DSK case: an excellent post from Feministe

Friday, July 1st, 2011 · 79 Comments »

As the rape case against DSK falls apart, this really is worth reading from Jill at Feministe: There Are No Perfect Accusers. An excerpt:

There’s no indication that she actually lied about being raped; instead, it turns out that she has lied about other things in the course of her adult life (shocking stuff, I know), and her actions immediately following the alleged assault…

None of this is good, but it also doesn’t mean that she wasn’t assaulted. We’re also talking about a woman who is an immigrant, who is of color, who is poor, who comes from a country where authority figures (including police officers) have slaughtered and tortured citizens and are widely distrusted, and who currently lives in an area with large immigrant and poor populations who are targeted by local police. I’d be pretty surprised if she felt totally comfortable around the NYPD and if she trusted the American justice system. Hell, she has friends and loved ones in jail — she’s not new to this circus, and I doubt she’s under the impression that law enforcement officers are routinely on the side of people like her. While I’m sure the prosecutors told her to be totally honest with them — and that’s what prosecutors do in these kinds of cases, because it’s much better to have all of the bad information out there so you can deal with it on the front end instead of being surprised by it at trial — I can understand why she might not have disclosed that she was involved with drug traffickers (if that’s even the case). It also looks like she might have lied on her application for asylum, at the instruction of an unethical attorney, when she was desperate for legal status. That doesn’t justify lying, but it does provide some necessary context.

Of course it is possible she did lie about being raped by DSK; with any crime, there is always the possibility of a false accusation. But as the FBI’s own statistics have shown year after year, the rate of false reporting with rape is very low—on par with that of other major crimes, or even lower. It’s lower than the rate of false reporting with auto theft, for example. There is no good reason—no non-sexist, non-misogynist, non-Potiphar’s Wife Syndrome reason—to treat women who report rape as lying whores. But that’s what our culture does. More from Jill’s post:

All of this leads prosecutors to believe that she’s probably not a credible witness, and that DSK’s attorneys will destroy her on the witness stand. They’re probably right. Rape accusers seem to be treated with different expectations of perfection than people who report other crimes. Granted, this case is particularly high-profile, which means that prosecutors no doubt want it to be open-and-shut, making the accuser’s imperfections all the more troublesome. But I have a hard time believing that a woman with the exact same past would be considered too lacking in credibility had she accused someone of robbing her apartment or mugging her or beating her up. I have a hard time believing that if a man was punched in the face by a stranger on the street that prosecutors would drop the case if it came to light that the victim had cheated on his taxes seven years ago.

Even though these aren’t the typical “she’s a slut” attacks (although I’m counting down the minutes until someone suggests she’s a prostitute who had sex with DSK for money), there’s still an unreasonable level of virtue that we demand from any woman who says she was raped. This woman, like a lot of folks, has lied to save her own ass under dire circumstances. She called someone in jail to discuss the pros and cons of going forward with the rape accusations — something that sounds questionable unless you consider that the incarcerated person may have been her closest confidante, and I would certainly have that exact same conversation with my best friend if I were thinking of getting embroiled in a criminal case. There’s still physical evidence of sex, and physical evidence of assault. But it doesn’t matter, since she owns five cell phones (DSK owns seven) and lied about an unrelated issue and has some shady friends. Nothing that has come out about her indicates that she wasn’t raped. It just indicates that she’s no longer our ideal victim, and that’s enough to prevent the case from going forward.

My issue actually isn’t with the prosecutor’s office (although it is a little bit) so much as the media response. Even progressive media outlets are making egregious logical leaps, suggesting that she’s probably lying because, well, she just probably is. The reason it’s nearly impossible for the prosecution to pursue these charges, even though there’s no evidence that she lied about anything related to the actual events surrounding the alleged crime, is because we live in a culture where rape victims need to be flawless in order to be believed. We live in a culture where it’s damn near impossible for any woman, when her life is held up to the light, to be considered innocent. We live in a culture where we think it’s even reasonable to question a rape victim’s “innocence” in the first place. We live in a culture where accusers of high-profile men undergo even more scrutiny than usual from a media hungry for a story and playing by an old rule book. And we live in a culture where the public destruction of every woman who makes a rape accusation is used as fodder in subsequent rape cases, establishing a cycle where we believe that women must be lying because the women before her were lying, so we feel justified in going out of our way to find any scrap of evidence that might indicate she has ever done anything ever in her life that we might find unsavory even if it has nothing to do with the case at hand, and then we use that to determine that she’s not credible, and then we use has as another example of how women lie about rape. And then powerful men are even more emboldened and feel more justified in treating women like garbage.

