Lena Dunham covers the new issue of the National Review. No, she didn’t pose for the cover, nor did she grant the conservative publication an interview. As it turns out, Lena Dunham is overwhelmingly hated by conservatives, which is something I never realized before now. Lena is a political liberal and she’s never made that any kind of secret. She’s publicly supportive of Planned Parenthood and NARAL, she’s done some Get Out the Vote work (in 2012) and that sort of thing. I’ve never given it that much thought. But apparently some in the conservative media are using Lena as a punching bag for all things “evil” – evil with Democrats, evil with women, evil with the younger generation, evil with Hollywood, and on and on.
It should be noted that Kevin D. Williamson is the author of this National Review screed. Williamson is the same guy who wrote that horribly transphobic article about Laverne Cox. Williamson is the same guy who recently said that women who have abortions should be put to death… by hanging. That’s where we are now. First, I read the opening of Williamson’s article and I was all “Whoa, I kind of agree with his take here.”
Lena Dunham is fond of lists. Here is a list of things in Lena Dunham’s life that do not strike Lena Dunham as being unusual: growing up in a $6.25 million Tribeca apartment; attending a selection of elite private schools; renting a home in Hollywood Hills well before having anything quite resembling a job and complaining that the home is insufficiently “chic”; the habitual education of the men in her family at Andover; the services of a string of foreign nannies; being referred to a homework therapist when she refused to do her homework and being referred to a relationship therapist when she fought with her mother; constant visits to homeopathic doctors, and visits to child psychologists three times a week; having a summer home on a lake in Connecticut, and complaining about it; writing a “voice of her generation” memoir in which ordinary life events among members of her generation, such as making student-loan payments or worrying about the rent or health insurance, never come up; making casual trips to Malibu; her grandparents’ having taken seven-week trips to Europe during her mother’s childhood; spending a summer at a camp at which the costs can total almost as much as the median American family’s annual rent; being histrionically miserable at said camp and demanding to be brought home early; demanding to be sent back to the same expensive camp the next year.
Right? If the article had just been about “poor little rich girl thinks she’s a special snowflake,” I would have been like “Whoa, I guess I’m a Republican on this one. Sign me up!” But then, of course, Williamson’s article takes an absolutely horrendous detour with this: “As a literary stratagem — laying down a marker in the popular culture without making herself vulnerable to accusations that she might be taking herself too seriously — the maneuver is transparent…. Specifically, she uses it in her memoir to accuse a man of rape without having to take responsibility for the accusation.” What’s that now?
Yes, Williamson was pissed about Lena’s recounting of her college rape within her memoir. Lena identified the guy as “Barry” and a “college Republican.” I wrote about it a few weeks ago. Lena’s story pissed off Williamson because… won’t anyone think of the poor rapists?!?! To his mind, no woman should ever speak publicly about their rape or sexual assault without taking responsibility for how they are hurting the accused rapist. LITERALLY. That’s the point he’s making. He also suggests that any woman “claiming” to be raped must release their medical records to “prove” their story. You can read more of Williamson’s rape-specific article here. He calls her college-rape story a “gutless and passive-aggressive act.”
So, there was an immediate backlash against the National Review for publishing this misogynistic drivel. Go here to read Salon’s piece. Go here to see Alex Wagner tackle it. Go here to see WaPo’s takedown. I guess this was one way to get me on Team Dunham. Ugh.
Cover courtesy of National Review, additional photos by WENN.
Did Williamson write a similar piece when Scott Brown claimed to have been sexually assaulted at a camp but refused to identify the person, thereby casting aspersions on everyone who worked there?
Not downplaying the seriousness of either experience but making rape a partisan issue is beyond disgusting.
I doubt it
Please be careful of the blanket ignorance that you are casting on “Republicans”.
I find “Democrats” to be mostly driven by their opinions, which are based on emotions, rather than facts: In fact, they generally present themselves as ignorant in most areas of factual public welfare, and also the actual cause and effect of government social policy.
PLEASE…Everyone would benefit if the general public would start studying basic economics.
BTW: This D-bag sounds like a total idiot. Why is the media even giving him time?
I fully support victims of any crime to get some justice and therapy and whatever else they need.
But that doesn’t make me like Lena Dunham. I hope she had all she needed to deal with her rape but I still don’t like her.
As for Williamson: his account of Dunham’s rather whiny-complainy biography isn’t wrong, apparently. His account and judgement of her rape ordeal certainly is wrong.
How do they know whether the name ‘Barry’ was a real name, or a random name used as a cover? I haven’t read her book, so I can’t parse it. If it is the real name, does the NR actually think that a rapist would say, “Hell, yeah, that was me”?
“laying down a marker in the popular culture without making herself vulnerable to accusations that she might be taking herself too seriously” WTF does this mean?
Exactly. He’s just mad that she said it was a Republican that did it–if it had been a Democrat then we’d have gotten an article about how Democrats can’t teach their kids to keep their hands to themselves without the Bible.
If Lena and these other girls were raped by this mystery Republican,then name names. He could be a serial rapist who is continuing these acts of rage against women. Look at the serial rapist in Virginia who probably has been raping and killing women for years. So Lena needs to name names IF this is a true story.
She’s sharing a story, not filing a police report. Why don’t you scan down the page and yell at all the rape victims in this thread, while you’re at it?
@Steph, it’s difficult for the victims in Virginia to name names when they’ve been killed.
Steph, do you realize you are implying that rape victims should remain silent about their experiences unless they are able to prosecute the rapist?
Steph I cannot believe you just said that. This ‘rag’ has slurred women and encourages rape and various crimes against women, like most republicans do, and you are asking that? How can you even look at yourself in the mirror?
@Steph: What if she can’t actually prove that he raped her?
Exactly. He’s just angry she identified him as a College Republican.
@Steph, it’s her prerrogative to tell his name or not. As some said, she wasn’t filling a police report, just telling her story.
Steph, are you aware that you are claiming rape victims are responsible for further acts of criminal violence by the rapist? Or had you just not thought that standpoint through?
Rapists are responsible for rape. Society is responsible for creating a culture that allows you to make thinly-veiled attacks on women you do not like, by implying with a capitalised IF that they are lying, and then adding that they’re still in the wrong should the story be true, because they didn’t take responsibility for their rapist’s attack and prosecute.
If you really think prosecuting an acquaintance or date rapist is that easy, you’re either extremely sheltered or somewhat delusional.
Well said, K!
Apparently he has taken his vitriol out on her before:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388945/five-reasons-why-youre-too-dumb-vote-kevin-d-williamson
This dude is obsessed with Dunham’s sex life, her body and everything else.
Kiddo, thanks for the link. Nice rant about how conservatives are too “adult” to ever have to resort to abortions. Funny, he describes her as “distinctly unappealing.” Pretty apt descriptor of himself.
I’m sure it was a fake name.
Agree with the part in grey, horrified by the author’s stance on rape, confused why Lena would specifically describe her attacker as “Republican” – which is, I guess, the part that got his hackles up.
Do Democrats and Independents not sexually assault people too?!!
I should have read yours before posting. That seems to be my takeaway. She’s using her assault as a platform to trash a political party.
His article took it too far, but Lena baited. This is her schtick. Insult and shock until someone attacks her directly so she can have more coverage. Her story of her assault seems to have been shared more as a way to attack a group than share her story. That makes me smh
i agree. its not making it any better what he wrote, but why did Lena even include that? thats extremely low.
im not american and this stupid demonization of the opposing party (why are there only two who have an actual chance to win anyway?) annoys me to no end.
she complains about feminist being all lumped together and that she is not responsible for the extreme voices in the movement but then puts all republicans in one group with that.
+1
There was no reason to include that peice of information unless she was trying to get in a jab.
I don’t know, if you describe someone as a “young Republican” or “college Republican”, I know immediately the type of person you’re talking about. That’s a specific persona for young people. It’s like if you said, “Have you met Andrea? She’s a lady who lunches,” I’d know exactly who you think Andrea is. Maybe she was baiting, but also maybe the guy *was* a young Republican.
“She’s using her assault as a platform to trash a political party.”
Is she, though? Or is she merely telling her own story?
I think the detail is important, as for a lot of people (especially men it seems), think of rapists like these dark and shady “stranger danger” type characters. Reminding people that it isn’t just the guy lurking in a dark alley that is capable of this crime, but it can also be the boy next door, the dork, the goody two-shoes, the brainiac, the kid from a good family, etc.
+1, kinda
What Williamson wrote is gross. But Lena exercised poor judgment by using that adjective to describe her rapist. Many of my peers – who are similar to Lena in demographic and upbringing – automatically assume Republicans are terrible people without ever really trying to understand their perspectives. Lena knows this. At best, she was reckless in using an adjective that only furthers these generalizations of Republicans. At worst, it was a purposeful decision meant to further an agenda. I suspect it’s a little bit of both – she knew what she was doing but didn’t really think it through.
@Algernon:
That is the very reason why Lena’s decision to describe her rapist in that way was just poor judgment – it’s unfair that people generalize “college Republican” in a certain way. I know that college Republicans aren’t exactly a high priority on the list of groups that need protection from generalizations, but someone that’s as vocal in that arena regarding feminist, sexuality, etc. rights as Lena is should be smarter about stuff like that. As I said before, many of my peers who love Lena also mistakenly think Republican means this extremist blue blood who hates poor people and minorities. They will eat this up and add it to their generalized perception of Republican.
Maybe I’m taking this too far but to me this highly representative of an issue with many of my peers. We think because we are more socially progressive than past generations (e.g., marriage equality, feminism, etc.) that we are automatically more open minded as well. I find ourselves to be very close minded and downright hateful toward people who don’t share our exact viewpoints.
Maybe he was one of the republican types who goes around talking about he and his party have the ‘moral high ground’ and how liberals are immoral, selfish, sinful, and Ruining This Great Country. If so, then I do kind of see her point in mentioning that. It doesn’t imply to me that democrats, independents, or republicans don’t rape. So often the idea there is that being against ‘Evil Socialism’ and promoting traditional values means that you have morals (and pushing those values are not necessarily what’s good for people or society either, but that’s a whole different debate 🙂 and just want everybody to pull their own weight, when in reality, that’s not necessarily the truth. Shitty people come from all political, social, and educational backgrounds. Maybe she wanted to take a jab at this guy and others who went to their school and were in his group who acted very self-righteous. But I do see how including that detail could start a sh-tstorm.
Ahh I thought I edited my comment
@Tiffany…I think that’s a fair point and that’s how I can see it being all right.
It’s funny because I normally roll my eyes when people get hyper-PC about stuff like this but since it’s Lena – who I lump in with the hypersensitive overly PC crowd – I think she should, as they always say “check herself!” I think I see why they use it so much…it’s easy to throw around and kind of addictive!
Very nicely stated, Mira:)
Algernon
If we’re talking stereotypes that may not actually be true then ok. For instance the lady who lunches may just act that way and not actually be the literal and social sense.
And I was in a new club in college every semester just to change it up. The republicans weren’t half as bad as the democrat club. So, it’s an unfair stereotype. To prejudge someone as the embodiment of only the worst qualities associated with that group. All because of their voting preference. Lena should know better than to prejudge. Or to resort to that namecalling. Unless he was bragging about how what he was doing was common and decent rep qualities. If not she loses credibility for taking it there.
Otaku
That type of guy who brags sounds more like an average macho college guy who needs to brag.
Exactamundo! Lena Dunham is an immature little twit. With age comes wisdom and Lena needs to grow up. She’s old enough and she’s lived enough now to know when she’s baiting. She didn’t need to identify her attacker as one political party or another. By doing so she’s insinuating that he raped her because he’s a Republican and all that that entails. Lena is old enough to realize that rapists do not rape because they’re Republicans. They rape because they’re sickos in need of serious rehabilitation. In fact, I feel she’s trivializing the seriousness of the issue by identifying his action with political affiliation.
