<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Sexist &#187; victim</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/tag/victim/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist</link>
	<description>Sex and Gender in D.C.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Aug 2011 18:08:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Victims Vs. Sluts: Hofstra&#8217;s False Rape and the Media</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/09/22/victims-vs-sluts-hofstras-false-rape-and-the-media/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/09/22/victims-vs-sluts-hofstras-false-rape-and-the-media/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:48:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Amanda Hess</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Beyond DC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[false rape accusations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hofstra university]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rape]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rape culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[slut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[victim]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=6565</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Last week's false rape accusation at Hofstra University has inspired a media storm unparalleled by most actual rape cases. The feeding frenzy has produced some helpful discussion&#8212;check out Emily Bazelon's piece at Slate for a thoughtful dissection of rape, sex, feminism, and the law&#8212;and a whole lot of unbridled misogyny.In "Crying wolf really hurts [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong></strong><span><span> </span></span><span><span></span></span>Last week's <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/09/17/false-rape-accusations-and-rape-culture/">false rape accusation at Hofstra University</a> has inspired a media storm unparalleled by most actual rape cases. The feeding frenzy has produced some helpful discussion&#8212;check out<strong> Emily Bazelon</strong>'s<strong> </strong><a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2229090/">piece at Slate</a> for a thoughtful dissection of rape, sex, feminism, and the law&#8212;and a whole lot of unbridled misogyny.<span><span>In "Crying wolf really hurts true victims of assault," The <em>New York Post</em>'s <strong>Andrea Peyser</strong> rightly points out that <a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/crying_wolf_really_hurts_true_victims_rwAbgNpYtdtBgOwuXOmn3M">false rape accusations can harm the reputations of real sexual assault victims</a>. Peyser also personally demonstrates what else hurts victims: sensationalized media coverage of false rape accusations.</p>
<p><span id="more-6565"></span>In the piece, Peyser refers to the accuser as a "venal vixen"and a "whore." She then links her to "a string of high-profile rape-criers who found brief fame, sympathy and the prospect of riches by claiming the worst." Peyser name-checks <span><span><strong>Crystal Gail Mangum</strong> (who falsely accused three Duke lacrosse players of rape in 2006)<strong> and Tawana Braley </strong>(who falsely accused a man of rape in 1987). That's three in 22 years. The conclusion </span></span>Peyser draws from this stunning trend: <span><span>"Who will believe a rape 'victim' now?</span></span>"</p>
<p>Peyser isn't the only one calling the accuser names. <span><span><strong>Men's News Dail</strong><strong>y </strong>Editor <strong>Paul Elam </strong>writes that the accuser "cheapened herself by taking on five men willingly on a men’s room floor and lied about it later out of what little capacity for shame she had." </span></span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>On <strong>Urban Dictionary</strong>, "Hofstra" is <a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hofstra">now a synonym</a> for "</span></span></span></span></span>Someone who is infested with STD's"; "A slut/someone who sleeps around"; and "The act of being slutty." And at </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><strong>AntiMisandry.com</strong>, you don't have to falsely accuse a man of rape to be called a "whore"&#8212;in the wake of the false rape claim, simply <a href="http://antimisandry.com/chit-chat-main/feminist-whores-say-false-accusations-no-big-deal-23335.html">remaining a feminist</a> is cause enough to earn the label.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>As the <em>New York Post</em> points out, there is evidence to suggest that the accuser </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><span><span><a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/twisted_motive_behind_rape_story_niSXmOMgjcr2RTJiRkacXJ?offset=8">lied in order to avoid being called these names</a></span></span>. She didn't want to be labeled a "whore" or a "slut," "cheap," or "shameless," because she chose to have sex (though I'm betting she didn't anticipate "venal vixen"). Is avoiding slut-shaming a valid excuse for lying about rape? Absolutely not. Do false rape accusations hurt real victims of rape? Absolutely. But is a woman's false rape accusation a valid excuse for slut-shaming her? Absolutely not. And does slut-shaming hurt real victims of rape? Absolutely.</p>
<p>Lying about rape does not make you a "whore." It makes you a liar. And yet, critics have continually chosen to employ terms which shame the accuser not for lying, but for having sex in the first place. Some of the name-calling is a product of <span><span>misguided </span></span>outrage at a woman who committed a serious offense. The remainder is pure misogynistic release. <span></span>They found an opportunity to scream "whore!" with impunity, and they seized it. When bystanders call a false accuser a "slut," they tell her that her reasoning for lying was on-point; when <span><span>they call</span></span> a false accuser a "whore," they tell her that her real crime was having sex, not lying.</p>
<p><span></span><span><span> </span></span><span><span><span><span>When the accuser admitted that she was not a victim, she was instantly re-branded a slut. This false dichotomy&#8212;</span></span></span></span><span><span>victim vs. slut&#8212;is not only applied to women who falsely accuse men of rape. It's applied to any woman who accuses a man of rape. </span></span><span><span><span></span></span></span><span><span>That's why defense attorneys <a href="http://www.racialicious.com/2008/12/21/original-essay-the-not-rape-epidemic/">use a rape victim's sexual history against her in court</a>&#8212;because people believe that women who say yes to sex in one situation would never say "no" in another. Conflating a serious crime&#8212;fabricating a rape accusation&#8212;for a normal human activity&#8212;having consensual sex&#8212;</span></span><span><span>will not help eliminate rape, and it will not help eliminate false rape accusations.</span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span></p>
<p><span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/09/22/victims-vs-sluts-hofstras-false-rape-and-the-media/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>29</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Do Women Stay in Abusive Relationships?</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/04/13/why-do-women-stay-in-abusive-relationships/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/04/13/why-do-women-stay-in-abusive-relationships/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:52:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Amanda Hess</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Beyond DC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abusive relationship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domestic violence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[emotional abuse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Leslie Morgan Steiner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Linda Hirshman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[physical abuse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Slate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[victim]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=3540</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
Why do women stay in abusive relationships? That's the question Slate's Linda Hirshman poses in her review of the new abuse memoir Crazy Love. Hirshman thinks the question is a "terribly important one" to ask women, and that it is a "mark of respect" to do so.
