Juliann, Sophistry, and Rape

[_Mister Scratch]

Over on the fittingly named MADboard, our very own beloved Wade Englund started up a thread in which he tried to parse out "culpability for name-calling and mudslinging against LDS". (Actually, the thread is more about vilifying critics, but that's beside the point.) What stood out to me on the thread was this appallingly stupid and ignorant remark from juliann:

Leave for a while and the thread gets shut down. aggressive.gif There really is nothing different about this than the "she asked for it because she wears short skirts" kind of defense. My question is why those people who like to defame others won't just admit what they are doing instead of thinking up transparent excuses. It can't be healthy to deny what you do.

(emphasis added)

(This was in response to the delightful Mighty Curelom's remark, "Somehow I can't quite picture Jesus trolling message boards and doing searches for his own name just to see what people are saying about him."---i.e., he was noting juliann's trolling of this board.)

Anyways, I have to admit that I am quite disgusted at juliann's use of this rationale. Is she really that out of the loop? The truth is far, far more sickening than she apparently realizes. The real truth is that the Brethren do indeed blame rape victims for their own plight. Here is Elder Richard G. Scott:

The victim must do all in his or her power to stop the abuse. Most often, the victim is innocent because of being disabled by fear or the power or authority of the offender. At some point in time, however, the Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse. Your priesthood leader will help assess your responsibility so that, if needed, it can be addressed. Otherwise the seeds of guilt will remain and sprout into bitter fruit. Yet no matter what degree of responsibility, from absolutely none to increasing consent, the healing power of the atonement of Jesus Christ can provide a complete cure."
- "Healing the Tragic Scars of Abuse," General Conference, Ensign, May 1992

(emphasis added)

What Elder Scott seems to be implying is that, yes, perhaps the wearing of "short skirts" makes the victim "responsible" to a degree. (An implication which I find reprehensible.) juliann wants to claim that this sort of argument is "nasty," "cheap," and "misogynistic," but the sad fact is that this is precisely what has been taught by Church leaders.

[_maklelan]

Here is Elder Richard G. Scott:

The victim must do all in his or her power to stop the abuse. Most often, the victim is innocent because of being disabled by fear or the power or authority of the offender. At some point in time, however, the Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse. Your priesthood leader will help assess your responsibility so that, if needed, it can be addressed. Otherwise the seeds of guilt will remain and sprout into bitter fruit. Yet no matter what degree of responsibility, from absolutely none to increasing consent, the healing power of the atonement of Jesus Christ can provide a complete cure."
- "Healing the Tragic Scars of Abuse," General Conference, Ensign, May 1992

(emphasis added)

What Elder Scott seems to be implying is that, yes, perhaps the wearing of "short skirts" makes the victim "responsible" to a degree. (An implication which I find reprehensible.) juliann wants to claim that this sort of argument is "nasty," "cheap," and "misogynistic," but the sad fact is that this is precisely what has been taught by Church leaders.

Is it precisely that? You go from "seems to be implying" to "this is precisely what has been taught." That's a bit of a leap, and I believe there is quite a bit of eisegesis involved here. I've always understood this text to refer to women who put themselves in places and states of mind that make inevitable that kind of behavior (like women who go to college parties and get drunk, or constantly speak about such things and verbally provoke and encourage that kind of behavior). He even gives us a scale of responsibility that says nothing about dress, but specifically addresses consent. Earlier he frames the context of the responsibility in terms of resisting or not. I think you're way off the mark here. This quote in no way addresses her objection.

[_Mister Scratch]

Here is Elder Richard G. Scott:

The victim must do all in his or her power to stop the abuse. Most often, the victim is innocent because of being disabled by fear or the power or authority of the offender. At some point in time, however, the Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse. Your priesthood leader will help assess your responsibility so that, if needed, it can be addressed. Otherwise the seeds of guilt will remain and sprout into bitter fruit. Yet no matter what degree of responsibility, from absolutely none to increasing consent, the healing power of the atonement of Jesus Christ can provide a complete cure."
- "Healing the Tragic Scars of Abuse," General Conference, Ensign, May 1992

(emphasis added)

What Elder Scott seems to be implying is that, yes, perhaps the wearing of "short skirts" makes the victim "responsible" to a degree. (An implication which I find reprehensible.) juliann wants to claim that this sort of argument is "nasty," "cheap," and "misogynistic," but the sad fact is that this is precisely what has been taught by Church leaders.

