I instantly communicated it to Ranj and Aurelia, to test it out: I start a lot of post titles with "So".
No, that wasn't it. It could have been, but it wasn't.
It's no secret that I've been doing a lot of thinking about that eleven-year-old girl in Milwaukee who was gang-raped by a crowd of older boys, ring-led by an older girl she admired. A lot of people have said--out in the open! where people could see them!--that they thought that it was her fault, or that it wasn't really a rape (Really? Tell you what. I'll come over to your house with a bunch of bigger, older men and orchestrate your serial oral rape, and then you look me in the eye and tell me it wasn't rape. Yeah. That's what I thought.), or that the boys shouldn't be punished too severely or have their lives and futures affected by their participation in a gang rape, because some of them might be good kids who made a bad choice.
I've been turning this over in my brain like a jumbled up Rubik's cube, turning it over and over and switching pieces around trying to figure out how someone could say such a thing, and I finally came up with something that I think might be it:
Deep down in their heart of hearts, a lot of people believe that the desires of the many should outweigh the needs of the one. I'm not going to get into why people might believe that, at least not in this post, but I really do think that's it. Otherwise rational, sane people look at the needs (safety, bodily autonomy) of one scared little girl and the desires of the many (freedom, a future untainted by their presence on sexual predator lists, perhaps the opportunity to go to college or to hold a professional job one day), and for some reason, they think that because there are more of them, the rapists' right to go on walking around in the fresh air is more important than that little girl and all of us who used to be little girls and boys knowing that justice was done and her rapists are being punished by society in the way that we have determined is appropriate for their crime.
The race and social status of the victim is also a huge factor in the public feeling about such crimes. If this little girl had not been black, HIV-positive, and living in poverty, there would be a great deal more outrage. Consider the recent Pennsylvania case of the obviously mentally unwell man who murdered several young Amish women and then killed himself, and contrast it with the Florida youths who murdered a homeless man for kicks. This little girl, that homeless man, had little in the way of social status, and their victimizers are seen as being "more valuable" than the victims. If the Pennsylvania shooter had done the same thing in an inner-city Pittsburgh school, would the reaction have been as marked? If the Florida youths had kicked a stockbroker out on his evening jog to death, would there have been so little fuss?
The thing is, though, it's not just the victim. It's the victim and all the other potential victims, and all the people who live in a little more fear now than they did two months ago. It's society. We are the many, and the criminals, the rapists--they are the few. Our needs outweigh their desires. They desire to walk around in the fresh air and go on making bad decisions, and we need to know that when criminals make bad decisions and hurt people, they aren't allowed to go on doing it just because they decided to organize.
If this had been one sixteen-year-old and a crowd of little girls and boys, no one would argue that the rapist needed to go to jail. Because it was one little girl and a crowd of teenagers, somehow people turn it around. They need desperately to feel that this could not happen to them or to anyone they know, and since they can't control the people around them, they exert control over the projected situation by making it the victim's fault. They have to build walls between this little girl and their own little girls and sisters and mothers and lovers and friends, and so they do it by pointing out the things she should have done, and by making the boys not rapists, but good boys who made a bad choice because a little girl allowed it, or cooperated in it, or enticed them to do it. It makes them feel safer to think that this couldn't happen to someone they know, because someone they know would never make the "mistakes" that force other people to victimize them. Well, I have news for you: if you are an adult and know six women, you know someone who's been raped. If you know thirty-three men, you know someone who's been raped. If you are a college student and have five female friends, you know someone who's been raped. And only three in five of those rapes will have been reported. (NCIPC) Partially because of the attitudes of people like this, who attempt to control the uncontrollable by making it the victim's fault.
No, that wasn't it. It could have been, but it wasn't.
It's no secret that I've been doing a lot of thinking about that eleven-year-old girl in Milwaukee who was gang-raped by a crowd of older boys, ring-led by an older girl she admired. A lot of people have said--out in the open! where people could see them!--that they thought that it was her fault, or that it wasn't really a rape (Really? Tell you what. I'll come over to your house with a bunch of bigger, older men and orchestrate your serial oral rape, and then you look me in the eye and tell me it wasn't rape. Yeah. That's what I thought.), or that the boys shouldn't be punished too severely or have their lives and futures affected by their participation in a gang rape, because some of them might be good kids who made a bad choice.
I've been turning this over in my brain like a jumbled up Rubik's cube, turning it over and over and switching pieces around trying to figure out how someone could say such a thing, and I finally came up with something that I think might be it:
Deep down in their heart of hearts, a lot of people believe that the desires of the many should outweigh the needs of the one. I'm not going to get into why people might believe that, at least not in this post, but I really do think that's it. Otherwise rational, sane people look at the needs (safety, bodily autonomy) of one scared little girl and the desires of the many (freedom, a future untainted by their presence on sexual predator lists, perhaps the opportunity to go to college or to hold a professional job one day), and for some reason, they think that because there are more of them, the rapists' right to go on walking around in the fresh air is more important than that little girl and all of us who used to be little girls and boys knowing that justice was done and her rapists are being punished by society in the way that we have determined is appropriate for their crime.
