Slut shaming in the Buffalo News?

Everyone believed Jackie.

 

I've addressed them. I think your idea that the vast majority of rape accusers "genuinely believe they were raped" is offensive, condescending and, yes, misogynistic. I've let your words do the talking about what you think. If you think that's personal, well, you need a thicker skin.

As for whether I believe her, I addressed the question upthread, but to repeat: I entered the thread to argue that the Buffalo News was irresponsible to publish the bar owner's quotes slut shaming the random woman who may or may not be the same woman who accused Patrick Kane of rape. Forming an opinion on whether Patrick Kane is guilty is not something I choose to do until a case has been presented against him. Contrary to your prior statements, I do believe it is necessary to examine the evidence to form my opinion of his guilt or innocence. The bar owner's word vs. the word of the accuser's friends do not form the basis of a well-educated opinion.

 

Did you believe Jackie?

 

I didn't post on that thread and didn't follow it at all.

 

That's fine if you refuse to offer an opinion at this point, but I think it's a bit of a cop-out. I think we have plenty of information to form a preliminary opinion:

• She left immediately, with a witness;
• She called a relative;
• She went to the hospital;
• She called the police.

Also:

• Her story of being "overpowered" at least seems to be possibly supported by the physical evidence leaked so far;
• Her story of leaving the bar to go to a "private party" at Patrick Kane's house has now been corroborated by Patrick Kane's driver.

I believe her. I believe that she believed that she was raped. That's farther than you're willing to go. Aren't accusers to be believed?

 

Jackie's story unraveled within minutes of the story's publication.

 

You're drawing an inference, in bold below, that simply isn't in the sentence and isn't implied by the sentence:

"I believe the vast majority of rape accusers genuinely believe they were raped, and I believe they are wrong."

 

Your continued insistence on the relevance of irrelevant details suggests otherwise.

 

That is absolutely, unequivocally untrue. No one in the mainstream media questioned her until Richard Bradley did so weeks later. Jezebel called him an "idiot."

 

What details?

 

Bradley's blog was posted the same week as the publication. The Washington Post did a folo the same week as well. Within two weeks, Rolling Stone had fully caved and outsourced a "review" of the reporting to CJR. In fact, I remember a lot of us saying, "if you're going to accuse them of this, you've got to do better journalism than you did."

Even still, your "everyone believed her" is everyone else's "this should be taken seriously and looked into, and why was no one ever charged and who are these other idiots telling her to shut up so she can keep going to parties?" Yes, the university overreacted, but I think we're all in agreement that universities shouldn't be in the business of rape investigations in the first place, and this is Exhibit A.

It was and is a value judgment: Is it worth inconveniencing a few bros to find out if something happened?

And, an obviously mentally ill college student's actions 9 months ago and 500 miles away could be the very definition of such "irrelevant details."

 

My point in bringing up Jackie is that in that case, very few people seemed to want to wait to get more details before evaluating the report. They vandalized the house. UVA suspended all fraternities. Sabrina Erdely wrote up Jackie's version as truth, and most commenters I saw, including here, took it that way, as well.

But Jackie never went to the hospital.

And Jackie never went to the police.

And, like here, we did not have the other side of the story presented to us.

But people believed her anyway. Yet now, they decline to say whether they believe Jane Doe, despite the fact that, even on the limited evidence we have, there are far fewer "red flags."

So what's the difference? Because Patrick Kane is famous? Because he's 26, not 21? Why the hesitancy? Why the new-found cold feet?

I believe Jane Doe. I'm the one person who seems willing to go that far. And yet I'm the one taking a bath over it. I'm the misogynist here.