Under the kind of scrutiny this woman has endured, I would surely be deemed a bad victim. I wonder how many of you would be “good enough” to be credible in a high-profile case against a powerful man.

I bolded that last bit because I think it’s worth chewing over. I certainly wouldn’t be “good enough” to be credible. After all, I have a whole fake persona here online, an elaborate fictional world with a pseudonym and the whole bit. If I were raped, who would believe me?

Filed under: Rape · Tags:

79 Responses to “DSK case: an excellent post from Feministe”

  1. Carmonn says:

    Correct me if i’m wrong, but hasn’t DSK repeatedly changed his account of the events at the hotel ? Until the victim produced his DNA, wasn’t he claiming there was no contact between them at all? It’s a good thing that neither that nor any of the lies he’s told during the course of his life harms his credibility at all.

    NPR was just blagh blagh blaghing about this, but at least after going through the ridiculous list they had the grace to acknowledge that none of it was actually germane.

  2. Violet Socks says:

    Correct me if i’m wrong, but hasn’t DSK repeatedly changed his account of the events at the hotel ?

    Yep. He’s lied about that and about a bunch of other stuff. He also has a history of sexually assaulting women. But none of that matters.

    The accuser, now: she lied about something on her asylum application and has friends in jail. So obviously she’s totally unreliable, DSK is telling the truth, end of story.

  3. myiq2xu says:

    Anyone who has worked on sexual assault cases knows that it is not unusual for rape victims to lie about embarrassing details of the crime, their own conduct or about their past histories. An example is a woman who engages in consensual foreplay but gets raped when she says no to intercourse. Another example is a woman who, realizing the man isn’t going to stop even though she told him to, asks him to wear a condom. In these examples the victims might lie because they are afraid they won’t be believed if they tell the whole truth.

    Their reasons for lying may be understandable but once they are caught lying it creates reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors.

  4. Adrienne in CA says:

    Yup, just like the De Anza rape victim who was denied justice in both criminal and civil trials. She posted FB pics of herself failing to appear traumatized eight months after her rape. For females, everything you ever did, or will ever do, is germane.

  5. Unree says:

    Agreed 100%. I’d quote this nasty weaselly bit of prose from the Times:

    According to the two officials, the woman had a phone conversation with an incarcerated man within a day of her encounter with Mr. Strauss-Kahn in which she discussed the possible benefits of pursuing the charges against him. The conversation was recorded.

    The victim “discussed,” eh? What did she say? Her friend at the other end could well have suggested that DSK might offer her hush money, to which she might have replied something like, “I really could use it to pay bills, but no, I’m going to testify.”

    That would mean she discussed an issue that she might not even have brought up. Apparently a virtuous victim would have said, Sir, I am shocked, shocked! and hung up the phone. Even though the person at the other end might have been her closest friend in a strange country.

    Yes, a woman actually participated in a conversation about the “possible benefits” she faced. We can’t have that. DSK is entitled to explore the possible benefits of revising his story and then tell at least one lie–but any woman who thinks ahead, even though she tells the truth, is eeebil.

  6. myiq2xu says:

    The victim “discussed,” eh? What did she say?

    How about “I’m going to sue that bastard for every penny he’s got.”

  7. myiq2xu says:

    For females, everything you ever did, or will ever do, is germane.

    The training I took said that there is no “normal” way for rape victims to act.

    They may be hysterical or act completely cold and unemotional. In the case of acquaintance rape they may act friendly to the perpetrator. They may wait days, weeks or months to report the crime.

  8. Nell says:

    Regarding the telephone call between the victim and her jailed boyfriend, the NY Times is now reporting that the conversation took place in a “unique dialogue of Fulani,” a native language of Guinea, and was only just translated a couple of days ago.

    Given the “uniqueness” of the dialect, isn’t it possible errors in translation or interpretation might have taken place? The victim is said to have told her friend, “I know what I’m doing” and to have remarked that her attacker was wealthy. I fail to see how these comments alone undermine her credibility, although the sum total of all her lies, even those not material to the case, would make any prosecutor reluctant to go forward. It would be tough (although perhaps not impossible) to get past her lying to the grand jury about her actions immediately following the attack. If that had been her only lie, you might be able to explain it away as fear of losing her job or shock or denial, but it’s the cumulative blows to her credibility that create reasonable doubt in a jury’s eyes.

