Comments on: The word “rape” has been disappeared from the English language

By: Privacy and “postfeminist” rape culture : Historiann : History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 15:24:02 +0000

[...] are so thoroughly protected by the language we use now, which implies that rape victims are in fact the criminals by calling them… This implies that the accusation of rape is the real act of aggression, instead of the rape [...]

By: Historiann

Historiann — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 17:29:45 +0000

JayJay--here's the Victim's Declaration and request that the case be dismissed, via TalkLeft. See point #3, and many of her following points: she's disturbed and irritated by the attention she gets, which is why she wants the case dropped. I'm struck by how many of her points aren't at all about the behavior of the D.A.'s office, although of course some are. Whether or not she has "forgiven" Polanski is irrelevant to the legal matter. She may have, but that's more of a personal healing and spiritual issue. Just as we don't permit crime victims to seek revenge on their own, we also don't really care if crime victims "forgive" their attackers or not.

By: JayJayCee

JayJayCee — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 17:20:24 +0000

Yes – Polanski has absolutely used his privilege to avoid punishment! Or attempt to, anyway.

I hope you are correct and the victim is simply responding to the media frenzy. I had heard that she had “forgiven” Polanski, but cannot remember the source so it may have been rumor. And even if she has, I have not.

By: Historiann

Historiann — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:09:36 +0000

JayJayCee–good points, and thanks for stopping by to comment. From what I’ve read (including the victim’s request to drop the case), I don’t think the victim feels like she has been re-victimized so much by the D.A.’s office as by the media frenzy and efforts to track her down every time this story hits the news. The victim of the crime 32 years ago is gone–she is no longer present as a 13-year old. She already gave her testimony to the Grand Jury, so people really should leave her alone now that she’s a 45-year old woman with a life of her own. I hope that she’s been able to move on in her own life, and I am very sympathetic to her disinterest of being dragged into a media circus once again.

But: criminals also get locked up not just to keep the rest of us safe, but to punish crime! There is the fact of Polanski’s privileges and how he’s used them (and has been permitted to leverage them) to avoid punishment.

By: JayJayCee

JayJayCee — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 12:44:09 +0000

One note: those who express ambivalence on the matter of holding Polanski accountable because the victim now wants to put the brakes on so that she can get on with her life might consider that this isn’t *only* about a 13 year-old child who was raped. Having worked as an advocate for victims of rape for years – and been a victim myself – I absolutely understand where she is coming from.

Unfortunately, it’s not only about a single person who has been victimized. Years of “Crime and Order” and the like have distorted our collective understanding of the criminal justice system. Everyone loses sight of the fact that the victim is a *witness* for the state/commonwealth. She/he most often does not get a say in whether the case goes forward. There’s a reason for this: criminals get locked up to help keep all of us safe, not only to attain “justice” for the victim and her/his family.

I sincerely hope the woman who was once a 13-year-old girl is able to move forward and considers herself whole, intact, and a survivor. But every year I see hundreds of broken women (and some men) who were molested or raped as children, and who have spent their lives trying to “move forward” and make it from one day to the next. It’s no secret that adults sexual assaulted as children suffer more and longer if their victimization wasn’t addressed all those years ago when they were children.

By: Indyanna

Indyanna — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 02:53:42 +0000

An update from today’s New York Times coverage of this story. A columnist named Jim Dwyer has a nice, restrained but pointed riposte to the Euro-nihilist view that the enforcement of the warrant is just another example of American puritan vindictiveness gone wild. The Times itself has an editorial in the same vein, although they still describe it as “sex with a thirteen year old” and a bit later, as “statutory rape.” And some author doing screen-writing projects with Polanski has a long, windy op-ed piece in the Euro-nihilist mode. Apparently not arresting the guy on his last fifteen trips to Switzerland constitutes some sort of common law waiver of the writ. It’s somewhat amusing, if anything can be, that official foreign government proponents of the amnesia approach are required by protocol to take their case through the Secretary of State’s office. Not an assignment I’d want to take on.

By: Another Damned Medievalist

Another Damned Medievalist — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 02:48:52 +0000

I just realized I hadn’t chimed in, but it’s because I’ve been arguing this elsewhere and am just so tired. Especially when you’ve got all kinds of people signing “poor Polanski” petitions, and Whoopi Goldberg saying it wasnt “rape-rape.” The hell?

By: Historiann

Historiann — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:54:38 +0000

Thanks, PorJ, for the update. I agree that she does herself no favors here. She seems to imply that having a pushy stage mother and/or being eager to be photographed are the equivalent to consent. And that’s just completely fracked up.

I’m sorry, but unsurprised, to hear that people have suggested that Applebaum’s daughter be raped. Sigh. On another note: I heard the “listener mail” this afternoon as I schlepped myself home, and someone called NPR to task for using the term “had sex with a 13-year old” instead of “raped a 13-year old.” Maybe there’s hope for the future of the republic after all.

Oh well: you know me. Vox clamantis in deserto, with or without a singalong chorus.

By: Emma

Emma — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:44:43 +0000

What does the conversation with her mother have to do with anything? Applebaum = apologist for a rapist regardless of how hard she works the spin.

By: PorJ

PorJ — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:27:29 +0000

Applebaum responds to her critics:

Well, well. It turns out that Applebaum’s husband is a Polish politician who is currently actively lobbying for Polanski’s freedom. Seems that Applebaum did not mention that.

Well, well, it turns out that the person who wrote that works for the Los Angeles County district attorney, as he points out in an “update.” Does that matter? No, of course not. One likes to assume that people who bother to write about a wide variety of things are sophisticated, that their views derive from many sources, and that they are not simply a mouthpiece for their organizations or their spouses. For the record, I will note that I mentioned my husband’s job in a column as recently as last week, and that when he first entered the Polish government three years ago I wrote a column about that too. I have to assume that the bloggers who have leapt upon this as some kind of secret revelation are simply unfamiliar with my writing. However, I will also note that at the time I wrote the blog item, I had no idea that the Polish government would or could lobby for Polanski’s release, as I am in Budapest and my husband is in Africa. (My editors later added a link to a news story that mentioned him.) The implication, in any case, that I am a spokesman for my husband — while not quite as offensive as the implication that my daughter should be raped — is offensive nevertheless.

Of course, there were some very legitimate disagreements, including two excellent ones from my colleagues Gene Robinson and Richard Cohen, and I take some of their points. But to them, and to all who imagine that the original incident at the heart of this story was a straightforward and simple criminal case, I recommend reading the transcript of the victim’s testimony (here in two parts) — including her descriptions of the telephone conversation she had with her mother from Polanski’s house, asking permission to be photographed in Jack Nicholson’s jacuzzi — and not just the salacious bits.