Is it precisely that? You go from "seems to be implying" to "this is precisely what has been taught." That's a bit of a leap, and I believe there is quite a bit of eisegesis involved here. I've always understood this text to refer to women who put themselves in places and states of mind that make inevitable that kind of behavior (like women who go to college parties and get drunk, or constantly speak about such things and verbally provoke and encourage that kind of behavior). He even gives us a scale of responsibility that says nothing about dress, but specifically addresses consent. Earlier he frames the context of the responsibility in terms of resisting or not. I think you're way off the mark here. This quote in no way addresses her objection.

Ah, I see, Mak. You apparently think that women who "go to college parties and get drunk" or "constantly speak about such things and verbally provoke and encourage that kind of behavior" are "asking for it." What is "that kind of behavior," by the way? You have shot yourself in the foot, my friend. There is no justification for rape, regardless of what the Brethren may have told you.

I find it enormously troubling, Mak, that you would ever see such behavior as "inevitable."

[_Runtu]

This is an illustration of why it's best to avoid over-the-top comparisons, such as to rape or, as she did earlier, mass murderers.

[_Mister Scratch]

This is an illustration of why it's best to avoid over-the-top comparisons, such as to rape or, as she did earlier, mass murderers.

One would think such things would constitute a violation of the MAD/FAIR interpretation of Godwin's.

[_maklelan]

Ah, I see, Mak. You apparently think that women who "go to college parties and get drunk" or "constantly speak about such things and verbally provoke and encourage that kind of behavior" are "asking for it." What is "that kind of behavior," by the way? You have shot yourself in the foot, my friend. There is no justification for rape, regardless of what the Brethren may have told you.

So rather than address the manner in which you blatantly read something into the text that wasn't there you try to turn the tables and hurl an accusation rather than an argument.

I don't recall saying there was any justification for rape. Am I wrong?

If my daughter chooses to spend her weekends doing keg-stands at a Sigma Nu house rather than studying or hanging out with the family her chances of experiences something as unfortunate as rape skyrocket. She knows this as well as I do. That doesn't take any of the responsibility off of the other person, but after such an experience she is going to know better than to put herself in that kind of situation. Why? Because if she chooses differently the next time her chances of going through that again plummet. She can choose to put herself at risk or she can choose to minimize it. If she chooses to put herself at risk is she in some capacity responsible for it, or can the actions of another retroactively rob you of the agency you exercised before the other even entered the picture? Can you answer without an appeal to emotion?

I find it enormously troubling, Mak, that you would ever see such behavior as "inevitable."

Which behavior do you mean?

[_Mister Scratch]

In case you need another example of insensitivity from the Brethren, Mak, here is Elder Vaughn J. Featherstone, in one of my all time faves:

Another problem: an overweight girl from Ogden went to see her bishop. In the purity and goodness of charity, trying to help the girl, he counseled her that it might be a good idea to lose a few pounds. Pitifully heartbroken, she went home and told her father. It had cankered her soul. The father, of course, negative toward the Church all of his life, waiting for something like this, sprung like a cat on the bishop's back, and they came down to see me and wanted their memberships transferred out of the bishop's ward. I asked them why, because I didn't know all this background, and they said, "Well, our bishop suggested to our daughter that she might lose a few pounds and make herself a little more attractive." Now I want you to know that I defended that great bishop. I said to this family. "You are wrong. That sweet bishop, out of purity and love for your daughter, felt and did that which he was impressed to do. I am sure it was a message from God to your daughter, and she let it canker her soul. The strange thing is that she was probably up in her bedroom the night before praying, 'Heavenly Father, I am lonely. I need someone. Please help me. Help me to find someone so I won't be so lonely.' " And yet oftentimes we are offended because a sweet bishop gives us some instruction which is hard for us to live. Ensign, May 1975, pp. 66-68.

Notice how he apparently thinks he can read her mind, and how, once again, "it's her own fault" that she is lonely. I think it is an enormous stretch indeed to label this bishop "sweet."

[Doctor Steuss]

What stood out to me on the thread was this appallingly stupid and ignorant remark from juliann:

Leave for a while and the thread gets shut down. aggressive.gif There really is nothing different about this than the "she asked for it because she wears short skirts" kind of defense. My question is why those people who like to defame others won't just admit what they are doing instead of thinking up transparent excuses. It can't be healthy to deny what you do.

