Whoopi Goldberg doesn’t have all the facts-facts
Here’s Whoopi Goldberg on The View explaining that Roman Polanski’s rape of a 13-year-old girl wasn’t “rape-rape”:
I’m pretty sure that what Whoopi is insinuating here is that the girl didn’t resist or say no. The other panelists make the point that this is irrelevant, since a child can’t legally consent to sex anyway. That’s correct. Though as a point of fact, the girl in the Polanski case did say no and did resist (as much as she was able to in her drugged state — said drugs being provided by her rapist, one Roman Polanski).
At any rate, I know a bunch of you have already seen this, but I don’t watch The View. I’ve just now finally gotten around to looking up the clip. So here’s my question:
Jesus God in heaven, what the fuck is up with this shit??? Is The View always this bad? Are these women always this moronic?
How can they be so anti-feminist? For that matter, how they can be so ill-informed? It’s like Larry King times four. Whoopi keeps going on and on about the importance of “having the facts” of the case, so why the fuck didn’t they get the facts before tape rolled? There’s a giant-ass picture of Polanski behind them on the set, so clearly they knew the topic would be under discussion. Yet they go out there, completely unprepared, and start yammering about “rape-rape” and how the girl wanted it and the mommy set it up and whatever other bullshit defense attorney press releases they half-remember from 1978.
And speaking of the mommy business: notice how that’s the one thing the women all agree on? At the end of the segment they all join together to kevtch about how awful the rape victim’s mother must be. Put her on trial! Her and Polanski!
Obviously The View is no bastion of feminism — or of journalism or common sense or anything else. But I really had no idea it was this bad.
89 Responses to “Whoopi Goldberg doesn’t have all the facts-facts”
-
dale says:
Years ago I was also under the impression that the “sex” was consensual albeit illegal. Obviously this stems from Polanski’s plea of statutory rape. Then I learned the girl had been drugged. That’s when I asked how in the world is that statutory rape? That is rape.
But really one needs to look no further than the girl’s grand jury testimony. She said no repeatedly.
Unfortunately, I think many Polanski defenders are under the impression that what actually occurred was consensual underage “sex” and not the truth, which is she-said-no-numerous-times rape.
Btw, “The View” is often short on facts. In fact, one co-host once stated she was unsure if the world was flat. For real. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....statements
September 30th, 2009 at 2:46 am EST -
Violet says:
I heard about the “maybe the world is flat” thing, but I refrained from concluding that it was in any way diagnostic of The View as a whole. I think I was wrong.
-
Violet says:
Hey! I followed that link about the world-is-flat lady and Jesus H. Christ! That woman is dumb.
She also doesn’t understand about B.C. and A.D.:
For whatever reason, the ladies on “The View” were discussing ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus this morning. Naturally, talk soon migrated to the topic of religion, and Sherri “I don’t know if the world is flat” Shepherd came out to play. More specifically, to spew ignorance and a complete lack of understanding of basic world history! Discussing whether Christians were around during Epicurus’ time (Epicurus lived from 341-270 B.C.), Sherri chimed in, “[The Greeks] had Christians ’cause they threw them to the lions.”
When Whoopi tried to cautiously navigate her through the timeline of basic world events, saying, “I think this might predate that,” Sherri responded, “I don’t think anything predated Christians.” Joy’s attempt to explain the Greek-Roman-Christian chronology was futile, as Sherri insisted, “Jesus came first before them.” Sherri’s argument was all the more powerful due to her convincing “use your finger to write on the table” trick, but she can’t fight the facts. Perhaps if Barbara were on today she would have explained THAT WHOLE B.C. THING (you know, as in, Before Christ).
I am fascinated that this person is a panelist on a nationally syndicated talk show. That is simply amazing.
-
orlando says:
Do you think enough complaints might get an apology out of Whoopi, or is the show immune to that kind of thing? This is all getting worse and worse.
-
tinfoil hattie says:
Not only does this show suck, it’s the best anyone can come up with to “balance” the stupid Sunday shows filled with blabbering white men.
-
Swannie says:
The View never fails to disappoint .. they are really really stupid, including BABBARA WALTERS . They continually bend the facts to suit their opinions . Their cringe factor is off the charts . And now Joy Behar has her own show at night and my my guess is she doesn’t get to be as mean as she would like to be on the View ,so she started her own show .
I watch it from time to time if I am home from work , just to see how they are trying to influence opinion that particular day on any given particular issue .They do that a lot . They repeated every bad faslehood about HIllary and and Sarah after they all decided they were for Bo. They were horrible to them every chance they got.
Sherry and Elizabeth are usually the least offensive and sometimes have valid points in a discussion , but yes this is what passes for “women talking ” on telelvion , and it is very sad. -
myiq2xu says:
Yet they go out there, completely unprepared
Were they unprepared or feigning ignorance? They made several key misstatements of fact during a brief discussion - every one of them to the benefit of Polanski.
Whoopi said it wasn’t “rape-rape” and Melissa Gilbert said the victim’s mother was in the building when the rape took place. Neither of those statements is true.
The View has a huge audience.
The HBO movie about the case left out a lot of stuff (like the fact that Polanski drugged, raped and sodomized a 13 year old child) and many of the so-called news stories are either inaccurate or so incomplete as to be misleading.
Is there a pattern here?
If the general public thinks the case is just a 31 year old statutory rape case and that Polanski believed the victim was 18 they probably won’t care that much. The people that are supposed to be informing the public are misinforming it.
Maybe it’s just me, but the media always seem ignorant or misinformed in the same direction - to the benefit of the wealthy and powerful.