    Of course, my cynical self expected no other outcome. Or, in other words, “Quelle surprise!”

  9. Monchichipox says:

    So now you can’t wear a miniskirt or a maid’s uniform.

  10. Carmonn says:

    So now you can’t wear a miniskirt or a maid’s uniform.

    I keep remembering this old murder case, a woman was on her way home from a bicycling trip late at night when her car broke down on a deserted road, and she was raped and murdered by the tow truck operator. He failed to get rid of his clothes, which were saturated with her blood. He explained it by saying that they had had sex and she was having her period. When it comes to plausible scenarios, I’m sure there are thousands of hotel maids who would absolutely jump at the chance to have sex with creepy elderly men with long documented histories of boundary issues who jump out of the bathroom and grab them.

  11. parallel says:

    I wonder how many of you would be “good enough” to be credible in a high-profile case against a powerful man.

    With occasional very rare exceptions, I don’t think any of us are really considered credible aginst any man.

    once they are caught lying it creates reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors.

    Reasonable ? It’s not remotely reasonable, that’s the whole point.

    It is in fact utterly nonsensical to connect “lied on her asylum form (etc)” with “invented rape” never mind “invented rape for which there is actual physical evidence”.

    And the only reason the “evil lying b*tch” defence has any mileage is because of our deeply unreasonable and misogynistic rape-apologist culture.

  12. Toonces says:

    But Carmonn, you forget, being a maid is just so downright sexy! Who could resist hawt sex amidst cleaning dirty toilets and changing soiled sheets? After vacuuming and scrubbing room after room, the aroma of this and that cleaning solution in the air, who wouldn’t be in the mood? I’m sure sex at work is all most maids can think about.

  13. anna says:

    Please tell me he still got convicted of rape and murder!

    The latest word on the DSK case is that the maid “reportedly” worked as a prostitute – this from the oh-so-reliable New York Post. And it’s so relevant too! We all know prostitutes never get raped, and always lie about it for quick cash, since it’s so easy to convict a man of rape. (massive eyeroll)

  14. Nessum says:

    We’re also talking about a woman who is an immigrant, who is of color, who is poor, who comes from a country where authority figures (including police officers) have slaughtered and tortured citizens and are widely distrusted. […] I’d be pretty surprised if she felt totally comfortable around the NYPD and if she trusted the American justice system.

    Heck, I a woman, white, not poor, coming from a civilized, western country, where I trust the local police – wouldn’t feel comfortable around the NYPD.

  15. anna says:

    Here is some crap about how immigrant women supposedly constantly lie about being raped, from Fox News of course: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201107010022

  16. Cleaver says:

    There is no good reason—no non-sexist, non-misogynist, non-Potiphar’s Wife Syndrome reason—to treat women who report rape as lying whores. But that’s what our culture does.

    Yes. And Jeralyn over at TL started down this road a few days ago. Today she’s turned that road into an 8-lane freeway, all the while allowing off-topic diatribes against Shakesville and other feminist sites by a misogynist dood commenter who calls himself “AngryBlackGuy.” If you’re not a feminist, you’re not a leftist. Bears repeating.

  17. myiq2xu says:

    I’m sure sex at work is all most maids can think about.

    Especially with creepy old guys who like to rough up women.

  18. Dusty says:

    Both have lied repeatedly about a whole lotta shit. So what? Put it on trial and let a jury decide after all the evidence has been presented. No one can know how the judge will rule on specific piece of ‘evidence’ presented by either side at this point.

    The fact that the DA hasn’t dropped the case says a lot. Especially after her call to her boyfriend was translated. That is one damning bit of information for her side that they will have a very hard time explaining, if it’s allowed in court.

  19. Lexia says:

    Before I could hit the car radio off button, I heard an NPR female pundit interviewing some guest about this case. She said “But isn’t this just a ‘He said, she said’ case? Isn’t it true there’s no way to tell who’s lying?”

    “He said, she said”: the American version of the Sharia law that it takes the testimony of two women to equal that of one man. All the huge body of evidence law gets thrown out the courtroom window once a man cries “Consensual!”

  20. myiq2xu says:

    “He said, she said”

    The legal standard is that the testimony of a single witness, if believed, is sufficient to convict.

    That’s why the defense is trying so hard to destroy her credibility.

    The latest is the defense is leaking (anonymously) that she is a prostitute. The harder they attack her the more I’m convinced he’s guilty.

