That story shows pledges doing a lot of stupid, dangerous and embarrassing things… but they weren’t charged with raping or assaulting anyone.
The pledges did standard, stupid fraternity stunts, like binge drinking and wearing women’s underwear.
I never belonged to a fraternity, but there’s a huge difference between being willing to ake a fool of yourself to join a frat and being willing to gang rape a helpless girl to join a frat.
Because patriarchy.
Rolling Stone acknowledges discrepancies in Jackie’s account and issues an apology.
I didn’t explicitly source it, but I mentioned the series of threads. I mentioned Plot Holes in Reality, but this one was Plot Holes in WWII. It’s a parody of how we over-scrutinize movies for being unrealistic, when in reality people say, think, and do tons of things that would never get past a board of film critics (or the amateur internet equivalent thereof).
The point isn’t saying people who deny this happened are like holocaust deniers, as I said, there’s significant doubt about it happening. I’m of the opinion that as the facts stand, even if something happened, the story as reported probably didn’t happen. The point is that when any crime comes into question we start scrutinizing stupid shit. Most people, myself included, are notoriously bad judges of reality.
You can focus on why it did or did not happen, but a lot of this is Encyclopedia Brown levels of “clearly this man’s story is made up because nobody would reach into their right pocket with their left hand!” detective work.
What a bullshit non-apology.
This washington post article is pretty devastating to the case:
Highlights:
(1) The fraternity did not have a party the weekend of the alleged attack
(2) The person Jackie finally identified by name was never a part of Phi Kappa Psi
(3) The fraternity does not take pledges during the fall semester
(4) The person Jackie identified claims that he never met her and was never part of the fraternity
It looks like this story was just entirely made up.
“In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie’s account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced,”
Talk about victim-blaming.
No shit she’s unreliable, you despicable fucknuggets. She’s an emotional 21 year old, quite possibly traumatized, talking about things that happened two years ago and getting prodded by your agenda-driven “reporter.”
I hope Jackie and the frat both sue Rolling Stone into bankruptcy.
Now that’s one hell of a simul-post.
Thank you, Nancy Grace.
I think it’s entirely possible the whole thing is fabricated.
If so, that just makes her a different kind of emotionally fucked-up 20 year old. That’s not the behavior of a healthy person.
It seems likely at this point that at best the author was hornswoggled by someone whose own memories of what happened are unclear or fabricated, or at worst that she actively helped her source “remember” the event in order to fit the story she wanted to tell.
At least this house of cards has come apart before anyone was arrested, indicted, or wrongly convicted.
Can a Fraternity sue?
Why not?
Im not sure. I assume it can sue for property damages and so on, but can it sue for reputational damage? psychological distress of its fraternity members?
So the next time a rape victim comes forward there will be less chance of their story being taken seriously. Thanks a heap Rolling Stone. If the goal is to make it more difficult to believe and accept reports of rape then you are doing a great job there.
The frat really Duked that punch. I mean, ducked.
Not that it matters. In the current climate, “Jackie” will have staunch supporters who think she’s been marginalized or shit on by a misogynistic system, no matter how Tawana her story gets. It’s, you know, the general principle that women get abused like this that matters.
I mean, there wasn’t even a trial or anything. So who’s to say?
Post 87 looks like you’re defending her story. I apologize if I read it wrong.
Oh, I see.
No, I think the story is baloney … but IMO she’s not some attention-seeker, nor was she deliberately intending to defame anyone. ISTM she’s a screwed-up kid, caught up the nutso sexual politics on our campuses and being exploited by to advance an agenda.
Well, shouldn’t we hold a trial anyway? You know, so we can be sure and everyone can stop complaining?
And I’m sorry to say, but I’m quite confident that “Jackie’s multiple rapes” will be added to the statistics of women who are raped each year, but the rapists are not even charged.
I’d like to know an approximation of the number of men’s lives that are completely destroyed each year (to the point of job and family loss or even suicide) due to false rape claims. Does anyone even care to compile such stats?
ETA: And + 1 to shifltless’s comment. REAL victims of rape get the shaft from articles like this as well.