-
janicen says:
One of the things that really bothers me, as I read about and listen to the people making excuses and apologies for Polanski’s rape of a little girl is that, none of the apologists would have any difficulty understanding the heinousness of the crime had the victim been a thirteen year old boy rather than a girl.
-
myiq2xu says:
none of the apologists would have any difficulty understanding the heinousness of the crime had the victim been a thirteen year old boy
That’s absurd.
-
m Andrea says:
Myiq2xu, you may think it’s “absurd”, and that’s your opinion. But unless you’re are somehow unaware that sexism exists, and that sexism affects females and males quite differently, it is non-logical to automatically discount the idea that a boy under the same circumstance would receive better treatment from the public than a girl.
Dude, that is what sexism is. Boys receiving better treatment. To magically assume that a boy in the same circumstance would receive equal treatment also assumes an equality that did not exist then, and does not exist now.
-
janicen says:
That’s absurd.
Really? Are you saying you disagree? Because saying, “I disagree because…” Would be not only a more polite response and certainly less dismissive, but it would allow you to make your point in a cogent, non-confrontational manner.
I don’t recall anyone making excuses for the priests who sodomized young boys, but a celebrity rapes a young girl, and Whoopie says it’s not “Rape, rape” That’s my point.
-
gxm17 says:
Ah, Violet, this is the first time you’ve been exposed to that bastion of stupidity that is “The View.” Try to look on the bright side, at least they’re putting women in high profile positions at the Ministry of Truth. And what better way to get the public to believe that drugging and raping a 13-year old girl isn’t really rape then having women lobby for RP’s release.
-
monchichipox says:
Oh yea this is par for the course. This is the show that allowed the Obama’s to submit a list of questions they were allowed to ask during the campaign then had the McCains on and Whoopi grilled them on slavery.
To get a fun behind the scenes look at The View listen to Kathy Griffin talk about her stint on guest hosting.
-
monchichipox says:
I tried to embed the video again no luck. Here’s a link.
-
myiq2xu says:
but a celebrity
Those three words are the key.
Polanski is one of the wealthy and privileged elites. They don’t have to obey the rules that apply to the rest of us.
-
bygones says:
Those fools attempting to mitigate Polanski are disturbing. He drugged and raped a 13 year old child! Those defending his actions owing to the years that have separated this event from his current legal status are lacking a moral compass in my opinion.
Who gives a rat’s patootie that he has directed a few successful movies? He is still an indecent human being who took advantage of a child and now cries out for leniency. A 40 year old man having sex with a 13 year old girl is disgusting and criminal no matter how else they wish to define it. For Whoopi to “define” his actions in terms of rape or rape/rape is beyond the pale.
What is wrong with these people?
-
Alison says:
How awesome would it be if there were a campaign against the View this month like feminists organized with David Letterman. It’s really time to start getting organized.
-
SarahG says:
“Absurd”? You’re kidding, right? If Roman Polanski had said that we were all just jealous because “Everyone wants to fuck young boys,” do you really think he’d be a cause celebre? Hell no: he’d be an infamous pervert.
-
yttik says:
“Would be not only a more polite response and certainly less dismissive, but it would allow you to make your point in a cogent, non-confrontational manner.”
He is incapable of being respectful. He can’t accept the fact that women get to have their own opinions. If he’s not in total control of the conversation he gets really petulant, he copies women’s comments, posts them elsewhere and then bans you from commenting.
-
Against Rape says:
Does Whoopi Goldberg have a brain-brain?
-
quixote says:
I have to admit, I’m also curious about what myiq meant.
Snark that the media might have a double standard? (I mean, whoever heard of such a thing?)
It’s absurd to think rape of a boy is the same crime as rape of a girl?
It’s absurd to think the media would make a big deal out of a famous man’s rape of a boy?
Given myiq’s other writing, my guess is on the first option, but the brevity was on the Delphic side.
-
janicen says:
quixote says:
I have to admit, I’m also curious about what myiq meant.
For a less dismissive and insulting version of what he meant, here’s how he responded to the same comment that was made on TC…
OldCoastie, on September 30th, 2009 at 8:32 am Said:
something tells me if Polanski had drugged and raped a 13 year old boy he wouldn’t be getting so much support.Reply
myiq2xu, on September 30th, 2009 at 8:37 am Said:
I don’t think it would make any difference. Why would it?Reply
OldCoastie, on September 30th, 2009 at 8:55 am Said:
well, think about it… the priest scandal finally came to a head because they were abusing boys… part of that is the homophobia… if the priests had been abusing girls, I’d almost guess we wouldn’t know a darn thing about it…I just don’t think the rape of women and girls is taken nearly so seriously as the rape of boys and men… when you think of some creepy old man molesting boys, it is easy to understand that this is pedophilia… when it is a girl, she was asking for it… lying about her age, consenting to it, her mother put her up to it, etc…
just listen to the reasons Polanski is defended… the attitudes are in the excuses made for him.
Reply
myiq2xu, on September 30th, 2009 at 9:03 am Said:
The defense of Polanski has nothing to do with the gender of the victim or even the crimes he committed.Polanski is one of the wealthy and privileged. The elite defend their own and don’t think the rules should apply to them.
Victor Salva is a movie director that was convicted of molesting a 12 year old boy. He’s still making movies.
-
myiq2xu says:
I have to admit, I’m also curious about what myiq meant.
I’m saying that to assert that Polanski’s defenders don’t understand the heinousness of the crime because the victim is female is absurd. Many of his defenders ARE female.
The issue isn’t sexism it’s classism. Polanski is a wealthy and famous celebrity. He hangs out with movie stars and other VIP’s in the most exclusive restaurants and resorts. He gets invited to all the “A” list events.
