I don't know what is true, although I, too, am inclined to believe Ford without even tracking all the details on the case myself. But what I find impressive about your article is your ability and willingness to self-reflect and even bring up the potential impact of personal triggers in shaping our reactions and beliefs. That is always a worthwhile exercise, even when our beliefs and reactions hold up after such scrutiny. At least we have engaged the same critical thinking of ourselves that we are wanting and needing from others. I find your blog to be a breath of fresh air in a heated room.
“That is always a worthwhile exercise, even when our beliefs and reactions hold up after such scrutiny. At least we have engaged the same critical thinking of ourselves that we are wanting and needing from others.”
Exactly. Cheri Huber, the Zen guide I met in your home state of California, taught me, “Absolutely everything is projection.” We really can’t see things except through our own lens — we’re just often not aware of it.
I feel the need to respond to some of the comments I’ve read. First, I believe there was corroboration of Ms. Ford’s testimony. For one thing, I think I recall correctly that she made an immediate report of the incident to a friend. Aside from that, I think the focus on corroboration is misplaced. As an assistant state's attorney in Maryland, I prosecuted a "shit ton" of rape and child abuse cases where there was NO corroboration. Historically, there was a requirement in most jurisdictions that a rape victim's allegations be corroborated. This rule (which never existed for any other type of crime) along with rules that victims be chaste and that a husband could not rape his wife weren't eliminated until I think the mid 1900's in some places. Discarding them was a battle. But imagine how many sex assault cases could not be tried if that was still required.It appears from some of the voices on the thread that some of you still think the rule exists.
The "boys will be boys," or in this instance, " drunken teenage boys will be drunken teenage boys" excuse floated here is maddening to me. It might be more accurate, while still NOT excusable to add the word "privileged" teenage boys. Not directly part of the hearing or the on-line discussion is the notion of entitlement—men over women, boys over girls, and wealthy kids over not wealthy ones like the victim. Also, not for nothing, the school Kavanaugh went to in D.C. was notorious for drunken partying. Furthermore, the idea that Kavanaugh could be forgiven for behaving badly, apart from the fact that this isn't just minor "badly," he committed PERJURY at the hearing. Doesn't that count for anything anymore?
Thanks for sharing these details about sexism being built into the law re: a rape victim's (but not other victims') allegations requiring corroboration; rape immunity for husbands; and even chastity being required for rape victims to be taken seriously. We have come a long way - but have so far to go. And yes, "boys will be boys" always means: Let's overlook what would be egregious or downright criminal behavior if girls did it.
"The Kevin nightmare is why I believe Ford. She was telling my story. She was telling the story of countless women who have, while sleeping or awake, been assaulted by male strangers, spouses, and friends."
And my story. Except no alcohol was involved. It was at a school camp, when I woke to a crushing weight on my body and hands groping me. I fought like a wildcat and managed to stop this boy. I told no one except my diary. My mother later found my diary and reported it. He was suspended but probably hasn't given it a second thought since.
Yes, Wattlepeak, a lot of women have a similar story to Ford, which is why I believe her, too. A bad-intentioned man often sees a woman's sleep as an OPPORTUNITY. Excuses are made for him, and sometimes she, in her confusion, will believe the excuses for his behavior...the analysis of what really happened to her usually comes later.
Good for your mother! I love when parents or other adults take matters into their own hands, thus demonstrating to the children that they are loved and worthy and innocent, and assailants should be prosecuted. I hope you're wrong about his giving it a second thought.
Let's go beyond the sensationalist trial of Brett Kavanaugh. The real problem is that sexual harassment, assault, and abuse happen so often -- and are so hard to prove. CM insists survivors should "take a photo or show another person the evidence of abuse." How is a young girl, teen, or woman going to "take a photo" while a man is sexually assaulting her--on top of her, groping her, or pulling off her clothes, or coming up behind her on a public transportation to touch her, or...? It's an impossible standard. And abusers know that.
Elizabeth—-obviously the victim can’t take a photo while it is happening. But she can take a photo of the wounds afterwards and immediately call someone to share the information in real time.
I, too, remember the Kavanaugh hearings. I also have so many girlfriends who were raped, not just attempted-raped, in exactly the way you described. In one case, my friend became pregnant -- which pregnancy she didn't realize for three months because she continued to have her period -- and she was suddenly faced with a decision. She was from a very conservative state, but because this was 45 years ago she still had the option to get an abortion. The problem was finding someone to do it at such a late stage. She finally did. (She still lives in that red state, by the way, where she married, and is a happy, healthy woman with two grown children.) That's just one example. I have more.
These kinds of assaults are common in college, especially where alcohol is involved, and super-especially when fraternities and/or jocks are involved. I know you know what I'm talking about, Mariah. (And I'm not interested in getting into any arguments with readers who are ga-ga over sports or fraternities, the latter of which are so often criminal in so many ways in addition to sexual assault. I've done tons of research on this, I know what I'm talking about.)
I also know that proving such assaults in a court of law is a whole different ballgame. I have no illusions about the difficulty of that. I completely understand why some women don't go forward with pressing charges.
As we've discussed many times, the irony of our putting our faith in Kavanaugh when it comes to the "trans" debacle isn't lost on us. He gets it. He stood up for girls and women in the recent Supreme Court hearings. Politics makes strang bedfellows, as the saying goes, and no one knows that better than we gender-critical women.
Agreed, Lisa, especially with proving assaults in a "court of law is a whole different ballgame". That's why many women say they felt re-raped by the legal system.
