World gone mad, day eleventy billion

[sigma7]

Challenge: try to explain the arrest of Henry Louis Gates and the resulting kerfluffle -- culminating in the beer summit -- to someone who hadn't heard of it, without having to interrupt with "I'm not kidding, this really happened" whenever you pause for breath. But you have to, to get the full effect of Cambridge Cop Accidentally Arrests Henry Louis Gates Again During White House Meeting.

rewil brings word that Mr. I-Don't-Photoshop Except When I Can Get Away With It has released an...essay? I guess? I suppose it's to respond to the allegations against him, but it's hard to tell. It's one of the most obnoxiously pretentious and still somehow content-free pieces of shit I've read in a long, long time, so it's worth it for entertainment value and reinforcing the validity that any additional energy expended upon this "artist" is entirely wasted except as a cautionary tale to others, or possibly as an exercise in either steel-reinforced denial or merely merrily prancing about with the English language before beating it to death with the sledgehammer of the tortured misunderstood artist.

EA's not releasing its annual incremental roster patch for its NFL game for the PC for the second year in a row. I smell a spite-torrent or two. Pity Red Alert 3 wasn't worth seeding.

When the rape allegations regarding Ben Roethlisberger (oh God I can type that from memory now) surfaced, I skipped through my usual parade of web sites, pausing when I hit ESPN, thinking they just hadn't filed their story yet. No, as it turns out, they've taken a most curious stance toward the civil case re: Roethlisberger: speak no evil. It took the self-proclaimed worldwide leader in sports 48 hours to casually mention that there are allegations against the Super-Bowl-winning quarterback, and had any other story simmered in the background for two days, ESPN would kick itself for not covering it. ESPN's half-hearted defense is that the allegations are too weak to merit coverage and that ESPN doesn't cover civil suits -- but even a casual observer will remember allegations with similar if not equivalent levels of veracity trumpeted by the network against Kwame Brown or Larry Johnson. And if you do make the mistake of talking about Roethlisberger on ESPN airwaves, don't worry, they'll correct you soon enough. Is this a network just wanting to keep the premiere sports franchie (and business partner) and one of its brightest stars happy? Or just another manifestation of rape culture?

For the record, that last link explicitly says that suggesting the accuser may be a "lying gold-digger" is rape culture. Maybe I'm missing something, but to me that's just healthy skepticism -- I don't think leaping to a conclusion in either direction suits anyone at this juncture, and if someone wants to paint me with a brush of condemnation for not immediately grasping their standard and waving it frantically, then I guess I get painted. But that's another, much larger can of worms -- removed from the accusations themselves is the issue of ESPN's coverage of them, or lack thereof. It's inconsistent with precedent and its own mission as a purported newsgathering organization, and ultimately it damages their brand (unless they choose to go the route of so many cable channels and change their mission, from sports news to sports entertainment -- and cynics may well ask what the difference is and if that hasn't happened already). To report on allegations as allegations and not foregone conclusions shouldn't threaten Roethlisberger, the Steelers or the NFL, but it's a pity ESPN chose to capitulate. It's not discretion, it's cowardice, and no institution is better served by such.

Comments

[patchsassy.livejournal.com]

Except she most likely IS a lying gold-digger. It took her a year to go file with the police and she's only asking for 400K. Riiiiiight. That tells me that she thinks she really has a solid chance at this. Or not.

I highly doubt that A-it wasn't consensual and B-what she says the security guard at the hotel told her is an extreme elaboration. Even the AP stories paint the picture as something that isn't really all that serious.

[jupiter9.livejournal.com]

Wow, that didn't take long.

A woman can generally expect to be called a lying gold-digger in any rape claim involving a man who has more than two nickels to rub together. A lot of women won't make such claims even when they're well-founded because of that.

This is rape culture. Maybe she didn't accuse him earlier because of those factors, plus maybe she'd lose her job, plus maybe he would not be found guilty and she'd be "that lying bitch who destroyed that great man's career" for the rest of her life. Or even if he was found guilty she'd still be "that lying bitch who conned the judge and jury and destroyed that great man's career."

Unless you've been raped you probably don't have much of an idea what it's like. Talk to a rape victim about it, if you dare.

[patchsassy.livejournal.com]

I know a rape victim and she's talked to me about some of her experiences. The things she has said and the way she went about it suggests that she's not being wholeheartedly forthcoming with what really happened. After the whole ordeal with Kobe Bryant, she knows she probably doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell, especially considering that her employer is a close friend of Roethlisberger. The girl is praying for an out-of-court settlement, most likely, so she can work her way up from being a maid at a hotel on Lake Tahoe. It's not really about justice or about proving that Roethlisberger is a rapist. It's about money. She claims she's been to five different therapists in the last year. Plus, she's hoping to drag her employer through the mud by claiming that he and his staff was less than sympathetic about the whole thing. She obviously doesn't care about losing her job, so once again, we are back at the need for money.

Who really knows what happened between the two of them. He's not denying that he knows who she is, so most likely there was something going on between them. However, there's also an equal likelihood that she picked him out of all the celebrities that traipse through her hotel as someone who would put up so to keep his good name from being dragged through the media. Especially after he won the Super Bowl in January.