  21. AD says:

    Jeralyn is a criminal defense lawyer, and a dammed good one. She has bias and never claimed otherwise. So if you accept her bias she can be a really interesting read. That commenter who disses Shakesville and others is not who he represents himself to be, and he is an Obama supporter, not a leftist and is into gettin democrats into line.

  22. Lexia says:

    “The legal standard is that the testimony of a single witness, if believed, is sufficient to convict.”

    I know. That’s why there are trials, that’s why there are juries – so that the credibility of testimony can be judged by those whom the law considered qualified to judge it.

    “He said, she said” is media shorthand for the propaganda they’re pushing, that none of this applies when it’s a woman’s word against a man’s.

  23. the15th says:

    I also HATE “he said, she said.” Sometimes it’s even applied in cases where two men disagree with each other, which I can only interpret to mean, “There’s so much lying and drama in this situation that it’s almost like there’s a woman involved.”

  24. Lexia says:

    Perfectly put, the15th.

    It’s like Posner’s infamous 1996 7th Circuit Court decision in Galloway v. General Motors Service Parts, where he actually ruled that the terms “bitch” and “sick bitch” showed no gender animus, especially since men called other men that.

    Huh? What about the attitude that worst thing you can call a man is a woman?

  25. Carmonn says:

    The harder they attack her

    Yes, I’ve noted that the International Conspiracy to destroy The World’s Financial Savior seems to be asleep at the switch. Imagine a cabal that all-powerful sitting by helplessly watching DSK’s anonymous goon squad run circles around it! I guess sometimes David really does have an advantage over Goliath.

  26. angie says:

    Even though these aren’t the typical “she’s a slut” attacks (although I’m counting down the minutes until someone suggests she’s a prostitute who had sex with DSK for money)

    I’m sure Jill will be happy to know that at least one blogger — Jeralyn at TalkLeft — suggested that this woman is a prostitute whom DSK paid for sex yesterday.

  27. masagoroll says:

    The terrifying thing about this practice of painting rape victims as somehow “bad” or “trashy” is that the secret implication is that even if they really were raped, it’s not so bad, because they’re one of THOSE women who should expect this kind of thing to happen, those women who deserve it.

    That is really what people are doing when they try to depict victims as shady characters.

    I bet that is part of why women participate in the practice, as well–they are subconsciously trying to draw a distinction between themselves and rape victims, to reassure themselves that it couldn’t happen to them, or that there is some way they could be the right kind of victim if it ever did happen.

  28. Carmonn says:

    If anyone missed it, the NY Post is “reporting” anonymous smears from DSK’s team that the victim was deliberatly assigned to the fancy hotel by her union so that she could garner kickbacks for them from working as a prostitute.

    So, for everyone keeping score at home, The World Number One Socialist Hero is now joining forces with right-wing tabloid rags to disseminate inane, hoary anti-union bullshit to buttress sexist bullshit.

    No wonder the Conspiracy is shaking in its boots over the threat DSK represents to the status quo.

  29. Cleaver says:

    @ AD: Totally agree about Jeralyn as a defense lawyer. If I were accused of a crime, I would want her in my corner. She is also clear about a trial being about testing the evidence, not finding the truth. But in this case, I think she goes beyond testing/questioning evidence and makes sh!t up. As for that commenter, I do believe he is angry and I do believe he is a guy.

  30. myiq2xu says:

    As for that commenter, I do believe he is angry and I do believe he is a guy.

    I’m sure she’ll be amused to hear what you think.

  31. myiq2xu says:

    My bad – you were referring to ABG

    He is most definitely male.

  32. angie says:

    My bad – you were referring to ABG

    He is most definitely male.

    And most definitely angry.

    I’m not 100% sure he’s black, though.

  33. Nessum says:

    I’m not 100% sure he’s black, though.

    I’ve always suspected he chose “Black” to garner immunity, “Guy” to garner legitimacy, and putting it together with “Angry” to (successfully – at least up to a point and at non-feminist sites) playing into the white liberals’ guilt.

    He also claims to be a Feminist. I guess it takes Feminists to see through him.

  34. angie says:

    He also claims to be a Feminist. I guess it takes Feminists to see through him.

    BWAHAHA! A Feminist who differentiates between “extreme” Feminism & “lightly camouflaged” Feminism, no less!

    As annoying as I find ABG, he has a certain “train wreck” entertainment factor going (or at least more so than the average troll).

