Victim Blaming Is Alive and Well

I really should read fewer newspapers.

I really should not read the comments.

I was reading a new article about the latest "scandal" about a courageous rape victim who was betrayed by the sentencing judge (because the culprit, as a fellow star athlete, deserves to not be properly punished).

It's this New York Times article (it's good, and I've got nothing to say against the journalist).

No, my problem is with whichever plonker picked a victim-blaming comment as a NYT Picks:

There are other similar comments on the thread. Of course. Gosh! My Sarc font is on again!

It's not about showing both sides of an argument. There's NO argument; one does not betray a victim yet another time by giving "air time" to a caveman. Full stop.

Oh, and for good measure, here's the mug of the culprit's protector judge:

I could add something about the letter that the culprit's father wrote, but there's no point in risking my lovely brain cells. Go read about that other caveman; he's a piece of... something.

Life & Art & Abuse & Boycott

I love documentaries, and I love Auntie Beeb.

I quite like Victoria Coren Mitchell. I like her in Only Connect, and when I spotted How to Be Bohemian, I watched the three parts of this documentary.

First, it was very interesting, and I always like to learn new things.

Then, in the second part, when Mrs Coren Mitchell talked about Eric Gill (a man I'd never heard of until that moment - because I'm still not omniscient or plugged into some Akashic Records), I wanted to give her a hug and thank her for no longer wanting to see some of his art after learning that he'd abused his young daughter and that he'd used her to inspire him.

Apparently, Eric Gill couldn't keep his equipment in his trousers (so to speak, since it seems that he took to wearing dresses and robes - to be always ready??). He screwed many, and on his list, his own sister can be found.

All right. I'm not going to be your average prude, but I can't help imagining a man manipulating his sibling into having sex with him rather than having her agreeing to fuck her brother. But, let's try to be hugely tolerant, and let's say two consenting adults had some fun together. Not our business. Fine.

But... according to the man himself, if his diary's to be believed, he raped at least two of his daughters. There is no possible way we, as humans, can hear that and not wish to send a creature like Gill into complete oblivion (if I could go Egyptian on the guy and erase him from History, I'd be tempted).

But then, Mrs Coren Mitchell interviewed Fiona MacCarthy, a biographer of Gill, and then I realized that when it comes to standing by the victims, we're not out of the wood.

Mrs Coren Mitchell asked if we should know the background of a work of art. If the life of the "artist" goes into illegality, shouldn't we stop the person? Being an artist doesn't give anyone a licence to abuse or hurt anyone else (artists can drink, smoke, and snort powder as much as they want; I don't care - as long as they don't try to force me to join or attempt to break my favourite vase).

So, here, we're talking about a man who raped his own children. Even if he had a brain tumour that could explain his vagrant prick, he was an abusive manipulator and a sex predator in my book.

And here comes the immunity card for him: he's an artist. <insert fake gasp here>

When asked if the real life and the art should be viewed as separate, Mrs MacCarthy made me cringe.

     Fiona MacCarthy: I can separate them. And I think that it's the kind of dichotomy in human behaviour that somebody who can behave so reprehensibly can produce these works of supreme art.      

     Victoria Coren Mitchell: Something like the Girl in Bath though, the images he made of his daughter, those erotic images of a naked child. I'm afraid it makes me want to get in a time machine and kneecap him [that's the part that made me want to hug her! I'd lend her a hand!]. Do you find those images beautiful?

       FMC: I still find them beautiful, yes. And if he was a less good artist, I don't think I would bother with him. I don't think that I would be at all concerned with his sexual life or at all interested in it. I think that’s the testing thing. It's this curious tension that produces the rather particular beauty of those images, and I think, perhaps, even that one understands them more deeply by knowing the history.

    VCM: But you might say, well, knowing that he abused his children in this way; yes, one understands better what he was doing in that drawing, and in understanding it, one wants to reject it, no?