They think he is an artistic genius and deserves special treatment. They are shocked that he is being treated like a common criminal and they are outraged at the suffering is is going through.
They wouldn’t care if he raped a roomful of boys AND girls.
But a funny thing happened while the rapist-defenders in Europe and the US were mobilizing to “Free Roman” The commoners of two continents are expressing a different kind of outrage, and some politicians are paying attention.
-
madaha says:
yeah one of the typical rape “defenses” is that the girl wasn’t a virgin, which should have no relevance at all. I don’t remember that ever being an argument in a case in which a boy was raped.
Our culture sees women as sex objects, and their consent is less important than a man’s. That is OBVIOUS.
-
madaha says:
well, women are often a party to the patriarchy and rape culture, so the sex of his defenders is irrelevant.
-
madaha says:
and sure, classism is a huge part of this, but if you think there’s no sexism going on, WTF is all I have to say.
IT’S A RAPE CASE, FOR GOD’S SAKE! Speaks for itself.
-
Alison says:
myiq2xu,
I disagree. I think the creative class would find Polanski’s rape of a whole room of boys something akin to pedophilia, a sickness, that they would probably just remain hush hush about. I don’t think they would be defending or condemning Polanski if this scenario were the case. They’d probably just want to ignore it as they would likely be embarrassed.
But rape against a 13 year old girl is just classified in terms of what (the Hollywood creative class) sees as the natural sex drive of a man, particularly a man as passionately artistic as Polanski!
-
madaha says:
myiq2xu,
I”m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, I”m sure you’re just trying to be “gender-blind”, but it doesn’t fly in this context. Word to the wise.
-
quixote says:
Thanks for the explanations.
It looks to me that we’re all appalled at how far privilege will take you. Sexist privilege, classist privilege, celebrity privilege. The whole boiling. Polanski has them all. How much each contributes to the pot of poison, who knows. It probably varies depending on who’s contributing crap at the moment. They’re all poison.
I keep thinking of that old Jefferson Airplane song, take me to some simple place…
-
lahana says:
I agree with all the points about how this is sexist and classist, and Hollywood defending one of their own. I think that another large part of this is that in Hollywood, I don’t think that they think it is such a big deal that the girl was given drugs and alcohol. I mean think about it, do we really think that child actors like Drew Barrymore got her drugs and alcohol on her own of from her 10 to 12 year old friends? Let’s face it, Hollywood has a long history of getting their young people high and thinking nothing of it. As a result, I think that a lot of the people who are defending Roman Polanski just don’t see what the big deal is.
-
janicen says:
I agree, Alison @ 23. There’s also the point that women’s credibility is always called into question in cases of rape; What was she wearing? Was she drinking? etc. When men accuse others or rape, those questions don’t come up.
-
myiq2xu says:
IT’S A RAPE CASE, FOR GOD’S SAKE! Speaks for itself.
We weren’t talking about the rape itself, we were talking about the motives, attitudes and understanding of Polanski’s defenders.
My original comment was in response to this:
One of the things that really bothers me, as I read about and listen to the people making excuses and apologies for Polanski’s rape of a little girl is that, none of the apologists would have any difficulty understanding the heinousness of the crime had the victim been a thirteen year old boy rather than a girl.
That is an absolute assertion that if 31 years ago Polanski would have drugged and sodomized a 13 year old boy name Sam, plea bargained the case to no prison and just probation, and then skipped out and hid in Europe, that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF HIS CURRENT APOLOGISTS would understand the heinousness of the crime and would therefore not be defending him.
I believe that all the same people would all be saying pretty much the same things.
Ask yourself this - if Polanski had drugged, raped and sodomized the 13 year old daughter of a famous movie star or director, would they still be so supportive? I doubt it.
Samantha Geimer was a nobody, a disposable person to Polanski. Not because of her gender but because of her status. Polanski is a heterosexual pervert. If Polanski was gay with a fixation on young teenage boys he would have found a male victim.
-
Stinky says:
I have never watched a full episode of The View. Years ago, when it first came on tv, I caught less than 5 minutes of it, and I was appalled at the sheer stupidity. Over the years, the clips of the morons on that show confirmed my wisdom in avoiding it.
So to answer your question, yes, it appears it’s always that bad. I have told my husband that these “feminists” live down to every invidious stereotype of women, and just having that show on television makes me ashamed to be female.
-
janicen says:
I believe that all the same people would all be saying pretty much the same things.
Now that’s a much more civil response and clarifies your original point. Thank you.
-
madaha says:
well, when I said “rape case” I was also referring to the shitstorm of victim blaming that surrounds these cases. Which does not seem to happen in the same way when the victim is male. Isn’t this common knowledge?
anyway, re. the class angle, one of my friends brought up the interesting point of the droit de seigneur, and how that applies here, and how that makes the French particularly hypocritical, because it’s a right-wing position. Interesting.
-
m Andrea says:
Ask yourself this - if Polanski had drugged, raped and sodomized the 13 year old daughter of a famous movie star or director, would they still be so supportive? I doubt it.
That is an excellent point which highlights the classism very well, thank you. However, that does not address the existence of sexism, either for or against. You appear to be asserting that sexism does not exist, whenever the victim is female. Or at the very least, minimizing it to the point where it isn’t or shouldn’t be an issue of concern.
-
RKMK says:
Whoopi “clarifies” today. Still does not make sense, still doesn’t know what the fuck she’s talking about.
-
Bella Donna says:
There are entirely too many people who don’t think that statutory rape is “real rape.”
Not that it matters in this case, because she repeatedly told him no even after he drugged her.
