I'm surprised there has been no mention of the Stanford rape trial and sentence on all nurses. I'm opening up the discussion as I feel it pertains to us in many ways. One as people who may have been victims or know others who have been victims of sexual violence and two as nurses that have taken care of others in this situation, whether directly in ER or a patient suffering from PTSD with other health problems as well.
I applaud the survivor's bravery and her impact statement that has gone public. I hope this will comfort other survivors, but even more I hope this will discourage rape in general. Campus rapes are common and rapes at frats are in the news frequently. Once again a college athlete got off with just a slap on the wrist, although I don't think he counted on all the negative publicity this case has garnered.
What disturbs me the most is the letters of the parents to the judge. The father's don't punish him for 20 minutes of action. Then the mother's letter, who by the way is a nurse for gynecological surgeries and in the past as a pediatric nurse, who had not one iota of empathy for the victim. Her letter simply astonished me. I can't believe as a woman, as a nurse, as a mother of a daughter she had no empathy for the victim! This troubles me the most! I imagine in her years as a nurse she must have taken care of a rape victim and her total lack of empathy for the victim disturbs me greatly!
And you will never understand what I'm talking about. I agree with you on many OTHER threads, but in this one, it seems that we'll never understand one another.
Your stance sort of reminds me of my ex-husband. He used to write checks for whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted without regard to how much money was in the account and without recording his checks. Paying the bills was my responsibility, and in 1986 there was no logging online to check your account balances . . . you either kept track of every check you wrote or you waited until the monthly statement came. One time I wrote checks for rent, utilities, insurance and groceries without realizing that he'd spent ALL the money in our account. Checks were bouncing all over the place. He was in the Air Force, and that was a big deal. I got a call from the Base chaplain, wanting to explain to me what a big deal it was that we had bounced checks, that it would damage my husband's career. He wanted to give me lessons in money management . . . even when I explained what had happened, the chaplain insisted it was MY responsibility. (Perhaps my responsibility but not my fault.) Somehow in the ensuing discussion, it all came tumbling out. My husband had knocked me down the cement stairs of our front stoop before going to work that afternoon, and I was bruised, in pain and crying. The chaplain told me, in what I'm sure he thought were the kindest possible terms, that had I not bounced checks, my husband wouldn't have had to hit me. EXCUSE ME?
Of course word of our "confidential" conversation got back to my husband, and he was enraged. I remember him screaming at me that I had ruined his Air Force career. And my "AHA" moment came right then. "No," I told him. "You ruined your own career when you took a new book of checks from the desk and spent $1000 without telling me even when you knew I was paying the bills (that was a LOT of money in 1986). And if you didn't want anyone to know you beat your wife, you shouldn't have been beating your wife."
Give you credit for applauding my strength and wisdom? Getting out was survival, not wisdom. Very few women in that circumstance are capable of wisdom. I wasn't, anyway. Wisdom comes later. Strength, yes, but even getting out of bed in the morning required huge amounts of strength, not knowing exactly what kind of a mood he was going to be in.
You don't get it. You just don't get it. The only person responsible for the Stanford rape -- or any other rape was the rapist. The only person responsible for domestic abuse is the abuser. And so on. Women don't cause rape, murder or domestic abuse. Predators cause it, and they are skilled at cutting the weakest from the herd, isolating her and attacking her. If it hadn't been me in that abuse situation, it would have been his first wife or his third. It WAS his first wife and his third. If the eloquent Stanford rape victim hadn't been raped, it would have been someone else at that party or maybe the next party he attended. You can't PREVENT rape or domestic violence, murder, stalking, burglary etc. You can do your best to protect yourself, but if someone for some reason has singled you out, they will get you sooner or later. That's on THEM, not on their victim. You still don't seem to understand that.
And now I think I'm done.
Both the Chaplain and your ex sound like total idiots. That was the thinking back then - that a woman was to blame for setting off her husband's rage, despite not having one single iota of blame for whatever set him off. I hope you reported them to their superiors - who likely as not would have sided with them, although the Air Frorce is supposed to be filled with gentlemen.
How did your ex's career fare after that? See "Casualties of War" with Michael J. Fox. How did the Chaplain's career go?
If you didn't report them back then, do it now. I mean it. Even if it's too late for anything to be done about it and maybe they have both long since retired or even died, women are taking Bill Cosby to task over stuff that they say happened long ago, so maybe you can, too.
