Jump to content

Feminism -- A continuing discussion


Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, litechick said:

What To Do?

I've been working at a prestigious concert hall with the lighting.  Last week there was a guest artist (a vocalist) who was playing with the house band.  I don't know the details of the financial transaction--was the artist hired to front the band or was the band hired to back up the singer? etc.

A couple days before the performance, I fell into conversation with an usher who declared that she had a fantastic voice but he didn't care for the way she was selling her sexuality.  The sexuality was pretty minimal.  The promotional materials showed her in an extravagant ball gown with spaghetti straps and referred to the event as 'an intimate evening. '

My objections to the usher's objections are threefold.  Why not ask why, with a fantastic voice, she stills feels the need to 'sex it up'?  Are there promoters/managers pushing her in this direction or is she including her sexuality in her artistic expression?  Whether she has agency over the presentation or not, I can't help but backtrack to the usher--Who the hell are you to judge her?

I can feel compassion for her as a woman whose talent is somehow not enough, with people pushing her to 'show some skin.'  I can feel compassion for her if she wants to make her concert a sensual experience.  I can't feel compassion for the usher who feels entitled to be the arbiter of what is in good taste and what is not.

It would be nice to assume that this guy isn't sexist.  Maybe he has objections to cello players who he thinks are unworthy of fronting the house band, I don't know.  Maybe his disapproval would be better directed at the machinery rather than the artist.  Maybe the artist is an opportunistic gold digger, looking to cash in on a little cleavage.  Who knows?

From my experience, my response is along the lines of "Really?  Spaghetti straps are all it takes to turn her into a harlot?  Fuck you."

So what does that make me?  Am I prejudiced against the older white male usher?  If he is wronging her, am I wronging him?

There's no way to know.  I wish I had a ready sound bite quip to make him ask himself these questions but I didn't.  I did the typical, 'mmm, ahh, yeah I see what you are saying' nonsense and missed a teachable moment.

Oh well, maybe I will have better wisdom by the time I am his age.

 

it's quite disgusting...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

So on this International Women’s day I find myself doing a few, I guess topical things. First, looking into the history of women’s days across the globe. Very interesting stuff, especially how tied up in the socialist movement they’ve been. I feel very ignorant that I didn’t know so much of the history.

The other thing I’ve been doing is reading the Hampton Alexander review about women in FTSE companies from last November. It’s an interesting read, and the “Top 10 excuses” page has to make me laugh, in a “don’t laugh you’ll cry” sort of way. E.g. 

“We have one woman already on the board, so we are done –
it is someone else’s turn.”

link to the review: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/764520/hampton-alexander-review-report-nov18.pdf

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Feel a little weird putting this in the feminism thread, but I don't know where else to put this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/05/02/teen-girl-was-coerced-into-sex-held-dog-cage-her-captor-will-serve-no-prison-time/?utm_term=.8bd94f040d6f

A Georgia man imprisoned and raped a 16 year old girl in his home for over a year.  He was just sentenced to 9 years of probation, along with time served (8 months).  An awful miscarriage of justice, and people are understandably angry at DA Michael DeTardo.  But the article points out what a difficult situation the DA was in:

Quote

Another complicating factor was how badly scarred the teenager was after 13 months in captivity. DeTardo said Wysolovski’s attorney wouldn’t accept to a plea deal that included prison time, meaning their only option would have been to head to trial. But the victim and her family indicated they didn’t want to do that, since she already had severe mental health issues and could potentially be re-traumatized by the experience.

“She would be attacked again by you and your attorney,” her father told Wysolovski in his victim impact statement.

Obviously the system where rape victims are revictimized in court by defense attorney's is abhorrent.  But other than a desire to change that, do you think that the DA made the right call here?  Is it better to let an obviously guilty rapist go free or to disregard the wishes of the victim and family in order to protect society at large?  I myself an unsure what the right answer is here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Obviously the system where rape victims are revictimized in court by defense attorney's is abhorrent.  But other than a desire to change that, do you think that the DA made the right call here?  Is it better to let an obviously guilty rapist go free or to disregard the wishes of the victim and family in order to protect society at large?  I myself an unsure what the right answer is here.