    I think you’re definitely right about the assessment of his moniker.

  35. Unree says:

    ABG has been called not-black now and then by antagonists on his favorite site, Tennessee Guerilla Women. I’d bet money he’s a white dude. Othr posts at that site are bylined Mellow Black Guy.

  36. AD says:

    Cleaver – agree about Jeralyn in this particular case, but she is very perceptive and she is often right (not always certainly). ABG has a very distinctive writing style. I enjoy reading him. He works like an aikido fighter, faking his parlays until whoever engages with him completely flails around, but he can never complete his ‘discourse’ and it seems his point is simply to get people to flail. He could go in for the “kill” but his ultimate goals are not about policy or even ideological principles. He just cares about Obama. He must work for his campaigns. Some people don’t fall for it, but lots do. Therefore in the end he is not a good advocate for his political agenda.

  37. Cleaver says:

    ABG writes like the kind of white fauxgressive dood who lives in his parents’ basement. The same kind of white fauxgressive dood who says Obama can’t close Gitmo or support marriage equality or push for real health care reform, etc., etc., ad infinitum, because he can’t afford to come off like an “angry black man.”

    That’s not a completely unjustified point, but it seems to me that the only people worried about “angry black men” in just this way are these misogynist white fauxgressive doods. In my opinion, the whole meme is racist in the extreme.

    It’s more complex than this, but, to simplify somewhat, it is an exercise in these white fauxgressive doods’ management of their fear of actual angry black men rising up, in every metaphorical sense, with their disturbing black potency (which threatens to impinge on young white fauxgressive massa doods’ sexual “rights” to all the women on the plantation).

    Perhaps more centrally, it is also an instance of these white fauxgressive doods simultaneously repressing and rationalizing their ambivalent homoerotic attachment to black male sexuality, an attachment born of their own lurid subconscious racist fantasies about black men, including half-black men like Obama. Once Obama is sensed as a potent black man, he must be neutralized, that is, adopted as a pet and then castrated by the decree that he “can’t afford to look like an angry black man.”

    Something tells me that 2012 is going to be a lo-o-o-ng racist misogyfest. Think I’ll tune out and vote Green.

  38. AD says:

    Cleaver, you make many valid and perceptive points and I don’t disagree. But we don’t know about individuals on blogs and he IS a lawyer so that already gives him a mind set. He seems like a litigator, but says he is not. He likes to win. He’ll take on the persona it takes to win. Yes 2012 will have that, but less than 2008.

    I don’t blame these guys for managing their fear – we all do.

    I sometimes follow so-called “progressive” sites. Yesterday I listened to a video of Arianna Huffington and Michael Sandel, talking about the economy and politics — “has Obama betrayed or saved the the progressive tradition?”. Its really interesting but really long (starts at around 3:00 but its over an hour). The “progressive sentiment” is really in flux and I don’t think 2012 will be a repeat of 2008 tho there will be efforts made to do so. First off I thought it was funny to use “progressive TRADITION”. What tradition? the word is used to mean democrat or liberal. The arguments, if I can summarize, amount to “he betrayed” vs “he was only a part of a whole bunch of people and decades long history that was a betrayal”.

    I do hear regret at some sites, and a sense of betrayal, but, as is probably human nature, I also don’t read lots of taking on the responsibility for being a magical thinker or a bully.

    link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1dCitur7tU

  39. myiq2xu says:

    He works like an aikido fighter, faking his parlays until whoever engages with him completely flails around

    You give him waaaaay too much credit.

    OTOH – “If you argue with a troll, the troll wins.”

  40. myiq2xu says:

    he IS a lawyer

    I doubt it. I have never seen him argue legal concepts or use legal terminology.

  41. AD says:

    I did say “fighter” and not aikido “master”. He is not that good. And I can see that he is a troll on feminist sites and if the site wants his input is up to them depending on the debate/conversation structure of the site, but on TL I don’t see him as a troll – he just irritates some people to the point where they engage him in a reflexive way. Maybe that is truly what a troll is? TL is open to lots of debate and disagreement. I think there’s room for that on some sites and the sites where everyone has to agree with the owner become boring over time but nonetheless provide spaces where people can comment and not be attacked. There’s good in both. TL keeps it smart while Huff is just a bunch of name calling.

