Backlash on rape subplot
http://www.vulture.com/2014/12/newsroom-campus-rape-plotline-criticism .html
http://www.vulture.com/2014/12/newsroom-campus-rape-plotline-criticism .html
I loved the subplot. Don is my favorite character on this show and I was so glad they had him interview the girl. I like it.
I just think people will complain if anything makes them uncomfortable for 2 seconds. They did the same thing with downton abbey. So annoying
His character made the tough decision, but it was the right one.
Innocent until proven guilty sounds crap until you find yourself or your loved ones as the accused.
Mob justice is not real justice. Even if the accused rapists were technically guilty, they were still "innocent", Don had the balls to say that, as consistent moral and rational principle - that has to be respected- even if he personally believes they are guilty.
"World needs bad men. We keep the other bad men from the door"
This is why I LOVE don!!
shareYeah, people aren't going to let you walk away with that opinion when it comes to rape. It's pretty much ok to presume anyone's innocence when it comes to nearly any crime except for sexual ones (e.g. rape and pedophilia).
The courts generally still require evidence, but in our society all you need to prove something like sexual assault is a convincing story.
And there in lies the danger.
shareInnocent until proven guilty does not sound like crap and few people have that stance. Even people who are on the other side of this "rape victims vs falsely accused victims" discussion wouldn't deny that innocent until proven guilty isn't per se a bad basis for the justice system.
And your argument can just as easily be turned around into "Innocent until proven guilty sounds like a great idea until you find yourself or your loved ones as victims without enough evidence."
This discussion has two sides and both are important and it makes me sick when people try to pretend as if being falsely accused is somehow worse than being a victim that nobody believes. Both things are bad and I understand why a person who is more likely to end up on the 'falsely accused' end of this would argue in favour of that side but aren't you and people like you not able to see the other side of the coin just for a second? You argue about how bad it is that people get falsely accused and you can't spare a word for the people who were vicitms of rape but have no way of proving it other than 'Well, it's just logical, your rapist running free is for the greater good of our nation."
Really? Not one "I tend to lean on this side but I do understand that the other side is not completely full of $h*t either"?
No? That too much compassion?
"if being falsely accused is somehow worse than being a victim that nobody believes. " That's not the argument, the idea is that as a legal principle it is better to let the guilty get away than the innocent be imprisoned- otherwise you just create another victim.
"You argue about how bad it is that people get falsely accused and you can't spare a word for the people who were victims of rape but have no way of proving it other than 'Well, it's just logical, your rapist running free is for the greater good of our nation."
Same star man nonsense that people always spout.
" Not one "I tend to lean on this side but I do understand that the other side is not completely full of $h*t either"? "
Funny thing is, Dons side is the ONLY moderate one here, if anyone is dealing with absolutes it's the burn rapists side, constantly trying to accuse the other side of rape apologisim and appealing to the victims in an intellectuality dishonest low blow. "If oyu are against us you support rape" type nonsense. We absolutely see the "other side of the coin", but the primary objective of criminal law is to punish the guilty and protect the rest of society- not remedy the victim. That's civil law and it is a lot less strenuous to prove a case in that environment. Don believes her story, but cant condone the action she is about to take because of the precedent it sets.