Considering the heinousness of the crime,  I think you have to put the safety of the community over the psychological well-being of the victim. And given the evidence, I don’t think the trial would drag on too long and I’m sure the judge would be very keen on controlling the courtroom and the defense attorney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On one hand, I could understand the father who wants to avoid further trauma for his daughter. On the other hand, two things come in mind:

- Because of the father decision, this psycho rapist will remain free. I spite of all the restraints (registered as a sex offender, no contact allowed with minors, no pornography, drugs and alcohol), he will be able to attack again any young girl. So I'm not sure it is the most timely decision...

- Facing the past is a part of all therapies and the young victim will have sooner or later to go through this process. A trial could have been an opportunity to do this work. Maybe she would have handled that perfectly with the help of her family and therapists. Incidentally it could have been a pretty revenge to show to her rapist that she is able to stand up against him.

The initial penalty seems very light for me: only 10 years and 8 month for having abducted and repeatedly raped a minor during one year?

I read the article below, explaining that the victime met him on an internet forum, ran away from home to see him and started a twisted relation that escalated soon in rapes and bad treatments. She has to deal with her own issues (she was anorexic) and wanted a masochist relation, whose the guy took advantage. So the guy pleaded not guilty because of this "grey area" (which is for me a "black area"!).

(TTW: descriptions in the article are quite horrible, or maybe am I too squeamish?)

https://heavy.com/news/2019/04/michael-wysolovski/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Considering the heinousness of the crime,  I think you have to put the safety of the community over the psychological well-being of the victim. And given the evidence, I don’t think the trial would drag on too long and I’m sure the judge would be very keen on controlling the courtroom and the defense attorney.

Don't be so sure.  This shit has gone to the SC before, where judges attempts to mitigate reliving emotional trauma of the victim have been appealed on the basis of the accused not being able to confront their accuser.  It would likely be extremely traumatic for the victim.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Don't be so sure.  This shit has gone to the SC before, where judges attempts to mitigate reliving emotional trauma of the victim have been appealed on the basis of the accused not being able to confront their accuser.  It would likely be extremely traumatic for the victim.  

It would almost assuredly be very, very hard for her to go through the trial.  The judge will probably try to help, but there is only so much that he or she can do because the defense attorney would be within his rights to call into question which things were consensual and which were not. 

It's just very scummy (but par for the course) that the defense attorney used the fact that a trial would be horribly traumatic on the victim to drive a very, very hard bargain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Don't be so sure.  This shit has gone to the SC before, where judges attempts to mitigate reliving emotional trauma of the victim have been appealed on the basis of the accused not being able to confront their accuser.  It would likely be extremely traumatic for the victim.  

It would be traumatic no matter what, but there are things that can be done to mitigate that to some degree (though not good enough). The defense attorney would also have to weigh just how hard they'd want to push the envelop. If the evidence is overwhelming, going too far in interrogating the victim could lead the jury to throw the book extra hard at the scumbag. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that's not something a victim could feel remotely confident would happen when looking at the history of how rape victims are treated in trial. I'm not sure what I think should have been done within the current system but I'm sure as hell not going to diminish the trauma of a trial for the victim by pretending the institutions and judges can be trusted to try protect them. They might, or they might do completely the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

It would be traumatic no matter what, but there are things that can be done to mitigate that to some degree (though not good enough). The defense attorney would also have to weigh just how hard they'd want to push the envelop. If the evidence is overwhelming, going too far in interrogating the victim could lead the jury to throw the book extra hard at the scumbag. 

The 6th amendment limits this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

The 6th amendment limits this.

But how much in this scenario? I’d be surprised if a judge allowed excessive questioning on what sex acts were consensual or not while this young women was enslaved for over a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tywin I agree with you on the fact that it seems more "safe" to have this beast behind bars rather than lurking outside and looking for more preys. But indeed in this very case the judges will likely ask the victim harsh questions: she began her relation with the abducter/rapist with BDSM sex so his attorney can claim that all this was nothing but a horrible misunderstanding based on sexual games and on a pretending "grey area". The judge will have to dig far to prove that it was not the case. So the young girl won't escape precise questions.