(emphasis added)

(This was in response to the delightful Mighty Curelom's remark, "Somehow I can't quite picture Jesus trolling message boards and doing searches for his own name just to see what people are saying about him."---I.e., he was noting juliann's trolling of this board.)

I understood Juliann differently than you. I saw her as awkwardly supporting Wade's OP about culpability, saying that anybody who would think of blaming the LDS for their own persecution is just the same as someone who blames the rape victim.

By posting repeatedly under one name we each build a reputation on the message boards. If you find yourself the target of mudslinging it is probably the consequence of your posting -- a direct consequence. I don't believe there are character assassins lurking the boards, like predators, waiting to leap upon innocent and well-meaning posters. That's what it would take for the rape victim comparison to be valid.

Luckily in the on-line world, if you've built a bad reputation, you can always start over with a fresh identity and learn from your mistakes.

[Physics Guy]

Ah, I see, Mak. You apparently think that women who "go to college parties and get drunk" or "constantly speak about such things and verbally provoke and encourage that kind of behavior" are "asking for it." What is "that kind of behavior," by the way? You have shot yourself in the foot, my friend. There is no justification for rape, regardless of what the Brethren may have told you.

So rather than address the manner in which you blatantly read something into the text that wasn't there you try to turn the tables and hurl an accusation rather than an argument.

I don't recall saying there was any justification for rape. Am I wrong?

If my daughter chooses to spend her weekends doing keg-stands at a Sigma Nu house rather than studying or hanging out with the family her chances of experiences something as unfortunate as rape skyrocket. She knows this as well as I do. That doesn't take any of the responsibility off of the other person, but after such an experience she is going to know better than to put herself in that kind of situation. Why? Because if she chooses differently the next time her chances of going through that again plummet. She can choose to put herself at risk or she can choose to minimize it. If she chooses to put herself at risk is she in some capacity responsible for it, or can the actions of another retroactively rob you of the agency you exercised before the other even entered the picture? Can you answer without an appeal to emotion?

Yes. Tomorrow, you get into your car and drive to the store. It's raining outside. You know perfectly well that rain increases the likelihood of an accident, and yet you fire up your engine anyhow. As you turn at the stop light, you are t-boned by a reckless driver. You chose to drove on the rainy day. So is the accident partially your fault?

I find it enormously troubling, Mak, that you would ever see such behavior as "inevitable."

Which behavior do you mean?

See your post above. Viz:

I've always understood this text to refer to women who put themselves in places and states of mind that make inevitable that kind of behavior (like women who go to college parties and get drunk, or constantly speak about such things and verbally provoke and encourage that kind of behavior).

(emphasis added)

Am I misreading this? Or are you saying that the "inevitable" consequence of going to a college party and getting drunk is rape? Please clarify this for me, Mak. It sounds as if you are saying that men are "hardwired" to rape. Or am I wrong?

[_Mister Scratch]

What stood out to me on the thread was this appallingly stupid and ignorant remark from juliann:

Leave for a while and the thread gets shut down. aggressive.gif There really is nothing different about this than the "she asked for it because she wears short skirts" kind of defense. My question is why those people who like to defame others won't just admit what they are doing instead of thinking up transparent excuses. It can't be healthy to deny what you do.

(emphasis added)

(This was in response to the delightful Mighty Curelom's remark, "Somehow I can't quite picture Jesus trolling message boards and doing searches for his own name just to see what people are saying about him."---I.e., he was noting juliann's trolling of this board.)

I understood Juliann differently than you. I saw her as awkwardly supporting Wade's OP about culpability, saying that anybody who would think of blaming the LDS for their own persecution is just the same as someone who blames the rape victim.

I think we are on the same page, Dude. The reason I said "sophistry" in my OP is that there is clearly a great deal of hypocrisy in juliann's argument. If she is genuinely TBM, the she will indeed have to accept the premise that A) rape victims should be blamed, and B) so should LDS. In other words, she is trying to make "blaming the victim" out to be a bad thing, even though this clearly contradicts official Church statements on the matter. (I.e, according to Elders Scott and Featherstone, if you are a victim, it is partially your own fault.)

By posting repeatedly under one name we each build a reputation on the message boards. For the most part, if you find yourself the target of mudslinging it is the consequence of your posting -- a direct consequence.

Believe me, there is no one who understands this better than I.

I don't believe there are character assassins lurking the boards, like predators, waiting to leap upon innocent and well-meaning posters. That's what it would take for the rape victim comparison to be valid.

Well said.