I read that as more of a tu quoque than victim blaming. I thought the point he was (badly) trying to make was, if Breitbart is responsible for other people sending death threats to the guy they’ve named as the whistleblower, despite not sending threats themselves or actively encouraging other people to send threats*, then shouldn’t Ford/congressional democrats also be responsible for the threats sent to Kavanaugh, even though neither Ford nor the democrats sent threats themselves or actively encouraged anyone to send threats? With the implied conclusion that neither party is actually responsible for third parties sending death threats.
*I’m assuming - I haven’t actually read the Breitbart report in question
I’m reading the post in question as “[Dr. Ford and her allies] exposed Justice Kavanaugh’s family to death threats because they thought it might help their side in a political squabble”. That looks like directly blaming her (and her allies) for the threats – because they thought that instigating these threats would help them in their “political squabble”. They did something (i.e. exposing Kavanaugh and family to threats) for a reason (these threats might help their political squabble). I’m having real trouble reading it any other way, given the structure of the sentence.
I think “character assassination politics” can be intrinsically misogynistic if it uses misogynistic tropes or themes (as it did in this instance, IMO). Just like it can be racist if it used racist tropes or themes.
The “it” in that sentence, the thing the dems thought was going to help them in a political squabble, were Ford’s accusations, not the death threats against Mrs. Kavanaugh.
One of the effects / outcomes of Ford’s accusations were the death threats against Mrs. Kavanaugh. I’m not suggesting Ford desired that outcome, or “purposefully” instigated it, but it was a result of her accusation.
And my point, however bad some of you think it was, had nothing to do with Ford being a woman. If it was a man that had accused Justice Kavanaugh of sexual assault, and his family had received death threats as a result, I would have made the same point.
The only action Dr. Blasey Ford performed was report rape–something she did following the proper channels, and did not even deliberately make public. All her allies did was support that something should be done, and support her once the accusation was made public.
So what HD is arguing is that it’s wrong to accuse someone of rape because it might expose their family to death threats. He can’t even claim that he’s assuming that Ford was lying, because he specifically is talking about the Democratic perspective (which is why I included the second line). Democrats believe she is telling the truth, yet he thinks they should have condemned her.
That appears to me as textbook rape apologia and victim blaming. “How dare you report a rape! Don’t you care about the effects on the person you are accusing?” And I note that victim-blaming rape apologia was considered to be misogynist on Starving Artist’s part, and resulted in a full on banning.
The problem is not merely that it is bad argument, or that HD appears to side with Kavenaugh. It is that his argument is effectively arguing that rape victims should remain silent.
I don’t think that necessarily constitutes victim-blaming, so you and I disagree on that subject. If it is implied that she should not have walked down the alley, as it would be if that cause and effect argument were raised to defend the perp, then that constitutes victim-blaming. But there is not necessarily an assignment of blame in the moral sense when pointing out cause and effect. Women have - should have - the right to walk down alleyways without being raped.
Perhaps with certain context I would agree, but I have not yet been so disgusted as to remove that benefit of the doubt from HurricaneDitka in general.
That’s not what the sentence structure says to me, but even if it’s what you meant, this doesn’t remove the misogyny or victim-blaming – you’re saying that Ford spoke out in order to help her “side” in a political squabble. That’s just as misogynistic and victim blaming as saying that a college student is speaking out about her rape by the star QB because of spite due to an unrequited crush.
I have to agree with iiandyiiii here, though I think the mods are probably reluctant for various reasons to interfere with anything but bright-line misogyny. But here’s my take:
The argument is that by voicing her experience publicly, CBF endangered Kavanaugh. Tying those accusations to politics doesn’t change or modify the argument. Here’s the test: if somehow HD–or anyone else–were convinced CBF had no political motives whatsoever, would he still claim her public allegations were responsible for the death threats to Kavanaugh? I’m confident he would. But he saw a chance to diss Dems AND a woman alleging sexual assault: double win!
When female* victims do report sexual assault, there are nearly always those who suspect ulterior motives: She’s lying because she regrets sex or She’s mad he didn’t call her and wants revenge. Statistically, there are extremely few false reports, and even fewer that are based on ulterior motives, but it’s an effective way of appealing to the misogynistic belief that women are fickle jezebels ruled by petty emotions who can’t be trusted. HD’s contention was a variation of that.
I understand why mods don’t see this as bright-line misogyny, but it’s misogyny nonetheless.
That’s my take.
*I haven’t seen SDMB posts claiming men who publicly allege sexual assault (and there are a few) have ulterior motives. If there are some, please cite. Thanks.
That’s what I was saying before, Dr. Blasey Ford did not publicly voice her experience and was quite reluctant to do so even after her complaints were leaked. Perhaps HurricaneDitka was ignorant or denies that narrative, but if we give him the benefit of the doubt then his post can be much more simply summarized as:
‘Democrats can’t criticize Republicans for exposing someone to death threats because the Democrats did the same thing to Justice Kavanaugh’
I’m sorry if I double post. The board appeared to eat my first one. Dr. Ford spoke out at great risk to herself and has had a multitude of death threats against her family. She’s had to hire personal security she can’t afford. Someone saying a rape victim spoke out for some kind of “win” is indeed misogyny, particularly in this case.
I stand by my conclusion that there was indeed misogyny in HD’s responses in that thread. I encourage you to read any of the old threads on Ford-Kavanaugh. I appreciate your spirit of fair-mindedness, but background and context should dispel any doubts you may have.
By pointing out he was a rapist. Saying that ANYTHING – political factors, “death threats”, whatever – is so important that it should overwrite a woman’s right to accuse her rapist is absolutely misogynistic, and exactly what is objectionable with HD’s initial post.
It’s been brought to my attention that this may come across as a shot against the moderation staff – it’s not meant that way. I thought I recalled at least two women moderators, and I suppose they retired. I’d still like to hear from the remaining women (woman?) among the staff, and I hope they/she will chime in.
I find it highly, highly unlikely that you can point to any death threat against Kavanaugh that’s demonstrably a result of Ford’s testimony, rather than the fact that he’s a divisive public figure and moreover kind of a gammon-faced choad who yells at legislators while crying about beer.
Oh boy, a bunch of men explaining to each other what’s misogyny and what isn’t. So precious, so rare, so welcome in a world that just doesn’t have enough of it. Hooray.