Have you noticed how much the GOP has r@ped the middle class since 1980? And shame on the National Review. They must be desperate for sales…………..
Ok, I will go there, since you bought it up. How about how our current POTUS is trashing this country by sending troops to their ebola deaths, while letting ebola patients fly into this country to infect maybe YOUR community. Oh yeah makes a LOT of sense doesn’t it?
Hitting an outbreak at its epidemic ground zero, decreases the spread. Soldiers risk heir lives in war for oil. You don’t consider the lives of people more valuable than resources?
“trashing this country by sending troops to their ebola deaths, while letting ebola patients fly into this country to infect maybe YOUR community. ”
yeah, I see the Fox News fear-mongering has started.
you realize that more people have been married to Kim K than there are Americans who’ve been infected with Ebola, right?
Their/ correction.
You are seriously misinformed. Look at how the middle class has declined over the past six years as well as private sector jobs. The rich under Obama have become very rich and there are more people on food stamps and government assistance. To me it appears that the goal of the Democrats is to make everyone dependent on government at the expense of the middle class. The Dems have become the Socialist party of America. If you are into Socialism,fine..but the US was not founded on Socialism. If people want Socialism move to Europe. The Dems want two classes,rich and poor with no middle class to make waves.
@Steph, The Obama administration is no different than the Repubs as they are both corporatists and were bought and paid for by Wall St, corporations and the 1%.
The increasing wealth at the top and decreasing wealth at the bottom started long before Obama. I am not an apologist for his policies. If you want to have equality, then you need to stop giving corporate welfare and tax breaks at the top. When there is more opportunity at the bottom, there will be less of a necessity to use social welfare programs to keep people from dying.
@Tallmuter – every country in the world should be sending military and medical aid to the African countries dealing with the ebola outbreak to help contain a rapidly growing epidemic. What will “trash America” is an uncontained spread of this disease. I’m astonished at your insular and uncompassionate attitude.
@Jaded: Insularity and lack of compassion is a typical Republican mindset.
@ Steph
Here is a graph plotting presidential campaign candidates from 2012 against policy points. It’s illuminating. Thinking Obama, or indeed 99% of Democrats, are socialist is just fantasyland.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012
“Look at how the middle class has declined over the past six years as well as private sector jobs”
Take a step back and see how the middle class has declined over the last 30 years! The trend just continued under Obama, he didn’t start the trend. Factually, Reagan’s policies in the 80s were the beginning.
“The Dems have become the Socialist party of America. If you are into Socialism,fine..but the US was not founded on Socialism. If people want Socialism move to Europe. The Dems want two classes,rich and poor with no middle class to make waves. ”
Er, you’re a very; very, very deeply confused person, Steph. It is, in FACT, the conservatives who want to create a rich vs poor. Newsflash Steph; the US was not founded on conservatism/capitalism. Socialism is about EQUALITY. Conservatism/capitalism is about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer which is what Repugnantians are all about. Seriously misinformed doesn’t even *begin* to describe YOU. You are so far gone and so far deluded, you need serious help.
I wonder if maybe she was just giving us a visual. I’m picturing a preppy type who maybe wears a tie to class and acts all “model citizen” in front of adults but rapes girls on the side.
That’s exactly how I took it vs baiting/trolling. I supposed she could have just said “preppy” but I do think her descriptor is good for a quick visual.
I hate that I am on Lena’s side, because I could have written that excerpt about her overpriviledged a$$ my damn self (!), but I too saw this as a descriptive “type”, and it is a type I see often on the college campuses I have worked at. I don’t see her as politically “baiting” at all, and I find it kind of appalling that some people are making it into a political issue. A young woman was raped because we live in a culture of rape. THAT should be the takeaway!
Now, I’m going to go back over to my bitter corner and keep hating the little twerp for everything but this issue!
Mai
If Lena wasnted to go that route she could have said a more common word like “frat” to describe that behavior. I think she’s carefully chosen her words here and she’s trolling. that is not uncommon for her.
In her case it was a republican who raped her, she has every right to point that out! I would love to see some statistics on whether it is more conservatives or more liberals who are being accused of rape and abuse.
This might give you an answer:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/17/1307761/-GOP-Rape-Advisory-Chart-How-the-hell-did-this-one-escape-my-attention#
KItten, oh geez, I am afraid to click on this. But thanks. 🙂
You’ve got to be f*cking kidding ~
“If a woman has (the right to an abortion), why shouldn’t a man be free to use his superior strength to force himself on a woman? At least the rapist’s pursuit of sexual freedom doesn’t (in most cases) result in anyone’s death.”
GET THE F*CKING F*CK OUT OF HERE.
I think that link just gave me an aneurysm.
Amelia, it makes it all the more awful that the person that said that is an elected legislator!
I’m no fan of hers, but I really don’t think she meant much by pointing out that he was a college Republican. Maybe because it was something that stood out, considering she went to Oberlin?
To me saying “College Republican” is a little different than saying she was raped by a random Republican. Of course, it is still stereotypes, but the College Republicans generally give off a douchey, victimized vibe and try to bring attention to themselves by being purposefully non-PC. To me it is a detail to give the story color, like the difference between saying she was raped by a liberal and saying she was raped by one of the ISO guys who like to hand out pamphlets and harangue people on the green.
Kiddo,I agree that there are big government corporate progressives in the GOP like the Bush family,McCains,Romney etc…but Obama’s addition of massive regulations have made it very difficult for small businesses to compete with large corporations. Small business created the majority of jobs in this country and offered competition to the larger corporations. Once the small businesses dry up,salaries will decrease even more so.
The regulations were initially intended for the large monopolies, who were getting away with poisoning, polluting lands and abusing workers in sweatshops with low pay. However, money makes it easier for them to bypass the system or pay fines and move on. The difference is that small businesses don’t have that advantage (money to buy the way out) and political connections and influence. What needs to start happening is for BIG business lawbreakers to go to jail, LOTS of them and those who crashed the economy. Then there might be an equal playing field. But we can’t toss the baby out with the bath water, getting rid of all regulations, because the result will be more illnesses, pollution, abuse and destruction of non wealthy people via the handywork of large corporations. The government needs to STOP putting lobbyists in the positions of protection agencies; it’s the wolf guarding the henhouse.
@Steph and @kiddo:
right on! Glad to hear some truth and logic applied to our political system and what happens to our environment as result of corporate greed, cronyism, hypocrisy and corruption. As a scientist, I can say in my experience what I’m seeing doesn’t match up with what I’m supposed to see. I.E. we have numerous regulations to ensure our air and water should technically speaking, be getting cleaner but they’re both not getting better anymore. Which is funny since everyone appears (*not really but whatever) to be following the rules, at least on paper. Since there are pollution discharge limits that get more stringent as time goes on and technology gets better, its especially disturbing to me to witness this trend and scary because I know what it means in terms of our collective public health. You both know too! Most people are seeing it but they’re too scared to admit the truth even to themselves. I mean you don’t have to be a scientist to notice air quality, water quality, seeing less and less animals every year, to notice that suddenly everyone you know has an autoimmune disease, or at least 1 persons in every family you know, young people are having more health problems, and autism and other developmental delays are higher now than ever before. It feels to me, that basically we’re all just externalities of capitalism, we pay the price, sometimes with our lives and with our health, for huge corporations to become ridiculously wealthy. and I’m no socialist but I don’t think that’s right at all. And the reason republicans get the ire of liberals like myself is because frankly they don’t seem to give a $hit. They’re not as community minded as some of us, it’s like well I “worked” hard, made something of myself, probably from extracting natural resources that arguably people shouldn’t even be allowed to own, I made tons of $$$$, too bad your family is going to be drinking mine tailings in your drinking water, it’s not my problem. You’re just lazy, get of the dole and my lawn. The problem with that way of thinking, besides for the lack of empathy and unwillingness to admit no one makes anything solely on their own without the help of the shared resources we have in the US, like roads for example, is that it is their problem, everything is connected, so good luck hiding out in your mcmansion when the crap hits the fan, you need clean air water and food to survive just like everyone else.
I disagree, actually. College Republican or College Democrat, what comes to mind for me is all of those incredibly political types in college who all wanted to be the next President of the United States, or maybe even honestly just run for office, but every single one of them, on either side, had WAY more invested in their public reputation than did your average college kid.
So I do think it’s a valid description, as someone in whatever “Young Politico” club is more concerned with their reputation than your average 20-year-old party-hearty college kid, is being quite the hypocrite in the above situation.
I find it more problematic that we’re jumping to conclusions about what “Republican” means. Unless you start out your description of Republican by demanding Obama’s birth certificate, I don’t know what kind of Repub you are until I get to know you, and like all people, and all political parties, there are good ones and bad ones on either side. I’m pretty sure if I had described someone as a member of the “Young Communist Party” or member of the “Greenpeace Student Network” we wouldn’t be here arguing about whether this was a low-blow.
I think Lena did a pretty good job of covering up the (accused) rapist’s identity, which I think is the right thing to do unless you are ready to make a formal accusation in a court of law.
She did much better than Kathy Griffin did earlier this month with her tweet after the Stephen Collins revelations, when she wrote, ‘Jack M, u next?’ I would be pretty annoyed if I was an ordinary man (or woman) who went by the nickname Jack M.
yeah she even had to point out who it wasnt because people obviously started guessing.
I’m find it hard to come up with the right words to convey how disgusted I am that this guy wrote the article, and then that a national magazine published it AND made it the cover story.
Words are insufficient.
This is far from the first time the National Review has been involved in these types of controversies. They’re repugnant.
@OhDear – THIS… and THIS GUY specifically.
I posted some of his other “work” downthread.
It is beyond disgusting, as is the fact that while they are vilifying her they are using her image to sell their rag.
No, what’s disgusting is the number of people on websites saying he’s right and to THINK OF THE MEN!!!!, your precious sons who may go to college and be accused of rape despite statistics that say false accusations are extremely low. Statistically, it’s more likely your son is a rapist, and nobody wants to think that.
I felt sick to my stomach. The author is vile for writing that piece of crap to stir up controversy.
Well, someone took the bait. Now Lena will get more attention.
Naming him as a republican does seem odd. She used that to identify him in a negative way. He raped her and he’s a republican. So, republicans rape..
Would she have said that if he was a democrate? How about if he was a hipster?
I think the message is lost a bit. It’s pretty bad of her to use that assault on her as a platform to attack a political side. IMO it’s only needed information if he attacked her because he felt that’s what republicans do or that because she wasn’t a rep she should be attacked. Not gutless because she told her story.
And Lena had to know this was coming. she made a claim and there needs to be some kind of evidence. Something to support her story. Otherwise it becomes very easy to claim she’s not being truthful.
I have to disagree slightly with the wording however I have not read the book so can not say first hand but from the article it says “college Republican” not “Republican rapist”. There’s a difference. She was describing him generally and she mentioned he was a Republican..and later on describes that he raped her. I don’t think she was linking the two things
If you see my comments, my point exactly. I am so SICK of political correctness. I am so sick of labeling and categorizing,,,
@Kiddo i’m glad you also saw that…i was so confused, had to re-read my comment
@Honeybea, I got deleted, not sure why. But to reiterate, you were not sharing the opinion of the person above.
Um, seriously what kind of evidence are you wanting after a years old rape? And what do you think a woman has to gain by lying about being raped? You’ve obviously have made up your mind about her anyway.
“she made a claim and there needs to be some kind of evidence.”
EXCUSE ME?!
I was raped in college, by someone I knew and considered a friend. at this point in my life, 20+ years later, there’s no “evidence”, just my word. and my memories. and my trauma. STILL my trauma…
should I not make the claim that I was raped? do I need something to “support my story”?
she’s not making a formal report with the police. she’s relating something that happened to her, something that shaped who she is today. it’s crap like this that makes rape victims not want to share their story.
doofus, what would the other way be though? every crime needs evidence. i can not just call you a burglar without proof.
if you are reporting a crime to the police and you expect a prosecution, then yes you need evidence.
simply relating a story does not require that. even if it’s public. she is not naming names, this person is not identified. she’s not ruining someone’s life with this accusation. for people to say that she needs proof to simply TELL HER STORY is bogus.
