# The Newsroom mansplains rape **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 28, 2014, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-mansplains-rape/708319 "2014-12-28T02:34:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-mansplains-rape/708319/21 "2014-12-31T05:55:26Z")
> [@Max\_the\_Immortal](#): > > We can’t fault Mary for feeling that way, but it wouldn’t be a good argument for someone to make in a detached discussion. But isn’t the whole point that it is easy, and condescending, for us men to request a detached discussion of the issue, because of course we aren’t the ones living in fear of being raped? ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-mansplains-rape/708319/22 "2014-12-31T06:11:18Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > I’m hardly a devout Muslim, but it’s possible to make good points without waving around bigoted stereotypes. > > Beyond that, if you’re thinking of traditional Sharia rulings regarding adultery it’s 4 witnesses required to convict someone of adultery, not three. > > And no, I’m not a fan of Sharia in any of it’s forms. OK… Quite beside the fact that I was actually being scarcastic… It’s not a “bigoted sterotype” if it’s factually accurate (sorry for getting the number of witnesses wrong) > [@](#): > > Under Islamic law, rape can only be proven if the rapist confesses or if there are four male witnesses. Women who allege rape without the benefit of the act having been witnessed by four men who subsequently develop a conscience are actually confessing to having sex. If they or the accused happens to be married, then it is considered to be adultery. Which goes directly to the point to be made - In rape - how do you expect there to be corroborating evidence beyond “he said she said”? To expect this is to place a rather ridiculous standard on evidence - just as sharia law places a ridiculous standard And note - I made the comment on Sharia law, not on Islam (some might not see a difference but there you are) Also note - apparently the requirement first came about because Muhammad “forgave” a wife who cheated on him? (not sure of the veracity of this, I’m not an Islamic scholar) ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-mansplains-rape/708319/23 "2014-12-31T06:41:30Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > OK… > > Quite beside the fact that I was actually being scarcastic… > > It’s not a “bigoted sterotype” if it’s factually accurate (sorry for getting the number of witnesses wrong) > > Which goes directly to the point to be made - > > In rape - how do you expect there to be corroborating evidence beyond “he said she said”? > > To expect this is to place a rather ridiculous standard on evidence - just as sharia law places a ridiculous standard > > And note - I made the comment on Sharia law, not on Islam (some might not see a difference but there you are) > > Also note - apparently the requirement first came about because Muhammad “forgave” a wife who cheated on him? (not sure of the veracity of this, I’m not an Islamic scholar) I suppose the ‘four witnesses’ thing might work in cases of mass gang rape, if the police manage to browbeat four of the rapists into taking a plea bargain. Still, how often does that actually happen? ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-mansplains-rape/708319/24 "2014-12-31T07:04:43Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > OK… > > Quite beside the fact that I was actually being scarcastic… > > It’s not a “bigoted sterotype” if it’s factually accurate (sorry for getting the number Yes it is and no it’s not. Beyond that you seem to be glossing over the fact that the “four witnesses” refers not to finding a man guilt of “rape” but finding a woman guilty of adultery. > [@](#): > > To expect this is to place a rather ridiculous standard on evidence - just as sharia law places a ridiculous standard I’m actually laughing out loud at the white boy logic on display here. You’ve never been to a Muslim country or have any idea what exactly “Sharia law” is do you? Hint? It’s a lot of different things to a lot of different people. > [@](#): > > Also note - apparently the requirement first came about because Muhammad “forgave” a wife who cheated on him Correct, depending on which Hadith you believe. > [@](#): > > (not sure of the veracity of this, I’m not an Islamic scholar No, you’re not, not do I think anyone though you were. I’d recommend educating yourself before rather stupidly bring up cultures you know nothing about. BTW, I notice you used a source without giving any links. Who was it? ---