And, yes, "politics makes strange bedfellows" indeed. I also think there is A TON going on behind the scenes that we are not privy to, or only slightly privy to.
Politicians/judges/etc. aren't always espousing their own true opinions anyway, but what they may be *advised* to say is advantageous for their political career. It's a game.
So, my conscience is clear when I like the actions and/or words ascribed to a politician but not the actual man (or woman) because I don't think that the actions that are ascribed to him are actually FROM him.
And yes, football players and fraternity men are more likely to rape and gang rape than other men on campus, as I wrote about extensively in The Stronger Women Get, The More Men Love Football. And yes, alcohol is usually involved, along with a sports/frat culture that rewards men for talking about and treating women like sex objects for their enjoyment. Thanks for the nod, Lisa.
35 years ago I had a friend here in Baltimore who was a federal prosecutor (now retired and doesn't live here anymore).
She was prosecuting a rape case, representing the victim. She was very logical, very lawyerly (my hubby once described her conversational style as "prosecutorial"). She was sure, absolutely sure -- based on the evidence -- that she would win. I kept my mouth shut (rare, I know! 😉).
The trial took place. The verdict came in:
Not Guilty.
She was floored. Absolutely floored. Couldn't believe it. Just couldn't believe it. Had a hard time dealing with it. Again, I kept my mouth shut. Just listened. What I couldn't believe was how naive she was. How disconnected from the experience of SO MANY women. How she didn't seem to know that rape cases rarely, rarely end up with a Guilty verdict. I didn't understand how someone so educated, so experienced, so well-read, could be so clueless. Oh, well.
Ah yes, Lisa, I know what you mean. I've known many lawyers and they seem to suffer from a divorce from reality. This may just be NYC-specific (where I am), though. There are exceptions, of course, and I am certainly not talking about Nancy, who is also a lawyer.
Joanna, well, since my story is from Baltimore, it's definitely not NYC-specific.
This same friend was also incredulous when OJ Simpson was acquitted. I think it's obvious he was guilty, but I wasn't surprised when he was acquitted. She couldn't fathom it. Again, I don't think she was very attuned to human nature. She was completely, utterly subsumed by evidence and by legal reasoning.
I understand why legal reasoning is important. I understand why we need it. I understand why it exists. I also understand that it's not the be-all and end-all of human engagement!
Agreed, Lisa. I had a close friend who moved from Baltimore because it was so bad there, and very ignoring of reality in favor of political narratives. So, even though I have never been to Baltimore, it may be just as bad as NYC.
As for lawyers and the courts, it is a game to most of them. The only people who feel it is real and want "justice" are the victims, but most walk away feeling battered by the whole (often lengthy) experience. It leans towards "circus" and the way they use language in law seems meant to be confusing to protect the egos in the club of lawyers and judges.
A good friend that I have known since college…she moved in to my efficiency apartment midway through sophomore year (she had a dorm roommate from hell). She is a full professor now. She was very innocent in the ways of boys at the time, she was asked to a frat formal (Jewish fraternity) and she got date raped. By the time she figured out what was happening she was too stunned to stop it.
Yup, that's how it works. Innocence and shock on one hand, and brutal lack of regard for another human being's feelings on the other. Unfortunately, no amount of maturity can protect us from all male aggression. Sorry about your friend. Glad you're still around to support her, and to understand that rape is a scarring, often life-changing event.
The confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh were rushed and many people thought the facts were not carefully investigated. Two books were published in 2019 to address that problem.
The first book was called Justice On Trial and was by two conservative women, Mollie Hemingway (a journalist) and Carrie Severino (a lawyer). They did an extensive investigation into the facts concerning Christine Ford's story and found no evidence to support it.
The second book was called The Education of Brett Kavanaugh and was by two liberal women, Kate Kelly and Robin Pogrebin, both New York Times journalists. They also did an extensive investigation into the facts concerning Christine Ford's story and they also found no evidence to support it.
Both then and now all investigations have found:
-- No eyewitnesses who could place Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Ford together
-- No physical evidence
-- No contemporaneous accounts from the time of the alleged event
-- No supporting testimony from the named individuals Christine Ford herself identified
One might expect that from the first book, but the second book was marketed as a corrective to the rushed nomination. If any evidence was to be found, they should have found it.
Those who believe Christine Ford's story have only her own words to rely on, which the evidence does not only fail to support, but contradicts. Is that enough?
Hi John, I see from a previous post that you're a lawyer - and I see here that you've done a deep dive into this case. I wonder if you'd be up for the assignment I gave to C.M. and myself: Is there anything about the way you see story that might be influenced by your own "experiential lens"? Just an option, if you choose to share.
I believe her 150%, but I also don't believe we should rely on uncorroborated data from 30 years ago to judge people. Kavanaugh very likely did exactly what she said and got away scott free because reporting rape at the time would have gotten her nowhere, especially if she'd been drinking. We're still blamed for our own rape based on what we were wearing or having the audacity to go out at night ffs. Meanwhile men rape babies, animals and senior citizens all the time who are not likely dressed like “whores” or otherwise “asking for it”. He's very, very likely guilty as charged like thousands of other “men” from that era.
“We're still blamed for our own rape based on what we were wearing or having the audacity to go out at night ffs.”
True, but while men and boys are taught to treat women as sex objects, women and girls are taught that their bodies are a useful asset they can use for their own social or career or financial benefit. The problem is that females who try to attract attention from one male tend to blast sexual imagery out to every male in their vicinity.