    I am nearly 100% sure he is a lawyer. He is a fighter in any case. He is not a kid and is actually a good writer with a distinctive style. I don’t dislike “trolls” as much as many since I don’t mind a good debate/fight or someone not agreeing with me, although probably if I had a site I’d reign him in. He’s been interesting to read and his reception is an indicator of how his message is being received, which is NOT very well. He never seems to really persuade or convince.

    The idea of a “troll” is an interesting one and relatively new. One could think of a troll as whoever is not invited to the party, like the 13th godmother, and represents what we really don’t want to hear.

  42. myiq2xu says:

    TL is open to lots of debate and disagreement.

    That must be why Jeralyn banned me.

    I am nearly 100% sure he is a lawyer.

    I’m a lawyer and I am nearly 100% sure he’s not.

  43. Cleaver says:

    ABG knows that at one point during 2008, TL became a refuge for supporters of Hillary Clinton. In my opinion, that fully explains his presence at TL. He showed up at TL just about about a month before the 2010 midterms, evidently with the intention of delivering the message that the (sexual) harassment would continue until morale improved. If he’s working for Obama, it’s hard to believe anybody connected with Obama’s campaign is paying him to do it. He is too ineffective, just as he was when he was trolling at RD’s and Liss’s and TGW. White fauxgressive dood. Would bet my own money on that. It’s all about the misogyny for him. The other day at TL he basically said that everything he knows about “feminism” (cough) he learned through the lens of the Obama 2008 primary campaign. Why am I not surprised.

  44. AD says:

    Just to be clear I don’t think he is being paid money to work on Obama’s campaigns. I’ve wondered along some of the same lines as you Cleaver. What is his motivation? Is it political fervor or deep angry sexism? He is growing OFF the sentiments and patience of commenters at TL and some there are really looking for political allies so he should be well received by them. My guess (and it is just a guess) is that he has some issue with women, or with a woman and women are “proxy” for her.

    myIQ, TL likes debate and name calling is discouraged and the site is not known for humor. Sorry to hear you were banned, but your legalese is hard to understand for a lay person.

  45. Nell says:

    I’m a lawyer and I am nearly 100% certain that he’s not.

    Ditto.

  46. Lexia says:

    I am -not- a lawyer (I just stole the name of one – my favorite Title VII treatise writer), but agree with the ones here about That Troll.

    He sounds like every self-righteous skinny white boy who ever infested the places I worked. They were always preaching about black or indigenous men’s rights in between bouts of sexually harassing female coworkers and/or helping the sexists on site to do them in.

  47. Swannie says:

    It is obvious to me from the over obvious obvious and cliched arguments used against her that the hotel maid has been re-raped by this wealthy and powerful man . It was only a matter of time until she was accused of being a hooker . And so what if she has bruises on her pudendum and a torn ligament in her shoulder ? It is ok to get a little rough with a hooker isn’t it? ( <–sarcasm alert for the unwary )

    btw ABG is a troll

  48. Nessum says:

    ABG definitely acts like a troll: He doesn’t plunge into a site, it’s more like dipping his toe, “feeling the temperature”, playing nice and pandering to the blog owner. Then putting out vague statements like “My wife is a feminist”, “I have daughters” (therefore I know a lot about feminism). Or “I had lunch with friends working in Wall Street” (therefore you might think I’m a lawyer) and so on.

    Then he becomes more and more cocky. Insults other commenters, condescends (e.g. putting the name of commenters he replies to in the headline), lectures, “mansplains”, race baits and – if that’s even a term – “PUMA baits”. All – depending on the site – without necessarily being called out.

    This thread is a good example. Also an example of the different reactions from other commenters.

    I don’t know if he’s a paid troll (maybe by the R.s?), but he sure seems to have a lot of extra time on his hands: 300 plus comments at TL in June alone.

    I often wonder how reactions to ABG would have been had his moniker spelled AppaledBeigeGranny.

  49. tinfoil hattie says:

    ABG is a troll, is NOT a feminist, hates all middle-aged white women (because we’re all racist for voting for Hillary Clinton, which all of us did en masse, even after she bowed out of the race), and loves to twist people’s words to make his stupid points. He always mysteriously stops commenting once you provide incontrovertible fact that he is wrong about something.

  50. Unree says:

    word, tinfoil hattie. ABG’s I Hate Middle-Aged White Women freak confirmed for me that he is a white dude. I’ve met dozens of white men (and several white women) who hate middle-aged white women … but black men seem to have better things to do (or hate).