Sorry doofus.
Doofus, I’m so sorry that happened to you, and I completely agree with everything you said.
thank you, ladies…as you can see, this subject hits home for me, and I am so f-ing tired of the rape apologists.
all of these “poor men” who get accused…you know, it’s really easy, if there’s ANY QUESTION of the woman’s ability to give consent, or any question on whether or not she’s GIVEN consent, just don’t do it.
Doofus – I’m so sorry that happened to you.
I was date raped in my early 20’s (back when I didn’t even know there was a term for what happened to me and I blamed myself for years) and now I am in my mid 50’s. After all these decades it is still MY trauma. Doofus, you wrote what probably every woman who ever had this terrible experience feels in her heart. You don’t “just get over it” but you learn to deal. I didn’t report it and even if it happened yesterday instead of the 1980, I would have no “evidence” except my personal disgust and shame. I couldn’t even tell my folks because I was afraid they would try to make me move back home. But I can talk about what happened to me freely now and the experience gave me a level of compassion toward other women at an earlier age than I might have had otherwise. (Lemonade from bitter lemons.)
I don’t care for Lena Dunham and her rape doesn’t change my feelings about her one bit. But I now consider her part of a sisterhood of women from all walks of life who have had this trauma. If it were me writing a book under her specific circumstances, my point might have been that I was attacked by a man who (perhaps?) lived outwardly as a member of the judgemental wing of the Christian Right….therefore meaning that the POS was a hypocrite as well as a criminal. Maybe that was her point.
I don’t know nor do I care what political stripe the (then) young man who thought my “please stop” meant continue and thought ripping the buttons of my new blouse was appropriate. I wasn’t thinking about his party when I just gave up and simply waited for it to end. He could have been a hippy liberal who was a rapist or a button down conservative who was a rapist. But the only thing that mattered to me that night and today is that he was a rapist.
doofus, I completely agree. The fact that she didn’t report it doesn’t invalidate the horror of the experience in any way. I am so sorry you had to experience it yourself.
MyCatLoves TV, thank you for sharing your story.
Well, everyone is taking this the wrong way.
I meant when calling someone out in a book. There’s a legal team that goes over it. To protect from scandal and/or publisher liability. So, let’s all take another breath.
And I’ve explained here before I’ve been assaulted. And when I had to tell people I stuck to facts and not opinions or assumptions.
Evidence can be location, time, possible witnesses. Not samples taken from a kit or dirty sheets.
People read my comment and smelled blood. Not looking beyond.
My sister was raped by her best friend’s boyfriend when she was 15. On her way to her friend’s house, he drove her into an abandoned trail area and told her that she had two choices – have sex with him or be forced into sex with him. She has no proof other than her word. The last time she encountered this guy by accident years later at a friend’s party, she had a complete emotional breakdown and begged my cousin – a trained marine – to stick by her side and protect her. She will never see justice for what was done to her, and even if she had, the chances are she would be told that she “consented” for choosing a less violent rape. But she will have to spend with the rest of her life knowing that this happened to her.
Did I say anything that condones the behavior you stated? I didn’t.
Truly people. Take a breath.
Veronica, I’m so sorry for your sister’s pain. For what it’s worth, her decision may have saved her life. She survived, so she made the right decision.
@FLORC, I see your point but don’t agree. If she was using a real name, and a full name maybe it would require the level of proof you are suggesting to be fit to print.
I haven’t read Lena’s book and don’t intend to but from what I gather, she doesn’t fully use this man’s name.
Agreed. She did did accuse one John Smith of rape. He would then have a right to defend himself, and proof would be needed and asked for (Let’s hope).
She said, that she was raped. No accusation there.
Sometimes i read such extraordinarily hateful things that I just have to go bed and sleep. I can’t with this world !
If she had said she had been robbed by her dorm mate Betty, I’m sure he wouldn’t have been up in arms about proof. Men like him only become outraged when women or children speak out about sexual or physical abuse perpetrated by men. Because, of course, this could happen to him. He could be “falsely” accused, like all of the millions of “innocent” men who are the victims of lies by women and children.
What a hate-filled, fearful life he must lead.
False claims do happen – as with Conor Oberst, for example. Rape is a terrible crime, and we need to educate both men and women about how to stop it. Yet we help no one by assuming that all sexual assault accusations are, by their nature, true.
We help perpetuate the violence against women and children by making the victim’s word always in question in cases of physical and sexual abuse, always doubting, always dragging out the extremely rare cases of false accusations as “proof” that it probably never happened. How many people have been falsely arrested for other crimes, jailed and even put to death for crimes they didn’t commit? Yet you NEVER hear people doubt someone’s word when they say they have been the victim of a robbery. You never hear sympathy for the poor thief, who probably had the consent of his victim but now is accusing him since she regrets her own actions.
I know you’re not saying that all victims of rape are lying. And I’m not saying that someone should be jailed for rape without proof. I’m just pointing out that it is ONLY crimes against women and children perpetrated by men that are always suspect, and in which the perpetrators are excused as “needing help” and slapped on the wrist and felt sorry for.
Spot on, GNATTY!
*clapping*
thank you for that post, GNAT.
CandyKay,
The statistics for false rape reporting stand at 2% of the total accusations, same as with any other violent crime reporting. 2%, that’s all, though I don’t know of any other type of crime where the victim’s word is doubted as much as in the case of rape.
Well said, GNAT!
Good point, angela.
Statistics for false rape accusations are extraordinarily low (no more or less than any other crime), and even then, psychological reactions to crimes vary so wildly based on personality that it’s extremely difficult to discern up front if something is false. I remember a discussion in a forum a few years back where a former military investigator talked about the likelihood of rape statistics in the military. In all the years she was following up, she had no more than two stories that didn’t pan out. Meanwhile, the one time she questioned a woman’s veracity, it turned out to be one of the most violent assaults she ever investigated.
Statistics are not on the side of the perpetrators. Statistics tells us that rape is far more likely than a false accusations. So maybe we should redirect that cynicism away from the victims and do something productive with it.
Veronica, your post is very important. Thank you so much for sharing that information. I really agree with this point…so I’m gonna post it again!
“Statistics are not on the side of the perpetrators. Statistics tells us that rape is far more likely than a false accusations. So maybe we should redirect that cynicism away from the victims and do something productive with it. “
I love you GNAT! Agree with every word you wrote.
And people STILL argue against the actuality of rape culture.
Williamson is a splendid example of male entitlement and privilege.
As a conservative woman and regular Celebitchy fan, I am going to comment here. Let the condemnation come I guess. Yes, rape is an awful, terrible thing, but so are erroneous in my view accusations that are very serious, which is what Ms. Dunham has made. Also Ms. Dunham made it a POINT to label her rapist as a REPUBLICAN, like what, all republicans are rapists? Please. If anyone doesn’t see that as an open attempt to smear republicans here for her own political reasons and beliefs I just don’t know! Men HAVE been falsely accused in some instances, but anyone with any intelligence knows that it doesn’t mean that real, true rape, which a brutal crime, doesn’t happen everyday in this country, perpetrated by men of ALL political beliefs. She puts herself out there to appear to many people to be a hypocrite. That is if she is really serious about seeing justice done by mentioning it publicly in the first place, she might as well see this criminal doesn’t harm another woman, but then again that brings me back to my personal opinion which is it NEVER happened. The author of the NR piece is just calling her out on it to prove if her comments are NOT a lie. Putting my hard hat on right now.
And you are ignoring the fact that Republican party is woman hating group who do everything to take away rights from women regarding their bodies or equal pay.
That is a false accusation. I am sick of not being able to call myself a competent, intelligent, REAL woman because I don’t agree with the political left leaning National Organization of Women or the liberal Hollywood elites,,,,
I don’t know–on the whole they are. I’ll never forget when Sandra Fluke was in the news. People who just read the headlines were going on and on about how she wanted the government to fund her abortions/birth control–and didn’t even read about WHY she was speaking up–about her friend that went through menopause at 34 because her insurance through their (Jesuit) college would not allow for her to use it to buy birth control….despite the fact that it was needed for her (cervical?) cancer–which is why she went through menopause so early.
I lost complete and total respect when a pastor I knew said he agreed with Rush Limbaugh calling her a ‘slut’–which, as a Christian, you shouldn’t be calling ANYONE that, let alone agreeing with it. But I feel like a lot of Christians I know are very ignorant and only read what is spoon fed to them. Like that thing going on in Houston about the pastors being subpoena’d for their speeches/sermons relaying to the HERO act, of which they were POLITICALLY opposed, as part of an ongoing lawsuit. Everyone on my FB is making a big stink about how it’s taking away their freedoms, etc—when all they have to do is do a little research and see that these pastors weren’t just making sermons about their opposition–they were campaigning for against it i.e. they invited the law in there.
@Tallmuter: was it a Republican or a Democrat who made the following comments: “women don’t get pregnant from legitimate rape”; “a pregnancy resulting from a rape is a gift from God”; and “if women have a right to get abortions, why shouldn’t men have a right to force women to get pregnant? ”
Three guesses and the first two don’t count.
@Really
Not all republicans are women hating, just because you may know of some or the ones that you see portrayed in the media are doesn’t represent the entire Republican Party as a whole. Let’s stop with these sweeping generalizations. It’s tiresome when I come to this site and there is demand for other groups to be given this consideration but with others it’s not even considered.
@Mel M, They are the loudest. Where can we find the ones who disagree, because they seem to keep quiet about a lot of the extreme right fanatics?
+1 to Tallmuter and Mel M
@Kiddo
Yes, they are the loudest, but that doesn’t been that they are the majority or even most passionate. It just means they have access to the loudest speakers. It’s very, very difficult to get elected as a moderate Republican because it’s easy for the more extremist Republicans to hyperbolize in campaigns. Moderate politics (on EITHER side of the coin) are much more difficult to get elected into office because they take more time to explain and require complex thought. The electorate often just wants to hear the one sentence on an issue (pro-choice vs. pro-life, gun or anti-gun) and that’s way easier to sell when you fall further to the left or right.
As for the media – they’re in it to make money. What makes for better TV? Extremists, every time. The only way moderates have been successful in television is really through comedy.
To me, your comment is the reminiscent of in the years following 9-11, when the American population didn’t know much about Islam and assumed because the loudest speakers were extremist Muslims that wanted to destroy Western values that most Muslims were like that.
Also – and I’m not saying this is you, per se, just that your comment got me on a roll – but as a moderate, I find that both Republicans and Democrats are very quick to label me without actually waiting to hear me out (or kind of listening, but just really waiting for me to stop speaking so they can start). I kid you not, nearly ever single time, if I’m debating with a Republican and disagree with one of their points, I’m automatically an Obama-loving liberal millenial with no concept of reality. If I’m debating with a Democrat and disagree with one of their points, I’m a snobby, over-privileged Republican who must hate other women and minorities.
@Mira, The point is that they are dominating elections, WINNING them, not just speaking this way. NO one is stepping up. And even the moderate ones AMP up the radical noise if they hit a national stage. It’s not the same as Muslims, I lived through 9/11, very close by. I never heard Muslims saying a thing against the US, nor people going after Muslims. That was mostly the rest of the country, not as much locally, and I take offense at the false equivalency. The Muslims are not standing by leaders who are against rights, but the republican voters are.
As an aside, I had in the past, voted republican on smaller elections. But I can NOT vote for any person who makes a platform against my self determination.
Too many are doing that, and if it isn’t what they stand for then they better start saying what they do stand for and against, even if it means disavowing their own party members.
Go back to your 4chan cesspool MRA troll, no ones gonna bite!!
This isn’t an MRA troll. There are sadly plenty of woman out there who think that conservatives’ archaic and violent and backwards view of women is totally cool.