It;s funny you say "a person who is more likely to end up on the 'falsely accused'", because i actually HAVE been falsely accused, but that doesn't mean i think rapists are all innocent or anything (i also have a few family members and a close friend that have been violently raped). Let's say 75-80% of cases are wholly legitimate and another 15% sit in that grey area of consent/not consent where there really is no clear moral standpoint. Maybe 5-10% are truly, wholly falsely accused with malicious intent or genuine confusion by the victim. But it doesn't matter how small it is, because it's about how we as a society deal with crime, its about how we as a society process claims. We don't support mob justice, the kind of nonsense that sees woman buried to their wastes and stoned. IT's terrible that the police don't attempt to pursue these investigations, but that doesn't make the mob alternative any more legitimate.I cant think of a middle ground more apparent than "it's terrible that people get away because of this but the alternative suggested is far worse", but please, continue to turn that into "hur durh screw rape victims they are all lying bitche$"
Nobody is saying the other side is "full of $h*t", they are saying they weren't really listening to Don's argument and instead just build the same old Strawmen that they can burn down. Try to apply her idea to a different type of crime, maybe one involving African Americans or Latinos, that would result in the same kind of societal retribution. The idea isn't so sound now is it? People seem to think that date-rape somehow deserves some sort of exception of due process because it's more difficult to prove and involves a particularly disturbing crime. You cant have your cake and eat it too, if you wanna live in a society that protects black teenagers from being lynched by assuming mobs, you gotta live in a society that also protects the rich, white, *beep* frat boys from the same fate. It's the best we have right now, and it's a hell of a lot better than internet justice (there are a million examples of it backfiring, some of which the Newsroom already explored this season).
"World needs bad men. We keep the other bad men from the door"
Thanks for the elaborate answer.
I don't think it's a straw man argument to point out that the status quo is telling rape victims to suck it up for the greater good if they happen to not have enough damning evidence. Because that is what it is if you look at what a rape victim with not enough evidence has to deal with.
I do understand that not creating more victims is the best course of action but please remember that rapists walking free do cause more victims as well. Both sides create victims and we decided to protect the accused rather than the attacked in case of unclear evidence. Which is just that. It's the base of the justice system and it makes sense to a certain degree.
But we have a problem, no matter how you look at the numbers, the status quo is not ideal. And if other options are less ideal we have to try and find an option that is better than what we have now. A society should always strife to be better. We should never just accept a less than ideal situation because there seems to be only one bad solution. Let's look deeper for better solutions.
I just don't understand how people can argue that we have to just deal with how it is now because the only other option is imprisoning tons of falsely accused people. Is that true? Do we only have option A and B? Does everything have to be so goddamn polarizing?
We need to find a way to open dialogue, to find an option that is neither leaving rape victims behind nor falsely accusing people. We should not lean back and say 'there is only one way to handle this correctly and that's the status quo'.
I understand your passion. I really do. And I'm on your side.
I'm an activist fighting VAW. That's my cause. Her website is absolutely not the solution.
No, it doesn't have to be A or B. There's a C. And a D.
Fighting to make law enforcement more responsive to rape victims. (WTF is up with rape kits going un-tested, FFS?!?!) There's much work to be done in this arena.
And even more important...we're teaching women how not to get raped when there should be more focus on teaching men not to rape. This includes combating rape culture. There's a lot happening on this front.
If I were on Inside The Actor's Studio:
WHAT'S YOUR FAVORITE WORD? Passion
WHAT'S YOUR LEAST FAVORITE WORD? Rape
"What else do you like? Lazy? Ugly? Horny? I got 'em all."
"You don't look lazy."
I agree, I love Don and thought he handled the whole situation well.
They did the same thing with downton abbey.
It makes people mad because it is true, and on target. Like it or not, a website like that would, without a doubt, be used as a way to slander ex-boyfriends, and other enemies.
The bad news is you have houseguests. There is no good news.
So because you are scared that a man might get hurt you are willing to throw away something that could help prevent women from being raped?
shareSo it's a bunch of Newsroom haters bashing a storyline they would have hated no matter what because they hate the show?
So because you are scared that a man might get hurt you are willing to throw away something that could help prevent women from being raped?
I think any website that "outs" people is dangerous, but where were the "subtle hints that she may or may not be lying"? I don't remember that part.
shareThe fact she say at the start she was blind drunk and off her head on drugs. if that was the case how did she know anything happend?