**Author:** ![Max\_the\_Immortal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6de8d8/32.png) [@Max\_the\_Immortal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_the_Immortal)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-mansplains-rape/708319/25 "2014-12-31T07:35:08Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > But isn’t the whole point that it is easy, and condescending, for us men to request a detached discussion of the issue, because of course we aren’t the ones living in fear of being raped? The point I was trying to make was that even if you do entirely exclude men from this discussion, there should be more to it than what Mary said. The scene has Don arguing against the website in idealistic terms (you’ll hurt innocent people) and in pragmatic terms (there will be a backlash against you); rather than rebut him with logic of her own, she declares that being hurt and afraid gives her license to lash out, consequences be damned. That doesn’t strike me as a very fair presentation of both sides of the issue. I can see how people are taking issue with Sorkin’s writing; it could be construed as him saying that women can’t be rational about this issue. A more balanced presentation might have had a third party (make it a Women’s Studies major or prof if that’s not too heavy-handed) take Mary’s side and lay out in logical terms why Don is oversimplifying the issue. That might not be good storytelling, though. ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-mansplains-rape/708319/26 "2014-12-31T07:38:12Z")
Well [this](http://archive.frontpagemag.co/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=33098) cite does not help your cause. It is claiming that, according to (at least some forms of) Islamic Law, rape can only be proven in Islamic court by admission of the accused or four male eyewitness accounts. It also goes on to say that simple admission of sexual relations outside of marriage, such as a woman claiming she was raped, is enough to get the _woman_ convicted of the crime of fornication. It continues, saying that “Sharia courts in Bangladesh regularly punish raped minor girls” and “Sharia courts in Pakistan have punished thousands of raped women by long term imprisonment.” So perhaps the white boy logic is not so laughable as the apologist calling others bigots when they say things said apologist would rather not acknowledge. ---
**Author:** ![Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heffalump_and_roo/32/7691_2.png) [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heffalump_and_Roo)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-mansplains-rape/708319/27 "2014-12-31T09:05:12Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > (2) What about the issues under discussion. Is a web site where women (presumably at a college) can log on and post the names of people the claim have raped or assaulted them a good idea? What about a rape victim going on a national news program and accusing someone by name of rape? Is a society in which that frequently happens better or worse than one in which it doesn’t? I laughed when I saw this. In the Bill Cosby threads, [I had created a thought experiment](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17939516&postcount=260) just like this girl seems to be advocating. I hadn’t seen this show before. I thought my concept really was just something I thought up. Nothing new under the sun, I guess. It got handwaved away there like it did here under the idea that the website wouldn’t be credible. But just as a thought experiment, what if it were seen as credible? (I don’t know that it would have as many credibility problems as people seem to think. And there are ways to add some credibility into the system.) The question is whether it would be fair. Is it fair for a person who has been raped to post the name of their rapist in public without having to give the accuser’s name? Is it fair even with the accuser’s name? In my thought experiment, a national publication would print the names, so it had both aspects of website and national media as well. If an accuser were able to get the name of an accused rapist in publication with a very vague story, how would the accused defend themselves? My feeling is that if the accuser were able to be vague enough, there may not be a way for the accused to defend themself. I don’t think it’s a fair concept. At least if there is going to be a trial in the court of public opinion, there should be standards on which that trial is held. Some people throwing out other people’s names in hopes of being believed over another person isn’t a fair standard, IMO. Going back to the show, I didn’t see anything except the clip in the OP. What’s the backstory? Why didn’t the girl go to the police? If she went to the police and the police found insufficient evidence, then wouldn’t it be like many crimes where the police don’t have enough evidence to prosecute? If someone robbed another person, but there wasn’t sufficient evidence to prosecute, would there be a dilemma for the person robbed to go on a national news show to name the alleged perpetrator? I haven’t seen that before, so I’m thinking it doesn’t happen very frequently, if at all. How is this different? Maybe it’s different in a way I’m not seeing, but until it’s pointed out, I don’t think it is. > [@Max\_the\_Immortal](#): > > A more balanced presentation might have had a third party (make it a Women’s Studies major or prof if that’s not too heavy-handed) take Mary’s side and lay out in logical terms why Don is oversimplifying the issue. That might not be good storytelling, though. How is Don oversimplifying the issue? ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 9:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-mansplains-rape/708319/28 "2014-12-31T09:55:25Z")
OK… a couple of points 1. I do in fact live in a muslem minority country bordered by one of the biggest muslem majority countries in the world (I live in Singapore) 2. Is my cite factually wrong? Are you refuting it? 3. Read the cite again - to prove rape there are two conditions under sharia law a) an admission of guilt b) Four (or more) male witnesses Are you refuting this? 4. As to which Hadith you believe - certainly - I have both moderate and conservative muslem friends, and have pretty regular reports on Sharia law - up to an including from some states of neighbouring country where Sharia law is actually in force Is there anything else you want to attack me on? > [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Yes it is and no it’s not. Beyond that you seem to be glossing over the fact that the “four witnesses” refers not to finding a man guilt of “rape” but finding a woman guilty of adultery. > > I’m actually laughing out loud at the white boy logic on display here. > > You’ve never been to a Muslim country or have any idea what exactly “Sharia law” is do you? > > Hint? > > It’s a lot of different things to a lot of different people. > > Correct, depending on which Hadith you believe. > > No, you’re not, not do I think anyone though you were. > > I’d recommend educating yourself before rather stupidly bring up cultures you know nothing about. > > BTW, I notice you used a source without giving any links. Who was it? ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-mansplains-rape/708319/29 "2014-12-31T10:08:05Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > I suppose the ‘four witnesses’ thing might work in cases of mass gang rape, if the police manage to browbeat four of the rapists into taking a plea bargain. > > Still, how often does that actually happen? Well rather obviously it doesn’t Which is why I bring it up - it’s a ridiculous standard of evidence (that thankfully is not generally followed) We did have a case here recently of a regional entertainer being flogged for Khalwat ([this is a link to an older case](http://www.thestar.com.my/story/?file=%2f2010%2f2%2f19%2fnation%2f20100219142900&sec=nation) Sorry a five minute google didn’t give me the link I wanted To expect corroboration in cases of rape is silly At the same time, it’s grossly unfair for someone to suffer consequences without corroboration. Which is where you are in the Cosby case, which is why I replied in the first place ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-mansplains-rape/708319/30 "2014-12-31T13:52:52Z")
What’s this mansplain thingy? Are we no longer allowed to have general opinions on matters that regards the other sex without being called out on mansplaining or womensplaining? If an atheist tries to tell me something about faith I can ignore it as atheistsplaining, if a black person brings up something on what it’s like to be white can I call him out on negrosplaing? Mansplain is an absurdly stupid concept that’ll only lead to a narrowing of the public debate. Besides having a webpage where anonymous people can go and shame and defame people for horrendous crimes they have not been convicted of is a horrible idea. You can mansplain me for that opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Slithy\_Tove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slithy_tove/32/18248_2.png) [@Slithy\_Tove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slithy_Tove)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-mansplains-rape/708319/31 "2014-12-31T16:00:16Z")
I believe “Sorkinsplaining” is the term we’re seeking. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-mansplains-rape/708319/32 "2014-12-31T16:14:07Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > What’s this mansplain thingy? Are we no longer allowed to have general opinions on matters that regards the other sex without being called out on mansplaining or womensplaining? If an atheist tries to tell me something about faith I can ignore it as atheistsplaining, if a black person brings up something on what it’s like to be white can I call him out on negrosplaing? Mansplain is an absurdly stupid concept that’ll only lead to a narrowing of the public debate. Mansplaining is explaining an elementary concept when a moment of empathy would have suggested that the disagreement or miscommunication was not the result of the concept needing to be explained. It also has the connotation of doing so with utter confidence even when such confidence is unwarranted. Of course, this is especially egregious when the fundamental concept is one that the person being mansplained to almost certainly understands better than the mansplainer. But it’s not about men being unable to understand women or having opinions about women and gender. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-mansplains-rape/708319/33 "2014-12-31T17:05:47Z")