Pretty much the tone of this article is that the author doesn’t believe Lena, and will refuse to believe or consider her ordeal unless she provides actual, physical proof of her assault. There are many, many reasons that women don’t come forward and make public their rapes and one of the major reasons is that they know they won’t be believed. They know they will be accused of lying. They know their names will be dragged through the mud. They know their past indiscretions will be used against them.
There are plenty of reasons why Lena could have decided to remain silent at the time, I haven’t read the book so I can’t say why. Maybe she felt s too ashamed to seek help, or too afraid, maybe she couldn’t emotionally deal with it at the time and put it off. Some rapes have physical proof in the form of bruises and cuts, but they fade after a few days; and in some rapes, particularly if the victim in incapacitated, or frozen with fear and don’t put up a fight, don’t leave physical marks. So just because she didn’t report it at the time, for whatever reason, or because years later, she no longer has the physical bruises to prove it happened to her, does not mean that she shouldn’t write about it. Perhaps it’s taken her until now to be able to talk about it. That should not be discouraged. Saying that it’s her duty to report him to prevent other women from being hurt, puts all the responsibility for his actions on her.
The fact that he is a Republican should be irrelevant. She didn’t describe him as a Republican rapist. She described him as a College Republican, which actually does give an idea of his character. Later in book, she mentions that he raped her. The two are not synonymous. She never said that he raped her because he was a Republican. The fact that people are using one word in her description of the man who raped her as an excuse to write negative think pieces about her is pretty disgusting, and defending this jerk is lame.
Thanks I haven’t read the book so I appreciate the clarification. The context makes a difference.
Thank you, Ninks. There are a plethora of reasons victims of ANY type of assault may choose not to come forward. But sexual assault is particularly daunting. The process of collecting evidence is invasive, and potentially equally traumatizing (if not more so) than the attack. That’s why *I* never reported it. I just couldn’t handle it emotionally.
Bottom line is, actual rape is NOT reported far more often than baseless accusations ARE…
@Ninks – “The fact that people are using one word in her description of the man who raped her as an excuse to write negative think pieces about her is pretty disgusting, and defending this jerk is lame.”
THANK YOU! I honestly cannot stand Lena Dunham, but this guy and his historical views towards women TRUMPS ALL of that.
This is the very same guy who wrote that crazy story during the last Presidential election on how based on evolutionary biology, all women should vote for Romney. His misogyny is rampant – my favorite is how women should vote Romney because has no lame daughters/only virile sons!
Here is just a sample of Williansoms’ wisdom
(PS he’s an asshole)
“What do women want? The conventional biological wisdom is that men select mates for fertility, while women select for status…Age is cruel to women, and subordination is cruel to men.”
“From an evolutionary point of view, Mitt Romney should get 100 percent of the female vote. All of it. He should get Michelle Obama’s vote. You can insert your own Mormon polygamy joke here, but the ladies do tend to flock to successful executives and entrepreneurs….We don’t do harems here, of course, but Romney is exactly the kind of guy who in another time and place would have the option of maintaining one. He’s a boss.”
“It is a curious scientific fact (explained in evolutionary biology by the Trivers-Willard hypothesis — Willard, notice) that high-status animals tend to have more male offspring than female offspring, which holds true across many species, from red deer to mink to Homo sap. The offspring of rich families are statistically biased in favor of sons — the children of the general population are 51 percent male and 49 percent female, but the children of the Forbes billionaire list are 60 percent male. Have a gander at that Romney family picture: five sons, zero daughters. Romney has 18 grandchildren, and they exceed a 2:1 ratio of grandsons to granddaughters (13:5). When they go to church at their summer-vacation home, the Romney clan makes up a third of the congregation. He is basically a tribal chieftain.
Professor Obama? Two daughters. May as well give the guy a cardigan. And fallopian tubes.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/national-review-like-a-boss-2012-8
+1
They selected who THEY thought was the rapist.
so, any woman that claims rape MUST provide proof or, in your mind, it didn’t happen?
is that really what you’re saying? that you don’t believe it happened because she didn’t provide proof? or is it only because she identified him as a College Republican that you’d like proof?
yes, false claims do happen, but they are very rare. should we put the burden of proof on the victim because a small percentage of rape claims are false (only 2%, according to the US Justice Department)?
did you get that? 2 out of 100. so, yeah, F all the other 98% that are true. make them provide proof, those stupid slutty women, right?
and if your outrage and disbelief is strictly because she said he was a republican, maybe you should rethink it. would you be so quick to not believe her if she said he was a democrat, or a progressive, or a libertarian, or socialist party member?
how do you get those statistics though?
im genuinely curious. because i read those numbers a lot, its from 2% to 8% other claims as much as 40%, but i dont get how do they have the numbers? they would know what was false and what was true.
how would a false accusation be registred as one? they also need proof it was a false accusation. thats the exact same problem. if its word against words which it is in almost any case than how do you proof that it happened but also how do you proof it was a false accusation?
most rape cases are closed because of lack of evidence. we dont know what happened. if that raped happened or if it was a false accusation.
the problem with the evidence goes in both directions.
Where are you getting the 40% stats?
wikipedia, kiddo, it does not answer my question though.
Sara, those stats are from the US Justice Dept, as I said. if you want to know their methodology, you’d have to do some searching on their site, I guess.
if you have a source other than that, please provide it. what’s the methodology for your 40% stat? and who’s the source for that?
@Sara , College students have been polled anonymously. And it is normal practice to extrapolate.
Here’s a place to start, although you already sound like it would take video tapes to convince you
http://www.nij.gov/journals/254/pages/rape_reporting.aspx
http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/rape-sexual-violence/pages/rape-notification.aspx
doofus. you cant just use a statistic and then tell someone else to figure it out. have you not looked into it? why would you use a statistic that you cant explain?
my number comes from wikpedia: “The statistics on false accusations of rape vary widely, from 2% to Eugene Kanin’s (1994) figure of 41%, which derived from a case study of a police agency in a metropolitan city”
i just included it because thats another number there is, going from your 2%. you both question it. i recon because of the high number, yet you have no problem taking a smaller number. (without knowing how they get to those numbers)
as i said: i dont understand how those numbers come together, be it small or big. thats why i aksed. you used the numbers so i was sure you knew.
that is a general question: how do you know how many rapes were falsley accused? you would have to proof it was a false accusation. how do you do that? that is only possible if you have a water proof alibi or there is video or audio evidence. both cases are rare and obviously also apply to why reporting rape is so difficult.
kiddo: i am not doubt it, yet you need to know that peopel also lie when they are anonymous. there are several reasons for that, the biggest is called
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_desirability_bias#Anonymity_and_confidentiality
Sara, the people polled in the studies I gave you weren’t asked specifically about rape and THE rapist, and were not all filing police reports. This means that they were reporting what happened without necessarily making public claims. What advantage is there to lying?
kiddo: again: all i want to know is how do they get the numbers?
Example: Person A falsely accuses Person B of rape. the police gets involved. it is word against word and no physical evidence obivousy as nothing happened. the case will be closed. how would that be registered as a false accusation? you obviously also would need proof of that. Person B would need proof that Person A lied. same problem, word against word.
that is all im asking and i get so much crap for such a question its annoying. if its all so obvious and clear why not give a clear answer on it?
I’m not telling you to “figure it out”. I’m saying that those are the stats of the Justice Dept and I don’t know how they count it.
I DON’T KNOW the methodology, that’s all I’m saying. I’m freely admitting that I don’t know how they got it as I only did a quick search for a statistic and not the methodology behind it, but I trust that organizational body much more than Wikipedia. if you’re so curious and anxious to prove the United State Justice Department wrong, figure out their methodology and prove their stats incorrect.
But I’m guessing it’s just an easy way for you to dismiss statistics that you don’t like. however, if you really care, go to justice.gov or fbi.gov and search for “statistics on false rape claims” like I just did, and they list all of their sources.
Sara, again, the methodology used in the study was explained. You can’t definitively count anything. We could say the same for flu cases. Some afflicted may not go the doctor, for example. But that is not a reason to entirely discount the findings and extrapolating numbers altogether. In the case of rape, you would need videotape (and then some people would still chose not to believe the circumstances). In the case of flu, you would have to have every person go to a hospital and have it reported (on the other hand, some would question diagnostic criteria and the totality of reporting). So you are looking for absolutes in a world that is not absolute, and you are using that as a basis to discount research entirely.
Studies can not be conducted using the entire population, it would NEVER conclude. That’s why there is sampling and extrapolation.
Kiddo: thank you for staying civilized.
my problem is just that discussion get shut down based on statistics that are basically a stab in the dark. i want to get to the bottom of it and understand it. but merely asking those questions seems to be an offense to a lot of people.
i also dont understand how being doubtful about statistics (which every ideological movement forges to their own fitting) is excusing rape.
my take is just that the ideological blinders must go off and we need to find ways to absolutely minimize the damage. for victims and wrongly accused. it will help everyone involved. the less wrongly accused come to light the less people will question victims. you know how people perceive things, one bad example will need a lot of good ones to disappear.
it also goes for other crimes. in most western countries about 25% of the prison population are wrongly there. that comes down to police pressuring people into confessions and making mistakes or people not wanting to ttake the gamble in front of a judge and confessing because a guaranteed five years is better than the worst case 15 years. so its always wise to be doubtful. about everything.
@Sara, reporting of rape is not a political agenda. When you begin from that standpoint, then you have asserted a claim as to your own position.
Historically speaking, and by that I mean recent history, it has been much more difficult to prove rape cases, even with DNA and even with some injuries. Perpetrators can claim consent and rough sex. Victims endure being dragged through the mud by defense counsel claiming clothing contributed, past sexual history unrelated to the event justified it and how prior consent to a rapist contributed, and so on. So the uphill battle has been predominately on the side of the victim and not the defendant. To suddenly assert that the vast majority of reports are false goes contrary to the outcomes of such cases where there is no benefit, and many rapists go free. Which also explains the lack of reporting due to bad outcomes of cases.
There are innocent people in prison, but law enforcement spends an enormous amount of energy looking to close murder cases and other violent crimes outside of rape. When defendants have been pushed to confessions, the numbers are larger where murder, rape/murder, were concerned and where the victim isn’t alive to offer witness testimony.
I just think it very strange to all of a sudden assert a fake crime hype hypothesis, in general.
“my take is just that the ideological blinders must go off and we need to find ways to absolutely minimize the damage. for victims and wrongly accused. it will help everyone involved. the less wrongly accused come to light the less people will question victims.”
Yes, Sara, this seems to be the crux of your argument, as if the problem with rape is that victims are falsely accusing instead of the problem being that people are raping in the first place.
Men being falsely accused of rape is not the epidemic crisis that you seem to think it is. Women being raped however, IS and will continue to be an epidemic issue, particularly when others see the need to deflect blame from the rapists to the raped.
@Kitten, precisely.
Hmm, I agree with doofus mostly, but I don’t think that taking rape accusations seriously while being sensitive to the fact that there are false rape accusations are mutually exclusive.
Regardless of statistics (which are paradoxical in a way – they are valuable but extremely easy to manipulate based on the point you’re trying to prove), I think @Ninks said it best. The fact that there is so much more of a rush to defend the accused than in other crimes says a lot about the unfairness society still has toward rape victims. That being said, I still am against rushing to judgment either way, in any crime.
Also, Our society must stress that there is no shame in being raped AND be able to prove that we mean it by not forcefully interrogating victims as if we think they’re lying. Just look at the Steubenville case. There was clear proof they raped her and the town was STILL on the rapists’ side. In the wake of things like that happening, how do you expect someone – especially a young woman or girl who doesn’t know which way is up yet – to have a clear frame of mind right after being raped to think “okay, must go to hospital, don’t shower, tell parents” to ensure evidence is preserved. (Especially considering the multitude of other factors that prevent people from preserving evidence, like the fact that victims are often raped by people they trust). Education is also needed to emphasize what consent means (e.g., just because someone consents to have sex with you doesn’t mean you can keep going if they say stop or, if you’re consenting to a rougher sexual life you should have a safe word to prevent unintentional rape).
