Armed Blowfish apparently get e-mails through to the list, and has
asked me to forward this.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com>
Date: Aug 1, 2007 10:03 PM
Subject: The Second Rape: Victim-Blaming (was Re: [WikiEN-l]
Self-sensorship, how far should it go?)
To: jayjg99(a)gmail.com
I am truly depressed by the lack of support SlimVirgin is receiving
from certain individuals on this list, but at the same time, not
surprised. Victim-blaming has a long and horrific history. When it
happens to rape victims, it is called 'the second rape'... to victims
of assault, 'the second assault'... or, to cover all situations,
victim-blaming or secondary victimisation.
The far-too-frequent society response to victims of rape, violence and
harassment - to abandon her, to blame her, to insult her - is severely
psychologically damaging to the victim, and helps keep perpetrators
safe to continue these abuses.
The experience of Serena, who was ultimately banned from her
classrooms and friends after being raped:
http://www.justicewomen.com/cj_second_rape.html
An introduction to the phenomena of 'The Second Rape', geared towards
helping victims deal with it, and explaining why it happens, along
with a few typical examples:
http://www.justicewomen.com/help_special_rape.html#two
Some survey results on the topic of secondary victimisation:
http://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/research/victimrape.shtml
On 01/08/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 01/08/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I don't see any good coming from giving into
trolls and stalkers. The
fact that a bunch of disgruntled, mostly banned ex-Wikipedians like to
spin conspiracy theories, and occasionally disrupt Wikipedia, should
simply be ignored. Not discussed on Wikipedia, not discussed here,
just ignored.
"Ignored" is one thing. "Silenced" just feeds the fire.
I note this thread began because a debate about Slim's identity, and
the massive efforts gone to to conceal edits associated with her, *was
on the front page of slashdot*. (Slashdot. Not Wikipedia Review, or
Encyclopedia Dramatica, or anyone else; Slashdot, perhaps a classic
example of our "natural supporters".) This led to a large amount of
curiosity amongst our community. But a small group of people cracked
down heavily on anyone trying to say "what the fuck is going on here?"
on the wiki... which just further encouraged speculation about those
efforts to conceal something.
An excerpt from the song 'The Second Rape' by Aus-Rotten:
Defense attorney: Do you know the man who "allegedly" attacked you?
Victim: Yes I know the man who raped me.
Defense attorney: And isn't this man a friend of yours?
Victim: Well I thought he was a friend of mine.
Defense attorney: And were you drinking that night he 'allegedly" attacked you?
Victim: I had a drink or two but is that a crime?
Defense attorney: I'll ask the questions if you don't mind!
-What were you wearing: How did you act?
Victim: My wardrobe isn't an invitation for a man to attack.
-I didn't act in any way to bring this on. Why am I on trail? What
did I do wrong?
Defense attorney: Could you tell the jury why you let this happen?
Victim: I was in shock. I couldn't stop him.
Defense attorney: You claim that you were raped but how do we know?
Victim: I said no, I said no, no, no!
Defense attorney: Isn't it true you're just a woman scorned?
Victim: I'm a woman who's been raped and torn.
Defense attorney: Your honor, I demand that this case be dismissed,
-it all comes down to her word against his!
In the above, the attorney's questions are fairly typical - the
victim's strength, not so typical. If you don't mind a long read,
this paper is enlightening:
http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1981/3/81.03.06.x.html#c
If you honestly don't see that this sort of
behaviour is wasteful,
counterproductive, inflammatory and - in the long run - just poisoning
our reputation, then I am afraid my complaints are hopeless. But, by
god, they were worth making.
At some point in the past, people fucked up, made enemies or handled
something badly or just been unlucky in who they dealt with. Things
have moved on, and developed, and we're now in a situation where they
have no choice but to look foolish, or keep harming the project. The
only reasonable solution here is for them to stop and walk away.
Sooner or later, they have to realise this.
Just as the officials at Serena's school drove her out - putting her
in independent study, banning her from her classrooms and friends -
after she was raped by a classmate.
I will say it again - the people we are looking bad to
now aren't the
people who already thought the worst of us. We're now beginning to
look like incompetent spiteful twerps to neutral third parties, and I
see no indication it's ever going to improve. Essjay got us faintly
amused newspaper coverage - what will "Wikipedia Covers Up Unknown
Misdemeanours" look like?
The project is bigger than them, it is more important than a username,
and I will not stand by to see it dragged down to protect their pride.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
On the contrary, secondary victimisation is far more damaging not only
to Wikipaedia, but to all of society. It teaches the perpetrators
that they can get away with it, and the victims that they can't expect
help. It helps abuse continue - both by participating in
victimisation of current victims and by making it easier for future
victimisation to occur to new victims.
And yet, far too often, victims are abandoned and blamed in the name
of society... it's her fault the football team is calling her a ho...
it's her fault a crime occurred against her in her own apartment...
it's her fault she got raped.
Thanks for listening,
Armed Blowfish
P.S. While I don't believe Andrew means to hurt anyone, people often
hurt others without meaning to. Hence my attempt to explain why it
hurts, in the hopes that this will stop.