Sarchasm (n): The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it
She described that she passed out, and then next thing she remembered was that she was being taken to the bedroom. The only part she didn't remember was during the time she was passed out. Being drunk and high doesn't automatically mean that she doesn't remember what happened during that time.
shareThe problem is the drugs she mentioned in the scene (molly, shrooms) last usually between 7-9 hours, and that is only considering she took an average dose of just one of those drugs mentioned. She stated that she took both and that she took a decent amount, that alone will make the drugs last longer also being drunk does not help the situation. Also passing out and waking up later doesn't exactly mean you are no longer high. What I am getting at is, she was most likely still under the influence, and that she was probably in a whole other state of mind and that she could have said or done something to get the two guys to think she gave consent. I am not saying she did, I am not saying she was not raped, all I am saying is that when someone is in that state of mind they tend to not remember some things they did or said that night, or do something they regret the next morning. That is a big reason why she can not be believed.
shareBeing high, inebriated or unconscious is exactly like being underage. A person in that condition cannot consent and it is rape.
sharewrong again. A person under the age of consent is pefectly able to give consent. Its just the law does not recognize it. So if man and woman who are a bit high or drunk BOTH consent to sex, the man should be done for rape why excatly? Becasue of course all men are rapists right ?
Sarchasm (n): The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it
THANK YOU!
When I was younger, I drank to be drunk, but I remember everything I did or said. Just because someone is drunk doesn't mean she wouldn't remember
So women who have sex with drunk men are rapists? It's all too easy to say 'I was drunk I don't remember'. Lots of people do stupid things they don't remember when drunk. I fail to see why when a guy says "I was drunk, I don't remember" it's not a defence to a rape, and when a woman says "I was drunk I don't remember", it means it was rape.
shareunconscious? yes, no question. if a woman is passed out, then any sexual acts done to her are clearly rape.
but being high/inebriated? no. there are plenty of women and men who have had drunk/high sex and never considered it rape. by that standard, any man who picks up a woman in a bar is guilty of rape
I think charges that involves drink or drugs should be evaluated case by case. If a person is incapacitated , they can't consent and I think that is different for everyone. It's definitely a hot button issue where gray is the norm.
shareYou can't consent to rape. Ever. Not possible.
How the hell do you not get that?
I weep for the future.
What are you saying? I know you can't consent to rape. I stated that she consented to sex not rape. How do you not understand that? I am weeping for you for thinking that the next generation is going to be bad when the line starts at your feet.
I know this is 6 days late but I just felt the need to stand up to this stupidity.
You're obviously a very young male. Women know if they have had sex, even if they don't remember.
shareWrong. How can you know something if you don't remember it and where not awake at the time ?
Sarchasm (n): The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it
I take back everything I said before. ...Because you are a thundering idiot of the 1st order, and I have no desire to engage in any form of conversation with someone who has a real chance of owning a court-mandated helmet.
Dude...take her word for it. A woman knows if she's been penetrated after the fact. A vagina isnt a d ick. You sound like both though.
sharewhy should I ? Oh I forgot all men are rapsist right? So of course I have to take her word for it. Can't let a little thing like evidence or presumption of innocence get in the way now can we.
Sarchasm (n): The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it
Stop being a fool on this subject. A Doctor can find trauma done to a woman's vagina even from consensual sexual intercourse, not to mention the trauma caused from forced intercourse. That trauma translates to pain and discomfort for the woman.. You are being foolish by challenging the clearly correct assertion by someone who I believe knows of what they speak.
shareYeah right, because coming forward as a victim of rape is such a fun time and has no long term consequences for a woman's entire career and life.
People - especially young men - are so open-minded and considered in their opinion that we must work harder to protect boys from hurt feelings over the physical, emotional and mental well-being of women everywhere living in a man's world.
Angry young men are most often the ones to change the world when they band together to begin revolutions. Sadly this current generation of young men are self-involved wimps.