Proof is certainly needed to gain a conviction. But in the current societal climate of treating rape victims, the emphasis on shame, and the lack of education on what to do after it happens, there is no wonder there are a large number of people who “don’t have proof.” If they don’t speak up about their experiences we cannot make these changes. By making these changes, we’ll accomplish the goals that people on both sides of this debate are advocating for. Less shame and a higher likelihood that there will be substantial proof against the accused.
@Sara : Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source.
I completely agree with you 1000%. Rape is a very serious accusation and should not be taken lightly. The author was simply calling Lena out on her accusations. Lena should press charges especially due to the recent discovery of a serial rapists in Virginia that has been killing women. If Lena truly had concerns about this man and women,she would not hesitate to name names. Believe me,I know!!
But you said before that you WANTED proof. All these years later, you think she has proof?
Forgive me for not buying your faux concern that Lena’s not naming names now is a reflection of her not caring about the possible safety of other women. Give me a break.
Kiddo…the charge needs to be documented,even if she doesn’t have physical evidence,she could provide a timeline. What if this man was a serial rapists,this information could build a case against him.
@Steph, there is such a thing called statute of limitations. You’re the one looking for proof and alluding to not believing her. Why would she press charges since it was long ago, there isn’t remaining proof, and there are people like you condemning her?
The statue of limitations is probably up. Going to the police now will probably do nothing.
Secondly, you’re implying that she is solely responsible in this. That’s victim blaming. She doesn’t have to do anything she isn’t comfortable with. Some women report their rapist. Some don’t. It doesn’t negate the awful thing that happened to them and it doesn’t make them an awful person either way.
Tallmutter, the fact that you are choosing to ignore the context of her remarks so willfully really calls into question the credibility of pretty much everything you have to say.
Tallmuter, it is really interesting to me that you have this opinion that her rape “NEVER happened”, and yet you offer no factual reasoning for deciding this.
THIS is the reasoning…
“If anyone doesn’t see that as an open attempt to smear republicans here for her own political reasons and beliefs I just don’t know!”
because Dunham named the person as a college republican. and, as we all know (*eye roll*), Dunham’s ONLY purpose in life is to smear republicans…so, by that logic, her accusation MUST be false.
interesting, because this poster also says “Men HAVE been falsely accused in some instances, but anyone with any intelligence knows that it doesn’t mean that real, true rape, which a brutal crime, doesn’t happen everyday in this country, perpetrated by men of ALL political beliefs.”
get that?…”of ALL political beliefs”…except when an admitted liberal accuses a republican. in that case, the victim is apparently lying, according to that poster.
Right. She lost me there, too. Based on what? That the rapist was a Republican?
Thanks for breaking it down, doofus. Perfectly stated.
Exactly! They act like its ok if we talk about rapists in a group that is all inclusive, but if we look at one specific rape, we can’t talk about who the rapist ACTUALLY was, otherwise its bias.
I get really upset when people tell rape victims to shut up. It makes me want to give the victims a megaphone.
Ah yes, why won’t anybody think of the men? Those poor men with their statistically more likely tendency to commit physical and/or sexual assault. Those poor men living in a society that tells them it’s okay to screw women who are too drunk to consent. Those poor men who aren’t told the rape was their fault because their skirts were too short. Those poor men living in a patriarchal culture that is more likely to benefit and protect them over women, doubly so if they are white.
Won’t somebody think of these poor men?
Right. Even if they ARE, against all odds, convicted, they’re back on the street in no time for a crime that has one of the highest recidivist rates. Poor things.
Kiddo..the statue of limitations is 20 years. Lena would be well within the statute.
The statute of limitations varies based on state and type of crime. In my area, it’s twelve years for adults, up until the age of 50 for minors. But that’s a hill of beans compared to the emotional and financial cost of taking somebody to court for rape or the fact that many college campuses won’t even agree to bring it to prosecution. (In the case of military sexual assault, you legally *can’t* seek prosecution outside of martial law if your superior refuses to pursue it.) Then there’s the fact that plenty of rape victims – male or female – are terrified of what will happen if and when they talk. So yeah, Lena may be able to still take it to court, but the likelihood of her actually seeing justice for it is extremely low, and the emotional cost is a different issue all together.
So no, it’s not as easy as it looks or sounds.
@Steph
Doesn’t matter. It’s not up to you or anyone else to decide that for her and then make assumptions based on her decision to not pursue legal charges. It’s simply not your business, but hers alone. Especially now that years have passed and any physical evidence is long gone. From what I understand of her description of the events, she seems to have felt confused and conflicted at the time about it due to her consenting prior to, but not consenting to how rough he was when they actually engaged.
For a loose example, someone can compliment my hair and ask to touch it and I’ll say yes and then they start yanking at it. I have a right to say that they assaulted me because I didn’t consent to that. It’s ridiculous to come and point the finger at me and say “why’d you consent to them touching your hair in the first place?”
Not to mention that a prosecutor actually has to make the judgement in terms of evidence.
Rape doesn’t have political agendas, it’s just violent, savage brutality. Rape victims are human survivors of acts of horrific violence, the effects of which do not end when the physical assault does. Have some f☆☆cking compassion, put your political interests aside, and give a fellow human-being the benefit of the doubt. Have some humanity.
What I don’t get is why she identified her rapist by his politics (how is that relevant?) and – more importantly – why she now seems to be making excuses for him. She said he is “not a clear-cut villain”. Huh?
Backtracking much Lena? My point exactly. Makes you wonder if it happened in the first place. Just saying what it appears like to some people.
Um, no. She probably said he wasn’t a ‘clear cut villain’ for the same reason she said he was a ‘college republican’—he probably had/has the image of being a nice, conservative young man, who is respectful of women, goes to church every time the doors are open, volunteers his time to help out people in need i.e. the last person anyone would expect to rape someone.
I don’t doubt her. I just find it strange that she would say he’s not a clear-cut villain. And I disagree with Virgilia – saying he is not a “clear-cut villain” is not the same as saying he was not what one thinks of as a stereotypical rapist. If you rape someone, you ARE a clear-cut villain. That’s like saying Ted Bundy is not a clear-cut serial killer because he was educated and not scary-looking.
Sigh. So much trolling.
Villain: 1. a cruelly malicious person who is involved in or devoted to wickedness or crime; scoundrel.
Do you guys REALLY think that seemingly decent people don’t rape? How naïve can you possibly be?
That’s all that Lena meant by her comment. Sometimes your nice neighbor who goes to church, volunteers at the soup kitchen, carries groceries for old ladies, and baby-sits your kids, can still be a rapist. Reinforcing the false notion that rapists are evil “villains” that you can spot from a mile away is not helpful to rape victims. Frankly, I’m hard-pressed to understand how some of you wouldn’t be able to grasp the very basic idea that sometimes good people do terrible, awful things.
@VC-you’re spot-on with you comments.
@Kitten, Yeah, I’m out. I don’t mind fielding a couple of troll posts, but when they dominate a thread with the same shit over and over, even after it has been responded to, it’s time to go.
@Kiddo-The circular arguments that are happening on this thread are enough to make anyone stabby.
“Reinforcing the false notion that rapists are evil “villains” that you can spot from a mile away is not helpful to rape victims.”
EXACTLY! That is such an important point, for two reasons.
1. Because of the nature of the crime, in court a rape victim’s character is often held against the character of the accused rapist. Society at large is where the jury pool comes from. People need to know that people who don’t superficially meet the expectation of a rapist can STILL be a rapist.
2. Young women need to know not to place their trust in someone simply because they don’t look like a criminal. These predators don’t wear their crimes on their sleeve, and young women need to know this to protect themselves. (Looking back at college, I made myself more vulnerable around “nerdy” guys, because I thought that came along with a certain innocence. It doesn’t).
Her point was that rapists don’t walk around with signs on them advertising that they’re a rapist. They’ve been raised in a culture that refuses to talk about the nuances of consent, that tells them women who sleep around or dress provocatively are “asking for it,” and that presents a narrative where sex is a privilege for men and responsibility for women. (I won’t even get into all the problematic attitudes aimed at men and virility as a key aspect of masculinity or bisexual/homosexual behaviors.) There are thousands of rapists out there who will never realize they are rapists because of that. THAT is her point, and it’s a very significant one when you consider that most rape victims are assaulted by people within their circle of acquaintance.
The idea of the shady figure lingering the back alley is outdated and fallacious; it’s designed to give us the delusion that there is some way of protecting ourselves from the horrors of the world. Victims must have done something “wrong” while the rest of us who have been fortunate to avoid it did something “right.” It’s bullshit, and it’s hurting us as a society to maintain it.
I don’t know if I can add anything that hasn’t been said better, but to go along with it…how many times have we heard about the nice family man, the sweet old person, that decent young man (or lady) who turn out to be murders, rapists, pedophiles, etc.? The world isn’t black and white and neither is any one individual. Often times some of the worst offenders are the ones that appear the best. Yes, wouldn’t it be so nice if “evil” people showed it on the outside as much on the inside? But it doesn’t work like that. I know that scares people a lot but that is just how it is. I’m sure Lena just meant her rapist was one of those great on the outside, horrible on the inside people.
I get it completely. The guy that raped me in university was my boyfriend and I funnily enough wouldn’t call him a clear cut villain either. He did all the right things otherwise and probably leads a pretty decent life now all things considered.
I don’t want to comment on something written by a crap writer. Commenting on it is like trying to evaluate Fox News, it’s pointless.
yeah Lenas writing is horrible…oh you mean the guy? yeah, him too.
I love how you casually mention “oh yeah, him too”
I’m not a fan of hers at all but you’d have to be a dense, mentally incapacitated person to equate her writing crappy tv shows and an autobiography of HER experiences (however inconvenient they may be to your political stances) to all of the horrible trash this man writes dehumanizing homosexuals, women, transgendered people, rape victims, etc. Please tell me you’re being sarcastic because it is scary to think that we live in the same world with such unsympathetic and self-gender hating individuals such as yourself.
@DTX: Nailed it!
that women’s outreach seems to be going well.
I havent read Lena’s description of what happened but from the bit you quoted, it doesn’t sound like she said Republican = Rapist. Describing the guy as a College Republican is a great way to preserve his anonymity while instantly giving him a persona by making you think of the stereotypical College Republican you may have met in school. I have an idea of who this guy was, what social strata, what he did in his free time, the kind of crowd he ran around with, what he wore, how he spoke, who his family are likely to be, etc just based on that description without actually knowing if any of that is true or knowing him specifically.
However, if it comes across as Republicans = Rapists, then maybe Republicans need to think why that is. Just getting all the white male Republicans to shut up about rape should help greatly.
Ditto to everything you said.
Great points, Des.
What a refreshing change from that tired old thinking that always blames rape on the rapist. In less enlightened times, those responsible for rape would be snarled at in the street and their pictures displayed on newspapers under inflammatory headlines. But thankfully we’re growing more liberal, and can only regret that more thought wasn’t given to treating rapists kindly in the past. As times change, maybe Williamson and his cohorts will become more forthright, and organise “Rapist Pride” in which rapists can get together for a procession and carnival, where they can at last feel safe, and no longer feel looked down on for carrying out their basic human right to have sex with women who say no.
End parody. Dunham gets up my nose. But FFS.
You Jest, but I feel as though this is the case with Ched Evans.
I walked past a newsagent this morning with sun newspaper headline that his victim has been outed again which means she’ll have to move again and probably get another new identity.
Yes. That whole story is so completely out of hand. And the worst of it is that it’s ALL ABOUT CHED.
Rape IS an act of violence.
10 bucks if Dunham was a Republican he would have never pointed out her privileged upbringing. Since when do repugs care about little people? What a nasty POS this guy!
