Slut shaming in the Buffalo News?

I wonder how far this has to get before he's no longer in a Chicago uniform next year. At some point, the embarrassment isn't worth it.

 

His 10 mill per kicks in next season as well.

 

The BN reported that the friend (and again, we don't know which of the two women at the bar is the accuser) was with the accuser after the alleged incident. Talk about a key witness. I can see why the police are taking their time with this one.

 

Everyone knows women in their 20's are sluts.

 

Can someone explain to me how what the Buffalo News did is any different from when the Internet "truth" brigade tried to dig up a scary-looking picture of "Trayvon Martin" giving the finger to the camera with the caption, "This is the REAL Trayvon that the MEDIA doesn't want you to see!" even though the picture wasn't Trayvon at all?

 

It's quite different.

The Buffalo News story clearly indicated, from the horse's mouth, that the bar owner was not certain that the woman he saw with Kane throughout the night was the accuser. He simply told the newspaper what he observed.

It wasn't victim-blaming. I know that Brian Morwitz got to take the Sabrina Rubin Erdely Memorial Victory Tour on Twitter this week by writing that the News story implied she was "asking for it," but it didn't do that, either. What happened earlier in the evening to lead up to the alleged crime is absolutely relevant and, having had time to sleep on this, I believe would enter into evidence in any court in America. The "survivor advocacy" movement is so deep into everyone's heads at this point that just months after the Rolling Stone fiasco, we're back to square one, in which the only relevant information is the he-said, she-said battle of the two parties.

Oh, and, by the way, the accuser must always be believed.

You run the damned quotes. It's not even a question.

 

Victim blaming from a person whose motive for speaking was to protect the celebrity hockey player patron who is good for his business:

But Croce told The News that he and several of his employees noticed a young woman “hanging all over” Kane at SkyBar for at least two hours that night, putting her hands on his arms and “being very forward, very flirtatious with him.” He said he does not know the woman and does not know her name.

“It was almost like she stationed herself near him and was keeping other women away from him,” Croce said. “I noticed it and kind of laughed about it.”

 

"Victim-blaming" is a loaded term that presumes that she's a victim.

This is what he observed. It's unfortunate for people, I guess, if it gives meatballs a chance to take and run with it. But it's what happened. We're not in the business of obscuring what happened to protect readers from reaching conclusions that advocacy movements might be uncomfortable with.

 

Somehow you understand that "victim-blaming" is a loaded term (it is) but not that "hanging all over" and "being very forward, very flirtatious" are code for "she was asking for it"?

 

But they're direct quotes.

The New Yorker ran a lot of quotes from Darren Wilson last week that were clearly racial code words - "lack of initiative"; "personal responsibility." And so on.

Should they have left those out, as well?

I guess I need to understand what "it" is. Asking for sex? Yes, human beings have ways to indicate that they are interested in sex, flirtation and touching among them. Her actions may have indicated an interest in consensual sex, which makes them relevant. Asking to be raped? No. I don't think that's what he meant. I hope not. He saw what he saw.

 

It's not different at all. Neither side felt it necessary to even determine if they had the right person or not. Their motives clearly were to describe actions that they thought justified what came later. If they were even slightly interested in the truth, including the person's identity, they'd know what they said was totally irrelevant otherwise. Anyone who can't see that is being intentionally obtuse.

It's not so simple when he's buddy-buddy with "Pat," as he repeatedly called him, and when he could be held liable if anything criminal happened later.

And, even if it was the accuser being described, it's not relevant unless you believe the presence of flirtatious behavior could be construed as consent for eventual sex, or at least a totally accurate precursor to such.

 

And to be clear, I do understand why the bar owner's quotes are uncomfortable. I don't want to be obtuse about that. It's what he saw, though. It's unfortunate if it fits a stereotype, but it's what he saw.