     FMC: Well, I wouldn't say that, you see. I think that people who try to police works of art according to what they believe to be the political views or the sexual behaviour of the artist, then they rule out an awful lot of great art. What about Wagner? Do you switch off Wagner because you disapprove of his anti-Semitic views?

       VCM: Yes!

       FMC: You do!? You switch him off!

       VCM: Yeah, I realize that strikes you as terribly philistine…

       FMC: Yes!

      VCM: And I do know it's complicated, I love the poetry of Yeats; he was in his own weird way a sort of Nazi sympathizer. I know these things are complex, and it’s very hard to make an absolute rule, but when I look at those images of Gill’s young daughter, and I know that he abused her; I think it's not something I want to see again.

      FMC: Well, I think that this is a very, very narrow view of art, of society, and that one can’t be so dogmatic. One has to try and take it on board.

This is not victim-blaming, but when someone says, 'Oh, but that Artist is soooooooo good that I can ignore the fact that he (or she) [or it, for all I care] is skinning kittens alive for fun.', then that is deciding to not condemn the fellow biped for doing something bad because that biped is doing something else that you like.

It's simple enough, you put yourself in the shoes (or the paws) of the victim, and you think long and hard how you'd like the rest of the world to come to your rescue. Do you want the coppers to come and stop the abuse, or do you want an art critic or a fan to tell you to be proud of your abuser because he's suuuuuuuuuuuuuuch a grrrrrrreat Aaaaartist? Go on, answer that one.

No amount of genius justifies throwing a victim under the "art" bus.

That's true for Gill. That's true for any abuser who happens to be an artist, like that so-called writer-actor-director who was accused by his step-daughter (the girl is toast in that art world, and the man's still working and getting trophies).

Mind you, that's not limited to art. Have some money (a few billions should work), and you can get away with abusing, say, your step-daughter - the judge will only order you to serve four months - two if you're a nice bloke, coz you lead a "productive life", and your family's important for the community.

When I go shopping, it can take me time because I check that I'm not going to give money to companies that have despicable business habits and/or nasty bosses.

I do the same with artists. I've got a blacklist.

There are enough decent geniuses to entertain us (I didn't know Gill before I watched that documentary, but when I saw his art... I didn't feel a thing. To me, he's in the "nothing to write about" category, and now that I know what he did to his children, I'll ignore anything by him. Not because I'm a philistine - I'm not, but because he's not that good, and as a man, which is inseparable from the artist, he was a monster).

I'll still enjoy the works of any drunkard, drug addict, libertine, but pardon me, I'll draw the line at rapist... and no amount of justification will make me agree with you if you want to keep enjoying the works of any biped guilty of that crime.

That's not a "very, very narrow view of art, of society", that's the position of a survivor who knows what it's like to be in the claws of a monster with the rest of the world ignoring your plight. So gimme another tune, Cupcake, and behave like a decent human being and shun the monsters - quite often, they're overpriced brats who are selling you some invisible cloth. The sooner you see that the king is naked, that their art is empty, and that you're standing by a plonker who's dragging you into the abuse, the better.

*curtseys, & hops off the soapbox*

On My Wall of Shame (#5)

I used to like Ireland, but since too many politicos (retired or active) declare that adult women are possessions that can be told what to do with their own bodies because a blob of cells (that is nothing outside of these women) is more important and has more rights than them, I'll refuse to go there until they've reached a humane, civilized, non-bigoted 21st century.

The latest boy to open his mouth is Eamonn Barnes.

Back in 1992, as the director of public prosecutions, he "had a role in the drama that culminated in the landmark X-case judgment. Early that year, a family told gardaí their 14-year-old daughter had been raped by a neighbour and was pregnant. They said they intended to bring her to the UK for an abortion."

That arrogant bigot "referred the matter to the then attorney general, Harry Whelehan. He sought an injunction to prevent the girl leaving the jurisdiction, believing the 1983 amendment required the State to do so to protect the unborn child’s life."

