Do you think the timing of her actions indicate a political motive?
I make no judgements on motive for sexual assault and rape allegations. At least not without crystal clear and rock solid evidence.
Fair enough. Do you think others could see a political motive for the timing of her allegations?
I can think of a whole lot of things that other people could think of. Just because I can envision someone else thinking something doesn’t mean it’s not misogynistic.
Based on my understanding of the psychology of victims/survivors, and speaking very broadly (and I’d be happy to be corrected by those who know a lot more about this stuff than I do), sometimes (to try and simplify as much as possible) enough is enough. They might just be sick and tired of staying silent, especially when they see their attacker’s face on TV. And extra especially when other brave women have come forward recently.
I don’t think that’s a political motive.
If someone jumps to “political motive”, without strong evidence, I think that demonstrates they have a poor understanding of the psychology of victims and survivors.
But I didn’t start this thread because of an accusation of political motive - I started it because of victim blaming and misogyny.
Well, I’m not asking about something being misogynistic. I’m asking about it being political.
But it seems to me that you think that people who say her motivations were at least in part political are “misogynistic”. If that’s not the case, then I withdraw my questions.
I’d evaluate such assertions case by case (also depends on what is meant by political, which we’ve already seen can be different). I think the post in question was misogynistic and victim blaming for multiple reasons, expounded at length already.
Well, I think that someone has a right to speak up about a crime at any time, but I feel that doing it in order to make sure America knows about it when it involves a potential SC Justice is at least a little political. That is, revealed at that time in order to sway opinion about the nominee.
Would you say that assertion is misogynistic?
Note to self: If I report sexual assault when the assailant is undergoing any sort of political vetting or confirmation process, I will be dismissed as having political motives. If he is subsequently exposed to any death threats or vandalism, that’ll be on me, too. Better to just keep my mouth shut even if I know the assault is relevant to his fitness for office or will influence his decisions thereof.
Note to those up for political positions: You’re home free! Anybody who reports you for sexual assault, whether it happened years ago or recently, will be dismissed as having political motives. Of course, you’ll get exposed to death threats anyway because there are always sickos out there who send death threats to public figures, but if someone does accuse you, she’ll get blamed.
I think some of what’s going on here is a confusion of “political” and “partisan”.
Politics is the art of people living together in groups large enough to require governments. Nearly everything modern humans do is in some sense political.
Not wanting a person who one believes to have the character of a sexual assaulter appointed to the Supreme Court is of course a desire related to politics. But I get the impression that the claim people are making who say the motivation was ‘political’ is that that wasn’t actually the motivation – that Ford would not have accused a nominee backed by the Democrats, even if she thought him guilty of the same actions, but accused Kavanaugh only because he was backed by the Republicans; or that she would not have accused a nominee she expected to be a “liberal” justice, but accused Kavanaugh only because he was expected to be a “conservative” justice.
In other words, that she’d have been perfectly happy to have, sitting on the Supreme Court, a man who pinned her down while trying to pull her clothes off and laughing about it, if only it were a man whose political positions were different.
So, manson1972, is that what you mean?
Because, if so, that sounds a great deal like saying ‘it’s entirely plausible to think that a woman doesn’t actually mind being sexually assaulted, but is just claiming to object to it in order to get their way on other matters.’ And yes, that would be misogynistic.
No, that’s not what I mean at all. I mean, she had 37 years (or however long it was) to come forward, but she never did. She came forward when the man she was accusing was a nominee to the Supreme Court. That’s cool as far as I’m concerned. But she did it to sway public opinion about the nominee. That seems at least a little political to me, even though I agree with her actions. We SHOULD know about things like that for a SCJ nominee, but to deny that her actions were at least a little politically motivated seems strange to me.
I don’t know what she would do if the person she accused was a Democrat or whatever, nor am I pretending to think what she would do. I would hope that someone would come forward with details of such an assault regardless of the party of a Supreme Court nominee.
I can hypothesize motives that have nothing to do with politics:
- I was too afraid to report it right away because I didn’t think anyone would believe me. I was so stupid to put myself in that situation.
- Later, I felt it was too late to report it because I didn’t think anyone would believe me. I was young and so stupid.
- Years passed and I felt I’d put it behind me so I didn’t want to report it and re-live it. Anyway, who would believe me now?
- Then I saw that smug, self-satisfied, face on TV and the painful memories flooded back. And I became angry and realized I should have reported it and didn’t.
- Now this asshole is going to be given one of the most important and influential positions in the land, and I bet he’s forgotten all about what he did, or worse, he thinks he got away with it and will never have to answer for what he did because he managed to keep it a secret from everyone.
- Well fuck him if he thinks he’s won and got away with it.
- America: I have something to say about your latest SCOTUS nominee that I think you should hear.
- WTF? You think she “put herself into that situation”? Wow, victim-blaming on a massive scale.
- There are many very valid reasons women don’t report. “Being stupid” is not on of them.
- You’re assuming she had no reason not to report it at the time.
- Revenge is one of the frequent bullshit ulterior motives sexual assault apologists delight in ascribing to victims.
If your definition of “political” in this sense is “to sway public opinion about a nominee for political office”, then pretty much by definition the action was political. But if that’s the definition I don’t see anything wrong with it. Voting’s a political action; so is running for office; so is accepting a Supreme Court nomination; so is writing one’s Senator a letter. So is campaigning against a candidate, including by pointing out items in the candidate’s history that might tend to count against them. Why should that only be illegitimate behavior when such an item is sexual assault?
Pretty much my guess, except I’d modify 1) into:
- Even if they believe me, the police won’t do anything about it anyway, except quite possibly tell me that I was stupid.
What, by the way, do people think the police would have done, some 35 years ago, about such a report, even assuming they took it seriously and did believe her? There wouldn’t have been any semen; and even if there had been, there was only Ford’s word that it wasn’t consensual. Unless she had visible significant injuries, I very much doubt there would have been any prosecution. Do people think she should have made the report in the hope that police would keep the records on file and produce them, many years later, if her attacker got nominated to some office requiring confirmation and/or ran for office himself?
I don’t, while we’re at it, think she was stupid to go to a party. Lots of people go to parties, not expecting to be attacked, and don’t get attacked. But she may have been around enough people who would have thought she was stupid for daring to go to a party without a bodyguard that she’d internalized that.
No.
You’re barking up the wrong tree.
I don’t see anything wrong with it either.
You are correct, but I think those are some of the internal narratives sexual assault victims run through in their minds that keep them from reporting. They’re not fair, but that often what women think, and without external validation and support, keeps them from speaking out.
I suspect that’s what the poster was going for.
And it should be highlighted that these sorts of internal narratives are due to pressures and influence from broader culture which slut-shames, victim-blames, and otherwise treats victims and survivors like utter dogshit. And this is only just starting to change in any significant way.