• commentary
  • WEDNESDAY JUNE 6 2007 4:00 PM

Pole Vaulting, Public Exposure, Privacy, and Rape Defenses

Submitted by Bitch_PhD

Edited by Bitch_PhD

Tags: fame, the internet, rape, consent, feminism



Those of you who read and talked about Saturday's and Tuesday's posts might be interested in this absolutely appalling bit of background information: apparently the father of the pole vaulter whose photographs got tossed around (and over) across the internet is, himself, a criminal defense attorney--a noble calling--who, in the course of his duty, has offered up some pretty disgusting defenses of his clients.

defense attorney Al Stokke argued that Park wasn’t responsible for making sticky all over the woman’s sweater (after a traffic stop). He insisted that she made the married patrolman make the mess—after all, she was on her way home from work as a dancer at Captain Cream Cabaret.

“She got what she wanted,” said Stokke. “She’s an overtly sexual person.”
.... A jury . . . found Park not guilty.


And, in another case,

Defense lawyer Al Stokke, who replaced lead trial attorney Joseph G. Cavallo, questioned any link between the rape and the victim's claim of mental anguish. Stokke also mocked the girl's physical injuries, finally conceding she was unconscious but then trying to use that against her. "There's [no pain] that is felt," he said, "because she was unconscious."



Awful stories, but beautifully illustrative of a larger point: the culture that enables people to defend rape by arguing that unconscious women are there for the taking isn't at all cut off from the culture that thinks it's okay to make one's opinions about which women are hot into a public game of male bonding. Both rely on the idea that, in the end, women are things, not people. And if it turns out that a given woman hasn't fully internalized that message, and she has the huevos to complain about being treated like an object, way too many of us will just tell her to toughen up, that it's inescapable, what do you expect?

Same fucking thing. Women don't need to get used to being treated like shit. Guys need to get used to the idea that women are human beings.

Bitch_PhD wants to point out that there are men who get it--but that it was feminist women who did the digging and broke the story.


  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

Comments
bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

JUN 06, 2007 05:19 PM

CKDexterHaven said:

Bitch_PhD said:
Awful stories, but beautifully illustrative of a larger point: the culture that enables people to defend rape by arguing that unconscious women are there for the taking isn't at all cut off from the culture that thinks it's okay to make one's opinions about which women are hot into a public game of male bonding.


I think there's a pretty big difference between letting it be known that you think a girl is hot, and raping the girl. A gigantic difference. And publicly appreciating the beauty of a woman isn't the same as objectifying her. True?


She didn't say they were the same thing. She said the two cultures "[aren't] at all cut off from" each other. In other words, they're connected. If you're going to take issue with her argument, you're going to have to get her argument right, first.

bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

JUN 06, 2007 05:21 PM

yourfashionwar said:
'm glad that someone at least bothered to mention the jury here, which is, in my (admittedly probably biased) opinion, the truly disturbing thing. lawyers wouldn't make disgusting arguments like "she was asking for it" if jurors weren't persuaded by them. i long for the day when such arguments from the defense counsel will induce hostility and disgust from the jury to which they are presented.


Maybe if intelligent people didn't do everything in their power to avoid jury duty, and were actually picked to serve on juries when they showed up, the juries wouldn't be as dominated by slack-jawed yokels*.


*Yes, I know lots of intelligent people do go to jury duty when they're summoned, but the overwhelmingly common attitude is that "only stupid people get stuck with jury duty, because they're the ones who can't get out of it."

apesamongus

apesamongus

Atlanta, GA
July 2002

JUN 06, 2007 05:21 PM

Jenni said:

blackrose_x45 said:
Stokke may be a vile human being, but he just puts these ideas out there. He likely doesnt agree with most of the defenses he uses, his biggest sin is simply greed.


Its not a sin, he's just doing his job, which is critical to the justice system being able to function.