If she was raped, she has every right to get cash out of him, don't get me wrong. But it really doesn't sound like she has much of a case to go on here.

[jupiter9.livejournal.com]

I wonder why you think there's an equal chance she's lying or not lying. What would give you the idea that it's 50-50?

And what would make this a better case? Reporting it that same day wouldn't really make it any different in terms of him claiming it was consensual, would it? Even bruising and tearing could be explained by saying "she liked it rough." I really don't see any reson to think that there would be fewer people saying she's just a golddigger if that were the only difference.

Would it be more believable if he were not rich and famous? That then suggests that rich and famous men are going to be able to do what they want and then claim, hey, I could have anyone. Rapists don't want just anyone. They want someone who doesn't want to have sex with them.

So what's left? That she went to several therapists? Going to several therapists and then finally reporting the rape suggests to me that it was traumatic for her, and not an easy decision to make.

[jateke.livejournal.com]

Kwame Brown, newsworthy accusation: African American
Larry Johnson, newsworthy accusation: African American
Kobe Bryant, newsworthy accusation with sprinkles on top: African American
Ben Roethlisberger, non-newsworthy accusation: Caucasian

Hmm.

The article you link to also mentions Brian Giles, Caucasian, non-newsworthy; and Shannon Brown, African American, newsworthy. (Though Dwyane Wade does admittedly mess up the curve here.)

[vulpisfoxfire.livejournal.com]

'Rape culture', today's buzzword? Personally, I'm with sigma7 on this..it *isn't* a simple situation. In a better world, where the majority of people were honest...then I'd be behind you all the way. Unfortunately, all too many people have learned they can abuse the system and make false accusations in order to get paid off (which digusts me due to it causing the very disbelief that causes problems for the real, legitimate rape victims) --so there's a place and need for healthy skepticism towards *both* sides of the issue these days. :-/
You could be right and it's a cut-and-dried rape case. Others could be right, and she *is* a gold-digger just out for money. Or, it could be more complicated than that--say, she *was* raped, but only decided to pursue the issue later when she realized the money she could get, not out of justice. Or, possibly, this is an incredibly inappropriate marketing ploy by this guy's PR engine to get his name in the news and they're *both* lying. Given the stunts EA has pulled lately, I wouldn't be surprised. :-/

[patchsassy.livejournal.com]

The two things that jump out at me is - A, she already knows what kind of cash she wants to get and it's hideously lower than what most try to get out of famous people. And B - he's Ben Roethlisberger and as jupiter9 pointed out, he can sleep with anyone he wants to. Why would he force himself on a woman who doesn't want to have sex with him when there were most likely many, many other women in the hotel who would have been more than willing to have sex with him?

The thing with this being filed now is there's no proof, so it's going to turn into a case of "he said, she said." There was never anything mentioned about her seeking medical attention after the initial contact.

[patchsassy.livejournal.com]

The whole thing is going to turn into a case of "he said, she said." The fact that she's asking for such a low amount of money leads me to believe she think she has much of a case. Most in this situation if they felt they had a real chance of this coming through would ask for more than 400K.

Plus, it's like you pointed out, he's Ben Roethlisberger. He can have anyone he wants. If it was just about him having sex, there were most likely plenty of willing women in the hotel. It doesn't seem like it would be worth the hassle.

The whole situation is just odd to me. I will feel extremely bad for her if she is telling the truth, but something tells me she's not.

[jupiter9.livejournal.com]

Way to misread, people. I didn't say "he could have anyone" to suggest that she's lying. I said that people will say "he could have anyone," to suggest she's lying.

But in literal fact he can't. For example, he can't have me (happily married). He can't have any number of women who don't know who he is, don't care who he is, find jocks revolting, are gay, are in a relationship, don't like his type, are morally opposed to premarital sex, don't have sex on first acquaintance, and so on.

"Anyone" wasn't in his hotel room that night. There was no pageant of women who wanted to have sex with him. The plaintiff was. It was her or no one, or maybe her or incall, and maybe he chose her, even though she didn't want to, because it was better in his mind not to have to pay for it, because "he could have anyone."

He might in fact get off on it being someone who doesn't want it.

Or maybe he was horny, didn't score with whoever he was trying to score with that night, felt the plaintiff would acquiesce because she was nice to him, and didn't want to accept a "no" because, well, he's so special he shouldn't have to.

Or maybe he literally thinks no one would turn him down and a "no" is just a coy way of saying "yes."

Not seeking medical attention: often happens when you just want to scrub it off you and try to forget it ever happened. Then later you realize that scrubbing it off doesn't really remove the disturbing feelings and you can't just forget it happened.

She "knows" how much money to ask for because when you go into civil court you must sue for a specific dollar figure. You can't just say, "I'm suing you for no specific amount." She and her lawyer sat down and figured out what she spent on therapy, what it will take to support her while she can't work while on trial, and so on. She is suing for damages.

If she were asking for 50 million, would you think her case was better because she asked for "enough," or worse because she is now "obviously" trying to get rich? Is there a "right" number that would suggest she's not making it up?