We know that women with larger breasts are treated differently than small breasted women at work. Breast enhancement surgeries enhance a woman's ability to attract a rich husband by bringing eager men into your life, and can also enhance her hireability and chances at promotion. Hence, millions of women get boob jobs, often saying it's just so they can “feel better about themselves.” But they “feel better” because they get treated better if they modify their bodies (including reductions). Without society's obsession over women's breasts, most women would simply accept what they look like as normal, natural and perfectly adequate.
This obsession on women's secondary sex characteristics extends to clothes that present our bodies in a way that attract sexual attention. I remember walking in on my father once as he watched a 007 movie. He was practically salivating over a scene that likely taught millions of boys and men the Male Gaze. The camera pans along the svelte body of an actress from her high-heeled feet to her thighs and ass in a tight dress, up to her breasts and finally, after a long pause, to her head and face. Oh look, there's a head on top of that body. Darn, a man might have to negotiate another human's needs and desires, which might be her saying NO to sex. As a proto lesbian who hadn't even heard the word lesbian yet, I resolved then and there to never wear clothing like that. Who needs adult men leering at you, amirite? Certainly not me, a young proto butch lesbian. And yet, plenty of women do want that attention. Is it taught? Or is it innate?
Here's a clip that epitomizes the cultural training of a grandson by his father and grandfather in the practice of objectifying women. Every boy and man who saw this is validated in treating women's bodies as if they exist explicitly for men's pleasure. Yet I've also heard men say that the first girls whose breasts “started popping” in middle and high school got all the attention from the boys. Even old guys admit that with innocent admiration: “Can I carry your books home?” Girls get the message loud and clear. Notice in the clip below the hyper sexualized women with tight clothes that present their breasts and asses in ways that attract sexual attention. (Yes, women can wear whatever they want and should not be raped or receive unwanted sexual attention. But if I walked by in my usual athletic attire of sweatpants and a t-shirt, it squelches those dicks, probably because they can't assess exactly how strong my muscles are under my loose clothes. I've always done the same at work. My professional attire never displays cleavage.)
We also know from trans-identified males that big boobs, tight clothes, long hair, ridiculous shoes and long fingernails are what make them an “actual woman.” In fact, many straight men respond to pictures and videos of “transwomen” with sexual interest if they have big fake boobs. It's like they can't help themselves – big boobs and cleavage look like an ass. That stimulates their lizard braid which is programmed by evolution from back when human males screwed women from behind, as most other primates still do. When heterosexual men encounter a “transwoman” in real life, either his pheromones or the reality that there's likely to be small male genitals under that dress snap them back to reality.
As an aside, Mariah, the pleasant interactions you have with others via comments here is all about YOU. I've seen you consistently handle contentions and disagreeable commenters with skill and grace. I admire your level headed, polite comments that draw out respectful responses. For that skill and your previous accomplishments, it was an honor to meet you on Jan 13th.
I agree. I still believe her but noticed that I'd stated his guilt as a fact. If I had an editor, they would have edited that out or rephrased it. I can hold it all in my mind: believing her, understanding my own very-personal bias, and reconsidering my assumption that he is in fact guilty.
This is an interesting discussion. I didn't find Christine Ford to be credible. Among other things, she claimed that there were 4 other people in the house with her, and named them, including her best friend. All flatly denied that the events in her story had happened. Her own family who lived with her at the time supported her when she came forward but didn't believe her. No facts corroborated her story. You had to believe what she said in spite of the evidence.
That said, I am a lawyer too, but don't think the legal process does a good job of finding the truth or delivering justice. In Michael Crichton's novel Disclosure, a lawyer explained the "facts of litigation" to her client. "The legal system has nothing to do with justice. It's merely a means of dispute resolution." Legally, Christine Ford had no case. Whether justice was done her is a debate that legal analysis adds little, if anything, to.
"I don't think the legal process does a good job of finding the truth or delivering justice." I've heard that the French system is less adversarial and more truth-seeking. Not sure if that's true.
Scottish law has a third alternative to guilty or not guilty: unproven. That is where I personally would put the accusations against Kavanaugh. The case was deliberately rushed so that he could be confirmed before Biden became president, so there was not enough evidence to establish that he was innocent. It would therefore be unjust to actually jail him for these charges. But we still have a right to our own opinions, because the case was never properly adjudicated. My opinion is partly formed by the fact that I grew up in that neighborhood, and knew guys who went to Kavanaugh's school. That kind of behavior would have been typical for the ones I knew. So my educated guess is that he probably did it.
according to Wikipedia, Scotland abolished the not proven verdict at the beginning of this year. I don’t fully understand why, it seems a complicated question. The abolition was part of a larger bill, which included many other good things, including a special court with different rules for trying sexual offenses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven
In the US, "not guilty" doesn't mean "innocent." It means the state hasn't proven its case against the accused. By definition it incorporates "unproven".
I realize that most people automatically assume that a "Not Guilty" verdict means "innocent," but it actually doesn't. The person might well be innocent. Or might not.
Scottish Law makes a distinction between the two, so “not guilty” doesn’t incorporate”unproven”. I’m not sure what the implications of that are. Does a Scottish “not guilty” verdict require actual proof you are not guilty? Does this proof require beyond reasonable doubt, or only a preponderance of the evidence? I don’t know, I’m afraid. Any Scottish Lawyers out there?