  51. Sameol says:

    Strauss-Kahn facing second rape charge (and boy is this Frenchwoman brave, too):

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSP6E7HO01R20110704?irpc=932

  52. Ugsome says:

    Yes, she is, particularly as she was dissuaded from filing charges at the time by her own mother, a Socialist party elected official. And she’s not just any Frenchwoman, either–she’s DSK’s first wife’s goddaughter (a quasi-familial relationship in France) and is (was?) best friends with his daughter. That raises the squick factor tenfold.

    Oh, and the ever-helpful Alan Dershowitz just had to inveigh against protecting the accuser’s identity. Get her name out there in the interest of efficient character assassination.

  53. Sameol says:

    Yes, and now her mother is disgusted at the “glee” male Socialist party members are displaying over the grotesque character assassination in New York. It would be profoundly refreshing if male party members chose NOT to declare war on their female comrades but offered some support for a change.

  54. angie says:

    It would be profoundly refreshing if male party members chose NOT to declare war on their female comrades but offered some support for a change.

    Yes, it would. But I won’t hold my breathe.

  55. ugsome says:

    Lately the cynical thought has taken ahold of me that we might be better off under shariah. Sharia at least fixes the evil-lying-whore to legitimate-human-being exchange rate at 2:1. In the West the exchange rate floats and it makes for a seriously devalued female currency.

    If Tristane Banon’s mother is so disgusted with her PS colleagues, I invite her to go join the Parti de Gauche whose co-president (and Presidential candidate) Jean Luc Melenchon had a brief, reasoned and respectful response to DSK’s arrest–one of the few I read.

  56. Helen Pringle says:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/30/business/worldbusiness/30iht-kahn_ed3_.html

    Mr. Strauss-Kahn, who faces trial in October on the allegations, is confident that he will get a favorable finding in court. In the radio interview, he contended that no one questions whether he did the work — the only point of inquiry is whether he acted properly in how he drew up the contract.

    “I was accused from the beginning of having been paid for work that I did not do,” he told RTL. “I was cleared of that. The court said: No, no, the work was done. There was no problem, simply the contract was not correctly dated.”
    In his defense, Mr. Strauss-Kahn said that the work under question was begun in 1994 but that the contract was not drawn up until 1995.

    “So we wrote the date 1994,” he said. “I think this is something that I should not have done. But honestly, it didn’t damage anyone because both parties were in agreement. I’m hopeful that the court will consider that this was not very serious.”

  57. the15th says:

    Strauss-Kahn facing second rape charge

    According to The New York Times, it is a “sex complaint.”

  58. Mary Tracy says:

    We are all chambermaids/room attendants.

  59. angie says:

    Sadly, he’ll probably get away this one too. I’m sure the boyz can make a lot of hay about its “political motivation” re: her mother. Sads all around.

  60. Lexia says:

    @56:

    Ugsome, Is there a link? Even if it’s in French, I should be able to struggle through it. I couldn’t find anything searching on the person or party name.

    It would be a relief to read the opinion of a high ranking politician who supports women.

  61. Cleaver says:

    Here’s some mighty mansplainin’ and some touting of feminist street cred.

  62. AD says:

    Lexia,

    here is a link:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/dominique-strauss-kahn/8616633/Dominique-Strauss-Kahn-profile-of-attempted-rape-victim-Tristane-Banon.html

  63. Carmonn says:

    Is Angry Black Guy the troll who always has a couple of (admittedly) white male sidekicks with him and they all refer to TGW as “Daughters of the Confederacy,” and accuse any commenter who self-defines as a Black woman of being white, or am I thinking of someone else? Not sure about that, but I do remember him trying to grant some feminist cred to BO because look! He’s married! To a woman! A strong one! Who doesn’t leave him! Case closed! I remember wishing he’d give it up and send his wife or girlfriend to speak on his behalf instead, I’m sure he’d consider her eminently qualified.

  64. Cleaver says:

    Thank you, Mike McGovern:

    As the case against Mr. Strauss-Kahn seemingly disintegrates, he is enjoying a political renaissance at home, yet I keep asking myself: does a sexual encounter between a powerful and wealthy French politician and a West African hotel cleaning woman from a dollar-a-day background not in itself suggest a gross abuse of power?

  65. monchichipox says:

    “but black men seem to have better things to do (or hate).”

    Oh Lord are you kidding me? You’re so right. That statement really proved to be true in the last election. Especially the hoes before bros t shirts.

  66. Lexia says:

    Sorry, AD, I should have specified the party and the name. I meant Parti de Gauche and Jean Luc Melenchon – can’t find any quotes from M. Melenchon on this anywhere.

