PZ Myers accuses Michael Shermer of rape.

[Calin Leafshade]

This is a sort of sister post to the current tropes vs women thread and I'm interested in what the feminist ladies have to say because I seem to disagree with all the feminist angles I've read.

PZ Myers, a popular atheist and feminist blogger, has just accused Michael Shermer of multiple accounts of rape: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/08/08/what-do-you-do-when-someone-pulls-the-pin-and-hands-you-a-grenade

As far as I can see this is just straight out libel and slander. Rape is a serious business and you can't throw around those accusations without some evidence.
PZ doesn't seem to provide any evidence except that someone told him so but even if he did have evidence I still don't think it would appropriate to publish such information.

Feminists argue that, by publishing the material, PZ is possibly protecting women from future assaults and that it's better that Shermer be libelled than another woman be raped.
They also argue that evidence collection for such a crime is difficult and requires swift action and that, even with evidence, such a crime is difficult to prove.

So is our justice system necessarily biased against victims in this case due to the doctrine of innocent until proven guilty?
If so, then should women use other tactics such as potential libel and slander in order to protect themselves and others?

[waheela]

I'm not quite sure this is clear libel or slander, mainly because there doesn't seem to be any malice or intent to harm on PZ Myers' part, and he seems to sincerely believe it is true based on multiple eyewitness/victim accounts. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation).

That being said, I'm not sure it's an appropriate thing to publish either, especially when none of the witness' names are used so no one can be held accountable for what is said. (Although if the claims are true, it is very sad indeed that there were no repercussions.) I feel like this is something better handled by the police than a vigilante blogger, but maybe I'm not understanding something other feminists are.

[Andail]

I might have replied here, but Calin was clearly only interested in what female feminists thought about it...

[Calin Leafshade]

Are you accusing me of discrimination against owners of penises and pickup trucks, Mr Andail?

I was specifically interested in what ladies thought but I am interested in all comment and criticism.

[Myinah]

Andail I would be interested to hear your opinion.

Calin, from that article alone it is hard to form an opinion. I can understand the victims and witnesses desire to stay anonymous, but I can see why people would find it hard to take an expose seriously when there are no names, dates, etc given.

I was sad to hear the victim reported the crime to the conference organization but no action was taken. Ideally she should have gone to the police, but rape is a really traumatic crime and it can be difficult to muster the courage to go through the police reports when you are going through the emotions of having been assaulted. Not to mention the victim blaming culture we live in where if a woman is raped she is subject to an very public debate about whether or she was "asking for it". What was she wearing? Did she accept drinks from him? Why didn't she know self defence or have a rape alarm? And as we know from the news there have been backlogs of dna testing kits from reported rapes across the USA, over 2000 in some states that have just been left. Something like only 22% of rape reports lead to an arrest, which makes it unsurprising to me that a huge amount of rapes end up unreported. The rape victim is put in a position of feeling violated, traumatised and a whole other roster of emotions, and then has to choose between subjecting themselves to an intrusive exam, interview and possible public shaming that might amount to nothing, or living with the fear their attacker may hurt someone else even worse later.

When I look at it that way I can understand why a person might think outing someone on a blog will help prevent further crimes or maybe get some kind of justice. The system often fails minorities in a he said, she said case, especially in assault without dna proof or witnesses because there is always reasonable doubt. I'm not saying that the justice system is always wrong, or vigilante justice is the solution, but I am saying I can understand why someone might feel it is the only way they can do this.

I don't know the work of PZ Myers, so I can't say whether or not he is a thoughtful or respectable blogger, but lets take it on personal merit for him alone as we know no other specifics of the case. Is he well respected? Is he considered a reasoned, thoughtful blogger? If so it seems it would be unlikely for him to post something so risky that could end so badly. If he's a cheap shock jock then of course it would make it harder to see it as a reliable post.

My question to you Calin, I suppose is how does one gather rape evidence if they do not go immediately to the police? The absence of evidence does not mean the absence of a crime. If it's two people alone in the room there will be no witnesses. If you see a man escorting a drunk woman to a room, you probably assume a caring situation like a husband and wife, friends, co workers, and that they will not harm the person when the door is closed. It would hardly be a memorable sight.

It's easy to report a mugging because no one is likely to judge you for getting mugged. No one will say "You were asking for it holding the handbag walking down the street, right where the mugger could see it! He couldn't help himself!" No one would necessarily expect there to be DNA evidence either. You are reporting it, you claim your stuff is stolen (how do we know you even had an iPad or faberge egg in your bag?) it gets written down and investigated and people don't debate it happened to you, even without witnesses.

But in a rape case, as I have stated it's not as a black and white. It sounds like the victim was either drunk to the point of non consent, or drugged. In either scenario she should not have been raped, but there will be people who say "Well its her fault for drinking." The organizers of the conference took no action which would probably have added to her confusion and guilt about going to the police. Also if the victim has a hazy memory from the drugging/drink she may try to convince herself it didn't happen and hesitate to report it.