More about his current actions there.

Panem et... Voyeurism?

Some bipeds are stupid. Of course. I know.

Some media are vultures, I know that, as well.

Yet, the morbid fascination most sheeple show the moment there's a tragedy is something I have a hard time to understand. Really.

I know it's probably linked to the fact that by knowing about tragedies happening to others, these people find comfort in the fact that they're free of such horrible things (and/or they rejoice in the fact that they're still alive).

I know, I understand, but I probably skipped that strand of DNA, as I cannot stop to look at a road accident or read about everything about tragedies.

However, there's one thing, one single thing, I find utterly despicable - and the bipeds who are too stupid to connect the dots should be smacked until their brains kickstarts: that's when children are added to the circus, just for the sake of plonkers' morbid voyeurism and media's hideous wish to make money at all costs.

Let me give you just one example: a girl disappears, but no body is ever found. Years later, the girl is found alive, and she'd been abducted by a man. With her, police officers find her child (or children).

There's only one possibility, and that's not immaculate conception.

What happened is painfully obvious, and yet... complete twats wait for the inevitable piece of info about the name of the father, and the media all compete to be the first to spread the info.

That, miserable twats, is siding with the culprit. That's adding to the victims' trauma, but... hey! Anything to boost the sales, right? And the public has the right to know. 

Sorry. That's bollocks.

The Romans had the circus. We have the Internet.

That's not being human.

Time to grow up and do better than that!

Between 2% and 8%

*points at title* I'm talking about false accusations of rape.

Apparently, it all depends on where the accusation is made on the planet, but most sources I just consulted agree that the false accusations are quite often around 2% (the 8% is to cover the scared behinds of the agencies making the stats).

Let me be very clear if you're maths-impaired: two per cent means that whilst two poor people (not writing "men" - or "women", because anyone can be raped or can potentially turn into a rapist; it's not limited to one gender against the other gender - there are several different degrees) were unfairly accused of a crime they did not commit, 98% (ninety-eight per cent) accusations were true.

And when we talk about stats, we're only dealing with reported rapes. We're talking about the people who did go to the Police and went through hell a second time in order to try to get some justice.

In fact, we don't know how many people are actually raped, because the stigma still attached to that crime instantly turns the victims into suspects (Where were you when it allegedly happened? Did you know the person? Did you resist? Did you like it? What were you wearing? Were you drunk? Why are you wasting our time? Don't you think you deserved it because [insert any idiotic reason here]?).

So, yes, we do have a few nutcases who will go through the entire circus just to get revenge or because they definitely belong in Bedlam - and I shall always be on the side of their victims, but...

When I hear boys (because, in this case, it's nearly always boys) moan about the fact that one man was falsely accused and that that bloke should be made a Saint and named the President of Earth because of what happened to him, I'll yell that, yes, that particular victim deserves our sympathy, and whoever accused him should be severely punished and socially branded as a right plonker, but... let's not sweep under the carpet all the victims of actual rape.

As I was looking for the latest stats, I used a big search engine, and amongst the first results what did I get? The propaganda page of a despicable source of pseudo-news that spat lies from line one. That's depressing; if you try to show that there are more victims of rape than victims of false accusations of rape, you're yelled at, ridiculed and despised by some bipeds.

Look, I'll be super extra generous... Even if there were 10% (ten per cent) of false accusations (which there is NOT), we'd still be dealing with 90% (ninety per cent) of true accusations (which are probably just the tip of the iceberg).

I know it's awful to be falsely accused. It's unfair and petty and nasty, but the number of true victims must be placed first.

When I hear boys whingeing about false accusations, I hear bullies who want their gender to be always #1 and the best and perfect and blameless. That's not the case.

Yet, my dear boys, if you want to be the awesomest creatures on Earth, here's an idea: fight against rape so it becomes a sad fact only found in History books. How about that, um? Problem solved on all fronts.