-
bygones says:
This is the same crowd who defended Michael Jackson even after he paid out millions to his accusers to keep it out of court.
Why should we be surprised now that they herald the same stupidity to absolve Polanski? They are all in denial simply because they are united by the same profession.
Girl/boy rape, makes no difference to them. They would still be crying for “mercy” regardless of gender since they all think alike. Morality plays a very small part in their thinking.
-
gxm17 says:
madaha says:
well, when I said “rape case” I was also referring to the shitstorm of victim blaming that surrounds these cases. Which does not seem to happen in the same way when the victim is male. Isn’t this common knowledge?I agree with bygones. Let’s consider Michael Jackson: IIRC, his (male) victim was crushed that “no one” believed him. And, he and his family were accused of being gold diggers. And, there was also a lot of noise as to why his mother would let him near MJ. Very similar to the same crap being flung at RP’s victim.
Wealth and fame account for the pass these men were given for their youthful indiscretions.
I do agree that rape is not seen for the hate crime it is. And, all too often, rape victims are treated as disposable merchandise by our society and our justice system. Apparently, Leno was cracking jokes about the RP case. I don’t watch his show but my co-worker was livid about this. We have Whoopi calling it not “rape rape” on national TV and Leno laughing it off. What the hell is going on here? If our entertainment is any reflection of us then we are a very, very sick nation.
-
tinfoil hattie says:
If our entertainment is any reflection of us then we are a very, very sick nation.
Isn’t that the very thing we humorless feminists are always pointing out? That this nation is pornsick and woman-hatred-sick and violence-loving sick and macho-posturing sick?
-
Gayle says:
I haven’t watched The View in years, well before Whoopi came on. I do remember the few times I watched it that the women on the panel did seem to prattle on and on over topics they clearly had not researched. The conversations went like this: “Hey, everyone’s talking about _____. What do you think?” Or maybe Barbara would hold up a tabloid newspaper headline to get things going.
It’s an extremely shallow show. Unfortunately, it’s also very popular. I don’t even want to think of how many women and girls took Whoopi’s words to heart.
-
Gayle says:
I just read this of the Jezebel thread linked by RKMK above:
Post by someone named Snark Shark:
“The victim said no-no. She wanted him to stop-stop. Rapist Polanski didn’t listen-listen. Therefore, it was rape-rape.”
-
Kookaburra says:
One thing that continues to astonish me is that the Obamatrons on various other places I frequent are insisting that because Obama has two girls under 13, he will not grant clemency to RP. I have to sit on my hands every time to not point out that I’m sure members of the Taliban have little girls and that doesn’t stop them. :/
It’s horrible, but a dark little corner of my soul almost wants BO to pardon RP, so that the Obamatron ladies get the wake up call they so desperately need.
-
sonrisa says:
I tried to get on The View website earlier. It appeared to have crashed. I’d say alot of folx are pissed at Whoopi
-
gxm17 says:
But if Obama pardons RP won’t the obamadroids just say he’s playing 11D chess with rapists. Oh yeah, he’s showing them. (sigh)
-
run_dmc says:
Kookaburra - Obama can’t pardon RP. It’s a state case. Only Schwarzenegger can pardon him, and I doubt he will.
-
Kiuku says:
I follow the crime of rape and the difference in the punishment and general treatment of a case that involves the rape of a boy/man and the rape of a girl/woman. There is a stark difference, first in the treatment. Girls who are video taped raped, have gone unpunished, because they were just being boys fooling around etc..etc. I have never seen a rape case with evidence against a man or boy get tossed.
-
dances says:
Whoopi Goldberg – featured on Toys R Us Advertisement.
http://www.toysrus.com/shop/in.....Id=3261680
Contact:
http://www1.toysrus.com/guest/contUs.cfmh/t Scarlet — PumapAC
-
Kookaburra says:
run_dmc - I know that, I was referring to the state leader (I forget which country) that was petitioning President Obama for clemency. Or made a statement asking Obama for clemency. If I wasn’t so lazy, I’d look it up.
gxm17 - I wish that wasn’t so likely. :/
-
elaine says:
The Polanski plea bargain points up the fact that our society’s attitudes about rape and what constitutes rape have changed (for the better).
Back in the 70s, even if the victim said “no,” defense attorneys were more than willing to hang some rationalization for the rape as being the woman’s fault. (She said “no,” but she was just playing coy; she was dressed like she was “asking for it,” etc.)
In 2009, we realize when a woman says “no” — particualrly if she does so repeatedly — then the event is rape. In the RP case, even if the victim had been an adult, it clearly would be rape by today’s standards. But in the 1970s, not so much…
What’s troubling about Whoopi’s idiotic comments is that she’s applying 2009 sensibilities about what is and isn’t rape to a 1970s list of charges and coming away with the idea that, since he pled guilty to sex with a minor, then clearly it wasn’t really rape. She has no clue that the girl was drugged and liquored up, repeatedly said no, and asked to be driven home on more than one occasion. (Keep in mind that’s important, since at 13, it’s not like she could drive herself home. So, in point of law, Polanski could’ve also been charged with kidnapping, since he was holding her against her will.)
What I also found troubling in Whoopi’s comments is that she probably wouldn’t want her 13 or 14 year old daughter to have sex with someone. As if, again, this was just consensual sex between a minor and a 40-plue-year-old man. It wasn’t sex… it was rape.
Maybe if Whoopi had read the grand jury testimony of the victim, she’d realize it really was “rape-rape.” Unfortunately, she ended up looking stupid-stupid in defending a rapist.