I am sure Ibn can give numerous counter example of Sharia law taking an enlightened and progressive ruling on rape to disprove the white boy bigotry. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-mansplains-rape/708319/34 "2014-12-31T19:21:46Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > Well [this](http://archive.frontpagemag.co/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=33098) cite does not help your cause. It is claiming that, according to (at least some forms of) Islamic Law, rape can only be proven in Islamic court by admission of the accused or four male eyewitness accounts. > > It also goes on to say that simple admission of sexual relations outside of marriage, such as a woman claiming she was raped, is enough to get the _woman_ convicted of the crime of fornication. > > It continues, saying that “Sharia courts in Bangladesh regularly punish raped minor girls” and “Sharia courts in Pakistan have punished thousands of raped women by long term imprisonment.” > > So perhaps the white boy logic is not so laughable as the apologist calling others bigots when they say things said apologist would rather not acknowledge. Front page is hardly what I’d call an objective source. FWIW, it was was extremely rude and uncalled for of me to use the phrase “white boy logic”. I apologize to Bengamo for using it. Beyond that “Sharia Law” means lots of different things to many different people. Pakistan and Bangladesh are hardly all that representative and judging Islam or Muslims by them is like judging Christianity or Christians by many countries in SubSaharran Africa. I can assure that the overwhelming majority of countries that practice any form of Sharia Law don’t prosecute rapists unless they provide four witnesses and most are, if anything far too harsh on them. Beyond that I did chuckle a bit at being referred to as “an apologist”. Anyway, I’m dropping this hijack. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-mansplains-rape/708319/35 "2014-12-31T20:07:38Z")
I haven’t read any criticisms of the episode, but I have to say from the scene linked in the OP I’m not seeing the problem. It looks to me like a depiction of two viewpoints, not an endorsement of a single viewpoint. I don’t think mansplaining is an issue here. He’s not using his gender as a source of authority. The scene would play out, AFAICT, identically, had he been a female character instead. And it’s pretty clear that nothing he says is news to his interlocutor, anyway. I watched the first two seasons of the show, and it’s not like Don is a big moral hero or someone whose every move the show endorses. He’s not a bad guy either, and he doesn’t entirely lack depth or anything like that, but there’s no sense in which he’s the voice of the show. He’s generally a foil. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-mansplains-rape/708319/36 "2014-12-31T20:11:56Z")
One weird thing, though, is how he keeps telling her “an innocent man” could have his reputation ruined if she goes forward–which is a really strange thing to say, on the assumption that there’s no doubt in her own mind about who did it. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-mansplains-rape/708319/37 "2014-12-31T20:44:33Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > One weird thing, though, is how he keeps telling her “an innocent man” could have his reputation ruined if she goes forward–which is a really strange thing to say, on the assumption that there’s no doubt in her own mind about who did it. Right, I don’t think he’s talking about the specific guy that she specifically accused. He’s saying that her website will at some point in the future affect a different, actually innocent, guy. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-mansplains-rape/708319/38 "2014-12-31T21:20:26Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Right, I don’t think he’s talking about the specific guy that she specifically accused. He’s saying that her website will at some point in the future affect a different, actually innocent, guy. That was my interpretation as well. I’d also think she’d open herself up to potentially getting sued for libel, but that’s a different story. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2015, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-mansplains-rape/708319/39 "2015-01-01T03:53:48Z")
Hasn’t the ship kind of sailed on the concept? Surely it’s possible to set up a website for anonymous accusations of rape or anything else; the only potential stumbling block is legal action against the person administering the site, if their identities are known, and that seems easily circumvented. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2015, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-mansplains-rape/708319/40 "2015-01-01T05:50:07Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Hasn’t the ship kind of sailed on the concept? Surely it’s possible to set up a website for anonymous accusations of rape or anything else; the only potential stumbling block is legal action against the person administering the site, if their identities are known, and that seems easily circumvented. The real block is that nobody would read it, because nobody cares about or has any confidence in random accusations on the Internet. If anyone can write anything, all you will get is a bunch of junk. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-mansplains-rape/708319.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-mansplains-rape/708319.md?page=3)