I think I'm going to condense both your comments into one reply, not least since most of what you said I either agree with or see where you're coming from, and, well, now that I've calmed down some more I'm less voluble. :)
So, from Comment The First:
Mainly I wanted to say that disbelieving, even wondering about truth in this case, was very far from my first impulse. It wasn't until I read some comments that seemed calm but brought up some issues--including the one saying Bruen wasn't wearing a tube top that evening--that I began to wonder at all.
*nod* That makes sense. I guess... it's kind of the first impulse of our *society*, to disbelieve. I mean... so maybe she wasn't wearing a tube top. To use myself as an example, I don't remember what I wore to work a week ago myself, and I know from bitter experience that most kinds of shirt are not impervious to being forcibly pulled off one's body.
I'm skipping Ms. Brawley's case and the Duke Rape Case because it *is* another discussion, but, yeah. I remember being sad and angry and terribly worried that her case would be used to bludgeon actual rape victims.
And from Comment the Second:
I'm very glad you take my comments so seriously. I honestly thought about not replying here, and I'm sorry (though not guilty-feeling) that it upset you so much.
Well, I have some emotional investment in the subject, alas. *rueful smile* Now that I'm actually calmer, I am glad you asked; someone was bound to, and far better it be someone such as you who really *is* asking in good faith.
As for details such as whether her knuckles were bruised; well, she was turning a chaotic event into a coherent narrative, and maybe that detail didn't fit, or maybe its absence didn't fit (maybe her knuckles didn't bruise because she boxes with punching bags as part of her exercise routine, as one off the cuff possibility). It's a different way of relating an event than, say, a detailed court testimony. But shaping an event into a coherent narrative is different than mendacity.
I know this is a horribly touchy issue, and that sometimes I do put a concern for accuracy above emotional considerations--this is NOTHING compared to what a bulldog I can become in academic discussions, for instance, and I've learned to shut up when a dear friend wants support rather than careful analysis of both sides of a problem.
That's a good thing, honestly. I don't want to sound like it isn't. I guess... that's exactly what should be done in academic discussions, but this one isn't academic, in all senses of the word. In a case like this, sometimes there are attempts to demolish by nitpicking --- "you were wrong about the kind of shirt you wore, therefore you're ENTIRELY LYING" and so on. So I'm as yet unconvinced there. However, you're definetely right that "only long-term harm can come when some genuinely true things are considered unsayable", as you put it. And, thank you for dealing with me as I struggled for rationality; this *is* a subject that I can be irrational about, so it was useful, if painful, to be challenged.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: On calmer reflection
Date: 2008-05-07 12:43 pm (UTC)So, from Comment The First:
Mainly I wanted to say that disbelieving, even wondering about truth in this case, was very far from my first impulse. It wasn't until I read some comments that seemed calm but brought up some issues--including the one saying Bruen wasn't wearing a tube top that evening--that I began to wonder at all.
*nod* That makes sense. I guess... it's kind of the first impulse of our *society*, to disbelieve. I mean... so maybe she wasn't wearing a tube top. To use myself as an example, I don't remember what I wore to work a week ago myself, and I know from bitter experience that most kinds of shirt are not impervious to being forcibly pulled off one's body.
I'm skipping Ms. Brawley's case and the Duke Rape Case because it *is* another discussion, but, yeah. I remember being sad and angry and terribly worried that her case would be used to bludgeon actual rape victims.
And from Comment the Second:
I'm very glad you take my comments so seriously. I honestly thought about not replying here, and I'm sorry (though not guilty-feeling) that it upset you so much.
Well, I have some emotional investment in the subject, alas. *rueful smile* Now that I'm actually calmer, I am glad you asked; someone was bound to, and far better it be someone such as you who really *is* asking in good faith.
As for details such as whether her knuckles were bruised; well, she was turning a chaotic event into a coherent narrative, and maybe that detail didn't fit, or maybe its absence didn't fit (maybe her knuckles didn't bruise because she boxes with punching bags as part of her exercise routine, as one off the cuff possibility). It's a different way of relating an event than, say, a detailed court testimony. But shaping an event into a coherent narrative is different than mendacity.
I know this is a horribly touchy issue, and that sometimes I do put a concern for accuracy above emotional considerations--this is NOTHING compared to what a bulldog I can become in academic discussions, for instance, and I've learned to shut up when a dear friend wants support rather than careful analysis of both sides of a problem.
That's a good thing, honestly. I don't want to sound like it isn't. I guess... that's exactly what should be done in academic discussions, but this one isn't academic, in all senses of the word. In a case like this, sometimes there are attempts to demolish by nitpicking --- "you were wrong about the kind of shirt you wore, therefore you're ENTIRELY LYING" and so on. So I'm as yet unconvinced there. However, you're definetely right that "only long-term harm can come when some genuinely true things are considered unsayable", as you put it. And, thank you for dealing with me as I struggled for rationality; this *is* a subject that I can be irrational about, so it was useful, if painful, to be challenged.