Rape.

Rape. One of the scariest, most threatening words known to women. My post this week deals with an issue most recently in the media concerning Michael Philbin, the 18-year-old son of Green Bay Packers Coach Joe Philbin.
Judge Sue Bischel called Philbin a good person who simply made a horrible decision and “took advantage” of two intoxicated girls. Bischel decided Philbin didn’t have to register as a sex offender because it was “not appropriate” and “excessive punishment in the long term.”
He was sentenced to six months in jail — with work and school release privileges— and could be released after four and a half months for good behavior. Philbin can petition to have the two misdemeanors removed from his record upon completing probation.
The fact of the matter is that Philbin is not a “good person who made a bad decision”; he is a rapist. “Excessive punishment”? Really? Registering as a sex-offender when a legal adult after committing a CRIME is excessive punishment? Hm. Amazing what rapists can get away with these days.
University of South Florida’s Oracle, their school newspaper, featured an article by Renee Sessions who brought up an antifeminist author by the name of Katie Roiphe. Roiphe published a book which shocked readers and feminists alike. She wrote, “Today’s definition [of rape] has stretched beyond bruises and knives, threats of death or violence to include emotional pressure and the influence of alcohol...Why aren’t college women responsible for their own intake of alcohol or drugs? The so-called rape epidemic on campuses is more a way of interpreting, a way of seeing, than a physical phenomenon.”
Here we have a main problem in the media. That is the victim being blamed for the rape. Whether it’s commenting on the clothing the woman was wearing (tops showing too much cleavage, shorts showing too much leg), the amount of alcohol in her system, or even the way she looked at her attacker, all are reasons used against rape victims. Why? Why can’t the news report or article just tell report the facts. Why add bias and commentary?
This can also go the other way. In the case of the Duke Lacrosse issue, the “accuser” (as she has so come to be called) was made out to be the victim without any comments or evidence proving the “accused” to be guilty. The media made the accuser out to be innocent; a single mother of two, stripping to make ends meet. News played up her story, all the while letting biased rumors soar through to the public tarnishing the Duke players, and Duke Lacrosse as a whole, for a lifetime.
The problem here is that when and where rape is the center of a journalistic reporting piece, it’s difficult to report it properly. You need to think ethically and morally, protecting your loyalties to each, and also protecting your credibility as a journalist. The media grabs at big rape stories and twists and turns them to a) create blame on the victim, or b) creates biased assumptions before any truth can even be announced. In the Duke case, Michael Nilfong, the DA at the time, brutally ruined the reputations of the three accused players without hesitation. Before the true story of the accuser came out, Nilfong had the public hating the accused players and wanting to see them go down in the courtroom. They were found innocent, as the truth behind the tall tale came out, and no evidence was found to convict the boys.
In the case of Michael Philbin, it’s not even a matter of the media. It’s a matter of our judiciary system proving that when you have money, or fame, you can get off the hook. It’s asking for a copy-cat, another boy to take a stab at a girl while she’s passed out, helpless, trying to sleep off a long night, and can’t utter the word “no”. Where’s the consent in that?



(Thanks to Renee’s article! And feministing.com for making me aware of the Philbin case!!)
http://www.feministing.com/archives/014282.html
http://www.usforacle.com/apologizing-away-rape-hurts-not-helps-1.1629101