Now that Marion Z. Bradley's child raping has come out, does it change your desire to reread her?

Knowing that things are never private on the internet, I find it “horrifying” that one would go to such strident lengths to defend that position on this topic. I’m not so much “horrified” at the position (distasteful as it is), but I could never post such a thing w/o concerning myself that somehow, somewhere, someone in my “real life” would find those words coming out of my mouth.

I have opinions that would be shocking to many, of course, but I have enough brains not to post them here, where people I know can find them.

*Some other fun info from MZB’s testimony.

Apparently, Moira’s claims were known back then because the lawyers made a deal that MZB’s “relationship” with her daughter would be off-limits.

MZB really likes sharing a bed with little girls:

MZB tried to adopt little boys for Breen to rape (two sections, separated by a ------------- line)

So:
A) She tried to adopt a boy she knew her husband was raping
B) Her claim that “Well, gawrsh! He was impotent so it must have been PERFECTLY innocent!” don’t hold up because elsewhere in the testimony she states that she’s aware of oral sex and thinks it’s perfectly icky.*
C) She likes to sleep with little girls.
D) She is “ambivalent” about child rape and compares children to stray animals.

Every time you think she can’t get worse, you just read a few more lines and…poof…she does. Um…kinda like Broomstick, actually.

  • Warning–brain bleach alert

If she ended to marriages over oral sex, she knows enough about what it is to know that impotent or not, Breen could do it to the victims.

As I’ve already pointed out to you their surname is Greyland. I’m curious as to why you are incapable of spelling these people’s names correctly? Are they not at least worthy of this common courtesy? It’s almost as though these victims aren’t really people in your eyes.

Wow. That’s quite a stretch. I mean, wow.

It’s a stretch I normally wouldn’t make, but in this context I think it’s a possibility.

I have to wonder why Broomstick gets all heated and expects her testimony about creepy customer to be taken at face value, but Moira (and other self-professed rape victims) should be doubted?

It is a mystery. We asked her about that but she can’t/won’t explain it.

Okay, I said something similiar in the other thread, but Broomstick, even IF she didn’t molest her own daughter, she still aided and abetted her husband who DID molest a number of children. That’s enough.

At first I was in your corner, in that I agreed, there’s nothing wrong with still wanting to enjoy a person’s work, even if they’re an awful human being. I still feel that way. But now you’re desparate to make excuses for the woman herself because you’re a fan of her books. And they’re starting to sound like the Joe Paterno thread. Like I said before, it’s Paper Towel Roll II.

Do you really want to go down this road?

I feel like I’m just reading a completely different set of posts than everyone else in this thread, and it’s very odd.

To me the so-obvious-it’s-hardly-worth-mentioning answer to your fairly facile question is that Broomstick DOES believe that Moira was raped, but the claim being made, and Broomstick thinking it more likely true than false, does not make MZB a convicted and proven rapist, which is a distinction that is important to maintain, both legally and ethically. On the other hand, in some other thread, Broomstick said some stuff about her life, and people may or may not believe it.

What equivalence is there?

Again, please point me towards a specific post where Broomstick is defending MZB. Did I miss one? I honestly believe that I read every post of hers in this thread. By defending do you mean claiming that MZB is likely innocent? Or claiming that what MZB did is not so bad? Or claiming that somehow MZB’s insane literary genius absolves her of all sin? I saw none of the above.

Whether the legal system has convicted someone or not is completely irrelevant if you think they did what they did. The only reason to bring it up is to argue that it possibly didn’t actually happen. She has argued many times that it is wrong to refer to her as a child rapist since unless you can provide a citation that she has been convicted.

If I know someone is a murderer, it doesn’t matter whether they were convicted. They are still a murderer. If someone were to call OJ Simpson a murderer, and I were to say “He was never actually convicted of murder” I would clearly be saying I did not actually think he was a murderer.

You seem to have a problem where you look at what she says in isolation and not in the context of the thread itself. Whether raping a toddler is worse than raping a 10 year old has absolutely no relevance to the topic of this thread. Whether that 10 year old looked mature for her age is irrelevant to this thread.

But what is it relevant to? If you said “the arguments pedophile apologists bring out” you’d have a winner. If you can think of another reason to spontaneously bring up that other types of rape might be worse, I challenge you to give it.

She has consistently downplayed the concerns of others throughout this thread. She calls the fact MZB covered up for a child rapist “views she doesn’t agree with.” She has taken child-rapist and converted it into “but it’s not as bad as toddler rape,” “maybe the 10 year old looked mature” and “but she was never convicted.” She is continually downplaying a very real, horrible issue.

All of those are about taking “Marion Z. Bradley is a child-rapist and covered up for a child rapist” and softening it. According to her, she’s “Marion Z. Bradley who may have raped a 10 year old, but she probably looked mature for her age, And at least it wasn’t a toddler. And we have no proof since she was never convicted. I disagree with her views.”

That is apologizing. That is what people object to.

As for why people bring up what she said in the past: read the post she is responding to. She got righteously pissed when someone dared to minimize what had happened to her. She got upset that someone was making the argument that what happened to her was not as bad as having been sexually abused.

Apparently, in that situation, saying one thing is less bad than another was unacceptable. But, here, it’s supposedly to be perfectly okay.

Both are equally unacceptable for the same reason. That Y is worse has no bearing on the fact that X is bad. And both involve rape, something people get really upset about.

Please don’t do this. It adds nothing to the conversation, it’s just trolling.

Hey, FYI, I don’t need the likes of you to stand up for me, thanks. And I’m perfectly capable of citing my own past when it’s relevant, which it totally fucking wasn’t in this case.

I agree that it’s true in some cases that bringing up past posts is irrelevant, but in this case I think it is absolutely germane to the thread. The thread I linked to and the incident Fenris is talking about spawned a huge amount of defensive, “My post is my cite”/ why do you always doubt women/ don’t blame the victim-type posts, and then…

Her once claiming to be a kung-fu ninja, or whatever, is germane how? I get bringing up the “Nobody believes I was harassed in a cobbler’s shop” bit, but the leg-breaking thing, specifically, isn’t. It’s just a cheap shot.

I guess you and I just have different ideas about how much detail is ok, then. I get what you’re saying; I just feel differently. She was pretty adamant in that thread that anyone who didn’t believe that she had broken the guy’s femur was a doubting asshole, which in my opinion makes it relevant to the question of why the double standard about believability. And I don’t believe for a second that Broomstick’s experience being questioned about her stories has resulted in her now needing to question others.

The femur-breaking claim simply underscores how she doubles down–and down and down–into absurdity when challenged. Well, in this case she started at absurdity and ended up at obscenity.

I don’t think anyone challenged her claim of being harassed either. It was her histrionics against all and sundry that generated the backlash.

(And I generally dislike the persistent references to past threads.)

It’s not. Her kung-fu femur breaking skillz were when she was allegedly sexually assaulted.

In a thread called “Blame the victim mentality regarding rape/sexual assault”, Broomie chimed in about how she was attacked but heroically fought off her attacker, but didn’t say anything because she was afraid of the consequences and how dare people ask her “How did you know he wanted to rape you?”.
Cite*

There’s a clear correlation/connection between her comments in that thread and the obvious hypocrisy in this one.
*

Did Broomstick happen to turn any of you into a newt?

I read the femur breaking incident in the cobbler thread. Hence my citing it as an example of Broomstick doubling down.