Pack mentality
I’m involved in top-secret activities today that preclude me from taking the time to write much of a post, so I’m just going to cannibalize this piece by Kevin Sweeney in Salon. He’s writing about the decision by the Duke women’s lacrosse team to take the field wearing sweatbands that say “innocent,” thus choosing uncritical school loyalty over either a commitment to justice or solidarity with other women. (I’m posting an unusually large extract since some folks don’t have Salon subscriptions.)
In court, the specific term lawyers seek from the jury is “not guilty.” I don’t know enough of the facts to opine on whether that phrase will be read aloud by jury foremen. I do know enough to say it is a stretch to use the term “innocent” to describe the men of Duke lacrosse. Hiring strippers, excessive alcohol use, disorderly public conduct — those aren’t activities one generally describes as innocent…
Duke officials repeatedly told observers to withhold judgment of the players and the university. When a third player was indicted on May 15, senior vice president John Burness said, “It is worth repeating again today that these latest charges do not mean the accused are guilty. That is for a jury to decide.” That lesson didn’t quite take: The women’s lacrosse team decided they are the ones who should determine guilt or innocence…
Reports commissioned by the Duke administration noted the men’s team’s pack mentality. In fact, the incident became a national scandal largely because of this attitude. A serious allegation was made, and an investigation commenced. Rather than taking all steps to help reveal the truth, the Duke men’s lacrosse team chose to act as one. The district attorney was confronted with a Blue Devil Wall of Silence, built by a team that apparently placed greater emphasis on unity than on surfacing the facts. In the weeks since the scandal broke, lawyers for the accused (and one of the accused and his father) have spent full days working out of the offices of lawyers hired to protect other players who have not been charged…
Lawyers of players who have not been accused are offering a steady stream of challenges to the accuser’s credibility — it’s the equivalent of “checking” in a lacrosse game. And what lesson has the women’s team taken? They apparently have learned that pack behavior is a good thing. They are speaking as one, and are proclaiming the entire men’s team, as one, to be innocent. Team unity trumps all…
Finally, there is another element to this story, one that I find heartbreaking. For women who step forward to file an accusation of rape, it is often the hardest thing they will ever do in their lives. By making such a public stand of unity before the facts come out, by saying so clearly that the accused is a liar, the women of Duke’s lacrosse team won’t make it any easier for other women to step forward. I can only hope that none of them will ever be in such a position — where they may be a victim, want to step forward, but sense ultimately that it just isn’t worth it.
36 Responses to “Pack mentality”
-
Paul Tergeist says:
Nonsense. Feminism is all about women having a choice, having a voice and having a vote. These girls made their choice and used their voice..and now they are traitors to their gender?
It seems, rather, that they are simply exercising their freedoms to vote, go to college, play sports and have an opinion. I dare some radfem diesel dyke to go up to one of them and suggest differently.
May 27th, 2006 at 7:20 pm EST -
GettingWarm says:
Historically, when a woman discloses that she has been a victim of a sex crime, other women often react in disbelief and skepticism. This is a sad indication that sexism is alive and well among men and women. Since none of the players on the women’s Lacrosse team witnessed the event, they cannot possibly know whether a sex crime was committed. The fact that they publically claim the men to be “innocent” without truly knowing is extremely disconcerting–especially when one in four women are victims of sexual assault at some point in their lives. Some data suggest this number is even higher.
-
Paul Tergeist says:
(Enter rant mode. Please skip this post if you dan’t want to hear the same old shit from me again)
2: “Historically, when a woman discloses that she has been a victim of a sex crime, other women often react in disbelief and skepticism.”
So the brilliant solution of the fembots is to attack the other women and blame men for the whole thing? There STILL isn’t any DNA evidence of the rape (not that there needs to be in this case). You may think she was raped, and I may believe the possibility exists, but we are free to have an opinion based upon nothing at all or on some preconceived bollocks. But these femme LaCrosse players are enemies of the movement because they side with their tribe, eh? Piffle. Everyone fights for their tribe/team/school/sorority/fellow Marines/Country/race/gender.