I think any rational person believes that we as a society need to see our justice system work more swiftly and appropriately in regards to sexual assault. Our schools, military, and general law enforecement desperately needs a drastic culturual change. I think the point is that for us rational thinkers, who feel this way, it is easy to immediately side with those accusing. We feel the system is not doing enough, and we are tired of it; however, the easy path is not always the right one. It can be difficult and frustrating, sometimes maddeningly so, to live in a society where innocense is granted until guilt is proved, but it also is necessary for our society to remain in tact. The rights of the accused are as important as the rights of the victim, until guilt is beyond a shadow of a doubt. This may anger us beyond belief at times, but it also keeps us from mob rule mentality. That's why I dont view vigilanty justice on a faceless website with no true vetting process as the answer to our problem with how we treat rape in America.
sharedjcres-1: Very well said...
_______________________________________
Not all who wander are lost
Tell that to the Duke Lacrosse team. The rights of the accused are not the same as the accuser. The accuser has rape shield laws, protected identities. The accused gets thrown on national television and eviscerated. Mob rule mentality is in full effect. Just because people don't go to jail doesn't mean their lives aren't ruined and that was Don's entire point.
The important point is not that one side of the two presented is right, the point is that there needs to be a third option. Mob justice is wrong but so is the current state of how the justice system deals with rape reports.
So many women not even reporting rape is a problem and shows that there is no trust in the police handling these cases properly. What the woman in the scene said about thousands of rape kits that don't even get tested is not made up.
The cops cannot invent evidence. The reason those rape kits are generally sitting there untested is:
Most law-enforcement bodies have discretion over what they test, and many shelve kits if a victim seems untrustworthy or a suspect has already been identified, according to the National Institute of Justice, a research arm of the Department of Justice. Police also give priority to cases in which the suspect is a stranger and the victim is visibly injured. Yet perhaps eight in ten rapes take place between people who at least vaguely know each other, and most lack signs of violence. Acquaintance rapists are often chronic offenders, says David Lisak, a clinical psychologist.
Your argument makes sense for some cases but not all. It's simply not true that all those rape kits lying around are just not being tested because it's not necessary. Many of them aren't tested because it's very expensive or they are simply forgotten.
After 11,000 untested rape kits were discovered in a Detroit police storage facility in 2009, 1,600 have been tested and about 100 serial rapists have been identified — with 10 of them already convicted.
[deleted]
As far as a website that outs rapists, I'm neither for nor against it at this point. I'm not a huge fan of it being one where anybody could add whatever it is they want to it, like the ACN app that took up another subplot. It's not impossible for someone to get back at an ex.
That being said, people should know. They should know who the rapists are just like people with children should know if there's a child molester in the neighborhood. A site such as the one described in the show could be very powerful AND very dangerous.
I agree. Well I see both sides. So, I am glad Don made that decision! Anyone else would have done what they thought was right. Don just does what is. I love him
shareYeah, because women really want to go through all the slut-shaming, victim-shaming and general abuse you get when you accuse someone of raping you - just for fun? Wow... How about talking about all the women who DO NOT tell anyone, because they know no one will believe them? But of course, let's protect the one in a million man who get's wrongfully convicted, instead of the thousands of women getting raped every year. That's a man's world for ya.
shareBut it's okay to do it to men because #feminismisreallyaboutrevenge
The stats on false rape claims are anywhere from 1 in 10 to 4 in 10.Hardly one in a million.
ignorant bigot.
[deleted]
We need to protect women from being raped in the first place, but how is throwing one innocent man in prison going to help any victim? You might feel complacent about it, but if you're that one man in a million, you're going to feel pretty pissed off.
