Directions Please?

The top 5 rape apologist reactions to the Steubenville rape verdict

thelostsunprincess:

rosieramblings:

stfuhypocrisy:

The Steubenville guilty verdict spawned nearly as much rape apology as the original news of the case did, highlighting the point — made by feminists like Zerlina Maxwell and Jaclyn Friedman — that America has a long way to go before it gets past blaming victims and sympathizing with rapists.

Below are the top 5 rape apologist reactions to the verdict.

1. CNN: “Those poor boys’ lives are ruined”

CNN correspondent Candy Crowley responded to the verdict by bemoaning the sad future of two rapists who traumatized one young girl for life but would never get to live out their football dreams.

2. The judge: “This is the problem with social media”

Feministe’s Jill Filipovic tweeted that the judge in the case noted that the verdict is a lesson in “how you record things on social media that are so prevalent today. As she said, “Problem =/ the recording.”

3. Author/blogger Michael Crooke: “It’s just buyer’s remorse”
Author/blogger Michael Crook, who additionally claims that “rape doesn’t exist,” won the race for most-likely-to-be-poorly-executed satire, at least until he took to his Twitter feed to demand that the survivor be “held accountable”, tell women that “skimpy clothing is pretty much implied consent” and encourage every woman to not “dress like a whore if you don’t want to be treated like one.”

4. Way too many people on Twitter: “Die, Jane Doe!”

Clearly, death threats are not the way to go.

5. Lee Stranahan on Breitbart: “The town’s the real victim here”

Stranahan says that the media and Anonymous are the real villains in the case, though they really should’ve been paying more attention to rapes reported in Occupy camps anyway.

Things that really fucking piss me off: The Rape Culture Edition

Just fucking gross.

The external battle I spoke of earlier has apparently already begun. Really disappointed in some of these journalists, too.

(Source: stfueverything, via miamigrrrlarmy)

• 18 March 2013 • 2,419 notes • View comments

(Source: amajor7, via feministfeels)

• 17 March 2013 • 37,792 notes • View comments

“For readers interested in learning more about how not to be labeled as registered sex offenders, a good first step is not to rape unconscious women, no matter how good your grades are. Regardless of the strength of your GPA (weighted or unweighted), if you commit rape, there is a possibility you may someday be convicted of a sex crime. This is because of your decision to commit a sex crime instead of going for a walk, or reading a book by Cormac McCarthy. Your ability to perform calculus or play football is generally not taken into consideration in a court of law. Should you prefer to be known as ‘Good student and excellent football player Trent Mays’ rather than ‘Convicted sex offender Trent Mays,’ try stressing the studying and tackling and giving the sex crimes a miss altogether…

Trent Mays and Ma’lik Richardson are not the “stars” of the Steubenville rape trial. They aren’t the only characters in a drama playing out in eastern Ohio. And yet a CNN viewer learning about the Steubenville rape verdict is presented with dynamic, sympathetic, complicated male figures, and a nonentity of an anonymous victim, the ‘lasting effects’ of whose graphic, public sexual assault are ignored. Small wonder, then, that anyone would find themselves on the side of these men—these poor young men, who were very good at taking tests and playing sports when they were not raping their classmates.”

—

Mallory Ortberg of Gawker, critiquing CNN’s disgusting response to the Stuebenville rape trial verdicts.

Her commentary is spot on.

(via cognitivedissonance)

(via pantslessprogressive)

• 17 March 2013 • 19,281 notes • View comments

Just so we're clear

Cocaine possession:	3-5 years in prison
Crack possession:	15 years in prison
Pirating music:	Civil lawsuit and/or up to five years in prison
What these little rapist shits got:	One year in prison

• 17 March 2013 • 112,017 notes • View comments

anarcho-queer:

NYPD Now Running Criminal Checks On Domestic Violence Victims

Women who report domestic violence are exposing themselves to arrest under a new NYPD directive that orders cops to run criminal checks on the accused and the accuser, The Post has learned.

The memo by Chief of Detectives Phil Pulaski requires detectives to look at open warrants, complaint histories and even the driving records of both parties.

“You have no choice but to lock them up” if the victims turn out to have warrants, including for minor offenses like unpaid tickets, a police source said.

“This is going to deter victims of domestic violence … They’re going to be scared to come forward.”

The directive tells detectives that when they are investigating cases of domestic violence, they should run a search that cross-references all NYPD databases.

Beside warrants, a person’s criminal record and history of making criminal complaints should be checked, the directive says.

A source said that even if detectives wanted to take pity on someone who was battered by a spouse, they would feel pressure to make an arrest to avoid getting in trouble with superiors.

“We have every right to arrest that person at that moment,” the source said.