This forum has served up the term ‘pack mentality’ about half a dozen times. Men have it;children have it (but apparently only male children); Zulus have it and now FEMALES have it but they must be under the influence of their male counterparts on another team. HELLO! If there ARE any diesel dykes in sports, they are going to be playing sports like Lacrosse. Logic suggests they would be members of the man-haters club but obviously they are not…so the radfems, by dealing this ‘pack mentality’ card from the bottom of the deck are starting to look like a pack of fringe boogy-women. I am an equality guy from the get-go. Always have been. Although men and women have different problems and life issues, each is still about half the population. Evolution requires it. Statistically then, women are equally responsible for solving the problems we all face. They all claim to be so freakin’ intellectually superior, but cannot organize into a coherent group to accomplish anything. They are all down at the pro-life march, the anti-war march, the gay rights march. You want to be equal? Join the military. Find out what equality means in the real world.
Here’s an example. Violet is a reasonable feminist. She isn’t a walking toadstool, she is brilliant. Admittedly, I am not, although I got off to a promising start. But she is a bit obsessed with this issue and it clouds her mind. She thinks of planting flowers and nurturing them until they present their bounty, which is beauty. I don’t care a whit about flowere unless they are edible. I scrape a hole in the cinder out back, drop a tomato in it, cover it up, squash the tomato with my foot and walk away. In a week I have a tomato plant. I like tomatoes because they are edible.
Violet has a dog. I love dogs. And cats. And arachnids and everything else except centipedes and vampire bugs (mosquitoes). But my idea of home protection is a .40 cal Glock with tritium sights just in case the dog isn’t effective or I miss with the 12 gauge. Women don’t think like that either.
Women do not usually have the determination to take a life even to save their own. They want to talk their way out. It doesn’t work. Ladies, if a guy attacks you, kill him. If you are raped or abused, it means that you are NOT equal. It means that someone can force their will on you and you can’t stop them.
(End rant mode. My apologies to anyone who suffered through this.)
-
Alon Levy says:
Historically, when a woman discloses that she has been a victim of a sex crime, other women often react in disbelief and skepticism.
Actually, one part of Against Our Will documents how women believe rape victims more than men. The statistic Brownmiller cites is that when women complain about rape to male police officers, the police classify 15% of reports as false, but when they complain to female officers, the rate drops to 2%. Now it doesn’t mean women generally don’t react in skepticism, but it does mean that they believe rape victims more than men do, or at least that they did in the early 1970s.
-
will says:
So it is ok to decide that these men that we do not know are guilty, but not to decide that people that they know are innocent??!??!?!?
And if you believe them innocent, then hiring a stripper (although bad) justifies being put through what those players have been put through???!!!?
Have you been following the evidence that has been coming out????
As more evidence is divulged, the more it appears that these guys are innocent. Not “not guilty” but innocent.
I have watched in horror how people have picked one side or the other, not based on facts, but on newspaper accounts. Then, with absolute certainty, condemn one side or the other.
How on earth can you condemn these women — who know these guys — and yet applaud people who have called these guys rapists???!
-
Violet says:
Will, your comment appears to be a joke, but I’m afraid you’re going to attract a bunch of MRA trolls. They love straw.
-
Steve says:
Violeta;
You sure Will was joking?
-
evil_fizz says:
Steve: I’d hope that abuse of punctuation was a joke…
-
Steve says:
fizz
to quote mandos
this is way too meta for me
-
Violet says:
Steve, I don’t think Will’s that stupid.
The key issue with this case all along has been that, unlike victims of any other violent crime, rape victims are treated with suspicion and mudslinging. The rate of false rape allegations is the same as in any other major crime, yet ONLY rape victims are automatically treated to a barrage of “she asked for it” “she’s a lying bitch” “she was wearing a short skirt” yadeyadeyade.
Rape victims should be automatically accorded the same compassion and credibility as other crime victims. The actual details of any alleged crime, and the actual guilt or innocence of alleged perpetrators, should be ascertained in due process.