I've never been accused of rape, or any violent crime, but I have been falsely accused of other acts, and so I have instinctive sympathy with respect to, and a great deal of fear and anxiety about, false accusations. On one hand, I tend to think that if a man 'keeps his nose clean and behaves himself' he has no reason to be scared of a false accusation, because any false accusation pertaining to rape is likely to involve a very grey area where the man may not have committed rape, but still didn't behave as honourably and thoughtfully as he should have. And yet, the false allegation I was subjected to was a COMPLETE fabrication that came out of nowhere, but everyone believed my accuser (and once again, I must empathise, the accusation didn't pertain to a crime, far less a violent one). And I have read of a false accusation of a man who wasn't even in the same location as his alleged victim (an ex-girlfriend) when the alleged crime was supposed to have occurred, so it seems that even those men who are careful and don't put themselves in a compromising position, may still be vulnerable to a false accusation. Would you have liked this man to go to prison, simply because he was 'one in a million'?
People say any man who's worried about false accusations are 'misogynists' and 'don't care about victims', well, take it from someone who's been on the receiving end of both an attempted rape, by a boy, and sexual assaults by various women, as well as a (non-violent/non-criminal) false accusation, the false accusation did more damage to me in the long-run than the trauma of being sexually assaulted...
...Sorry for the 'anti-feminist' narrative, but unlike most of you, I am in the unique position of being able to see things from both perspectives (many of you here haven't experienced either), and, as I say, the false accusation, which wasn't even anything remotely as serious as rape, did more damage to my life (I'm still paying for it today), than the assaults, which were painful, upsetting and humiliating (especially as I was only an 11-year-old kid when the attempted rape occurred), but something that didn't have a *practical* impact on the rest of my life.
To quote both Blackstone's ratio, and the Jewish legal theorist, Maimonides "it is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death."
Now, privilege-explain to me, a *survivor* of sexual assault and a false allegation, why I am 'wrong'?
As an aside, if I could eradicate all rape/violence towards women, by serving time for a false allegation, I'd GLADLY die in prison as a wrongly demonised martyr, but, guess what? We don't live in that fantasy world. Two wrongs truly don't make a right, and one injustice towards a straight white man doesn't magically erase the injustice done to, say, a gay Black woman. Anyone who thinks in such illogical terms is not a righteous crusader for women's rights, but is driven by bitterness and cruelty.
But, like I say, if anyone can work out a way that me serving time in prison for a false allegation will stop all the *real* rapes in the world, please get back to me. I'd love to 'do a Jesus', and vanquish all sin by playing the martyr, but this is the REAL WORLD, not bullshit fantasy religious nonsense (but hey, if you all believe that fairytale stuff, good for you; knock yourself out 🙂).
In the meantime, I'll maintain my staunch belief that sending anyone to prison on the basis of a false allegation is a fucking waste, and does no-one any good.
Juxtapose it with the ACNgage celebrity stalking site. If you think that one site is tolerable and the other isn't, then ask yourself why. That would lead to a very interesting and enlightening conversation. :)
Justice is complicated.
I think people mostly have a problem with Don's comment about moral obligation. I get what he was trying to say but it just came out sounding wrong.
shareI have a lot of criticisms of my own regarding this show, and especially this season, but i believe that the "backlash" over this subplot is based on a very oversimplified, possibly even misguided, understanding of Sorkin's view on this subject.
Sorkin covered this from a different angle early in SportsNight where a producer sent an attractive reporter to interview a football player suspected of sexual assault. That episode touched on many of the pros and cons.
When I was in college in the late 70's I believe the national statistic was 1 in 4 women would be sexually assaulted on some level before graduation. It won't change until people start to see "I was drunk" at most as an explanation and not as an excuse.
I think my percentage of Chimp DNA is higher than others. Cleaver Greene
Big shocker. News media have never liked this show because they think Sorkin thinks he's smarter than them. The reporter confessed to "peacefully hate-watching" the show.
And this: "Instead, he tries to convince her of the danger of her website, which could be used to make false accusations against innocent men" isn't even an accurate description of what happened. He argued with her about the website, but he mostly persuaded her not to appear, because he didn't want her to be hurt in the resulting circus. And having seen last year's Sandra Fluke debacle, he was right. It was a smart story and contained a great deal of truth. Is everyone going to agree with every bit of it -- no. But that's sort of the point of the show, isn't it? To spark conversation. Maybe we should just all watch Big Bang Theory all the time, because there's nothing controversial about it.