Interesting about Scottish law. I like it. "Not guilty" seems to deliberately refrain from declaring "innocent," and therefore subtly points toward "not proven guilty." Yet the term not guilty is more definitive than unproven, which leaves more open the possibility that he's guilty.
I believed and still believe Blasey Ford even though this kind of thing has thankfully never happened to me. I believe her because I think she knew the consequences of speaking up about this for herself would be dire (I believe she needed security for years after), and so I don't think there was enough incentive for her to lie. Who wants to ruin their own life in order to prevent one nominee, who will surely be replaced by another of the same party?
I also believed her because I think what Kavanaugh was alleged to have done is something many teenage boys might be at risk of doing when drunk and in the presence of a sleeping girl, so the scenario is credible. It's terrible behavior, but it's human. That's also why I believe (now, not back then) that it should not have cost Kavanaugh his Supreme Court nomination even and especially if he had admitted to it (or the possibility of it). If he had said, "I can't remember, I must have been drunk, but if it is true, I am incredibly sorry for what I did to you", I think we might have all been able to move on. Maybe I'm just speaking as the person who has not been subjected to this kind of experience, but in general I don't believe that immature teenagers' actions should ruin their lives forever if they make amends, especially not after they have proven themselves to be upstanding citizens for decades after.
Good point about teens, about teen boys' inclinations, and about the power of apologies, KateP. There are stats out there somewhere about what percent of males would rape if they knew for sure they could get away with it. The question itself is a stunner - would never be dreamed up by women or posed to women - and the answer was also a stunner to me: LOTS of males admitted that yes, they would rape if they knew there would be no consequences. How can other males, and the criminal justice system, persuade them not to? A whole other question. They already know how women feel about it.
This reminds me of a French guy I was dating back in the 90s, who told me that when as a teen he first heard about rapists going to prison, he was afraid he would ever do it because he didn't want to go to prison! Not because he wouldn't want to do such a thing to a girl... The moral consciousness only came later.
Yeah, Kate P., and many men know what can also happen to THEM in prison: RAPE! Rape is frequent in male jails. So potential rapists are dissuaded by the thought of rape happening to them.
This one's a whopper. So much clarity and grace and generosity here. I don't for a second believe Kavanaugh and would have responded exactly as you did. :(
I probably shouldn't weigh in on the disagreement you had with one of your readers. But I can't help myself. My husband and I were in Richmond, intending to visit the art gallery there, when the Kavanaugh hearing was taking place. We were mesmerized and never left our hotel room, going out only to get carry-out. So we watched the entire hearing. And the results left me furious.
I spent over 30 years as a trial lawyer, trying mostly criminal cases, first as a prosecutor and then as a defense attorney. I wouldn't have hesitated for one moment to prosecute the case presented by Ms. Blasey Ford to a jury and not been the least bit deterred by the strict reasonable doubt standard. I found her extremely credible for a variety of reasons one of which is that as bad as it was, were she lying she could have made it even worse. Liars can say whatever they want and yet, she did not. Plus, she readily admitted to lapses of memory. I could go on. I also have strong reason to believe that there was corroboration that was not presented. But I am loathe to reveal my sources for that.
I get that this discussion is not intended to be primarily about the case to be made against the Justice. It is about bias, perspective, and in your case, Mariah remarkable grace. But I spent way too much time evaluating accusations like this one, not to share my thoughts. And if that disturbs what you referred to as the "beauty" of this conversation, so be it.
Your comments only ADD to the beauty of the conversation, Judy. Delighted that another lawyer weighed in. Interesting that you think she could have prevailed in a court of law. And of course I find this validating; I still believe her. I also recall that Kavanaugh was told by trump that he was not fighting back hard enough, which led to the tearful, angry “show.” Just thinking about the whole televised spectacle still triggers me. Thanks for sharing. Pls never hesitate to let us know your take on things.
There's a paradox (at least I think that's the word) that is very hard to explain to a lot of men and some women. When I hear a woman come forward to say she was raped or sexually assaulted my instinct is to believe her. The paradox is that I would be a 100% fair and reliable juror because I would never vote to convict anyone based on instinct. I wouldn't even vote to convict if I 100% believed he was guilty, but the prosecution had not proved their case. If there wasn't enough evidence I would vote "Not guilty" even while believing he did it. Because that is my duty as a citizen to every other citizen and what I would expect (hope for) for myself.
I feel fully free to say, "I believe her" about anyone, without it taking away from my ability to be a fair juror. Of course, whenever you do say, "I believe her" about someone in the news, like Kavanaugh's accuser, the usual types jump down your throat and say, "You would convict a man with no evidence??! You should never be allowed on a jury." This is something many men and even some women don't understand.
Yes, I think it is a paradox. We can believe women (I'm glad that's your instinct, too) and also comply with our responsibilities as jurors. The beauty of this conversation was that no one jumped down each other's throat. Fortunately!
This was really important and insightful. Thanks for sharing.♡
Thank you!
I don't know what is true, although I, too, am inclined to believe Ford without even tracking all the details on the case myself. But what I find impressive about your article is your ability and willingness to self-reflect and even bring up the potential impact of personal triggers in shaping our reactions and beliefs. That is always a worthwhile exercise, even when our beliefs and reactions hold up after such scrutiny. At least we have engaged the same critical thinking of ourselves that we are wanting and needing from others. I find your blog to be a breath of fresh air in a heated room.