Seriously, getting more upset by how she described her rapist as opposed to the fact she was actually raped? That’s priceless.
That also seems to be the stance that many commenters here are taking as well and I find it pretty appalling.
The GOP and George Will consider rape victims as a “coveted status”. It turns the sheeples into lunatics who now see these victims as HAVING MORE than them, something they are not entitled to and so on. It’s so f*cked up, it makes me want to punch a wall.
“Washington Post columnist George Will doesn’t believe the statistic that one in five women is sexually assaulted while in college. Instead he believes that liberals, feminists and other nefarious forces have conspired to turn being a rape survivor into a “ coveted status that confers privileges.” As a result of this plot, “victims proliferate,” Will wrote in a weekend editorial that ran in the Washington Post and New York Post.” http://www.alternet.org/media/george-will-being-college-rape-victim-coveted-status-confers-privileges
Women are pretending to be raped. Rape doesn’t happen. Women are liars.
And the GOP wonders why they don’t get female voters.
+1!
My stance is this: I don’t care how annoying and attention seeking Lena is–I believe her 100% when she says she was raped. How she chooses to describe her rapist is HER business–and I agree with the person who said it. The fact that she described him as a ‘college Republican’ means that he was probably a guy that EVERYONE thought was nice, respectful young man who spent a lot of time volunteering, going to church i.e. 90% of all the Christians/Conservatives that *I* know–no matter what his politics were. She probably felt ‘safe’ with him, because of that.
Wow, Kiddo, the mentality that one must have to subscribe to such a stance is simply horrific, not to mention incredibly disheartening.
Completely agree, VC.
I might have to leave this thread because I have a feeling it will put me in a terrible mood.
Kitten, it falls perfectly in line with rescinding abortion rights. First, raped women never get pregnant (remember that one?), so therefore they weren’t raped and must keep the fetus. When that doesn’t work, just paint all accusers as liars, seeking some substantial societal benefit, and then you have no rapes at all, no abortions. Because there are never rapes, I’m guessing, is part of the logic.
Kiddo, your comment about how George Will feels was like a punch to the gut. In this day and age. In this damn day and age! But I live in the state where our candidate for the Senate spoke about “legitimate rape” and still 39% of Missourians voted for him. Insult to injury, Todd Aiken wrote a book this year where he said he made a mistake by apologizing during the race and now stands by his original comments. In this day and age. Talk about wanting to punch a hole in a wall.
Kiddo,
That whole mindset is just too nauseating for words.
We can’t get discouraged, though. That is what they want. They want to intimidate women into remaining silent (hence the calls for Lena to shut up about her experiences entirely unless she has PROOF).
Ugh, I had just forgotten that trash piece and how SO many people agreed with it.
Still, the WORST were the two segments on Glen Beck’s show, which were some of the most smug, hateful, condescending, inaccurate and repulsive things I’ve seen in a long time. The second one I watched accidentally, it featured a man in a mini skirt, blouse and wig playing a giggly little university girl who was too stupid to know what rape is and the poor men who get caught up in, and trampled by the caprice and confusion (and sometimes malice) of these little girls.
I remember reading about Boudica a while back and the circumstances that led that her deciding to effectively annihilate the Roman population in the area (modern Wales, I think). You know the story, her husband died, he left half of his assets to Rome as a gesture of good faith (voluntarily) the rest to his two daughters, to be overseen by their mother, Rome wouldn’t have it, they annexed everything as though any of it was theirs to take, called in all of their loans, flogged her and raped her daughters (who were still children). And I remember reading that the population was so outraged over the assaults that they collectively took up arms against the Romans because rape was taken more seriously by them then than it is by us now. The incident was even seen as so heinous that it was the straw that broke the camel’s back for other tribes with whom Boudica’s wasn’t even previously friendly, so they joined up. I’m sure that her being a queen had a lot to with the reaction and I’m not longing to live in what I’ve decided is a Bygone Celtic Wonderland, but she seriously scared Nero, of all people. I guess after Watling Street he felt safe enough to go play with his *ahem* Roman Candles again, but it was truly eye-opening to read that people had a stronger conviction in protecting any aspect of human rights 2000 years ago than they do now.
I’m not saying we should go out and kill thousands of people (including many innocents who were horribly tortured to death because they were Roman), but can you imagine people caring about violence toward women like that today? Please, they would call those two pubescent girls ‘fast’ and say the flogging was S&M play and she forgot the safe word.
The “author” seems very bothered thatshe grew up with parents who were financially successful and gave her a life of privilege. Um, he remembers who the GOP ran for POTUS last right?
I haven’t read her book, nor do I plan to, so I don’t know the context of why she identified him as a Republican.
This seems to be along the lines of attacking victims ALWAYS:
http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/06/george-will-rape-victim-is-a-coveted-status.html
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2011/01/house-gop-not-all-rape-victims-were-really-raped-so-they-should-bear-their-rapists-child
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/06/12/2144521/gop-congressman-channels-todd-akin-the-incidence-of-rape-resulting-in-pregnancy-are-very-low/
http://www.salon.com/2011/11/15/the_gops_victim_blaming_strategy/
Akin is such a POS.
+1
I cannot even find words to express my rage at this.
The people who are offended about Lena’s comments and how it might reflect on the republicans should REALLY be far more focused on comments like the ones that appear in those articles the COME from the GOP!
Lena isn’t changing minds and making people think that the repubs are “pro rape”…the elected officials and pundits are doing that on their own!
I’m speachless at the attitude of women here who defend that asshole while trashing her, because rapists need to be defended against their victims.*sarcasm*
Seriously.
FFS, I get that not a lot of people like Dunham – and I count myself in those numbers – but she wouldn’t get such a vitrolic reaction if this didn’t involve rape/sexual assault and/or domestic abuse.
It’s worse when women do it because I expect it from men. They always minimize these things or accuse women of lying. So women should know better than support that.
No way of knowing anyone’s real gender here. I could just as easily call myself Michael, KWIM?
That is not how republicans think. It’s idiotic things like this that make the rest of us look bad. Please do not consider him representative of the vast majority of us. I am certainly no fan of Dunham’s, but I would never throw shade on someone who has been assaulted.
Thanks SamiHami, I like reading that this isn’t a pervasive mindset, but the loudest leadership voices perpetuate this image.
+1 samihami
The National Review has a specific audience. It’s for conservatives with hard line stances on most issues. I don’t think Williamson’s stance is a reflection on all republicans.
I’m a fiscal conservative myself, so I get what you’re saying…but that doesn’t mean I let that garbage slide by. The Republican party is digging its own hole by letting hardline neocons into the party and then refusing to call them out on their offenses in an effort to avoid “party strife.” Democrats are just as bad in a lot of ways (plenty of misogyny there, despite what most seem to think), but the conservatives are definitely more flagrant about it. There’s a reason I’ve voted independent for years.
We need a third and fourth party in this country.
We really do.
@Veronica and Kiddo,
Aaargh! I have read all the way down this thread and FINALLY I have found my people..Glad to know that ya’ll are out there 🙂
I don’t know why anyone wants to be associated with either the democrat or republican parties anymore. Sadly, these are realistically our only two choices. I have little faith that third party candidates can get the financial and/or media backing they would need in order to actually win nominations when it comes to important national races.
To be honest, I really believe it is a matter of choosing the lesser or two evils at this point. Further, depending on the subject matter, the “lesser” can change. So informed citizens just have to weigh the importance of the major issues. Other citizens are going to vote with the major parties, and worse, actually agree with everything that party perpetuates ’cause you know….I’m a Republican/Democrat….ugh, no you are a non-analytical person that needs a “party” to tell you what to believe in 🙁
@TulipGarden –
I think part of the problem is that our system is specifically designed to maintain the two party system. There were libertarian candidates in the 2012 elections that were picking up major traction in the lower states, but because debate setup is dictated by preexisting majority parties, obviously none of them made it into the presidential race. Sames goes for the Green party, etc. al.
But to be honest, Americans hold a lot of responsibility as voters for the problem. Being cynical doesn’t fix anything if nobody is trying to change it. People who straight-line vote Repub or Demo and restrict their news access to NBC/CNN or Fox News aren’t doing jack to contribute to critical dialogue about these issues, much less people who can’t be bothered to get off their couch and go to polling areas. In the end, all that does is feed into their stranglehold over the political arena – after all, if we as society don’t care to watch, what do they care about answering to us?
The problem is campaign financing, lobbying, pay to play, patronage jobs, and reward-positions after office. In other words, MONEY. The two parties are the same, minus a couple of different important issues that they both use to their advantage during elections. The right uses women’s rights issues as a way to fire up the religious fanatics and the left uses these same issues to terrify those who stand to lose those rights. The right blames the lowest on the feeding chain for all of the taxes, (immigrants and the poor) diverting attention from their feeding the monster at the top who consume all resources (leaving the middle holding the bag), while the left hails itself as their heroes, but does nada to alter the system that creates this economic/inequality problem to begin with, *repeat above about feeding the monster, (leaving the middle holding the bag). They are one and the same, looking entirely to benefit themselves. You can see this at the lowest level of government all the way to the top and the corruption has only gotten worse as more money is poured into the system. You know who is doing really well these days? Politicians and upper level government workers and their friends with financial benefits.
I agree, Kiddo. I think to change things significantly, you need campaign finance reform. There are too many examples of where both parties in Congress are bought by the same special interests (like the financial sector, etc.).
I actually read her book. She never describes what happened as a rape. She describes telling a friend about what happened, and her friend, with horror, saying that it was was a rape. Lena responded to this by bursting into nervous laughter.
I thought it was an interesting and nuanced description of a very grey (not black and white) experience. Reading this made me realize how important it is to talk about what really constitutes consent. It seems to me that she consented to sex with this guy, but not the direction that the sex took.
I took the “college republican” description as a shorthand for a certain type, the same way you could say “college feminist” and get a quick image of a certain type of ride-or-die passionate college ideologue.
Wow, so many awful, awful people here, I thought I had stumbled onto 4chan by mistake. Unfortunately I am not a big enough person not to wish misfortune on you. I do.
And this POS has the nerve to criticize groups like ISIS and Muslims for being anachronistic. Yeah, okay, buddy. Also, I have issues with Lena Dunham and her white privilege feminism, but this was beyond the pale. If he had written an article about her tone-deaf, poor little rich girl routine, then I would have completely agreed. But he went too far. I have and will not read her book. But I do get the feeling that much like the term “hipster” conjures up a spectacle wearing, beard having Brooklynite, the term “college republican” gives me an Alex P. Keating preppy picture. I do not believe she meant Republican = Rapist. More like this is what the asshole who raped me looked like. Freaking idiots.
i see williamson pulled a grisham there.
wow.
can’t stand her but just wow.
First off, this guy sounds like a rapist. Secondly, he’s correct about her being a spoiled whiny twat. Thirdly, it wouldn’t shock me to learn that she fabricated any and all things that she writes. 9
Dunham’ s rape was committed by a disgusting , cowardly man. I don’t care what political party he was from, I do care that our priorities are so f7cked up and our treatment of rape and the victims is just as criminal as the act itself. The writer is disgusting and part of the problem. just another ass7ole who hates women.
This didn’t make me “Team Dunham” but it certainly made me “Team Repulsed by Kevin D. Williamson.”
Hey there. Smart response.
It’s a disgusting article but this is what Lena -our pampered special snowflake – lives for, no? Now she’s a “victim” of conservative media and a champion of women’s advocacy. Damn you New Republic!
National Review is NOTHING like New Republic. One has actual journalists.
And yes, i hate that this will only add fuel to the fire of poor victimized Lena.
*smacks forehead* can’t believe I did that. I don’t subscribe to either but I didn’t mean to confuse them here.