And yet, Hirshman's question remains a rhetorical in her [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"><img class="aligncenter" src="http://www.lesliemorgansteiner.com/images/lsteiner-390-exp-Crazy_love_cove.jpg" alt="" width="390" height="590" /></p>
<p>Why do women stay in abusive relationships? That's the question <em>Slate</em>'s <strong>Linda Hirshman </strong><a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2215693/pagenum/all/">poses in her review of the new abuse memoir</a> <em>Crazy Love</em>. Hirshman thinks the question is a "terribly important one" to ask women, and that it is a "mark of respect" to do so.</p>
<p>And yet, Hirshman's question remains a rhetorical in her review of <strong>Leslie Morgan Steiner</strong>'s book&#8212;because Hirshman never attempts to answer it. She writes:</p>
<p><span id="more-3540"></span></p>
<blockquote><p>In the press kit for <em>Crazy Love</em>, Steiner says it's easy to see why she married someone who choked her on a regular basis. She was, she says, "kind, insecure and desperate for intimacy. … It is not difficult to understand why anyone … could become trapped in an intimate manipulative relationship."</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>. . . Steiner is wrong: It <em>is</em> difficult to understand why she stayed in this awful relationship, given that she was not risking starvation and had no children with her abuser.</p></blockquote>
<p>Hirshman's theory isn't an attempt at understanding why a woman would stay. In fact, Hirshman argues, it is that very attempt at understanding that is to blame for the perpetuation of abusive relationships. Hirshman calls this  "the soft bigotry of low feminism"&#8212;when we try to understand why women stay with their abusers, we stop focusing on empowering women to <em>get out</em>.</p>
<p>Hirshman has a point here. Women are not helpless. They have agency. They can make choices. There are escape routes from abusive relationships, and women can take them. Acknowledging this is not the same as blaming the victim&#8212;-it is, however, often the only way to make the abuse stop.</p>
<p>But listen to how Hirshman now rephrases the question. It's not "Why do women stay in abusive relationships?"&#8212;it's "Why do women's self-destructive fantasies drown out the warnings that years of old-style feminism have alerted us to?"</p>
<p>Yep, after ticking off the only reasons Hirshman deems rational for staying&#8212;it's not money, and it's not kids&#8212;she decides to rationalize it for herself in perhaps the most offensive way possible:</p>
<p>The victim stays with the abuser because she likes it! She is living out her fantasy. What's more, she just doesn't listen to those who know better&#8212;why, old feminists, of course. What a crazy, stupid victim.</p>
<p>It's telling that Hirshman points only to physical reasons for staying with an abuser (money and children), because throughout, she fails to address that abusive relationships are rarely solely physical affairs. She doesn't mention that abusers employ emotional manipulation and social pressure deliberately and constantly to make sure their victims don't leave. Instead, she points to an 11-year-old girl "who got wind of her impending genital circumcision and walked 25 miles through the Kenyan bush at night to reach a Girls Rescue Center"&#8212;a daring physical escape, to be sure.</p>
<p>The escape routes for emotional and psychological abuse are often more difficult to discern. And when you fail to address that, asking a woman why she stays in an abusive relationship isn't a "mark of respect"&#8212;it's a mark of condescension.</p>
<p>So, Hirshman reads a book intimately detailing Leslie Morgan Steiner's four-year abusive relationship, puts it down, and writes an essay asking, "What was this woman thinking?" I haven't read <em>Crazy Love</em>, but I assume that's the point&#8212;understanding the victim's perspective. Why don't we listen to her?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/04/13/why-do-women-stay-in-abusive-relationships/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Purple Tunnel Victim Screwed Again By March for Life</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/01/23/purple-tunnel-victim-screwe-again-by-march-for-life/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/01/23/purple-tunnel-victim-screwe-again-by-march-for-life/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2009 19:53:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Amanda Hess</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[march for life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MPD]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Purple Tunnel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[victim]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=2334</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One contributer to the MPD 1st District Listserv got screwed over on Inauguration Day in the "Purple Tunnel" fiasco got screwed again yesterday&#8212;this time, by March for Life participants. The victim recalls the double whammy:
Forgetting the purpose of the Right to Life protest what was MPD's logic in allowing all of their buses to load [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One contributer to the MPD 1st District Listserv got screwed over on Inauguration Day in <a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=61444130820">the "Purple Tunnel" fiasco</a> got screwed again yesterday&#8212;this time, by <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/tag/march-for-life/">March for Life participants</a>. The victim recalls the double whammy:</p>
<blockquote><p>Forgetting the purpose of the Right to Life protest what was MPD's logic in allowing all of their buses to load and unload in the middle of Capitol Hill?</p></blockquote>
<p><span id="more-2334"></span></p>
<blockquote><p>I spent 25 minutes trying to cross (with a crossing guard no less) 6th Street to Mass Ave at Stanton Square Park last night around 5 pm. There were hundreds of kids running around the park waiting for their buses. That square is a giant traffic mess in a regular rush hour let alone when there are 10-15 charter buses idling.  Then when I finally reached my car to drive to Walter Reed there were another 5-10 buses parked along the H street overpass behind union station picking up kids who were sprinting across the highway.</p>
<p>MPD has really disappointed me the last 3 days. I was one of the Purple Tunnel doom victims and now this!</p>
<p>Please let me know the logic.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/01/23/purple-tunnel-victim-screwe-again-by-march-for-life/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