-
ciarda says:
For a far better example of an all women panel news show PBS “To the Contrary” a weekly show that’s been around a lot longer than “The View” is far more intelligent too. They have women from across the political spectrum on to discuss political issues in a serious manner.
And the contention of myiq2xu is it’s merely class not gender doesn’t hold water. I need only remind you of the Catholic priest rape cases. Young female victims tried for years to get cases into court and they were called liars and worse and cases were just dismissed, but as soon as men who had been assaulted as young boys brought cases they were always believed and the media backed the male victims- note even after that female victims got no media notice.
-
janicen says:
elaine, you make a good point about attitudes changing about rape. Back in the early seventies, we were told to minimize the possibility of greater physical injury, women should not resist. In fact, the “experts” told women to, “…relax and enjoy it…”. I was a young teenager then, and I found that advice confusing. Now it infuriates me.
-
Alison says:
Thanks Dances,
I called ToysRus and told them that I was very active in the Mommy Blogging / Women’s Interest Blogosphere and I’ve asked that a corporate entity get back to me.
I also said that I would be blogging about this in the next two days and demanding a boycott of ToysRus unless they get back to me and alleviate my concerns.
-
ks says:
“I agree with bygones. Let’s consider Michael Jackson: IIRC, his (male) victim was crushed that “no one” believed him. And, he and his family were accused of being gold diggers. And, there was also a lot of noise as to why his mother would let him near MJ. Very similar to the same crap being flung at RP’s victim.”
I agree with the point you’re making but I think you’re using a bad example. The MJ trial was an absolute farce and the prosecutor should have lost his job over it.
-
slythwolf says:
myiq is obviously ignorant of the fact that there are people out there right now saying things like “raping a boy is worse because it messes with the kid’s sexuality”. Dude, get a clue. Rape of boys/men is considered worse than of girls/women because boys/men aren’t “supposed” to get raped. But girls/women are for fucking.
Topic: Yes, The View is stupid. Of course it’s stupid, it’s “the women’s current events show”. It was created to be stupid and to appeal to American women so that the patriarchy can A) keep us misinformed and B) stereotype us as vapid twits for watching it.
-
gxm17 says:
ks, I respectfully disagree. The boy was called a liar and a gold digger because he revealed that a rich man had molested him. Much of the reaction to the kid’s story is very similar to the RP case. Then there’s Shawn Hornbeck. Bill O’Reilly sure didn’t have any sympathy for him. He accused the kid on national TV of enjoying his three plus years under the thumb of a pedophile.
I absolutely agree that women and girls are, as you say, for fucking. Raping a woman or girl is “normal.” I don’t argue that. And I don’t argue that rape isn’t taken seriously. But there is a huge stigma attached to male on male rape and its victims don’t have an easy time of it, nor are they treated with kid gloves.
-
gxm17 says:
doh! I botched the attribution. Apologies to slythwolf and ks for the confusion.
-
dale says:
I watched a documentary on Mukhtaran Mai, and I find it interesting that she and her brother were both raped (as “revenge” in a dispute between her family and another clan)…but while her rape was meant to stigmatize her with a deep shame, the film goes on to explain that essentially her brother being raped was not as “damaging.” The doc is called Shame, IIRC.
-
ks says:
“ks, I respectfully disagree. The boy was called a liar and a gold digger because he revealed that a rich man had molested him. Much of the reaction to the kid’s story is very similar to the RP case. Then there’s Shawn Hornbeck. Bill O’Reilly sure didn’t have any sympathy for him. He accused the kid on national TV of enjoying his three plus years under the thumb of a pedophile.”
Hey gmx17, I totally get what you saying and agree in principle and the BO example is spot on. It’s just that in the particular MJ case the facts at trial were so in his favor that any decision other than acquittal would’ve been a miscarriage of justice. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the trial was so poorly reported on and focused on sensationalism that most people don’t realize how thoroughly MJ won his case.
-
soopermouse says:
Whoopi Goldberg is a moron. Everyon who supports the rapist should be boycotted.
I’m 34. I was raped when I was 10. I am STILL dealing witht, it has twisted my life and I will probably never have a normal life or sexuality. If I could, I would take that asshole to court and put his ass in jail. I can’t. He’s been dead for 20 years.
When I read this, about Polanski being arrested, I felt like MY rapist was gettign his comeuppance. People don’t understand- that raping a child is equal to murder. That child’s life, any hope for a normal life? Is gone forever and it will never come back.
I want Polanski in a jail where he gets to be the wife of Bubba. Repeatedly until he dies of anal leakage. Or AIDS. -
myiq2xu says:
myiq is obviously ignorant
How do you know what I don’t know?
I wasn’t claiming that the rape of men was better or worse than the rape of women. That discussion would waste a lot of time and solve nothing.
My point was that Polanski’s defenders don’t care about either one. Their only concern is for that poor artistic genius who is being treated like a commoner despite his wealth and fame.
-
sonrisa says:
there’s a poll online asking if Elizabeth (the only non-obot on there) should leave The View. Maybe we should generate a poll- should Whoopi leave The View?
-
Kiuku says:
Why does myiq always re-classify discussions. The discussion wasn’t about whether raping a boy or a girl is worse, which he says would be a “waste of time”. But the discussion wasn’t about that. The discussion was about our society that diminishes a crime based on the gender of the victim. in this case, the rape of a girl is treated a far less serious crime, than the rape of a boy. That was the discussion, and it is a serious argument. It is a serious Feminist topic. I see some people claiming that people do not consider the rape of a boy to affect the boy, but consider it to affect the girl, and that is evidence that it is actually the opposite, but that is not true either as those countries use that reasoning process to justify -killing- the victim if the victim is a girl. In the US, we simply do our best not to prosecute rapists of girls, even with video taped evidence, and not to jail them over 5-10 years while rapists of boys get life without parole. It happens over and over, time and again.