Six years later, after having binged the series, I feel compelled to point out: He did NOT "persuaded her not to appear, because he didn't want her to be hurt in the resulting circus." Just the opposite happened: he was unable to convince her, and she insisted on going on, and he went back to work and lied to Charlie about not being able to find her.
A much different, more layered, more consequential arc of events, as it turned out.
It was another aspect of the whole "The internet is dangerous and if we don't do something about it soon it will be too late"
Unfortunately the writing failed him and he turned Don's entire argument into victim shaming.
Meh, the backlash is mostly from people who were too lazy to pay attention to what the show was actually saying.
The New Yorker is pretty terrible IMO, so I take everything they say with a grain of salt, their piece about the show is so badly written that a first grader could've done a better job, and most of the comments on the TIME review criticized it for it's numerous inaccuracies.
And of course many people have complained about how terrible the AV Club's review was, many people in the comments section were not happy.
Also it's pretty stupid to blame Sorkin for the time the episode aired, he's not psychic, no one could've possibly predicted that it would air shortly after controversial stories very similar to the one in the episode.
He also doesnt run the network. They make the decisions when to run the show, not him. And yeah they started running the new season 6 weeks ago. Do people think they timed it that way or something? People can be really stupid.
12 Years a Slave Best Picture Of The Year!!!!!!
It wrapped filming over the summer. Obviously, they ran the episodes from beginning to end, starting in November. There will always be real-life news stories, but I wouldn't think they would change the television schedule for anything less than a September 11-level story or maybe something similar to the Challenger disaster, if it was paralleled on the show. Unfortunately, rapes happen all the time.
sharethe backlash is mostly from people who were too lazy to pay attention to what the show was actually saying.
It's amazing when the leftists eat their own.
Never slap a man while he's chewin' tobacco.- Frank Underwood
yeah, the right doesnt have that problem at all do they? lucky...
shareDo they? I don't think they do. To be fair, it's partly for a good reason that the 'left eats their own'. The left is generally more morally pure than the right, particularly the Libertarian Right, and the problem when we 'don't eat our own' is that we get accused of hypocrisy, and giving a pass to liberals simply because they're on our side.
So, even as a leftist, I see pros and cons on both sides. In some ways, the right are more loyal to their own, and it's easier to get away with stuff as a right-winger, but is that necessarily a good thing?
The only thing I would say with respect to the left, is that we should be a bit more cautious and hesitant before throwing anyone to the lions, but actually, speaking out against injustices, wherever it emanates, including from fellow libs, is arguably an honourable thing, just as long as it's being done out of principle, and not to take someone down.
I have to say that the backlash for this ep has been unanimously brutal. That's rather unusual, even for this show. Some of the articles clearly don't quite get the point Sorkin was trying to get across. The Av Club one is particularly clueless. But I do admit that the writing of that scene can be looked at in a way that does seem offensive. I think Don's sentence regarding moral obligation is the one that probably is the one that pisses of people the most.
shareThis, 100%, but to be honest it's how a lot of people feel. We use the innocent until proven guilty method because nobody should be shamed before they are proven guilty. In the instance of rape and this scene in particular Don is of the same mentality, people should not be shamed from relationships, or getting a job, or just walking down the street without proof. Rape is a difficult subject because it is often one of the hardest types of cases to prove guilt, and this is where the accuser is coming from. She wants to voice what she knows happened, and there is no way for her to do so despite the fact she seems genuine in her accusations. The problem is that there is no filter on a website like the one she created leading to people being shamed after bad breakups. The girls last resort is to make it on live TV and have a debate with who she claims raped her, she is confident because she knows the truth, but Don doesn't want it to happen because without evidence it is word against word, and someone(honestly could go either way) is going to have their reputation ruined without due process of a court system.
share