For the record, I do not know if Cosby is guilty or not, but it sounds like it based on what I know of it so far. I don't understand how he can be tried at this late date, but he can afford the best lawyers. We'll see how it plays out.
OK, so you don't want applause? Pardon me for applauding your strength, if not your wisdom. I see I am somehow wrong again. Not allowed to even give you a compliment.
I understand some crimes are planned and others are crimes of passion and convenience.
Both the Chaplain and your ex sound like total idiots. That was the thinking back then - that a woman was to blame for setting off her husband's rage, despite not having one single iota of blame for whatever set him off.
What do you mean, "back then"?? You and several other posters have suggested (repeatedly) on this thread that women may bear some degree of blame for rape by being too attractive, dressing provocatively, being insufficiently "modest" or circumspect in their behavior, etc. It's the same argument. Do you really not get that??
Specializes in Specializes in L/D, newborn, GYN, LTC, Dialysis.
Kooky, so you think when I took a ride with 3 TRUSTED male classmates on a -12 degree day, I DESERVED an attack?
I was dressed from head to toe in winter wear, nothing sexy about it. They said they would give me the 2 mile ride home and I foolishly thought that would be great, cause, well, who wants to freeze in a Chicago winter?
Well I guess I "asked for it" cause when I got in, they drove me to an empty lot about 3 blocks from my house and attacked me. No provocation on my part. No indication this attack was coming just *WHAM* one of them was all over me, kissing and groping so quickly I was in shock. The others were cheering him on and laughing at me. I then came to my senses and hit and kicked my way out before actually being fully raped.
I never told ANYONE including my parents, cause I had grown up in that rape culture mentality ---" I deserved it because I got in and asked for it" I had no business putting myself in that "situation", right?
Can you imagine how isolating that was for me, and how much shame I felt for YEARS til I finally understood TRUSTING BOYS I THOUGHT I KNEW SINCE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL was NOT deserving of rape.
I had enough guilt and shame for all of us, and it felt horrible.
I would never allow my own daughter or son to believe ANYONE asks for rape to happen simply by what they are wearing, how they look or trusting the WRONG people.
I am dismayed with you, too. Just add me to the list.
Rape culture is alive and well, all these years later. We really have not come all that far in the years since I was in high school. I am beyond disgusted with this young man and his parents.
As for Turner, his attorney might very well have told him to say what he has said and not publicly take responsibility for his behavior. His heart might actually be in the right place by now.
And it's possible that any person, even here on AN, accused of a serious crime would want to hang onto the full array of legal protections available under our Constitution. That doesn't make the accused guilty or cruel. It's the way our justice system runs. We do not have to self-incriminate. We don't get tortured (maybe mentally we do) if we don't confess. You can't blame Turner for wanting his rights upheld.
I am absolutely sure his lawyer has told him exactly what to say and do as to not incriminate himself. That DOES NOT excuse any of it. He and his parents could have chosen the high road, instead they chose to road of victim blaming and actually made themselves out to be the victims.
He and his family chose to hide behind the oldest trick in the defense attorney book. I am not going to give them a free pass for that.
As for Turner, his attorney might very well have told him to say what he has said and not publicly take responsibility for his behavior. His heart might actually be in the right place by now.
Yes, and pigs might fly. I'll believe that he's accepted responsibility for his actions and fully comprehended the devastating impact his actions had on another human being, if and when he expresses sincere words to that effect.
You can't blame Turner for wanting his rights upheld.
He's already been convicted. How does self-incrimination come into play? It only does if he's planning on appealing the verdict and claim that he was wrongfully convicted. If that's the case that directly negates the possibility that his "heart is in the right place". So, which rights do you think that he'd be jeopardizing by showing genuine remorse?
Kooky korky, you are making up a lot of hypothetical "what if" scenarios not supported by facts in what seems to be an effort to find redeeming qualities or mitigating circumstances in this case concerning a convicted sex offender, and thus paint him in a more positive light. I think that you need to figure out what on earth compels you to do this.
When I said that I applauded them, or they were not to blame, or didn't deserve to be victims of crime? Which of these are cruel and offensive? I really want to understand, so please try to make a simple answer that I can grasp.
Do you really think that anyone would say that it's cruel of you to say that someone didn't deserve to be a victim of crime (in this thread;rape)? Seriously? That statement if it stands completely alone, without any more information added, would never be considered cruel. Not if I voice it, not if you voice it and not when any random person voices it.
The statement (or rather the sentiment behind it and the implications) can however be extremely cruel if you only apply it to some victims but withhold it from some victims.