This is an extremely important and relevant topic.
And the other point is not that Polanski’s defenders “care”, as MyIQ wants to put it, about the topic he contrived himself, but that people would likely not be defending Polanski if Polanski plied a 13 yo boy with drugs, who resisted, sodomizing him. He probably would have gone to jail in the first place under rape-rape charges. Those that did defend him would be seen as the perverts they are. It would be controversial, and Whoopi probably wouldn’t call it “rape rape”.
That’s the topic. That’s the point. Not any of this “commoner” bullshit.
Otherwise people would be talking about how he is rich, and a genius, and not about how the girl doesn’t want him prosecuted, how it was “consensual”, she looked like a “woman”, and how it wasn’t really “rape rape.”
-
yttik says:
When I said this case wasn’t about the victim, it was about a pissing contest between two men, a lying DA and a wealthy international rapist, I meant it. Nobody gives a darn about the victim because rape is still viewed as a property crime. It’s a crime against the state or else it’s a crime against some male’s ego. Women are still not viewed as autonomous human beings, they’re viewed as someone’s property. Letterman for example, apparently sexually harassed several of his staff. The producer who was just arrested for blackmailing him apparently lives with one of the women Letterman exploited. Once again, the woman in this situation is perceived as someone’s property and that piece of property was violated.
-
ks says:
“Nobody gives a darn about the victim because rape is still viewed as a property crime. It’s a crime against the state or else it’s a crime against some male’s ego.”
The male ego part is okay but, legally speaking, the rest is not true. Rape is not viewed as a property crime and ALL crimes are viewed as crimes against the state.
-
yttik says:
It doesn’t matter that all other crimes are regarded as crimes against the state. Rape still has a long history of being viewed as a property crime. Many rape victims feel disempowered to discover that when they report a rape, it becomes a crime against the state instead of a crime against their own personhood.
I understand how we prosecute cases in this country, but rape is just not the same as being robbed. Nobody starts attacking your character, nobody implies that you might have wanted the robbery to happen. In a robbery what was stolen from you was property, in a rape it is your autonomy, your personhood, your right to make choices. Often when the system gets involved they victimize the woman all over again, by using laws designed to prosecute property crimes, as if what was taken from her was property.
We don’t have a system that can deal with it in any other way, but that doesn’t change the fact that even just the structure of our legal system disempowers women and children and treats them as property.
-
RKMK says:
Alison says:
Thanks Dances,
I called ToysRus and told them that I was very active in the Mommy Blogging / Women’s Interest Blogosphere and I’ve asked that a corporate entity get back to me.
I also said that I would be blogging about this in the next two days and demanding a boycott of ToysRus unless they get back to me and alleviate my concerns.
Alison, heard anything back? Just curious.
-
slythwolf says:
How do you know what I don’t know?
I wasn’t claiming that the rape of men was better or worse than the rape of women. That discussion would waste a lot of time and solve nothing.
I know you don’t know people actually believe the rape of men is worse than the rape of women, because you’re saying no one believes that.
Also, I didn’t say you said what you think I said you said. Please fucking read for content next time.
-
myiq2xu says:
because you’re saying no one believes that.
When did I say “no one believes that?”
(hint: I didn’t)
Don’t you have anything better to do than attack me for things I didn’t even say?
-
Hammer of the Dyke says:
Well, if it isn’t lowiqx2 here to teach the wimminz a thing or two about classism. Dude, I think that many women here, myself included, agree with you that Polanski is a shitheel who needs to serve his time, etc. Where you go wrong is your arrogant insistence that no one else can possibly have anything to say on the issue because it’s all about class. You say that we cannot know what you don’t know, but there, you are wrong. We *do* know what you don’t know: you don’t know feminism very well. Usually, I don’t bother to reply to you, mostly because I agree with you politically, but also because your tone, in discussion with my sisters, becomes so childish, whiny and competitive. As women, we have enough of childish, whiny and competitive men who need to STFU and to hear what someone else has to say. I am not sure I agree with yttik’s take (but then again, maybe I do, because she knows something I don’t) on letting the matter die per the victim’s wishes, but I don’t have to bludgeon her with a tome of Das Kapital. I am more interested in learning why she thinks the way she does and what I can learn from it. Do you honestly believe that the mere utterance of your opinion should be enough to sway everyone in the world to your Truth?
Lest you believe that my radical bonafides are not up to snuff, let me say that I tend to follow Jensen. Marx does a brilliant job of describing capitalism, and it’s resulting classisms, in operation; however, it is civilization itself that engenders these issues. To quote Jensen:
“Premise Three: Our way of living-industrial civilization-is based on, requires, and would collapse very quickly without persistent and widespread violence.
Premise Four: Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does occur is regarded with shock, horror and the fetishization of the victims.
Premise Five: The property of those higher on the hierarchy is more valuable than the lives of those below. It is acceptable for those above to increase the amount of property they control-in everyday language, to make money-by destroying or taking the lives of those below. This is called *production.* If those below damage the property of those above, those above may kill or destroy the lives of those below. This is called *justice.*
Premise Thirteen: Those in power rule by force, and the sooner we break ourselves of illusions to the contrary, the sooner we can at least begin to make reasonable decisions about whether, when and how we are going to resist.
Premise Fourteen: From birth on, we are individually and collectively enculturated to hate life, hate the natural world, hate the wild, hate wild animals, hate women, hate children, hate our bodies, hate and fear our emotions, hate ourselves. If we did not hate the world, we could not allow it to be destroyed before our eyes. If we did not hate ourselves, we could not allow our homes-and our bodies-to be poisoned.