With the caring of her family, therapists and justice staff, maybe she could overcome that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Considering the heinousness of the crime,  I think you have to put the safety of the community over the psychological well-being of the victim. And given the evidence, I don’t think the trial would drag on too long and I’m sure the judge would be very keen on controlling the courtroom and the defense attorney.

That’s really quite naïve. There have been young women and teenage girls who have killed themselves over the shame of their rape trials. I am quite furious that this man is walking free but I really don’t think it’s as simple as saying it’s all on her for letting it happen and that it would have been a nice easy trail to find him guilty. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the general question for a prosecutor is less about the desires of the victim than about the utility of the witness; if the victim is unable to testify, then what remains of the state's case?  here, she seems to have been willing to make a statement in court in the presence of the defendant--so perhaps she would have testified? it is therefore not obvious what is going on with the state's willingness to bargain at this rate.  an unchallengeable victim impact statement however is not evidence, and delivering the statement is furthermore readily distinguishable from being subject to cross.  so, difficult to tell if this is a moment of discrimination on the basis of sex in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion--one will need a comparative study of rape cases in this particular county to make that case; that's how the devil went down to georgia for the 'racist capital punishment' argument in McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 107 S.Ct. 1756, 95 L.Ed.2d 262 (1987). (that argument lost, by the bye, though of course it should not have.)

the difficulty for this witness is nevertheless more about the "consensual nonconsensual" relationship that the victim and the defendant had established.  the prosecutor may have looked at that and wondered what a jury might do with it--probably assessing just how rightwing the jury pool might be (gwinnett county was 50% HRC/44% DJT in 2016).

 

The initial penalty seems very light for me: only 10 years and 8 month for having abducted and repeatedly raped a minor during one year?

the bargained plea controls how the commitment records the conviction, and the statute under which that conviction issues will control the penalty--nulla poena sine lege, no? i.e., the sentence is not for kidnapping and rape; it is for cruelty to a minor, or whatever.  this is a good example of how journalists tend to fuck up reportage of law.  

it is a ten-year probationary period, which means dude goes to prison if he violates its terms. similarly, he's to be registered on the sex offender list, for what that's worth.

 

I’d be surprised if a judge allowed excessive questioning on what sex acts were consensual or not while this young women was enslaved for over a year.

those facts are what the trial was to establish, though. and the penalty is, what, a life sentence? the defendant will be permitted to confront witnesses that support the state's case, including the alleged victim--that's just basic, a fortiori in a matter where the state concedes that there is a 'consensual non-consensual' component to the allegations.  the reason for this--at least in the states where i am licensed--is that the victim's testimony alone is sufficient to convict.  that's a big fucking deal.  because there is sufficient mass in a solitary witness' statement, it is imperative that the defendant can confront.  this is basic to all criminal defense, and not really controversial.

 

just very scummy

it's difficult to avoid this sort of proclamation, but we should. i descend into it on the civil side, burning with zeal for the law, as it were, in representing plaintiffs.  it is all too easy to start vilifying learned defense counsel for corporations, employers, & insurance carriers, as ruining an injured person's life further, as making the world a worse place, as protecting the profits of fictive persons over the health and safety of human persons, and so on.  those ideas are wrongful, for several reasons: everyone is entitled to defend themselves from accusations; defense counsel are market participants entitled to make a living; counsel are furthermore required to represent their clients within the applicable rules of procedure, evidence, and professional conduct--which will require confrontation of state witnesses in a criminal case; and of course pejorative remarks about the character of the attorney in general constitute a rylean category mistake when we are really concerned with a moment of their conduct in particular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Theda Baratheon said:

That’s really quite naïve. There have been young women and teenage girls who have killed themselves over the shame of their rape trials. I am quite furious that this man is walking free but I really don’t think it’s as simple as saying it’s all on her for letting it happen and that it would have been a nice easy trail to find him guilty. 

It says in the story that she’s already attempted suicide three times, so I’m well aware of the risks of having her testify. But the details of this story are horrifying enough to not allow this guy to walk. What she endured was sickening, and I wish the state had found a way to get her to testify at trial.

The story also serves as an example of just how pathetic our laws are when it comes to sexual assault. The defense attorney essentially banked his entire strategy on the fact that this would be so traumatic on the victim. There has to be a better way we can handle situations like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...