticed that I was in no way condoning what they did. Nor did I blame her mother for what happend, nor did I blame the girl for what happend ( ... )

Reply

tinylegacies March 11 2011, 19:09:28 UTC
I would like to point out that to accuse a person of rape when the are innocent IS in fact almost as bad as rape.

NO

You are wrong. Flat out wrong. In fact, the articles about this situation are a prime example of why you are wrong. These 18 men and boys who were accused of rape are being defended while the 11 year old victim is being villified. That is because we live in a rape culture and people think this kind of behavior is okay.

Reply

balsamicdragon March 11 2011, 19:37:13 UTC
Would you happen to be from Salem? Because you can clearly witch hunt with the best of them. We live in a country where people are innocent until proven guilty. Everyone here agrees that the article was badly, badly written and is emblematic of a host of problems in our society. But until a jury convicts these guys, they are only "alleged" rapists.

Reply


jojo_da_crow March 11 2011, 18:47:01 UTC
There seems to be this ideal in society when people make arguments about parents that every family is the same. I see someone earlier playing devil's advocate is asking about the girls mother. Where was she ( ... )

Reply


balsamicdragon March 11 2011, 19:38:38 UTC
My apologies in advance for starting a flame war on your blog. I have a low tolerance for stupid at the moment :(

Reply


neuromancerzss March 11 2011, 22:22:24 UTC
I was actually pleased with the original articles' lack of racial information. There is a bit of assumption that no information means white, but nothing seems to indicate that race mattered in the rape in question so there isn't much reason to talk about it.

Regarding the girl's dress, it does inform on the situation. Don't get me wrong, they're still predators (AND rapists, this wouldn't be ok if she were 18), but I would have a different interpretation about a case where an 11 year old girl was dressed in baggy corduroys and a case where she's in a mini-skirt and makeup. She's not asking for it, but it's a different sort of predation.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up