“That is always a worthwhile exercise, even when our beliefs and reactions hold up after such scrutiny. At least we have engaged the same critical thinking of ourselves that we are wanting and needing from others.”
Exactly. Cheri Huber, the Zen guide I met in your home state of California, taught me, “Absolutely everything is projection.” We really can’t see things except through our own lens — we’re just often not aware of it.
I feel the need to respond to some of the comments I’ve read. First, I believe there was corroboration of Ms. Ford’s testimony. For one thing, I think I recall correctly that she made an immediate report of the incident to a friend. Aside from that, I think the focus on corroboration is misplaced. As an assistant state's attorney in Maryland, I prosecuted a "shit ton" of rape and child abuse cases where there was NO corroboration. Historically, there was a requirement in most jurisdictions that a rape victim's allegations be corroborated. This rule (which never existed for any other type of crime) along with rules that victims be chaste and that a husband could not rape his wife weren't eliminated until I think the mid 1900's in some places. Discarding them was a battle. But imagine how many sex assault cases could not be tried if that was still required.It appears from some of the voices on the thread that some of you still think the rule exists.
The "boys will be boys," or in this instance, " drunken teenage boys will be drunken teenage boys" excuse floated here is maddening to me. It might be more accurate, while still NOT excusable to add the word "privileged" teenage boys. Not directly part of the hearing or the on-line discussion is the notion of entitlement—men over women, boys over girls, and wealthy kids over not wealthy ones like the victim. Also, not for nothing, the school Kavanaugh went to in D.C. was notorious for drunken partying. Furthermore, the idea that Kavanaugh could be forgiven for behaving badly, apart from the fact that this isn't just minor "badly," he committed PERJURY at the hearing. Doesn't that count for anything anymore?
Thanks for sharing these details about sexism being built into the law re: a rape victim's (but not other victims') allegations requiring corroboration; rape immunity for husbands; and even chastity being required for rape victims to be taken seriously. We have come a long way - but have so far to go. And yes, "boys will be boys" always means: Let's overlook what would be egregious or downright criminal behavior if girls did it.
"The Kevin nightmare is why I believe Ford. She was telling my story. She was telling the story of countless women who have, while sleeping or awake, been assaulted by male strangers, spouses, and friends."
And my story. Except no alcohol was involved. It was at a school camp, when I woke to a crushing weight on my body and hands groping me. I fought like a wildcat and managed to stop this boy. I told no one except my diary. My mother later found my diary and reported it. He was suspended but probably hasn't given it a second thought since.
I too believe Ford.
Yes, Wattlepeak, a lot of women have a similar story to Ford, which is why I believe her, too. A bad-intentioned man often sees a woman's sleep as an OPPORTUNITY. Excuses are made for him, and sometimes she, in her confusion, will believe the excuses for his behavior...the analysis of what really happened to her usually comes later.
Good for your mother! I love when parents or other adults take matters into their own hands, thus demonstrating to the children that they are loved and worthy and innocent, and assailants should be prosecuted. I hope you're wrong about his giving it a second thought.
Let's go beyond the sensationalist trial of Brett Kavanaugh. The real problem is that sexual harassment, assault, and abuse happen so often -- and are so hard to prove. CM insists survivors should "take a photo or show another person the evidence of abuse." How is a young girl, teen, or woman going to "take a photo" while a man is sexually assaulting her--on top of her, groping her, or pulling off her clothes, or coming up behind her on a public transportation to touch her, or...? It's an impossible standard. And abusers know that.
Elizabeth—-obviously the victim can’t take a photo while it is happening. But she can take a photo of the wounds afterwards and immediately call someone to share the information in real time.
Such a great essay, Mariah. Thank you.
I, too, remember the Kavanaugh hearings. I also have so many girlfriends who were raped, not just attempted-raped, in exactly the way you described. In one case, my friend became pregnant -- which pregnancy she didn't realize for three months because she continued to have her period -- and she was suddenly faced with a decision. She was from a very conservative state, but because this was 45 years ago she still had the option to get an abortion. The problem was finding someone to do it at such a late stage. She finally did. (She still lives in that red state, by the way, where she married, and is a happy, healthy woman with two grown children.) That's just one example. I have more.
These kinds of assaults are common in college, especially where alcohol is involved, and super-especially when fraternities and/or jocks are involved. I know you know what I'm talking about, Mariah. (And I'm not interested in getting into any arguments with readers who are ga-ga over sports or fraternities, the latter of which are so often criminal in so many ways in addition to sexual assault. I've done tons of research on this, I know what I'm talking about.)
I also know that proving such assaults in a court of law is a whole different ballgame. I have no illusions about the difficulty of that. I completely understand why some women don't go forward with pressing charges.
As we've discussed many times, the irony of our putting our faith in Kavanaugh when it comes to the "trans" debacle isn't lost on us. He gets it. He stood up for girls and women in the recent Supreme Court hearings. Politics makes strang bedfellows, as the saying goes, and no one knows that better than we gender-critical women.
Agreed, Lisa, especially with proving assaults in a "court of law is a whole different ballgame". That's why many women say they felt re-raped by the legal system.
And, yes, "politics makes strange bedfellows" indeed. I also think there is A TON going on behind the scenes that we are not privy to, or only slightly privy to.
Politicians/judges/etc. aren't always espousing their own true opinions anyway, but what they may be *advised* to say is advantageous for their political career. It's a game.
