Legal vs. Moral Judgments

Lean in guys, I know it would suck to be falsely accused of rape, but that is not on the same level as surviving rape. #I DONTCAREWHATYOURMOMTOLDYOU. I know we’re all special snowflakes, though as the media, law, government, #ALLTHETHINGS would have you believe, white, hetero, cis men are the most special snowflakes.

I read the Rolling Stone article that is all over the place, and it was horrific, triggering, and awful. Might “Jackie” be embellishing or misleading in parts of her story? Sure. Maybe she even lied, though statistically speaking that is hella rare, and she took leave from university at the time of the alleged rape, her health suffered, grades slipped, withdrew from friends and family until she was finally forced because of suicidal ideation to ask for help, but yeah, bitches lie. Of course, the Rolling Stone article and retraction, where they sacrificed a source and is so offensive to sexual assault survivors and journalism, came out when the Newsroom aired an episode where a rape victim was interrogated by a random man (Don) because her rapists weren’t convicted, which obviously means she is making it all up. We’re not going to get into the politics of throwing a woman who is disagreeing with you in the writer’s room over the rape storyline because why would you need a woman’s opinion?

The character, Don, claims that he can’t air this story because he can’t make a moral judgment. Now, I’ve seen a few episodes of the show, and Don makes moral judgments all the time. But he can’t believe a woman about her lived experience because those poor boys (sounds like CNN and those poor rapists whose lives are ruined, one of which is already out of jail). I don’t have empathy for the falsely accused. I don’t wish them ill, but that inconvenience of a false accusation lasted how long exactly? A semester? Did they even investigate? Was your name made public and then you were shunned by friends and family? Are you triggered when you sleep with someone else? Because rape survivors have long term consequences like being triggered years later. Having another person’s actions define you. Having to explain to a new partner why you’re freaking out over what they perceive to be nothing and the shame associated with that. PTSD, depression, therapy bills, difficulty holding employment, trust issues, physical injuries, nightmares, and the band plays on. So play your tiny violin bros.

I always believe the victims/alleged victims. I believe them because I know the stats, and I know rape culture. I know that it isn’t that bad for accused rapists, and I know this because national media talks about the poor boys that were found guilty of raping an unconscious girl. Because she was asking for it. Because apparently all woman are asking for it if you survive. And I believe victims because most of the survivors I know never reported. That is a moral judgment. Have I been wrong? Yeah, probably. But at the end of the day, I’m not sorry I believe the victims, no matter how unbelievable she might be, because anyone can be raped, and while everyone isn’t a rapist, I’ve knew people I didn’t think could be rapists that were.

Do I feel that all accused men should be jailed and lose their jobs? No. I think you have to go through the legal system if you want that kind of justice…we can discuss whether that is real justice, what justice means, and justice for whom. That is a legal judgment. See there aren’t legal consequences unless you go through the legal system. Now in the episode, the girl in question named her rapists, after she didn’t receive justice from the school or the police, and she made her own website which allows people to name their rapists, sometimes anonymously. Anyone else, having flashbacks to the women jailed for naming her rapist after a judge ordered her not to?

Moral judgments aren’t equivalent to legal judgments. You are free to make the former about things based on how you perceive them. Legal judgments, not so much. But as we know, from recent instances of police brutality/murder, sometimes the justice system fails, and it fails people who aren’t considered the most special snowflakes more often. A lack of legal conviction doesn’t mean a person is innocent. It means a broken and biased system that disproportionately targets men of color said they were innocent.  

Forcing Tradition Values to Combat Social Ills, because it has worked so well in the past

Marriage and social ills are a story as old as the deserving and undeserving poor. The connection made between marriage and social ills is rooted in the idea that marriage is a symbol of moral stability and will elevate the social fabric of our culture. Therefore, those who are resistant to marriage or prohibited from marriage are seen as a threat to the moral and social fabric. Essentially, during the second presidential debate Romney recycled a bad argument that all single parents are bad parents, i.e. all poor single mothers are bad parents. Romney and Obama were asked about their views on gun control and assault rifles. Romney’s response focused on “But gosh, to tell our kids that before they have babies, they ought to think about getting married to someone, that’s a great idea.” Of course, Romney’s answer while difficult to make the jump with him was rooted in heteronormativeity and a misunderstanding of culture (in addition to racism, sexism, and classism).

We should take the arbitrary moment to recognize this comment is referring to women. Also, I find it a bit disturbing that Romney recommends marrying someone, a nondescript, anybody will do. I find this especially disturbing given the relationships in low-income neighborhood that can involve women in the early teens and men in their twenties. Perhaps, the suggestion should be marry someone who cares about you? Is my idealism showing? Hear that ladies, gun violence is your fault for being whorish. It definitely has nothing to do with a culture that glorified violence and associates it with masculinity. Moving on…

It would be remiss not to mention that when Romney referred to marriage as a possible solution to gun violence, if that was in fact his intent, he was referring to the poor. It always seems that marriage is suggested as a solution for the social ills the poor are perceived to inflict on themselves such as welfare, violence, and poverty in general. For example, just look at Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) policy which actively encourages individuals to marry in order to leave the welfare rolls. Two incomes in a family can assist in lifting families out of poverty, but the idea that marriage somehow makes these familial ties more binding or legitimate have become distinctly middle class and upper middle class values, which are difficult to participate in within communities where men are incarcerated and killed at the rates they are in low-income neighborhoods. A policy like this has some potentially scary consequences for women encouraged to marry long-term partners where violence is present. Let me explain, receiving welfare doesn’t always include an IPV screening so a caseworker may not know that pushing marriage as an option is pushing the recipient into a violent relationship. I am in no way saying all poor men abuse their partners, but violence in relationships during difficult economic times rises.

 The poor, both the working poor and those with even less income, are frequently becoming less likely to marry or delay marriage. For example, the study Promises I can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage, by Kathryn Edin and Maria Kefalas demonstrate the changing perspectives on marriage for low-income young women with children. Essentially, the women interviewed said they were interested in marriage, but only after they had children and established themselves financially often citing 30 or older as the ideal age. They didn’t want to be tied to a man who was perceived as irresponsible, often the same men who fathered their children. The participants also feared being stuck in violent marriages or with womanizers. Children however, were viewed as the duty of all women who were capable; they are seen as demonstrations of adulthood. The woman is grown; she can take care of herself and a child. The study included 162 young, unmarried mothers living in Philadelphia’s urban poor neighborhoods.

Additionally, what does the assumption that marriage provides moral and social stability say to LGBTQ individuals who are prohibited from marriage? By Romney’s logic, shouldn’t children without two married, heteronormative parents be more prone to violence, specifically gun violence? A statement like Romney’s can be heard as one more way to declare heteronormativity as the standard.

There appears to be a shift in how marriage and the values associated with it are viewed by different classes and other groups of the population that deviates from the narrative both presidential candidates and many others would have us believe. As a result we can no longer demand the tradition standards of measurement to acknowledge social and moral fabric. Perhaps, we shouldn’t try at all? But most importantly, we have to stop pushing our value systems on others domestically or abroad.