I have no problem with her talking about it, yay her. I do take issue with assigning a name or form of identification. She could speak of her experience in College without assigning a name ( whether true or not). The fact she calls him out due to political affiliation leaves me with the believe that she had other ulterior motives. I support every victims choice on how they want to go forward, report or not. But I do think you cannot make that kind of public accusation outside of either proper channels or a more formal or private setting. A person is forever labeled a rapist no matter the truth or outcome. I truly hope she wasn’t playing her typical games and throwing those id’ing markers knowing that classmates and others may figure it out and out him, hoping it destroys his life the way she believes he destroyed hers.
She didn’t call him a rapist. Her friend said it was rape after hearing the story. She initially consented, then didn’t want to continue. She didn’t think of him as a villain regardless, and the description as a college Republican came earlier in the book when she was talking about him in general. She never said anything close to what is being claimed. Some people here are looking at her story through the very twisted lens of the National Review writer, who distorted the entire story and started frothing at the mouth when he saw the word Republican on one page and rape on another.
Honestly, nobody would complain if she had described him as a chess player, a football player, a hippy, a language major, or a Libertarian.
Thanks for the illumination on the actual story represented in the book.
OK, so she should write the story like this: “somebody raped me”? Then she would probably be criticized and called out as a fake because she couldn’t describe the perpetrator. Spare me.
“A recent National Review column about rape has spurred a flurry of horrified reactions.
On Monday, writer A.J. Delgado attributed the rising number of rapes reported on college campuses to more women simply “crying rape.””
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/21/national-review-crying-rape-women_n_5366009.html
————–
National Review is a magnet for assholes.
Let me start out my comment with a couple of qualifiers. First, I am neither Republican nor Democrat, but rather categorize myself as a political agnostic. As far as I’m concerned, a pox on both political houses. Secondly, I am a feminist and believe in equality for all sexes/genders.
With those qualifiers stated, I read Williamson’s piece and here are some of my interpretations. He clearly roots his critique of Dunham in her own characterization of herself as an “unreliable narrator.” He writes from this perspective, that her narration of her life story is not true and is rooted in a preposterous notion that she is the voice of her generation. Clearly, as the privileged child of wealth, she is not the voice of a generation. This is how he starts out his case, that Dunham makes up components of her narrative in order to fit the tale that she’s the voice of a generation. He then makes his argument that she is not telling the truth about this rape story because it advances her agenda to be the voice of her generation, to be the victim of a war on women advanced by Republicans. In this case, literally victimized by a Republican. Secondly, he points out the “College Republican” component of the rape story because it is rooted in stereotypes. Listen, Dunham received a $3M advance for this manuscript, correct? She definitely has a profit motive to sell books, and uses a classic stereotype in the narration of her story…one that feminists are all to eager to believe…the classic College Republican douchebag. It is a stereotype, one clearly demonstrated on this comment board. One commenter even described the characterization of “College Republican” as indication of character. That’s the very definition of stereotype. In order to advance feminism, we need to avoid stereotypes, especially for those groups with whom we disagree.
I’m not going to wade into the minefield of “was she or was she not.” This isn’t a court of law, but a forum for reflection on popular culture. As a reflection of popular culture, I feel sad for the state of our political discourses.
“He then makes his argument that she is not telling the truth about this rape story because it advances her agenda to be the voice of her generation, to be the victim of a war on women advanced by Republicans.”
…and Williamson DOESN’T have an agenda? The same man who wrote that women should be hanged for having an abortion?
Meanwhile, while he’s slamming Lena for using the term “Republican” to describe her rapist, he’s writing this article solely to single out Lena because of her political affiliation. Now, if that isn’t hypocrisy at it’s finest.
Besides the fact that all Williamson is proving with this article is the idea that rape victims are not to be believed, according to the GOP.
If he wants to say Lena is full of sh-t in critiquing the book, that’s one perspective, but one that he’s not taking, he’s on to more important agendas himself. If she is not the voice of a generation then why so much ado about her book, if that’s what his assertions were, that she’s not?
I’m not a fan of Lena, I can’t say why she specifically detailed the alleged rapist’s political affiliation, it could be that that was the way that he defined himself most prominently. It could be a reason why she ultimately became liberal. if she associated the experience of rape with someone who strongly identified himself in that matter. Maybe she took poetic license with the description in characterizing traits, I don’t know. Is it a lie because she used that term, or is it a lie because all women lie about rape? Is it a lie ONLY Lena made, or is he adding this to a list of anecdotal intended to label all women?
And why is this book being reviewed? Because the word republican was uttered or because the word rape was uttered?
Of course Williamson has an agenda; it’s another way to say he’s making an argument. He’s clearly offended that his values as a Republican are linked to sexual assault. It worked too, clearly by this comment thread many of the feminists on this board are all too willing to ascribe character attributes to a political affiliation. The question is whether or not it’s a valid argument, and he’s suggesting that Dunham linked her narrative of rape to Republicanism in order to sell books. Whether or not that’s accurate, I’ve no idea. It’s the commercial aspect, characterization of rapist with Republican, that Williamson suggests is gutless and passive aggressive.
anecdotal ‘evidence’…couldn’t edit fast enough, sorry
@Magsmarq, A valid argument for what? That Lena lies about everything? Or that all women lie about everything? He hasn’t proven either case, but the focus of his
questioning rape, to begin with, as his biggest issue, seems to be making a valid argument that he is committed to GOP talking points.
“It’s the commercial aspect, characterization of rapist with Republican, that Williamson suggests is gutless and passive aggressive. ”
Hello! Williamson is also SELLING something here, a magazine. He is also using stereotypes of liberals to attack Lena’s experience. By his own logic, his entire article should be called into question.
The validity of his argument relates to whether or not linking the rape to Republicanism is gutless or passive aggressive. That’s his argument. He says nothing about other cases of rape, from what I read, so he’s not questioning other cases of rape nor suggests that all women lie about everything. He argues Dunham isn’t believable because she admits she is an unreliable narrator.
I’m sure he’s supportive of GOP talking points, when it comes to politics, because he’s a conservative writer.
But, Tiffany, he roots his argument in Dunham’s own words that she is an “unreliable narrator.” Where does he suggest he is unreliable or a liar? That is his logical premise from which the rest of his argument flows.
And, let me just reiterate what I find valid about his argument, which he clumsily articulates because he does subscribe to party politics. Ultimately, equating morality with party identity/political ideology is dangerous and is all too often used to drive a wedge between well meaning discourses.
Just because Lena acknowledges her own inherent bias, does not mean he does not have inherent bias of his own (regardless if he admits to it or not).
Do you think he was trying to start some well meaning discourse with this article? Or was he trying to attack someone and score some extra clicks on his magazine’s website?
“equating morality with party identity/political ideology is dangerous and is all too often used to drive a wedge between well meaning discourses.”
NO, just NO. Republicans try to legislate morality at every turn by attempting to control women’s reproductive rights and refusing to allow gay people to get married. You don’t get to codify a set of standards that coincide with your own moral stance and then whine about it when people view your political party as inextricably tied to a set of draconian beliefs.
If you don’t want to be stereotyped then change your f*cking platform.
Sorry, Kitten, but I have to respectfully disagree. Both parties are wrong for conflating morality with political beliefs, and yes Republicans are guilty of it too, but that doesn’t make it okay.
You’re actually making an argument that stereotyping is okay when it’s an opinion you disagree with, and that’s the entire problem with our political discourse today. We’re all just shouting past one another, and never will the two meet in agreement or compromise, because the other side needs to “change your f*cking platform.” Otherwise, we’re just the same problem we condemn.
“Republicans try to legislate morality at every turn…If you don’t want to be stereotyped then change your f*cking platform”
Well said!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tiffany, I don’t really know what Williamson’s intent was beyond his stated argument. I do believe that the majority of political commenters (or social commenters) believe in what they’re arguing. So, yeah I think his intent was to criticize Dunham’s account, but I don’t think he’s suggesting otherwise. Also, Dunham doesn’t just admit she has an “inherent bias” but that she’s “unreliable.” Are you suggesting that we shouldn’t take that “unreliable narrator” comment seriously? If we do, what does that do to her rape narrative? When is she reliable or unreliable? Is it only reliable when it fits a particular narrative or stereotype with which we agree? Doesn’t that then demonstrate our own biases?
FTR, I’m not a Democrat either, Magsmarq, I’m Independent. I’m not sure what stereotypes you could say about Independents but go ahead and throw them at me–no feelings will be hurt because I’m secure in my stance.
As far as liberals conflating politics with morality as part of the platform, I’d be interested in some examples. Granting equal rights to all doesn’t result in anyone getting their rights taken away from them—it’s not imposing a moral stance.
Think abortions are morally wrong? Then don’t get one. Think gay marriage is morally wrong? Then don’t be gay and don’t get married. Easy.
Ultimately, I feel that if you subscribe to the Republican platform, you should be confident enough to defend those that speak on behalf of your political party. If not, then maybe you shouldn’t be a Republican?
I think the issue for Williamson and others on this board is that the most heinous stereotype about a liberal can’t hold a candle to the most heinous stereotype about a conservative. At some point you should ask yourself why that is.
“Are you suggesting that we shouldn’t take that “unreliable narrator” comment seriously?”
So you believe her when she says that she’s an unreliable narrator, but don’t believe her when she says she’s been raped?
For those of us who believe her, what “bias” are we revealing exactly?
Kitten, I don’t know you nor choose to judge you, and have no desire whatsoever to engage with you regarding your stances. That’s not my purpose here; I simply wanted to engage in a conversation about the validity of Williamson’s argument as it is rooted in Dunham’s self-description of being an “unreliable narrator.” She’s the one who conflated politics with morality as described in her sexual assault at the hands of a College Republican.
The best example I can point to in this comment thread which links morality and politics is the commenter above who made the comment (and I paraphrase) that “College Republican” is enough to indicate someone’s character. Character is a question/matter of personal morality and ethics as it relates to some quantifiable personal expression of morality and ethics. And, truthfully, it was that comment which made me re-read Williamson’s article and think about his argument objectively and rationally. I can find this one argument of his valid without finding his other works valid/true or unobjectionable.
And, if you go back to my original post, I’m only assessing the validity of his argument. I seriously have no idea if Dunham is believable or not. I’m confused about when she’s truthful and when she’s not truthful, hence my questions.
@Kiddo, I suspect Williamson is worried that our popular culture will believe she is the voice of her generation, something with which he is obviously really concerned about. It’s a narrative that he’s obviously pushing back against.
So you agree that he wrote this as an attack piece, but deny that his motives behind this article might skew how he frames the facts? Isn’t that putting him up on a bit of a pedestal?
Her “unreliable narrator” comment was in regards to her whole book, as it was a memoir. If you look factually about human nature, you would see that we are all “unreliable narrators” in some sense, as proven by studies that show how hard it is for humans to accurately recall what happened during crimes, early in their lives, etc. The rape story in this book is a journey for her. The Telegraph wrote, “she pieces together disparate memories and investigates how she came to understand what rape might be (she learnt the word at seven, but pronounced it “rabe” for a while) and whether it had happened to her that evening. She is only beginning to be sure that it did.”
Why is he trying to stifle that journey of discovery? The “republican” aspect of the rape was not the focus of Lena’s story. Why is he trying to frame it as if it was?
Someone above who actually read the book said that this is a distortion of Lena’s narrative, it isn’t even accurate. She didn’t call him the republican rapist, she mentions this point later in the book, but not within the context of the rape. He calls her gutless because her friends helped her parse out the situation, in that it was rape. She began with consent and wanted it to stop, but he wouldn’t. How is having your friends help you examine a traumatic event GUTLESS, exactly? Because she shared the fact that her friends told her that what she experienced was rape, when she hadn’t digested that, but knew it felt wrong; that is somehow “passive-aggressive’? That point alone is anti-woman because you should, what? Be a man and say. ” I was raped”, and leave out the cooperative element and the sharing of this experience with her female friends? That’s who women are. They share, they share more than men. He would have liked her better had she been a man, in other words. Aggressive, like him?
@Tiffany, I only said I find some validity in his interpretation of the facts, as I’ve previously laid out. He clearly doesn’t believe her, so that would be why he dismisses her journey of discovery.
