Discussion List for campus-based and allied personnel working to end gender-based violence on campus.

["Chris Kilmartin (ckilmart)" <>]

One grand question I’ve been pondering lately is why do people uninvolved in the crime have a stake in believing in false accusation?  I think that women are often motivated by victim-blaming’s ability to distance them from the possibility that they could be victimized – a fairly straightforward social psychological phenomenon.  For men, it seems more complicated – that some are threatened by women’s power and sense that the rape of any woman helps to uphold the power of men-as-a-group over women-as-a-group.  I’d be interested in others’ thoughts about this.

 

The Washington Post has run three fairly long stories in the past week about a teacher and coach who was falsely accused of child assault.  What happened to him was horrific for him—I think we should all be sensitive to the terrible consequences of being accused of something we did not do.  But it strikes me that this is the story that the culture tends to highlight, and it creates a sort of problem that social psychologists call the “availability heuristic” – that we tend to judge events based on their salience in our consciousness.  For example, people are generally more apprehensive about getting on an airplane than into an automobile, even though the latter are statistically much more dangerous, because we always hear about it when a plane crashes, but never when a car crashes unless there’s something unusual about it, as in when it kills a celebrity.

 

There are millions of stories out there about sexual assault victims for whom justice is never served, and who are often revictimized by other people’s disbelief of them.  But these are not the stories that are salient.  In fact, acquaintance sexual assault is not even as salient as stranger assault.

 

One more salience and empathy fact: an average of 3 male partners in the U.S. murder their female partners every day.  That translates to a new Virginia Tech massacre every 11 days and a new 9/11 every 1000 days.  But again, these victims’ stories are not made salient.  People identify with random violence victims because we could have been there – in the towers or at Norris hall.  But we would not have been stupid enough to be married to a violent person – more victim blaming.  I think we need a national monument to victims of relationship violence.  We build monuments to make the statement that these people’s lives mattered.

 

Chris

 

 

Christopher Kilmartin, Ph.D.

Professor of Psychology

Licensed Clinical Psychologist

University of Mary Washington

1301 College Ave.

Fredericksburg, VA 22401

540-654-1562

chriskilmartin.com

 

 

 

From: Seth Avakian [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 10:32 AM
To:
Subject: 6 Reasons Why Ben Stein is Wrong About the Dominique Strauss-Kahn Case

 

http://www.menspeakup.org/6-reasons-ben-stein-is-wrong

 

Former International Monetary Fund managing director Dominique Strauss-Kahn faces charges of attempted rape and criminal sexual contact in the alleged attack on a maid who went into his room to clean it. In his letter of resignation from the IMF Mr. Strauss-Kahn denies “with the greatest possible firmness all of the allegations that have been made against me." The media’s response, especially the opinion pieces, provides a window into how the issue of sexual assault, survivors, and the people accused of perpetrating such crimes are treated by our society.  On one hand, women like NYT’s Maureen Doud praise the American judicial system “where even a maid can have dignity and be listened to when she accuses one of the most powerful men in the world of being a predator.”

Others, like French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy (reacting to the photo above), believe that “nothing in the world can justify a man being thus thrown to the dogs.” Absent in his article in The Daily Beast is any concern for the trauma that the woman is experiencing as a result of the alleged assault, or the ensuing media circus that ensued. But, it is our very own Ben Stein who sets a new low in his American Spectator article. Mr. Stein callously throws out worn-out and intellectually anemic arguments in a trite defense of Mr. Strauss-Kahn's presumed innocence. Permit me a brief intellectual battle with Nixon’s former speech writer.

#1 “If he is such a womanizer and violent guy with women, why didn't he ever get charged until now?”

Serial killers, con-artists and all repeat offenders, be sure to ask for Mr. Stein’s representation at your first trial. I wonder how long habitual criminals need to get away with their crimes before Stein's “well, they’ve never been caught before” line of defense becomes valid? If it wasn't defending against such a violent crime, this question would be delightful in its nonsense. Mr. Stein’s statement also manages to be ignorant of the low rates of reporting these crimes (explaining why he might not have been charged until now) while reinforcing one of the main reasons people don’t report: survivors think they won’t be believed.

#2 “Can anyone tell me any economists who have been convicted of violent sex crimes?”