If someone describes what happened to rape victim A to you and you respond by saying that they weren't to blame, they didn't deserve to be subjected to a criminal act and that you are appalled by the acts of the perpetrator.
Then..
someone describes what happened to rape victim B and you don't respond the way you did with victim A, or perhaps you do but you add all your musings on dress, alcohol, behavior and "loose and fast women" (if I remember that correctly), then don't be surprised when you encounter resistance from those of us who think that's completely irrelevant when deciding the culpability of a perpetrator. Don't be surprised that many of us feel that you are making excuses for the offender. Because you are.
What do you imagine that your words do to victim B? How would they make that person feel?
You say that you want to understand. Many of us have tried to explain it to you and others who feel/think like you do. We've tried to explain it in many different ways. I'm not sure what more we can do.
You seem to have some barrier in place that stops you from understanding what we say. I think that it was back on page three in your very first post in this thread, that you brought pre-marital and extra-marital sex into a discussion about rape. Until you understand that that has absolutely no bearing on rape, you will not understand our point. Until you understand that how a woman dresses has nothing to do with rape, you will not understand our point. You don't have to change your own values about pre- or extra-marital sex and you don't need to start practising them, but you do need to realize that rape isn't about sex or how women's (or men's) sex lives looked before they were the victims of an ugly crime. Rape is an act of violence. An act of domination. An act of callous and narcissistic disregard for another person's autonomy.
I feel that you express conditional compassion. If the circumstances surrounding the crime fit certain criteria then you do express what definitely sounds to me like genuine compassion, but in other cases your mind seems instead to be inclined to start speculating and investigating all kind of irrelevant details surrounding the crime.
I don't know if you've read my post #421. If you have, you might think that I was simpy trying to ridicule you. I wasn't. After explaining the same thing ad nauseam, I was simply trying a different approach to perhaps make you see why I find your line of reasoning regarding rape/sexual assaults completely flawed. I suspect that it didn't have the desired effect.
What do you mean, "back then"?? You and several other posters have suggested (repeatedly) on this thread that women may bear some degree of blame for rape by being too attractive, dressing provocatively, being insufficiently "modest" or circumspect in their behavior, etc. It's the same argument. Do you really not get that??
Do you really not get that "back then" means back before The Pill and Women's Liberation? Sixties and Seventies.
There will always be people that don't follow social norms. In sociology, there are different ways to categorize the behavior: Rebellion, Retreatism and Ritualism.
Do you really not get that "back then" means back before The Pill and Women's Liberation? Sixties and Seventies.
It was quite clear what you meant. My point was that that kind of thinking is hardly limited to "back then." Several folks posting on this thread (including you), as well as plenty of people in the general society, appear to still think that way.
Rebellion, Ritualism, and Retreatism. They all sound none too complimentary. Are there any positives about being different?
No, I don't play around back there. Perhaps you might clarify a bit?
These terms are from the Social Strain Theory - by Merton. They aren't complimentary, but they aren't negative either. They are purely descriptive for the purposes of discussing deviance and social norms. This stuff is sociology 101.
I don't know why you keep bringing up things that you don't know much about?
I don't know why you keep bringing up things that you don't know much about?
Possibly because his being clueless about fedoras and social constructs deflects from his accusatory statements toward rape victims, extreme attempts at vindicating rapists, and only showing any passion when male rape victims are mentioned.
Perhaps you might clarify a bit?
Kooky Korky, BSN, RN
5,216 Posts
Both the Chaplain and your ex sound like total idiots. That was the thinking back then - that a woman was to blame for setting off her husband's rage, despite not having one single iota of blame for whatever set him off. I hope you reported them to their superiors - who likely as not would have sided with them, although the Air Frorce is supposed to be filled with gentlemen.
How did your ex's career fare after that? See "Casualties of War" with Michael J. Fox. How did the Chaplain's career go?
If you didn't report them back then, do it now. I mean it. Even if it's too late for anything to be done about it and maybe they have both long since retired or even died, women are taking Bill Cosby to task over stuff that they say happened long ago, so maybe you can, too.
For the record, I do not know if Cosby is guilty or not, but it sounds like it based on what I know of it so far. I don't understand how he can be tried at this late date, but he can afford the best lawyers. We'll see how it plays out.
OK, so you don't want applause? Pardon me for applauding your strength, if not your wisdom. I see I am somehow wrong again. Not allowed to even give you a compliment.
I understand some crimes are planned and others are crimes of passion and convenience.