Premise Nineteen: The culture’s problem lies above all in the belief that controlling and abusing the natural world is justifiable.”
In case you didn’t realize it, these excerpts sum up much of the bedrock of feminism. I suggest you meditate on your role in the hierarchy when you come here, i.e., man vis-a-vis women. Indeed, you need to learn that is hard to believe men have pure motives when it comes to these issues, given their position on the hierarchy as oppressors of women and children. I can agree with you to a point that all oppressions have a similar genesis, but all oppressions are not the same. Again, you are lucky you get the benefit of the doubt here. As the great Andrea Dworkin said when asked, “What do women want?”:
“I want a 24 hour truce in which there is no rape. I don’t believe rape is inevitable or natural. If I did, I would have no reason to be here [speaking to a men's group]. If I did, my political practice would be different than it is. If you ever wondered why we are not in armed combat against you, it’s not because of a shortage of kitchen knives. It is because we believe in your humanity-against all the evidence.”
-
ks says:
It seems like you’re conflating several different things. It’s not all other crimes. It’s all crimes and rape does not have a long history of being viewed as a property crime in this country from a legal standpoint. Now socially speaking, in terms of entrenched attitudes, behaviors or social mores, I think I understand where you’re coming from.
I don’t get how its “disempowering” for rape to be legally treated like all criminal matters, as crimes against the state, especially when the state is directly and actively seeking justice on behalf of the victim while also seeking to ensure that people who violate the law are punished.
Yes, rape and robbery aren’t the same, though I would caution you that a vicious violent robbery can certainly take more from you than your property and permanently affect your autonomy, personhood and right to make choices in a very negative way.. Also, robbery victims, particularly poor ones are often subject to whithering character attacks.
I’m not sure what you mean by “laws designed to prosecute property crimes….” but I’m curious as to how you would setup a system to prosecute rape in an “empowering” way? Especially since there’s a whole civil system that pits the plaintiff (your victim) vs the defendant (your rapist) in the manner you seem to think is empowering though the final result is only financial.
-
ks says:
Apologies. My #72 is meant for yttik’s 67. thanks.
-
quixote says:
ks, as I understand yttik, she’s talking about reality not legality. She’s talking about the way the legal system doesn’t give a flying whatnot about what anyone wants except itself. And that that’s particularly damaging when you’ve just been through an experience that leaves you feeling like somebody’s garbage.
How do we change the legal system to change that? Personally, I see that question being solved about the same time as the discovery of faster than light travel. And we’ll probably get FTL first.
-
yttik says:
ks, I don’t know what a feminist legal system that doesn’t treat women and children as property would look like, so I can’t answer that. I am just aware of how the legal system does many things to women and children that serves to further take away their power and to treat them like property.
I haven’t advocated that Polanski go free, I’ve simply been trying to point out that his crime was against a real woman, someone who has suffered much more within the legal system and the media then he ever will. People don’t seem interested in her, everybody else now owns this case, from the free Polanski Hollywood types, to those who are frustrated another wealthy rapist got away with it.
The victim in this case is nearly rendered invisible, insignificant, unimportant to the politics involved. In fact, some people have decided she doesn’t even know what’s best for her own self anyway and that this really isn’t her case after all, now it’s about the “community.” People on another blog went so far as to say she should be compelled to testify and if she refuses, we should lock her up for not cooperating with the State. I find it appalling that a woman can’t even own her own victimization, that too belongs to somebody else.
-
ks says:
quixote,
Okay, I see that point and it’s a fair one and that reality certainly does apply to a lot of crime victims. Thanks.
-
ks says:
yttik,
I agree that the victim should own her own victimization but I also think there is a compelling societal interest in ensuring that a then 40 year old man who drugged and raped a 13 year old girl and has flagrantly flouted the law for 31? years be brought to some kind of justice meager as it likely is to be in this case.
-
myiq2xu says:
Where you go wrong is your arrogant insistence that no one else can possibly have anything to say on the issue because it’s all about class.
There seems to be a theme today of people putting words in my mouth and insulting me for things I didn’t say.
I have used this alias for several years now. It was given to me by my daughter and it is meant as a joke. At least 1000 people have used some variation of “lowiq2xu” in their comments to me. I suspect that most of them were proud of their cleverness and originality.
I keep this alias because I discovered that the way people react to it reveals a lot about them. It’s like an instant Rorschach test.
-
Hammer of the Dyke says:
Well, whatever its origins, your handle is a bit silly. It makes you appear to think IQ is some kind of competition (you cannot be so foolish as to imagine that the general internet reader will know your story about it, presuming that they believe it) - the mere fact that your daughter uttered it makes me wonder what you are teaching her. You have said the same ignorant thing to me already, actually (and the fact that you have a nearly verbatim response shows that you know it to be offensive. Please tell me that you are aware of the way in which IQ tests have been used to favor the powerful and to hold down others. Then, tell me why you would want to call yourself this if you know its history? I mean, since you’re so concerned about classism and all…). It seems nothing more than a tiresome taunt, and the idea that you know anything about me is tremendously amusing. Do tell of your vast experience with radical, feminist lesbians! I laugh.
What I most notice is that you have nothing to say in regard to the substance of my post. Why are you here, again? You don’t really seem to be interested in feminism, you address women improperly and when called on it, you engage in further jousting. I think your time would be better spent reading and learning because I don’t think you have the ability to bring much to the discussion. I only responded to you at all because the way you were addressing some of the posters was rude. I believe that my initial characterization of you as a troll is correct.