Mr. Stein must be writing this with a Mad-Libs generator. Can anyone tell me any (insert profession here) who have been convicted of (insert crime here)? It works with almost every profession and crime! While Mr. Stein may know hundreds of economists to sample from, I’ll wager that the average reader could name less than 10 economists. Considering that studies estimate that around 5% of men (American, not French) have committed a violent sex crime, basic math dictates that most people would not know of an economist convicted of sex crimes. Of course, this estimation ignores that a) people generally don’t know the criminal history of said economists, b) conviction rates for these kinds of violent sex crimes are low, c) prosecutors have a high bar for taking reported sexual assaults to trial and d) sexual assaults are rarely reported to police to begin with. Mr. Stein should get to know more statisticians, or perhaps a high school math teacher.

#3 “He's a short fat old man… How did he intimidate her in that situation? And if he was so intimidating, why did she immediately feel un-intimidated enough to alert the authorities as to her story?”

It’s probably impossible for Mr. Stein, a wealthy Hollywood actor, lawyer, news pundit and author to put himself in the place of a poor, immigrant single mother and evaluate how someone in "that situation" (a violent sexual assault) might be intimidated, so I won’t bother asking him to. Personally, I would feel intimidated just being in a $3,000 a night hotel room, let alone being in there to clean and suddenly having a man run naked at me, shut the door to the hallway that I left open and physically force me to perform sex acts. I'll wager that if Mr. Stein was in the exact same situation, he’d feel intimidated too. And when Mr. Strauss-Kahn was finished with his assault, and Mr. Stein was let out of the room and safe, I bet he would consider reporting.

Thinking more about Mr. Stein’s description of Mr. Strauss as “short-fat-old” and if the sex was consensual actually makes me lean even more towards the conclusion that it was not. Does Mr. Stein presume that a maid in their 30's is excited when they enter a hotel room to clean it and find out that a short-fat-old man that they've never met wants to have sex immediately?

#4 “How do we know that this woman's word was good enough to put Mr. Strauss-Kahn straight into a horrific jail?”

In these kinds of cases, a woman’s word typically isn’t good enough to bring charges. Most prosecutors won’t take a pure “she-said, he-said” case. If you were a prosecutor, would you charge Mr. Strauss-Kahn in such a high-profile case, with your professional reputation on the line, for a crime that is incredibly difficult to get a conviction for if you didn’t have confidence in that the survivor wasn’t just telling the truth, but that you had additional evidence to corroborate her story?

#5 “In what possible way is the price of the hotel room relevant except in every way: this is a case about the hatred of the have-nots for the haves, and that's what it's all about.”

No, it’s about rape. History teaches us that all too often the ‘haves’ believe they have the right to act with impunity and take advantage of ‘have-nots’ in whatever way they want. This is a case about rape and power, and that’s what it’s all about.

#6 “Diane Sawyer (said) that Mr. Strauss-Kahn is in Riker's... "because one woman stood her ground..." That assumes she's telling the truth and he's guilty…it's unfortunate for ABC to simply assume that an accusation is the same as a conviction.”

First, ABC did not report that Mr. Strauss-Kahn is guilty or was convicted. The phrase “stood her ground” is generally accepted to mean standing up for one’s rights or stick by an opinion, and historically is about a person’s refusal to move backwards when challenged in a fight. In this case the phrase likely refers to all of the forces that would influence someone in her position to not report such a crime. She could jeopardize her employment, endure the painful experience of having to re-tell her story over and over, refute claims against her story, and attacks on her personal character by the defense.

Secondly, the second half of Ms. Sawyer’s “unfortunate” sentence is “and said he attacked her.” Ms. Sawyer did not state “because he attacked her.” Mr. Stein might argue that the report didn’t do enough to emphasize that he is innocent until proven guilty. Yes, the media have a responsibility to report fairly, but that doesn’t mean they are required to conform to the standards of the legal system. 

I’ll save most of my thoughts on how we can uphold our commitment to “innocent until proven guilty” while simultaneously believing survivors of sexual assault for a separate article. In a few words, guilt is the determination of a judicial system, not a personal belief. No citizen (or non-citizen!) has "the right" to demand that other people suspend their beliefs. I have every right to look at the evidence available and make a personal conclusion. Right now, from everything we know about this case, additional claims of sexual assault against him, the high frequency of sexual assault in our society, the incredibly low rates of reporting, and how rapists target their victims to reduce the likelihood of being accused, Mr. Strauss-Kahn sounds like a guilty man to me.

 

 

Seth Avakian

Prevention Specialist

Office of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response

Harvard University

731 Holyoke Center, 1350 Massachusetts Avenue

Cambridge, MA 02138

617.496.5630