The race and social status of the victim is also a huge factor in the public feeling about such crimes. If this little girl had not been black, HIV-positive, and living in poverty, there would be a great deal more outrage. Consider the recent Pennsylvania case of the obviously mentally unwell man who murdered several young Amish women and then killed himself, and contrast it with the Florida youths who murdered a homeless man for kicks. This little girl, that homeless man, had little in the way of social status, and their victimizers are seen as being "more valuable" than the victims. If the Pennsylvania shooter had done the same thing in an inner-city Pittsburgh school, would the reaction have been as marked? If the Florida youths had kicked a stockbroker out on his evening jog to death, would there have been so little fuss?
The thing is, though, it's not just the victim. It's the victim and all the other potential victims, and all the people who live in a little more fear now than they did two months ago. It's society. We are the many, and the criminals, the rapists--they are the few. Our needs outweigh their desires. They desire to walk around in the fresh air and go on making bad decisions, and we need to know that when criminals make bad decisions and hurt people, they aren't allowed to go on doing it just because they decided to organize.
If this had been one sixteen-year-old and a crowd of little girls and boys, no one would argue that the rapist needed to go to jail. Because it was one little girl and a crowd of teenagers, somehow people turn it around. They need desperately to feel that this could not happen to them or to anyone they know, and since they can't control the people around them, they exert control over the projected situation by making it the victim's fault. They have to build walls between this little girl and their own little girls and sisters and mothers and lovers and friends, and so they do it by pointing out the things she should have done, and by making the boys not rapists, but good boys who made a bad choice because a little girl allowed it, or cooperated in it, or enticed them to do it. It makes them feel safer to think that this couldn't happen to someone they know, because someone they know would never make the "mistakes" that force other people to victimize them. Well, I have news for you: if you are an adult and know six women, you know someone who's been raped. If you know thirty-three men, you know someone who's been raped. If you are a college student and have five female friends, you know someone who's been raped. And only three in five of those rapes will have been reported. (NCIPC) Partially because of the attitudes of people like this, who attempt to control the uncontrollable by making it the victim's fault.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(I mean, by this, that sadly I wouldn't be amazed at it, just incredibly bitter at the stupidity of some people.)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
Having hammered a piton into the face of this ridiculous notion, though, I don't feel any more charitable toward those who espouse it, because it is so patently wrong. It is nefas, and I cannot understand those who countenance it. I understand wanting your friends and loved ones to be safe, but these fallacies serve no one. They do not make it better; in fact, they make it worse. The people who insist that because Target sells tee shirts with sexual messages on them sized for preadolescents (I've never seen a shirt like that in Target, incidentally, and I've never seen a kid wearing one), because the girl walked into the house under no physical constraint, because she chose the order in which she was raped, that it was not rape, that she deserved it, that the boys are "good kids"... How can they not see that they are being part of the problem?
Beliefs like these turn life into a series of apotropaic acts. Like Skinner's pigeons, these people evolve a series of ritualized words and behaviors to keep the unexpected and painful at bay, but these words and behaviors do nothing except instill a sense of false confidence in those who execute them, while allowing them to stigmatize those whose apotropaic acts differ from their own.
(no subject)
The people involved may or may not have been otherwise "good" people prior to this incident. I don't know, and it really doesn't matter, because once they chose to rape that girl, they didn't just make a bad choice. They made a criminal choice, and they need to pay for it, just like any other person who chooses to commit a criminal act. I really don't get why this is so hard for some people to understand.
(no subject)
I've only watched the conversations in your LJ about this, but I don't think you have accurately characterized at least one of the people I saw argue with you. I think you're looking at different pictures of what happened. The primary difference I apprehend is that you are seeing purely from the eyes of the victim, and they are trying to see from the eyes of the rapist, possibly also from bad information. Are you certain that you are both working from the same set of stories about what happened?
Of course, the choice to take that perspective could come from kind of denial you describe, but I think it could be coming from a better place. If I was being tried or sentenced for a crime, of any kind, I would certainly want, even expect, the jury to be able to understand my perspective. If they don't, it's possible for grave injustices to be done, particularly in cases where my crime is a response to some other crime, such as a battered woman who kills her stalker-spouse because that seems like (and might just be) the only way to protect herself. Not that I think these situations are directly analogous in any way other than the perspective question (the victim of this rape certainly did not do or threaten to do any harm to the rapists).
If I start looking at this case from the perspective of the perpetrators, and if I were to accept the limited information I have at face value (which would already be applying a bias since I'm getting it from everyone but the victim, but could easily seem like common sense to many), I might start thinking that it still looks like a bad scene, but that most of these people did not seem to realize the girl was much too young, and did not think of their behavior as coercive. If that's really an accurate picture of what was in their head, then while what they did was still absolutely wrong and criminal, they need education a lot more than they need jail time. So the antecedent there is the real question to me, and I don't feel qualified to judge based on the public information I've seen about this case.