Under the circumstances, it is in exceedingly poor taste for the Duke women to proclaim anything in advance of a court’s findings. They are certainly entitled to their opinion, but when they take the field in Duke uniform, they’re representing the University. Given how badly this case has been handled, how much sexism and racism there is afloat, and how difficult it is for rape victims to find fair treatment, it’s pretty ugly for the representatives of Duke University to take the lacrosse field wearing “INNOCENT” sweatbands.
But beyond the legal issues, there’s something else about these particular men. Whether they are guilty of rape or not, they are nevertheless the scum of the earth. I repeat: the scum of the earth. They don’t need to have committed rape. We already know they’re maggots. These are men who threatened to rape two strippers with a broom handle, and this when the women were surrounded by a pack of drunken burly guys who could easily kill them. What kind of man does that? Holds up a broom handle and threatens to rape a woman? These are the same men who hurled racist epithets at the strippers; not surprisingly, one of them also has a history of gay-bashing. These are the same guys who subsequently enjoyed an email joke about how much fun it would be to murder and maim some black strippers. They may turn out to be “innocent” of rape, but by no stretch of the imagination are they “innocent” of wrong.
Even if they’ve been falsely accused, whatever little inconvenience these guys are going through now is too good for them. Seriously. If they are acquitted, probably the whole team will get lots of sympathy and the guys will go back to their cushy lives and wind up in rich-boy careers, etc., etc. What ought to happen — in terms of poetic justice, that is, not legal — is that the broom-handle guy and the email guy at the very least ought to be haunted by their actions for the rest of their lives. I want every co-worker and every neighbor they ever have, every woman they try to date, to know exactly what kind of dangerous slimeballs these guys are.
-
Paul Tergeist says:
from 6: “Will, your comment appears to be a joke…”
Only if a contrary opinion constitutes a joke. Is any man who has his own opinion an “MRA troll” ? Are the women’s Lacross team members MRA trolls as well?
-
Paul Tergeist says:
“The key issue with this case all along has been that, unlike victims of any other violent crime, rape victims are treated with suspicion and mudslinging.”
-VioletThat’s simply not true. EVERY defense attorney is going to go after EVERY victim and EVERY witness just as hard as possible, and I mean they throw wet shit and see who it sticks to. I have been an expert witness in hundreds of Superior Court cases and the defense went after me and everyone else every time. With me it was usually expertise; with non-expert witnesses it was usually character assassination.
It just so happens that by virtue of the nature of the crime, allegations of rape lend themselves to the particular type of mudslinging you mention, but these are not special cases EXCEPT that they stike a chord in your psyche.
“But beyond the legal issues, there’s something else about these particular men. Whether they are guilty of rape or not, they are nevertheless the scum of the earth. I repeat: the scum of the earth. They don’t need to have committed rape. We already know they’re maggots.”
-VioletOh. Well, why not just get a few femmes together and engage in some vigilante justice. Obviously they deserve it whether or not they committed any crime. Do you know what you are saying? How dare you piss down the back Parchment of the Constitution!
“What ought to happen — in terms of poetic justice, that is, not legal — is that the broom-handle guy and the email guy at the very least ought to be haunted by their actions for the rest of their lives. I want every co-worker and every neighbor they ever have, every woman they try to date, to know exactly what kind of dangerous slimeballs these guys are.”
Nothing about your vindictive rant evokes ‘poetic justice’. For every slimeball out there there are two women who want him AND WILL MARRY HIM IN PRISON. You are a woman, YOU explain why.
What OUGHT TO HAPPEN is OJ Simpson should be spending life in the slammer with Michael Jackson and George Dubya Bush… and Teddy Kennedy should still be on probation. But I’m just dreamin’, same as you.
Seeking justice and equality across the board is fine and dandy. Headhunting men is not seeking justice.
-
Paul Tergeist says:
Steve, I don’t think Will’s that stupid.
-VioletAd Hominem is the last resort of the outgunned.