-
myiq2xu says:
What I most notice is that you have nothing to say in regard to the substance of my post.
When people open their post by insulting me I generally assume they are not interested in having a serious discussion so I see no reason to take them or their posts seriously.
Yes, my alias is kinda silly. There are lots of silly aliases in the blogosphere.
Why are you here, again
This is one of my favorite blogs and Violet Socks is one of my favorite writers.
Unless I missed something this blog belongs to Violet and she decides who is welcome here and what the rules of behavior are.
-
Violet says:
Okay, if the argument here is still whether it’s classism or sexism at work in the Polanski thing:
It’s both.
There is definitely a huge component of Hollywood classism here. Hollywood protects its own, rich people in general protect their own. The Michael Jackson thing shows that even when it’s little boys who are being preyed on, the entertainment world closes ranks. And they’ll do that no matter what the perversion — raping girls, boys, goats, whatever.
But there is also sexism. It is more difficult to prove or even get people to care about the rape of females, because of our millenia-old classification of females as both temptresses and appropriate sexual prey. What Anjelica Huston and other women around at the time said about Samantha Geimer (and note, myiq, that women can be foot soldiers of the patriarchy as well as anybody), that the girl was a little “chick,” a tart, etc., is the kind of thing that is always said about female rape victims. She was asking for it; she was wearing that short little skirt. But can you imagine someone saying of one of MJ’s victims, oh, you know he was one of those little tart boys. One of those little Lolito-type boys. He was just asking for it. What was a grown man to do?
-
Hammer of the Dyke says:
My IQ, I’m afraid you are now just boring me. You seem to be unable to discuss the substance of the issues at all. I have no intention of telling Violet what to do with the blog she pays for, but given her feminist identification - even the adoration she expresses for the feminist writing at I Blame the Patriarchy - I would think that the readers of her blog would be willing to concede that feminism is an underlying principle of expression here, whatever the forms it may take. You, however, seem to be so narcissistic-ally fixated that, once again, in response to criticism, you can only write about yourself, whining all the while. I mistakenly hoped to interest you with some actual feminist theory and to tell you that I don’t appreciate the way you talk down to women with whom you disagree. You can dish it out, but hoo boy!, you can’t take it. Anyway, I have wasted too much time on your concern trolling. I am done.
-
myiq2xu says:
I’m afraid you are now just boring me.
I”m sorry, but no one told me I was supposed to entertain you. Don’t worry, there are plenty of other total strangers you can stereotype, caricature, pigeonhole and insult.
-
Violet says:
Myiq, as m andrea said to you upthread:
You appear to be asserting that sexism does not exist, whenever the victim is female. Or at the very least, minimizing it to the point where it isn’t or shouldn’t be an issue of concern.
I’ve read back through the thread, and you do seem to be insisting that the reaction to Polanski’s crime would be the same if the victim were male. And this virtual roomful (or lounge-ful) of feminists know better, because we know that the rape of females is a profoundly vexed issue. So it irritates when you keep insisting that feminists are wrong about something that feminists actually know a lot about. And it irritates even more when you start snarking at people for calling you out.
I do agree with you — and I’m sure others here do as well — that a lot of the Polanski thing is Hollywood classism. But the rape of girls is received differently than the rape of boys, and there is a big element of that as well.
-
Sophie44 says:
(1) myiq2xu is no troll.
(2) myiq2xu is a serious feminist.
(3) myiq2xu did not assert that sexisim did
not exist nor minimize it.
(4) myiq2xu’s stance on Hollywood classism is
exactly correct.
(5) myiq2xu is a sillier handle than “Hammer
of the Dyke”? Cracker - please! -
Sameol says:
Myiq2xu is the farthest thing from a serious feminist. He doesn’t know a thing about feminism, and more importantly he doesn’t care to know. He won’t listen to anyone, he takes pleasure in being ignorant, inappropriate, condescending and rude, and in classic male entitlement fashion, he tries to turn everything into a discussion of his fee-fees and his right to behave however he likes to settle scores. Great, he voted for Hillary, give him a cookie. That does not a male feminist make. By their deeds shall you know them. He delights in acting like an asshole and then justifying it on that basis. No one who is serious about being a feminist ally would behave the way he does. And yes, he minimizes sexism constantly, lecturing us on how we’re too stupid to understand what the real issue is (and when he gets defensive, he’s quick to reach for MRA style chestnuts). Sorry, but this is NOT what a feminist looks like. The women who post here are brilliant and far more patient than he deserves, and if he’d stop acting like a child, antagonizing them and trying to settle scores he might learn something–but that’s not why he’s here and not what’s going to happen. There is no Feminism for Dummies strong enough to penetrate that much willful, entitled ignorance.
-
Grace says:
Going back if I may to the subject of the women on “The View” I think that Whoppie Goldberg especially (she acted in “The Color Purple” and played the role of a rape victim), with time she has become, well….intellectually lazy. This is probably just a bread and butter job for her, and because of that she usually comes unprepared and sounds careless. But I am sure that if Polanski happened to be a right-wing politician they would all be screaming and demanding severe punishment. It also seems to be in the eye of the beholder in this polarizing world.
-
RKMK says:
*leads a big cheer for Sameol*
Hip-hip-hooray!
-
julia says:
I’m coming in late, as usual (no computer) but I think these women are the typical patriarchal kind who are allowed to get in. If Barbara Walters were a feminist, she would never be allowed to have risen so high up in the media. It happens all the time, if anyone readint this works for a corportation, just look at the women in power.
It does shock me. It makes me sick to see that “strong” women are against women. Against us.