So, my conscience is clear when I like the actions and/or words ascribed to a politician but not the actual man (or woman) because I don't think that the actions that are ascribed to him are actually FROM him.
And thank you, Lisa!
And yes, football players and fraternity men are more likely to rape and gang rape than other men on campus, as I wrote about extensively in The Stronger Women Get, The More Men Love Football. And yes, alcohol is usually involved, along with a sports/frat culture that rewards men for talking about and treating women like sex objects for their enjoyment. Thanks for the nod, Lisa.
Yes. And rape charges are notoriously difficult to prove. Of course there are no witnesses and little evidence by the time the woman comes forward.
35 years ago I had a friend here in Baltimore who was a federal prosecutor (now retired and doesn't live here anymore).
She was prosecuting a rape case, representing the victim. She was very logical, very lawyerly (my hubby once described her conversational style as "prosecutorial"). She was sure, absolutely sure -- based on the evidence -- that she would win. I kept my mouth shut (rare, I know! 😉).
The trial took place. The verdict came in:
Not Guilty.
She was floored. Absolutely floored. Couldn't believe it. Just couldn't believe it. Had a hard time dealing with it. Again, I kept my mouth shut. Just listened. What I couldn't believe was how naive she was. How disconnected from the experience of SO MANY women. How she didn't seem to know that rape cases rarely, rarely end up with a Guilty verdict. I didn't understand how someone so educated, so experienced, so well-read, could be so clueless. Oh, well.
Ah yes, Lisa, I know what you mean. I've known many lawyers and they seem to suffer from a divorce from reality. This may just be NYC-specific (where I am), though. There are exceptions, of course, and I am certainly not talking about Nancy, who is also a lawyer.
Joanna, well, since my story is from Baltimore, it's definitely not NYC-specific.
This same friend was also incredulous when OJ Simpson was acquitted. I think it's obvious he was guilty, but I wasn't surprised when he was acquitted. She couldn't fathom it. Again, I don't think she was very attuned to human nature. She was completely, utterly subsumed by evidence and by legal reasoning.
I understand why legal reasoning is important. I understand why we need it. I understand why it exists. I also understand that it's not the be-all and end-all of human engagement!
Agreed, Lisa. I had a close friend who moved from Baltimore because it was so bad there, and very ignoring of reality in favor of political narratives. So, even though I have never been to Baltimore, it may be just as bad as NYC.
As for lawyers and the courts, it is a game to most of them. The only people who feel it is real and want "justice" are the victims, but most walk away feeling battered by the whole (often lengthy) experience. It leans towards "circus" and the way they use language in law seems meant to be confusing to protect the egos in the club of lawyers and judges.
A good friend that I have known since college…she moved in to my efficiency apartment midway through sophomore year (she had a dorm roommate from hell). She is a full professor now. She was very innocent in the ways of boys at the time, she was asked to a frat formal (Jewish fraternity) and she got date raped. By the time she figured out what was happening she was too stunned to stop it.
Yup, that's how it works. Innocence and shock on one hand, and brutal lack of regard for another human being's feelings on the other. Unfortunately, no amount of maturity can protect us from all male aggression. Sorry about your friend. Glad you're still around to support her, and to understand that rape is a scarring, often life-changing event.
Yes. Glad she still gave it her all, though. These women need the best lawyers we can find.
The confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh were rushed and many people thought the facts were not carefully investigated. Two books were published in 2019 to address that problem.
The first book was called Justice On Trial and was by two conservative women, Mollie Hemingway (a journalist) and Carrie Severino (a lawyer). They did an extensive investigation into the facts concerning Christine Ford's story and found no evidence to support it.
The second book was called The Education of Brett Kavanaugh and was by two liberal women, Kate Kelly and Robin Pogrebin, both New York Times journalists. They also did an extensive investigation into the facts concerning Christine Ford's story and they also found no evidence to support it.
Both then and now all investigations have found:
-- No eyewitnesses who could place Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Ford together
-- No physical evidence
-- No contemporaneous accounts from the time of the alleged event
-- No supporting testimony from the named individuals Christine Ford herself identified
One might expect that from the first book, but the second book was marketed as a corrective to the rushed nomination. If any evidence was to be found, they should have found it.
Those who believe Christine Ford's story have only her own words to rely on, which the evidence does not only fail to support, but contradicts. Is that enough?
Hi John, I see from a previous post that you're a lawyer - and I see here that you've done a deep dive into this case. I wonder if you'd be up for the assignment I gave to C.M. and myself: Is there anything about the way you see story that might be influenced by your own "experiential lens"? Just an option, if you choose to share.
haha, Mariah....I like how you approach that man's dismissive attitude!
I believe her 150%, but I also don't believe we should rely on uncorroborated data from 30 years ago to judge people. Kavanaugh very likely did exactly what she said and got away scott free because reporting rape at the time would have gotten her nowhere, especially if she'd been drinking. We're still blamed for our own rape based on what we were wearing or having the audacity to go out at night ffs. Meanwhile men rape babies, animals and senior citizens all the time who are not likely dressed like “whores” or otherwise “asking for it”. He's very, very likely guilty as charged like thousands of other “men” from that era.
“We're still blamed for our own rape based on what we were wearing or having the audacity to go out at night ffs.”
True, but while men and boys are taught to treat women as sex objects, women and girls are taught that their bodies are a useful asset they can use for their own social or career or financial benefit. The problem is that females who try to attract attention from one male tend to blast sexual imagery out to every male in their vicinity.