-
Steve says:
Vi
agreed. agreed.
I lived with athletic scholarship recipients in the football section of the dorm at a major division 1 football power. This whole episode brought back so vividly the sense of sexual entitlement and culture of woman hating that was rampant.
-
Paul Tergeist says:
Steve, you are a suck-up. Why not toss the whole male Lacrosse team in here:
INVASION USA
‘Speak English! This is America!’
Bloody brawl erupts at beauty salon as gibberish sparks customer clawfestPosted: May 28, 2006
10:00 p.m. EasternA Boston beauty salon was more bloody than beautiful this weekend when a brawl broke out over a customer speaking Spanish.
“Speak English! This is America!” one woman reportedly screamed at another at Kathy’s Nail Design in the Dorchester section of the city.
The remark ignited a massive melee at the salon, with numerous women engaging in manicure-to-manicure combat.
“Ten years in this country, I never seen anything like this. The lady says ‘Speak English, I don’t want to hear Spanish!’ and big fight happens,” shop owner David Win told the Boston Herald. “There was blood in here and everything. There were a lot of customers in here. It [was] crazy.”
The incident prompted a call to 9-1-1, and an officer dispatched to break up the battle received scratches on his neck and arm.
Police say Friday’s incident began as one of the suspects, Sonia Pina, 20, was speaking Spanish to her cousin when another woman, Nakeisha Prichard, 20, went on the attack. Within minutes, at least four women were engaged in the salon scuffle.
“The two suspects began to argue and a fight ensued,” said police spokeswoman Sharon Dottin.
Prichard allegedly pulled off her pump and began beating Pina with it, explaining to police, “I accidentally took my shoe off and hit her with it after she punched me.”
She ended up with charges of assault and battery, resisting arrest, and assault on a police officer, inflicted by her newly manicured fake acrylic nails.
Pina was charged with assault and battery for allegedly punching Prichard in the face.
Later in the evening, the salon was packed with people conversing in several languages, including Vietnamese, Spanish, Portuguese and English.
-
Paul Tergeist says:
Lookit, Vi…..I love ya like a brother LaCrosse player. But if you are going to make a case, you have to convince the whole jury, not just the ones who are predisposed to agree with your opine.
Give me something to sink my teeth into.. I think they call it the preponderance of evidence IN THE ABOVE ENTITLED ACTION, not what you wish would happen to a bunch of tudballs simply because they are tudballs, and I’ll vote to convict every time. But you gotta make the case on evidence, not heresay, not emotion, not poetic justice.
-
Steve says:
bye
-
Paul Tergeist says:
Oh, shit! a real troll. Vlad, you sick homer, get lost!
-
will says:
Actually, my post was not a joke.
Why is it ok to proclaim certainty about one side but not the other?
I do not know what happened, but the more information that comes out, the more I am inclined to believe that this woman was not raped.
On many feminist websites, these men were declared rapists from the begining. Many times, I read people write words to the effect: “I believe her simply because she said it happened.”
Somehow, that is ok. Yet, people who know these men and who have the benefit of now hearing a fair amount of facts cannot proclaim their belief that these men are innocent?
And, by the way, where does this Blue Wall of Silence keep coming up? The facts do not support it.
The one kid has an excellent albi. The last one indicted was not picked out of an earlier lineup and this last lineup, she only somewhat picks him if he had a moustache.
I do not know what happened. And maybe the DA has a lot more information up his sleeve. But, from what I have read so far, it appears that this woman was not raped.
-
Violet says:
Your comment wasn’t a joke? Good lord. I’m amazed. You’re a lawyer, and you’re always saying that it’s impossible to decide a case based on newspaper accounts. Why has that changed? We didn’t know before that the guys were guilty, and we don’t know now that they’re innocent. It’s all still defense attorney press releases.
Furthermore, since you do actually read my blog (or your evil twin does), you should know that my beef all along has been the way rape victims are treated. What infuriates me is the miasma of sexism and suspicion that greets every woman who alleges rape. I have never “proclaimed certainty” about the men’s guilt in this case, as you (or your evil twin) know perfectly well. What I want is for rape cases to be tried fairly and for rape victims to be treated with the same assumptions we extend to other victims.