“She’s the one who conflated politics with morality as described in her sexual assault at the hands of a College Republican.”
She did NOT conflate politics with morality. She described the person who raped her.
I notice that she said that it was a college aged male that raped her, yet you and Williamson are not saying she is suggesting that to be male is to rape. You and Williamson aren’t saying that she is conflating the entire group of college aged males with rape. If you thought that she was REALLY accusing everyone of a group (republicans) with her description, you and Williamson would be saying that she was accusing those 2 other groups as well.
“Why is he trying to stifle that journey of discovery? The ‘republican’ aspect of the rape was not the focus of Lena’s story. Why is he trying to frame it as if it was?”
Really good question, Tiffany, I wondered the same thing myself. To sell magazines? To exacerbate the partisan divide? To me it seems like he simply wanted to attack her. Or as someone said, he saw “republican” and “rape” loosely connected and decided to twist the narrative because he’s an a-hole.
@Esmom Because they have an ongoing agenda to create this fake rape allegation crisis.
Crying Rape
Is there really a rape epidemic? Probably not.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/378310/crying-rape-j-delgado/page/0/1
Good point @tiffany
@Tiffany, if appreciate it if you’d not link my argument with Williamson’s. I only argue that stereotyping is dangerous when discussing politics and morality. I further argue that there is some validity in his argument related to Dunham’s characterization of her rapist. That does not mean Williamson’s argument is MY argument.
Magsmarq, you need to own what you wrote. You have repeated written that Lena:
*”conflated politics with morality as described in her sexual assault at the hands of a College Republican”
*”equating morality with party identity/political ideology”
*”She’s the one who conflated politics with morality as described in her sexual assault at the hands of a College Republican.”
*” I would say he does have a valid critique in her link of politics to her sexual assault.”
*”What bothers me is the conflation of political ideology to morality. ”
You might not like the idea of linking your views to Williamson’s, but you have repeatedly stated that you agree with him on the idea that she linked republicanism with rape. When I asked why you didn’t take that logic and apply it to age and college admittance (other factors that she used to describe her assailant), you try to hide from your own position.
One final thing, Tiffany, I never argued that Dunham was accusing everyone in an entire group with her rape, thereby suggesting that all Republicans are rapists. I don’t even think Williamson suggests that was her intent. The clear implication of using the qualifier “conservative” or “College Republican” within her description of her rapist was to prejudice the minds of her reader…of course he’s a Republican. There’s a Republican war on women! That’s what Williamson is suggesting; that Dunham is playing on perceived prejudices of those who hate and stereotype Republicans. My questions have always centered around the validity of his argument, and there is some validity there. I think my point has been illustrated nicely within these comments on this post today. I’d condemn anyone who suggests the qualifiers “College Republican” are enough to suggest the content of someone’s character, and I’ve seen no one who disagrees with me, refute that suggestion…which is really sad.
“That’s what Williamson is suggesting; that Dunham is playing on perceived prejudices of those who hate and stereotype Republicans”
How can you not see that to make the assumption that he has made , that you agree with, requires bias of his own? By twisting her story into something other than a telling of her experience, he is showing bias. By trying to wiggle some kind of malicious intent behind the words “college republican”, he is placing his own stereotypes of liberals onto her.
Why is she expected to refrain from describing her attacker exactly as he was?
Yes about the stereotyping 100%.
His argument is that Dunham’s narrative is gutless and passive aggressive because she links it to Republicanism, and “has others report on the rape” in her book as opposed to reporting it herself. She doesn’t want to do the dirty work herself, at least that’s how I interpret his account. She wants to be the voice of her generation, admits to being an unreliable narrator (which he later states is basically equivocation for being a liar). His conclusion, based on these other false premises of her life, is that yes she is a liar who links rape to politics because it advances this false sense of herself.
Is it a valid argument? That’s up for all of us to decide, but I would say he does have a valid critique in her link of politics to her sexual assault. Also, Williamson interviewed the only Barry who was a member of the Oberlin College Republicans while Dunham attended Oberlin and this Barry says he never met Dunham. In a court of law, that would be evidence, testimony is evidence. Either way, I do believe she has an agenda beyond describing her rape story. It isn’t the reveal of the rape that Williamson suggests is gutless, but the link to political affiliation which is gutless, because Dunham knows what will create interest in her and in purchasing her book.
Once again, I don’t know if Dunham was raped, beyond what she describes in the book. That’s not my purpose here. What bothers me is the conflation of political ideology to morality.
“Also, Williamson interviewed the only Barry who was a member of the Oberlin College Republicans while Dunham attended Oberlin and this Barry says he never met Dunham. In a court of law, that would be evidence, testimony is evidence’
First, THEY chose the suspect without corroboration from the victim and assumed he was the suspect. Secondly, rapists readily admit knowing their victims and raping them? Did they ask Lena if she changed the name to avoid further ridicule and to actually protect the rapist, because she had felt conflicted about the incident? Her book isn’t a rape book. The author of this article chose to make rape the point of his agenda. It doesn’t mean that that was the most important thrust of the book from Lena’s perspective.
This article is triggering for me because I got into a fight with my dad yesterday over the prevalence of false accusations of rape. He feels that there are a decent number if women who target athletes in order to get money. He completely dismissed the fact that these women are dragged though the mud. He couldn’t comprehend the concept that who in their right mind would accuse a famous athlete of raping them if it didn’t happen. They’re outed & called sluts & whores. They knew what they were getting into by drinking too much or being alone with the rapist.
Do some of these women get paid off? Of course they do. I’d take the check for counseling and other expenses rather than put myself through the rape of my character. 3% of rapists will see at least a day of jail time. That’s stats for everyday rapists. You can’t tell me that rich & powerful public figures have a higher conviction rate. And go ahead – throw the Duke lacrosse team incident at me. I’ve got a list a mile long of accusations that turned out to true & that’s just taking into account the cases where rape was actually reported to authorities.
What really upset me is that he knows I was sexually assaulted. It blew my life up & screwed me up. I still deal with effects of that today. I was got hospitalized because I had suicidal thoughts. I acted out sexually. I let me emotionally abuse me. I didn’t graduate from college. The kicker? It wasn’t until years had passed that someone clued me in that it was rape. SOMEONE HAD TO TELL ME THIS BECAUSE I COULDN’T COMPREHEND THE IDEA THAT A GUY HAVING SEX WITH ME WHILE I WAS PASSED OUT WAS RAPE. If any of my friends had told me that what happened to me happened to them, I would’ve been the first person to let them know that it was rape. But me? Years to realize I was raped because girls like me don’t get raped and it must’ve been my fault because I got drunk and it must’ve been my fault because he was a nice guy and it must’ve been my fault because I did make out with him before this happened.
The sad thing is is that I’ve been sexually assaulted three times, and I’ve only been able to tell my parents about one of them. 🙁
@Cleo, If you haven’t already, please seek help. You can not go through the rest of your life being punished, and self-punishing for wrong that someone perpetrated on you. If you don’t know who to contact, this number may be helpful:
National Sexual Assault Hotline
1.800.656.HOPE
https://www.rainn.org/get-help/national-sexual-assault-hotline
i’m sorry for your experiences, Cleo. i’m glad you are in a place where you can talk about it and realize it was/is definitely rape so you can take care of yourself. no more beating yourself up.
you never deserved what happened to you.
i hope you keep moving forward and find peace. i believe in you!
Cleo – your pain is palpable and I really appreciate how clearly you expressed it. People need to realize what it’s like to walk in a victim’s shoes. To know what it’s like to navigate your healing in a world so hell bent on blaming and shaming you for someone else’s evil. I have nothing to add but I feel you, sister! Thanks for saying your piece!
Cleo, I am so sorry for your experiences. and thank you for sharing your story.
the more women talk about it, the more women are willing to talk about it. remember, it was not your fault.
Cleo,
Reading your experience nearly brought tears to my eyes, I took a deep shaky breath after reading it. Please realize that this is not your fault nor does it decrease your value as a woman, as a human. I hope that you can get the help you need to rebuild your life. I went through a traumatic experience recently & was (and still do some days) having trouble seeing beyond it. Someone said something to me I’ll never forget, “These kinds of challenges don’t come to you because you deserve them, but if you can pick yourself up and move through it, you are twice a strong as those around you who never went through it and there is an incomparable wisdom that comes with that. I wish that for you” . I wish that for you, too Cleo. :::hugs:::
I disagree with the poor little rich girl comments. I think it’s wrong to fault her for being privileged. She seems like she was spoiled and unaware of it as a child but grew into a woman who is very aware and and headed. I see nothing wrong with that.
As for this guy’s rape comments. Ugh. He needs to be locked up far far away from a platform that allows him to spread his ignorant ways.
Agree on both your points. It just horrifies me how people are seizing on his words and perpetuating such a hateful agenda.
This doesn’t surprise me at all. I encounter this attitude from plenty of men AND women, unfortunately, and it makes it all the more problematic that we see it in print all the time. Lena Dunham doesn’t have to be my favorite person for me to sympathize with her. Nobody should have to go through that, much less be subjected to that kind of vicious scrutiny for it.
I didn’t read the comments. I think her article is a piece of crap and cry for publicity. I am sick of her and her feminism-ish grab. Get a therapist and get over it. Or did the book deal do that?
The article isn’t written by Lena, it is ABOUT Lena.
wow victoria, you must be miserable to hate her so much. it is downright scary. and if she didnt already have a therapist she would certainly need one now with all the shit flying her direction because of her opening up about rape. what more proof do you need for what rape culture means for the victims?
Victoria – I went to a therapist but she told me I had to start reality testing and come to grips with the fact that I have a vagina. I did, and it’s done wonders to explain the stupid shit that people send my way.
I’m not american so I don’t care about democrats or republicans. I am only worried how women who confessed beign assaults are demonized by everyone. It doesn’t matter if she called him “a republican”, “a liberal”, “a communist”. The only problem here is that he assaulted her and got away with it. The guy who called Lena gutless is an a-hole, republican or not.
“I am only worried how women who confessed beign assaults are demonized by everyone.”
I worry about that as well.
Thanks everyone. I didn’t post this for sympathy (although thank you so much for your compassion), but to show that just because a woman doesn’t report a rape or even if she was raped right away doesn’t mean she wasn’t raped. The rape culture in our society makes victims feel ashamed & wondering what part they played in their assault. You feel like it’s your fault for drinking too much, for not fighting hard enough, for going back to his room or for not saying no enough.
I now know it’s not my fault after years of therapy, but all it takes is an article like this or a person parroting MRA talking points to make that sense of shame and violation come crashing back. I’m mostly happy for how my life is now, but being raped drastically altered my life in ways no one should have to go deal with.
Oh – and please don’t teach your sons & daughters that “no means no”. Teach them sexual contact is unwarranted and unwelcome without an enthusiastic yes.
You all are good eggs. 🙂
Cleo, thank you so much for all that you have shared. Rape is a very complicated issue to deal with, and we are all better off for having a better understanding of what a victim goes through. Thank you for the insight you have given us.
You are definitely a good egg too, sweetheart. 🙂
I don’t know anything about either of them. He’s asserting that Lena is a spoilt, whiny, rich brat typically using the complaint of rape as her bona fides. Somehow his characterisation of her is supposed to invalidate her report. It’s the same reasoning as saying that ‘she asked for it’- that the fault lies with the woman, one way or another.
Rape is rape. He joins a long list of misogynistic re-victimisers. These distortions are depressing.
Thank you.
I hate anyone who makes me Team Dunham with the passion of a thousand suns going supernova. Mr. Williamson you is on the list.
Survivors of sexual assault have the right to tell their story how they see fit. They also have the right to report it or not. This is how they can take back some control.
Also, the actions of a rapist are not the responsibility of the victim.
I don’t know much about Lena, but I do know sexual assault from working with victims.
I just can’t with this story.