Bingo. Now any judge or jury that buys into that shit are worthless human beings, but as a defense attorney he doesn't have the luxury of not trying every possible defense.

Bitch_PhD

Bitch_PhD

I'm lost
February 2007

JUN 06, 2007 05:24 PM

emotedcreations said:

Roethke said:
The greater point of the article given the context of the past few articles by the same author, is that he is comfortable to treat women as objects when it suits him, but is very very upset when a small amount of that treatment is directed towards his daughter.

Exactly, except I don't think that point was ever made. Obviously it could be inferred, and I was waiting for it as I was reading--the big "FUCK YOU--Al Stokke", but it never came and the article went off on a freaking "tangent".



No, that's not the greater point. That's the obvious point, and the one that lets everyone say "oh, what a jerk he is" and sit on their butts secure in the knowledge that we are much better people.

Which changes exactly jack shit.

flowerchild

flowerchild

USA
January 2007

JUN 06, 2007 05:24 PM

ah yes, this follows the same logic used in certain italian courts, that a woman can't be raped if wearing tight jeans because "there's no way the jeans could be removed without help from the woman herself."
falls under the category of 'Are You Fucking Kidding Me?!'
sadly, no, they're not.

FearTheReaper

FearTheReaper

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

JUN 06, 2007 05:24 PM

BiXbYGrendel said:
I believe that's called Karma.



Actually, it's not at all the definition of Kharma.

Necia

Necia

San Francisco, CA
August 2005

JUN 06, 2007 05:24 PM

Cairo said:

defense attorney Al Stokke argued that Park wasn't responsible for making sticky all over the woman's sweater (after a traffic stop). He insisted that she made the married patrolman make the mess_after all, she was on her way home from work as a dancer at Captain Cream Cabaret.

"She got what she wanted," said Stokke. "She's an overtly sexual person."

.... A jury . . . found Park not guilty.



I remember that case. Jesus.



Me too.

Roethke

Roethke

SUICIDEGIRL

California, USA

JUN 06, 2007 05:31 PM

Bitch_PhD said:

emotedcreations said:

Roethke said:
The greater point of the article given the context of the past few articles by the same author, is that he is comfortable to treat women as objects when it suits him, but is very very upset when a small amount of that treatment is directed towards his daughter.

Exactly, except I don't think that point was ever made. Obviously it could be inferred, and I was waiting for it as I was reading--the big "FUCK YOU--Al Stokke", but it never came and the article went off on a freaking "tangent".



No, that's not the greater point. That's the obvious point, and the one that lets everyone say "oh, what a jerk he is" and sit on their butts secure in the knowledge that we are much better people.

Which changes exactly jack shit.



It as a greater point than just "fuck stokke!"

Which was what I meant.

ckdexterhaven

ckdexterhaven

USA
December 2005

JUN 06, 2007 05:37 PM

bean said:

CKDexterHaven said:

Bitch_PhD said:
Awful stories, but beautifully illustrative of a larger point: the culture that enables people to defend rape by arguing that unconscious women are there for the taking isn't at all cut off from the culture that thinks it's okay to make one's opinions about which women are hot into a public game of male bonding.


I think there's a pretty big difference between letting it be known that you think a girl is hot, and raping the girl. A gigantic difference. And publicly appreciating the beauty of a woman isn't the same as objectifying her. True?


She didn't say they were the same thing. She said the two cultures "[aren't] at all cut off from" each other. In other words, they're connected. If you're going to take issue with her argument, you're going to have to get her argument right, first.



Sure, they may be connected. But definitely not in a noteworthy way. As far as I see it.

emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

JUN 06, 2007 05:46 PM

Jenni said:
I'm not sure if this is the case in America, but in Britain alot of state-employed lawyers don't have a choice over which cases they take on.

I wasn't suggesting that state-employed attorneys had that choice.