I’m surprised at you.
-
Violet says:
I put the comment from the Vlad troll in moderation while I decide if I should delete it. I haven’t even clicked on the link, but I don’t really want my blog to be a source for that information.
-
Violet says:
Give me something to sink my teeth into.. I think they call it the preponderance of evidence IN THE ABOVE ENTITLED ACTION, not what you wish would happen to a bunch of tudballs simply because they are tudballs, and I’ll vote to convict every time. But you gotta make the case on evidence, not heresay, not emotion, not poetic justice.
Paul, the last two paragraphs in my comment #10 are just my opinion. Just ranting. Like you! That’s why I said “beyond the legal issues…” I think men who threaten to rape women are maggots. Sub-maggots. Sub-sub-sub-maggots. The kind of maggots who are so low they have to feed off of other maggots. I think they’re maggot poo. Am I making myself clear?
-
GettingWarm says:
I think there is a world of difference between not knowing whether the men are guilty or innocent and claiming either one as a result. I have not read anyone’s post here stating that the men commited rape. So many of you are leaping to this conclusion. I was relieved to see that the women did not wear the wrist bands as planned and wore the indicted players’ numbers instead. Support is one thing–a statement of innocence is another degree of certainty they cannot possibly have. Just because you know someone does not mean you can be certain of his or her behavior under all circumstances.
Violet, thank you for removing the Vlad link.
-
will says:
My point is that I dont see any hestitancy to pronounce them guilty, so why shouldn’t people pronounce them innocent?
These are friends of the accused, not strangers to the individuals.
I do want to wait but the more information that comes out, the more it looks like she wasnt raped.
I didn’t see many people jumping up and saying what till trial when they were pronouncing them guilty. That is the part that irks me.
-
Violet says:
I didn’t see many people jumping up and saying what till trial when they were pronouncing them guilty.
Where was this happening? You and I must read completely different blogs, because on all the feminist blogs I read the whole point was to push back against the sexist attacks on the victim. The defense attorneys were turning cartwheels to paint the woman as a lying bitch using the standard stereotypes, and the misogynists were egging them on. Remember? And we feminists were saying hold your goddamn horses, let the D.A. do his job, let the case be tried in court, not in the media. Remember?
-
will says:
I remember people saying dont believe the defense lawyers AND that these guys were guilty.
I do not remember many people saying that they didnt know.
-
Alon Levy says:
Wasn’t it you who said something like, “If the DA says he has a case, then he has a case,” Violet?
-
Violet says:
I think it was also me who said that “having a case” meant having enough evidence to proceed. Hardly the same as a conclusion of guilt or innocence.
-
will says:
VioletSocks:
I think that you are normally very fair and open minded. I do not remember what you previously said about this case.
But when feminist websites were proclaiming the guilt of these guys, I do not remember hearing many feminists saying “Hold on, let’s wait until trial.”
If it is ok to proclaim guilt, then it is ok to proclaim innocence.
These are real live people. Yet, too many people have picked sides based on their personal issues. Feminists do not want this to be a case of a false accusation because of the backlash of “SEE!! I TOLD YOU THAT THERE ARE FALSE ACCUSATIONS!!!” I can understand that.
A lot of feminist websites jumped on this case for what it represented in theory, not based on the individual facts. As more facts have come out, it appears that this case may have been a bad one to support. However, there may very well be more facts that come out that show that these guys are guilty. I do not know.
But, that is what is so dangerous about declaring victory before all facts are known.
-
Michael says:
I do not intend in any way to disagree with what I think it Violet’s perfectly reasonable point, which is, as far as I can tell, that for some reason people are much quicker to assume a rape victim is lying than, say, a victim of non-sexual assault. This is obviously true.