The answer to your question in my opinion is a cultural shift. We need to stop blaming victims and stop minimising assault. We need to be teaching our kids about this stuff and the wider media should be taking this on board too. They need to reconsider portrayals of female sexuality because the madonna/whore dichotomy makes things confusing for both genders. Showing consent as sexy would be helpful.

Our justice system needs to be taking this stuff seriously too and making it easier for victims to report these sorts of crimes by educating the public and making victims feel safe, instead of persecuted. They also need to show they will actually do something with the reports and kits, as they are now just getting through some of those backlogged ones after increasing pressure.

I don't think vigilante justice is a safe or practical solution, but I understand why it has been chosen. Hopefully instances like this will encourage people to look at the justice system as a whole and why women are taking this sort of thing to the public forum for help.

[Khris]

This sums it up quite good:

[Calin Leafshade]

I'm a little surprised by the response here actually.

While I appreciate that the situation is not perfect surely the importance of our basic tenets of justice trumps all other concerns?

Innocent until proven guilty, the chance to face our accusers, a fair trial.

[Myinah]

Who here is disagreeing with that? No one has said he's not entitled to a fair trial or even that he is guilty. But charges haven't officially been brought against him. You asked what we thought of vigilante justice, and I explained why I understood that approach. The deck is stacked in Shermer's favour in all honesty. I doubt he will face charges, doubt he will be convicted and I'm sure his accuser will be written off as a hateful crazy, or scorned ex partner. If true he may adjust his behaviour, if not he'll prove them wrong by continuing to not be an asshole.

If he get's charged he will have his day in court, but more than likely this will fizzle out and everyone will just forget it and continue to support him. Rape allegations have hardly fettered the careers of successful men like Roman Polanski, or Kobe Bryant.

It's funny how rape threats, death threats from anonymous internet users is something Anita Sarkeesian is expected to suck it up, ignore and get over, so why can't Shermer? It's just an anonymous accusation. If no one goes to the police he can just say she was lying. He needs to get a thicker skin! /sarcasm.

[geork]

I think Myinah hit the nail on the head with the issue here from the victim's side: it's not easy to accuse someone of rape if you are the victim. I've dated someone who was raped, and the way she was handled afterwards (was not believed and her parents actively stopped her from bringing the issue further) did leave deep mental scars - I cannot imagine that pain then being brought up again in the courtroom all over again. It's very possible the victim just needed to tell someone, maybe even bring a small amount of justice in a less painful way than going to the authorities.

That being said, the article does suspiciously look like PZ Myers has a definite agenda here which is beyond just warning others. For one, he talks bout his own role, and 'sacrifice', far too much...it's too classically 'look at what I'm doing' and not 'this is reported to have happened'.

Be that as it may, I still think it is just as serious to dismiss a rape claim than it is to accuse someone of rape. What this whole debacle shows is that there definitely needs to be a re-think in the way rape cases are handled (as the article above suggests) - although I don't know the answer as to what the right way would be.

[Khris]

Calin:
There have of course been cases of disturbed individuals who have made accusations of rape that turned out to not be true. But given the severity of the crime, and given how difficult it is to report having been raped, I'd say that the chances of any rape accusation being true are overwhelmingly greater.

Just imagine for a second the accuser is a person you like and respect, and the accused is somebody you have never heard of. Wouldn't you immediately change your personal assessment to "guilty until proven innocent"? (That's not to say the law should handle it the same way.)

It is very unfortunate that a rape accusation later proven to be fake still has enormous repercussions, because otherwise people wouldn't side with Shermer as much as they do.

The following is highly subjective, I know, but still: I just can't imagine PZ Myers publishing something as severe as this on a whim. He's not some mostly unknown blogger oblivious about potential legal consequences. I have read a comment that claimed the way he did publish it was to evade libel laws, but even if that's true, I can't blame him. Still, I'm convinced he wouldn't have done this if he weren't 100% sure that the accusations are true.

The key point here I guess is that many people on the side of Shermer simply can't imagine him doing something that's so obviously wrong. And judging from some comments I've read, many also seem to think that he in fact didn't, even if the accusations are true, because what happened isn't rape, according to them.
One commenter made the point that it's not like he dropped 10 Rohypnol in her drink and dragged her off to his room.
Let's not forget that enablers like that are the people who make rapists continue what they do, and allow them to do so unscathed.

(On a side note: I find the use of the word rape in the English language highly problematic. The spectrum of what constitutes rape, ranging from a 18 and 17 y/o having consensual sex, over what Shermer allegedly did, to brutally violating somebody who is struggling and screaming, is much too broad.)

Edit: Just found this post. Makes you want to vomit. The irony is that this guy wonders why rape victims don't report it right away.

[Trapezoid]

I don't know anything about PZ Meyers, but the recent Hugo Schwyzer debacle has definitely made me a bit wary of men who tout themselves as feminist figureheads. Is he anything like that, or is he more of an atheism advocate who touches on feminism?