We know that women with larger breasts are treated differently than small breasted women at work. Breast enhancement surgeries enhance a woman's ability to attract a rich husband by bringing eager men into your life, and can also enhance her hireability and chances at promotion. Hence, millions of women get boob jobs, often saying it's just so they can “feel better about themselves.” But they “feel better” because they get treated better if they modify their bodies (including reductions). Without society's obsession over women's breasts, most women would simply accept what they look like as normal, natural and perfectly adequate.
This obsession on women's secondary sex characteristics extends to clothes that present our bodies in a way that attract sexual attention. I remember walking in on my father once as he watched a 007 movie. He was practically salivating over a scene that likely taught millions of boys and men the Male Gaze. The camera pans along the svelte body of an actress from her high-heeled feet to her thighs and ass in a tight dress, up to her breasts and finally, after a long pause, to her head and face. Oh look, there's a head on top of that body. Darn, a man might have to negotiate another human's needs and desires, which might be her saying NO to sex. As a proto lesbian who hadn't even heard the word lesbian yet, I resolved then and there to never wear clothing like that. Who needs adult men leering at you, amirite? Certainly not me, a young proto butch lesbian. And yet, plenty of women do want that attention. Is it taught? Or is it innate?
Here's a clip that epitomizes the cultural training of a grandson by his father and grandfather in the practice of objectifying women. Every boy and man who saw this is validated in treating women's bodies as if they exist explicitly for men's pleasure. Yet I've also heard men say that the first girls whose breasts “started popping” in middle and high school got all the attention from the boys. Even old guys admit that with innocent admiration: “Can I carry your books home?” Girls get the message loud and clear. Notice in the clip below the hyper sexualized women with tight clothes that present their breasts and asses in ways that attract sexual attention. (Yes, women can wear whatever they want and should not be raped or receive unwanted sexual attention. But if I walked by in my usual athletic attire of sweatpants and a t-shirt, it squelches those dicks, probably because they can't assess exactly how strong my muscles are under my loose clothes. I've always done the same at work. My professional attire never displays cleavage.)
We also know from trans-identified males that big boobs, tight clothes, long hair, ridiculous shoes and long fingernails are what make them an “actual woman.” In fact, many straight men respond to pictures and videos of “transwomen” with sexual interest if they have big fake boobs. It's like they can't help themselves – big boobs and cleavage look like an ass. That stimulates their lizard braid which is programmed by evolution from back when human males screwed women from behind, as most other primates still do. When heterosexual men encounter a “transwoman” in real life, either his pheromones or the reality that there's likely to be small male genitals under that dress snap them back to reality.
Andre Jr. learns how to 'face scrunch' in the park - Blackish Season 1 Episode 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efJhphBkB0M
As an aside, Mariah, the pleasant interactions you have with others via comments here is all about YOU. I've seen you consistently handle contentions and disagreeable commenters with skill and grace. I admire your level headed, polite comments that draw out respectful responses. For that skill and your previous accomplishments, it was an honor to meet you on Jan 13th.
Hi XX Female Athletics,
And...breast implants often CAUSE sickness. There's such a thing as breast implant illness/syndrome.
If we have healthy breasts, just leave "the girls" alone and let them be free!!
Really interesting. And thank you! A pleasure to meet you too.
I agree. I still believe her but noticed that I'd stated his guilt as a fact. If I had an editor, they would have edited that out or rephrased it. I can hold it all in my mind: believing her, understanding my own very-personal bias, and reconsidering my assumption that he is in fact guilty.
This is an interesting discussion. I didn't find Christine Ford to be credible. Among other things, she claimed that there were 4 other people in the house with her, and named them, including her best friend. All flatly denied that the events in her story had happened. Her own family who lived with her at the time supported her when she came forward but didn't believe her. No facts corroborated her story. You had to believe what she said in spite of the evidence.
That said, I am a lawyer too, but don't think the legal process does a good job of finding the truth or delivering justice. In Michael Crichton's novel Disclosure, a lawyer explained the "facts of litigation" to her client. "The legal system has nothing to do with justice. It's merely a means of dispute resolution." Legally, Christine Ford had no case. Whether justice was done her is a debate that legal analysis adds little, if anything, to.
"I don't think the legal process does a good job of finding the truth or delivering justice." I've heard that the French system is less adversarial and more truth-seeking. Not sure if that's true.
Scottish law has a third alternative to guilty or not guilty: unproven. That is where I personally would put the accusations against Kavanaugh. The case was deliberately rushed so that he could be confirmed before Biden became president, so there was not enough evidence to establish that he was innocent. It would therefore be unjust to actually jail him for these charges. But we still have a right to our own opinions, because the case was never properly adjudicated. My opinion is partly formed by the fact that I grew up in that neighborhood, and knew guys who went to Kavanaugh's school. That kind of behavior would have been typical for the ones I knew. So my educated guess is that he probably did it.
according to Wikipedia, Scotland abolished the not proven verdict at the beginning of this year. I don’t fully understand why, it seems a complicated question. The abolition was part of a larger bill, which included many other good things, including a special court with different rules for trying sexual offenses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven
In the US, "not guilty" doesn't mean "innocent." It means the state hasn't proven its case against the accused. By definition it incorporates "unproven".
I realize that most people automatically assume that a "Not Guilty" verdict means "innocent," but it actually doesn't. The person might well be innocent. Or might not.