There are a couple of reasons I can think this happens. First and foremost, people have sex consensually a lot. People don’t generally consensually beat each other up. So, in the case of rape, people can ask “was this consensual?” You can find semen, for example, but it doesn’t prove rape. Neither does abrasions and such. That stuff can and does happen with consensual sex. The point then is that the “proof” for rape often looks just like the “proof” for consensual sex.
Second, and related to the above, if a woman wants to screw over a man, one possible tactic is to have consensual sex and then claim later it was rape. In many rape cases the man claims it was consensual. It can be hard to disentangle the two claims from a forensic perspective. It is literally he-said she-said.
The problem here is that it is hard to presume innocence for both parties. If the men are truly innocent, the woman is lying, which is a crime. A presumption of innocence for the men includes, in a way, a presumption of guilt for the woman, which is ludicrous considering she reported the alleged crime and has herself not been charged with a crime.
Thus, in this instance, I think that people need to be careful with shows of support for the men’s lacrosse team lest they be implying a presumption of guilt on a women who must absolutely be presumed innocent as well. (Just saying that makes me uncomfortable because other crime victims do not need a presumption of innocence at all!)
Let me add, also, that I suspect that men raping women is much more common than women falsely accusing men of rape. Thus, the fact that people tend to be more skeptical of rape victims than other violent crimes is indeed unfair.
-
Violet says:
But when feminist websites were proclaiming the guilt of these guys, I do not remember hearing many feminists saying “Hold on, let’s wait until trial.”
Well, we could survey the blog archives of feminist sites to settle this, or just agree to disagree. What I recall is that there was an enormous push from the defense and their sympathizers to paint the woman as a lying bitch. This was long before there was any evidence to examine at all; it was all based on sexist and racist sterotypes. There were arguments that as a stripper and a prostitute, she couldn’t have been raped. There were arguments that whatever happened wasn’t the fault of the boys because as a stripper, she “asked for it.” There were arguments that she was just a no-good black trying to extort money from the rich white boys.
The main point of the feminist bloggers was to say those stereotypes are bullshit and to push back against the sexist propaganda that makes rape so hard to prosecute. It was about trying to defeat the defense attorney spin.
Second, and related to the above, if a woman wants to screw over a man, one possible tactic is to have consensual sex and then claim later it was rape.
That’s called Potiphar’s Wife syndrome, and it exists largely in fiction. Of course it happens in real life, but rarely. The main reason people think it’s a real possibility is because it’s been a trope of the patriarchy for thousands of years. For more on that I suggest you read Susan Brownmiller’s Against Our Will. The theory about the origin of rape and the patriarchy you might not agree with, but her analysis of how rape functions in patriarchy is unsurpassed.
-
Infidel says:
“Of course it happens in real life, but rarely”
The man claiming the woman had consensual sex and is claiming rape?
or
The woman actually having consensual sex and claiming rape?
To be a “Trope of the Patriarchy” there would have to be pretty widespread use.
The use of such a trope might be constued to be “of the guilty” as a defense when no other believable defense exists.
Then argue whether he is guilty of mysogyne or mysanthropy. Since he has no regard for truth- truth being non gendered.
-
Alon Levy says:
For more on that I suggest you read Susan Brownmiller’s Against Our Will. The theory about the origin of rape and the patriarchy you might not agree with, but her analysis of how rape functions in patriarchy is unsurpassed.
And her section on rape accusations under segregation is so detached from reality it casts doubt on many others things she says.
-
will says:
We will have to agree to disagree. I saw the DA and feminist websites proclaiming guilt before I noticed any trashing of her. But perhaps our perspective has colored what we each saw.
-
belledame222 says:
so, am I a diesel dyke if I plant tomatoes instead of flowers? how about if I just throw them at fuckwitacious bigots?
-
belledame222 says:
>Lookit, Vi…..I love ya like a brother LaCrosse player. But if you are going to make a case, you have to convince the whole jury, not just the ones who are predisposed to agree with your opine.>
Lemon drop: I hate to break it to you, but this isn’t a court of law. And nobody here “has to” do shit, in point of fact.