[kconan]

  I was friends with a girl who was raped while attending a college frat party.  She clearly said no and tried the push the guy off of her.  She did call the cops on the guy that night (could be early AM by that point), and I don't recall what happened to him in the short term, but bottom line is that she didn't attempt to have him prosecuted.  And I asked her why.  She met with an attorney who had warned her to make herself ready to be destroyed as a woman in court.  My friend had been drinking, though wasn't drunk, and she admitted having flirted with the guy earlier in the evening.  The attorney explained that this will be blown out of proportion in court to make her out to be a whore who was too drunk to remember exactly what happened.  She was warned that the defense attorney, who could very well be a woman, will do this regardless of any real proof.  So she didn't pursue.  This was back in the mid-90s, so I don't know if much has changed, but I find some of the tactics used in court very biased against victims.  Seguing into vigilante justice...My bud didn't tell her dad because he would have done more than slander his name in a blog.

  The harder question for me is on slander.  I can see both sides on this.  I don't have much faith in the U.S. justice system, but I think if a person publicly calls someone a rapist, then they should (at least for me to strongly consider the accusation) have some kind of proof well beyond the accusation itself.  With that said, I think the person claiming to be a victim should be free to say what they want, the accused can respond how they choose (sue for libel, create a blog, etc...), and everyone on the sidelines can believe what they want.

[selmiak]

Who are these people?

But anyways, what do you think of another form of rape, namely rape accusations against political enemies. Like against Julian Assange. I don't know why a man spreading US government secrets should go around a rape 2 swedish girls. But after revelations that the NSA virtually wiretaps the whole net globe, the show trial of bradley manning and forcing the plane of the bolivian president to land because edward snowden could be on board, why shouldn't the CIA contact 2 girls that had something with assange because he is a semifamous dangerous man and offer them money and more fame when they claim he raped them. Or they were agents all along, as far as i know they came into contact via the internet, so there is a lot of room for all kind of dirty spy business.

[Trapezoid]

Be careful calling something other than rape a "form of rape". Especially, uh, accusations of rape.

[selmiak]

damned, I thought I'd kick off some informationrapepolitics related discussion, well, maybe form of rape was not that good of an expression, but Julian Assange probably got some kind of (form of) raped. I mean, if you run a website leaking top secret informations from the us gouvernment you especially don't go around raping people, you just don't do it! Otherwise they might have something on you besides the truth you reveal and they don't want to be heard... in my opinion these swedish accusating girl are dissappointed fangirls bought out by $randomsecretservice. The funny thing is I have no facts to back this, just my own sense for people.

[Myinah]

I will echo what trapezoid said, please do not call things that are not rape, rape. Rape is defined by UK law under The Sexual Offences Act 2003 as:

"The definition of rape includes the penetration by a penis of the vagina, anus or mouth of another person. The 2003 Act also updates the law about consent and belief in consent." Source

If this did not happen to Julian Assange then he was not raped, nor was he kind of, sort of, or some form of raped. Rape is not a term you need to use to creatively describe this situation. There are words already is existence to describe what happened to him. In your opinion he might have been "framed" or "set up" or be a "victim of political deception". There is no need to bring rape into it. The government have not penetrated him physically, they may have levied false accusations against him. Not the same in any sense of the word.

I don't know all the facts of the Assange case so I'm not going to say he did or he didn't, but I don't think being the owner of Wikileaks makes him any more of less likely to rape. Plenty of people in power have done stupid things so why would he be any different?

[Calin Leafshade]

We use many words in a metaphorical sense. Not sure why rape should be any different.

You can say someone was dying or that something was "torturous".

Language is flexible.

[Andail]

Wait now, everybody, things are getting a bit confused here.

Myinah, I'm not sure what your post refers to, but "rape" wasn't being used metaphorically (at least not in Selmiak's first post - the second one I have no idea really) - it's true Julian Assange was accused of rape in Sweden. I believe the accusations were later downgraded to sexual harassment. Also, your definition of rape, which I guess is the British law text, is extremely narrow and furthermore not how the Swedish law defines it. For starters, there doesn't have to be a penis involved. So anything that's sexual in nature that is being violently forced upon another is basically rape.

[Myinah]

Using rape in some contexts is offensive to people who have been through it. In Julian Assanges case I dont see how it is comparable to rape. I think rape is used far too casually as a word. I personally take issue with it, but in most cases when people say it I stay quiet. Especially in the gaming community when "Oh, you totally raped me bro!" is used in the context of defeat.

I do not disagree with you Andail, merely citing British Law, however the rest would be defined as assault over here. I would probably agree with Swedish law in many instances and obviously hasnt taken into consideration a woman raping a man without her penetrating him. I apologise if you assumed I thought otherwise.

Anyway, my opinion, feel free to disregard. I don't like the word being used out of context, in the same way I dislike people using the word retarded or gay as negative descriptors. If it isn't rape, dont call it rape. 1 in 3 women (many sources but here's just one.) are reported to be victims of sexual crime, not fun for them to have to hear it used flippantly or in cases where it is clearly, clearly not comparable. I believe and support your right to choose whatever words you want to describe things, but I reserve the right to tell you why I think it's not okay and that I dont like it.

[kaput]

Myinah, you rock