Kathleen Parker on Nifong's legacy, feminism's shame

Submitted by Roy on Thu, 2007-06-21 01:07

The always excellent Kathleen Parker writes today in Jewish World Review that:

'Nifong's legacy, which ultimately may hurt women more than the falsely accused men, will be long-lived. And the politically correct culture that allowed his charade to persist remains securely in place … It is tempting to convince oneself that Nifong's banishment means that all is right in the Dukedom. Doubtless, many among Duke's faculty and administration, as well as random race-baiters, campus feminists, various reporters, commentators and assorted armchair prosecutors would prefer that no one remember their roles in advancing the Nifong farce.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Here is the e-mail that I sent to the author in response to her op-ed.

I was disappointed with your recent op-ed when you so quickly jumped to the conclusion that the alleged victim of the "Santa Clara case" was necessarily raped merely because she was drunk. How are you so certain that she did not, in fact, give consent? Based on your description of the case, "the girl remembers nothing", it sounds as though far, far too much reasonable doubt exists to allow the case to even go before a jury. Do you just despise men and assume that males are always evil rapists whenever a question of consent arises? Are we rapidly approaching the point where a man needs a witnessed, signed, and notarized contract of consent before he can safely engage in sexual intercourse? The Duke case is a greater travesty of justice than you realize because Mangum should receive the full punishment that the three victims would have received had they been convicted. It is an injustice against the presumably tens of thousands of wrongfully convicted men (and their wives, daughters, families, and taxpayers who foot the bill for incarcerating the wrongfully convicted) that she and other false accusers will not be severely punished.

I'm sure you'd be welcome to participate in the ensuing discussion that will soon occur at the MensActivism.org website: http://news.mensactivism.org/node/8004

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by WhipperSnapper on Thu, 2007-06-21 17:35

That's a good point about the assumption of nonconsent.
That aside, I appreciate Parker even if I don't agree with everything she says. I remember her addressing the data showing women initiate DV as often as men long ago when it was absolutely forbidden to do so (it still is, largely). She has also raised awareness about fathers' rights, misandry, etc. She's not an MRA per se, but for the most part I think she's the kind of ally we need more of.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Marc A. on Thu, 2007-06-21 23:50

I wonder what we need courts for if the testimony of a person is often enough for a conviction these days. Of course, in case of domestic violence, a conviction isn't even necessary to destroy somebody's life.
Even the old tribal system was more just than this. At least the elders usually knew the people involved, while today's judges can only judge by what they've seen and heard during the trial.

Regardless of whether the men in that case she mentioned should have been prosecuted or not, something bothers me about her thinking. She only seems to think about the effects on the credibility of real rape victims, not about the injustice many men have to face. Imagine a man not mentioning the credibility issue, wouldn't that be considered a bit heartless? "May ultimately hurt women more than men" - okay, and if it may not, it's not your business, Kathleen?

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by n.j. on Fri, 2007-06-22 00:16