Scottish Law makes a distinction between the two, so “not guilty” doesn’t incorporate”unproven”. I’m not sure what the implications of that are. Does a Scottish “not guilty” verdict require actual proof you are not guilty? Does this proof require beyond reasonable doubt, or only a preponderance of the evidence? I don’t know, I’m afraid. Any Scottish Lawyers out there?
Interesting about Scottish law. I like it. "Not guilty" seems to deliberately refrain from declaring "innocent," and therefore subtly points toward "not proven guilty." Yet the term not guilty is more definitive than unproven, which leaves more open the possibility that he's guilty.
I believed and still believe Blasey Ford even though this kind of thing has thankfully never happened to me. I believe her because I think she knew the consequences of speaking up about this for herself would be dire (I believe she needed security for years after), and so I don't think there was enough incentive for her to lie. Who wants to ruin their own life in order to prevent one nominee, who will surely be replaced by another of the same party?
I also believed her because I think what Kavanaugh was alleged to have done is something many teenage boys might be at risk of doing when drunk and in the presence of a sleeping girl, so the scenario is credible. It's terrible behavior, but it's human. That's also why I believe (now, not back then) that it should not have cost Kavanaugh his Supreme Court nomination even and especially if he had admitted to it (or the possibility of it). If he had said, "I can't remember, I must have been drunk, but if it is true, I am incredibly sorry for what I did to you", I think we might have all been able to move on. Maybe I'm just speaking as the person who has not been subjected to this kind of experience, but in general I don't believe that immature teenagers' actions should ruin their lives forever if they make amends, especially not after they have proven themselves to be upstanding citizens for decades after.
Good point about teens, about teen boys' inclinations, and about the power of apologies, KateP. There are stats out there somewhere about what percent of males would rape if they knew for sure they could get away with it. The question itself is a stunner - would never be dreamed up by women or posed to women - and the answer was also a stunner to me: LOTS of males admitted that yes, they would rape if they knew there would be no consequences. How can other males, and the criminal justice system, persuade them not to? A whole other question. They already know how women feel about it.
This reminds me of a French guy I was dating back in the 90s, who told me that when as a teen he first heard about rapists going to prison, he was afraid he would ever do it because he didn't want to go to prison! Not because he wouldn't want to do such a thing to a girl... The moral consciousness only came later.
Yeah, Kate P., and many men know what can also happen to THEM in prison: RAPE! Rape is frequent in male jails. So potential rapists are dissuaded by the thought of rape happening to them.
Exactly. But interesting that in his case, prison did prove a deterrent.
This one's a whopper. So much clarity and grace and generosity here. I don't for a second believe Kavanaugh and would have responded exactly as you did. :(
Thanks so much, Tom. Glad you don't believe him either. :-)
I probably shouldn't weigh in on the disagreement you had with one of your readers. But I can't help myself. My husband and I were in Richmond, intending to visit the art gallery there, when the Kavanaugh hearing was taking place. We were mesmerized and never left our hotel room, going out only to get carry-out. So we watched the entire hearing. And the results left me furious.
I spent over 30 years as a trial lawyer, trying mostly criminal cases, first as a prosecutor and then as a defense attorney. I wouldn't have hesitated for one moment to prosecute the case presented by Ms. Blasey Ford to a jury and not been the least bit deterred by the strict reasonable doubt standard. I found her extremely credible for a variety of reasons one of which is that as bad as it was, were she lying she could have made it even worse. Liars can say whatever they want and yet, she did not. Plus, she readily admitted to lapses of memory. I could go on. I also have strong reason to believe that there was corroboration that was not presented. But I am loathe to reveal my sources for that.
I get that this discussion is not intended to be primarily about the case to be made against the Justice. It is about bias, perspective, and in your case, Mariah remarkable grace. But I spent way too much time evaluating accusations like this one, not to share my thoughts. And if that disturbs what you referred to as the "beauty" of this conversation, so be it.
Your comments only ADD to the beauty of the conversation, Judy. Delighted that another lawyer weighed in. Interesting that you think she could have prevailed in a court of law. And of course I find this validating; I still believe her. I also recall that Kavanaugh was told by trump that he was not fighting back hard enough, which led to the tearful, angry “show.” Just thinking about the whole televised spectacle still triggers me. Thanks for sharing. Pls never hesitate to let us know your take on things.
I am so sorry for what you experienced, and all the more grateful for the grace, courage, and thoughtfulness you model for us in this essay.🙏❤️🙏
Thanks so much, Susan.
There's a paradox (at least I think that's the word) that is very hard to explain to a lot of men and some women. When I hear a woman come forward to say she was raped or sexually assaulted my instinct is to believe her. The paradox is that I would be a 100% fair and reliable juror because I would never vote to convict anyone based on instinct. I wouldn't even vote to convict if I 100% believed he was guilty, but the prosecution had not proved their case. If there wasn't enough evidence I would vote "Not guilty" even while believing he did it. Because that is my duty as a citizen to every other citizen and what I would expect (hope for) for myself.
I feel fully free to say, "I believe her" about anyone, without it taking away from my ability to be a fair juror. Of course, whenever you do say, "I believe her" about someone in the news, like Kavanaugh's accuser, the usual types jump down your throat and say, "You would convict a man with no evidence??! You should never be allowed on a jury." This is something many men and even some women don't understand.
Yes, I think it is a paradox. We can believe women (I'm glad that's your instinct, too) and also comply with our responsibilities as jurors. The beauty of this conversation was that no one jumped down each other's throat. Fortunately!
Good point!