Slut shaming in the Buffalo News?

Dick also extrapolated out his "believe she believes" horseshit to the "vast majority" of rape accusers. It's offensive, condescending and demeaning to suggest that the vast majority of accusers "believe" they were raped and that the vast majority of rapes are a result of miscommunication because we as a society have done a poor job educating men what constitutes rape. It's bullshit. The vast majority of rapes are violent acts committed by men who make a decision to take what they want against the wishes of the victim.

As for how I would put my stance on this particular case, I'd say that she was either raped or she wasn't. I don't think it has anything to do with what she believes. Either she consented or she didn't.

Let's not forget that the story she reported to police is that he "overpowered" her. Dick keeps trying to frame this assault as a situation where she believes she was raped and Kane believes she consented and maybe it was a gray area because alcohol was involved and maybe they're both right in their own way. Her story is that he overpowered her and raped her. She's claiming a violent act, not a miscommunication, occurred. I allow for the possibility she's lying. I allow for the possibility that she's telling the truth. But I don't think there's some gray area here that has anything to do with what she "believes."

 

I don't doubt Dick believes that is what he's saying.

But, you know as well as I do that implicit in the statement, " I believe she believes she was raped," is that a woman lacks the brainpower and/or intellectual honesty to make that determination herself, and therefore the accusation is never to be believed on its face, because it's likely all in her head.

Would you say that about any other alleged crime? "Oh, your car was stolen? Are you sure it was stolen? Maybe you just left the keys on the table in a manner that led someone to believe they were there for the taking." No. The car is HER property, so any time she reports not being in control of her own car is worth an investigation. Why wouldn't the same apply to her genitals?

 

This is a very stirring piece of writing that, unfortunately, doesn't seem to address any words that I have actually put on the page here.

My statement addresses one case. Not rape culture. Not "some women." One case. One. Uno. Patrick Kane vs. Jane Doe. The logic behind it proceeds as follows:

In many of these cases people, including police, defense side, and skeptics in the general public, look for red flags that might indicate the accuser is lying, exaggerating, or is otherwise simply unreliable. None of those red flags have come to light here yet. Jane Doe has done everything that skeptics demand of accusers. She left the house immediately, with a witness. She contacted a close relative. She went to the hospital. She reported the incident to the police.

Nonetheless, there are many people out there, largely fans of the Chicago Blackhawks, who believe she is lying, probably to extort money from Kane. I, on the other hand, don't think the evidence we have to go on at this point supports that. She, again, did everything that skeptics believe credible rape accusers should do. Left the premises. Called a relative. Went to the hospital. Told police.

Do I believe her? Yes. Based on the limited evidence we now have, I believe that she believes that Patrick Kane raped her. Did he indeed rape her? I don't know. I haven't heard his side yet. He may have evidence that refutes my trust in her, like a text message thanking him for the great night. He may credibly explain why he believed she had consented. Maybe she pulled a condom from her purse, and he reasonably interpreted this as consent. He may, on the other hand, have believed she consented, but unreasonably. Maybe he thought that since she flirted with him at the bar and went home with him, she had consented.

We simply just don't know. Kane hasn't addressed it. His lawyer hasn't addressed it. We don't know his explanation.

There are both false and mistaken rape accusations every year in our country. The evidence so far gives me no indication that this is a false accusation. If it did, I would say so. Jackie, the subject of the Rolling Stone piece, comes to mind. I didn't believe her story. But justice requires whether we also consider whether Jane Doe is mistaken. It happens. It happens enough that we have a responsibility to contemplate the possibility, at this point in the reporting.

Like I said, Pern, that was a soaring post. Angels sang as they read it.

Now: What is your opinion of Jane Doe, at this point? Do you believe her?

 

Who in the world said the Kane case is not "worth an investigation"? Not me, certainly.

And to be clear: yes, those are exactly the kind of questions that would be asked if you reported that an acquaintance stole your car.

 

Your sarcastic "the accuser is always to be believed, no matter what," shtick indicates you believe the accuser has something to prove before her claim can be taken seriously.

 

We are only discussing acquaintance rape here. To that end, let me put all of the cases into three "buckets":

1. Woman lies.
2. Woman believes she was raped. Man knows that he raped woman.
3. Woman believes she was raped. Man unreasonably believes she had consented.
4. Woman believes she was raped. Man reasonably believes she had consented.

My hypothesis is that the "vast majority" of acquaintance rape falls into categories 3 and 4. That doesn't mean that the men in category 3 didn't commit a criminal act. They did.

This is based upon my belief, which I think is pretty reasonable, that there are far too many acquaintance rapes considering the potential consequences the perpetrators face, and considering that the perpetrators continue to likely circulate among the accuser and her associates after the fact. There is, I would guess, more acquaintance rape than there is acquaintance armed robbery, despite the fact that they both carry dire consequences for the accuser, if convicted.

 

You most certainly addressed rape culture. You most certainly addressed the "vast majority" of rape accusers. And you most certainly addressed far more than "One case. One. Uno. Patrick Kane vs. Jane Doe."

One case, huh? Take your condescension elsewhere.

 

I think that all accusations should be taken seriously.

Can you stop with the personal bullshit? Immediately?

I'm being very even-handed and trying to stick to the issues at hand. We can talk about this, or you can continue with personal bullshit. It's your choice.

 

Where exactly did I get personal? Was it before or after my soaring writing stirred the angels?

 

It's line after line about what I think and what I imply and what a misogynist I am. Enough with that. Address my arguments or forever hold your peace.

 

By the way, we're onto day 2 of this question hanging in the air:

What is your evaluation of Patrick Kane's accuser?

Do you believe her?

 

How can anyone evaluate anything? Nobody knows bupkis at this point other than a couple carefully culled selections from a police report that someone leaked to the Buffalo News.