  67. Ugsome says:

    Unree, the people who really hate middle-aged white women are young white men because we are MOM. That was the problem with Hillary for them. Obama was cool. He was Michael Jordan, Thelonius Monk. Hillary was…..MOM. Pick up your socks, do your homework, get a haircut and a job by sundown. What a drag/bonerkiller!

  68. Ugsome says:

    Lexia, here is Mélenchon’s blog post

    http://www.jean-luc-melenchon.fr/2011/05/15/ouh-la-la/#more-6730

    His statement to the press is first, foremost, and mercifully brief:

    « Je suis consterné. Je souhaite que ce soit faux car le viol est un crime. Il y aurait alors une victime. C’est déjà assez de l’humiliation que cette information provoque parmi les siens. J’appelle à la retenue. Ne jugeons pas avant de savoir. »

    My translation, shortcomings are mine: I am consternated. I hope that it is false because rape is a crime, in which case there is a victim. This information is humiliating to those close to her.
    I call for restraint. Let us not judge before knowing the facts.

    There’s a smidge of fail there but he at least mentioned the victim WHICH NO ONE ELSE DID.

  69. Carmonn says:

    Obama was cool. He was Michael Jordan, Thelonius Monk. Hillary was…..MOM.

    Yes, which is funny, because Obama is much closer in age to Hillary. If she hadn’t been in the race he’d have been just another droning old man pathetically trying and failing to be cool. Well, except to other men in his age range who are in denial. But for the most part, if he’d been brushing John Edwards or Dennis Kucinich off his shoulder (though frankly I suspect he’d had enough sense to know that wouldn’t play very well), it probably would have produced more eye rolls than orgasms.

  70. Monchichipox says:

    So did you all hear about the High School cheerleader who got kicked off the squad for not cheering for her rapist?

    http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/10/21/school-kicks-cheerleader-off-squad-for-refusing-to-cheer-for-her-rapist

  71. Cleaver says:

    @ Monchichipox, I saw from your link that the item was from The Stranger‘s blog, and I was surprised to see that Dan Savage had posted it, because my first thought was “How long till Dan Savage shows up to defend the rapist?” Maybe he hates Texas more than he hates females.

  72. Monchichipox says:

    Sorry I didn’t know it was from the a pigs blog. I’m to quick to post it seemed a thorough yet concise piece.

  73. Cleaver says:

    @ Monchichipox, I think this first hit the wires a few weeks ago. I remember reading about it. No need for you to apologize, as far as I’m concerned. I was just surprised that Savage would even comment, given his history and especially his recent perorations on the great injustice done to The Weiner.

  74. lexia says:

    @69:

    Thanks, Ugsome, and thanks for the translation.

    I’m very glad to see at TGW she’s fighting back against the tabloids, and still seems to have very strong support from her lawyers.

  75. angie says:

    @Monchichipox — I agree, no need to apologize — even a broken clock is right twice a day. This seems to be the case with Savage, although I agree with Cleaver, he probably hates Texas more than females.

    I think the entire story is disgraceful & what an example that school’s administration is setting for the students. A gay rapes you? Well, you not only have to cheer for the team he’s on (I can’t believe that poor girl was even able to be in the same room with him — I would have spit on him) but you also have to cheer for him specifically, by name. Everyone from the School Board superintendent, to the principal, vice-principal, coach etc. who not only allowed that rapist to remain on the team but to even be allowed to return to campus needs to be fired.

  76. angie says:

    Sorry — that should have been “a guy rapes you? NOT a “gay.” I feel like an idiot.

  77. Unree says:

    @monchichipox, what I said was that the main cohort of people that hates middle-aged white women is white men. Looks like ugsome agrees.

    I didn’t say black men are angelic or innocent of sexism. The middle-aged part (picking up a comment by tinfoil hatte) was key for me. “Bros before hos,” which you probably meant, is an attack on youngish women.

  78. tinfoil hattie says:

    Ha ha ha, in response to ABG, I posted a “you have no feminist street cred. You’re a misogynist of the highest order” comment at Talk Left.

    The comment was erased.

    Jeralyn isn’t a feminist, though, so I’m not surprised.

  79. elliesmom says:

    “Bros before hos” was brandished across tee shirts that had pictures of Obama and Hillary on them. While I admire Hillary’s youthful vitality, there’s nothing “youngish” about her. Black men, white men – misogyny is not a race-based initiative.