But this does get to the issue of "best possible" defenses, which I think is kinda irrelevant to the topic at hand. However, does "best possible" defense include things you don't believe to be true? If I could convince a jury that purple monsters framed my client, should I do so even if I don't believe in purple monsters? Anyway, just ignore that... I'm thinking out loud.

yourfashionwar said:
i'm glad that someone at least bothered to mention the jury here, which is, in my (admittedly probably biased) opinion, the truly disturbing thing. lawyers wouldn't make disgusting arguments like "she was asking for it" if jurors weren't persuaded by them. i long for the day when such arguments from the defense counsel will induce hostility and disgust from the jury to which they are presented.

Good point, needed to be said.

bean said:
Maybe if intelligent people didn't do everything in their power to avoid jury duty, and were actually picked to serve on juries when they showed up, the juries wouldn't be as dominated by slack-jawed yokels*.

That's a shame too.

Bitch_PhD said:
No, that's not the greater point. That's the obvious point, and the one that lets everyone say "oh, what a jerk he is" and sit on their butts secure in the knowledge that we are much better people.

Which changes exactly jack shit.

I never said it was the "greater point". I said it seemed to be the flow of the article. You know premise-support-conclusion. Which brings me to the fact that my comment wasn't suggesting that your conclusion was necessarily faulty or that your observation was wrong, but that there was a piece of the puzzle missing. If you want to go from A to C, you have to include B, which seemed to be missing. You just made a huge jump (imo).


RileyStClair

RileyStClair

Los Angeles, CA
September 2006

JUN 06, 2007 05:47 PM

bean said:

yourfashionwar said:
'm glad that someone at least bothered to mention the jury here, which is, in my (admittedly probably biased) opinion, the truly disturbing thing. lawyers wouldn't make disgusting arguments like "she was asking for it" if jurors weren't persuaded by them. i long for the day when such arguments from the defense counsel will induce hostility and disgust from the jury to which they are presented.


Maybe if intelligent people didn't do everything in their power to avoid jury duty, and were actually picked to serve on juries when they showed up, the juries wouldn't be as dominated by slack-jawed yokels*.


*Yes, I know lots of intelligent people do go to jury duty when they're summoned, but the overwhelmingly common attitude is that "only stupid people get stuck with jury duty, because they're the ones who can't get out of it."



haha also true.
i get mad at all of my friends who try to get out of jury duty. i've always wanted to be on one, but now i'll probably never get picked for anything interesting. frown

apesamongus

apesamongus

Atlanta, GA
July 2002

JUN 06, 2007 05:48 PM

emotedcreations said:

Jenni said:
I'm not sure if this is the case in America, but in Britain alot of state-employed lawyers don't have a choice over which cases they take on.

I wasn't suggesting that state-employed attorneys had that choice.

But this does get to the issue of "best possible" defenses, which I think is kinda irrelevant to the topic at hand. However, does "best possible" defense include things you don't believe to be true?


Yes.

If I could convince a jury that purple monsters framed my client, should I do so even if I don't believe in purple monsters?


Absolutely.

RileyStClair

RileyStClair

Los Angeles, CA
September 2006

JUN 06, 2007 05:50 PM

emotedcreations said:
But this does get to the issue of "best possible" defenses, which I think is kinda irrelevant to the topic at hand. However, does "best possible" defense include things you don't believe to be true? If I could convince a jury that purple monsters framed my client, should I do so even if I don't believe in purple monsters? Anyway, just ignore that... I'm thinking out loud.



speaking as a lawyer, quite frankly yes. if you are a competent attorney, yes you argue the purple monster theory all the way. that's your job--it's not about what you personally believe happened. there are of course ethical rules about advancing theories you KNOW for a fact are false, or when you know your client is lying, and those vary from state to state. but the reality is that most people who are accused of committing crimes are in fact, totally guilty. do you think their attorneys don't know that? of course they do, but their job is to give their clients the best defense possible, not a mediocre, meh, "well i don't care if he gets locked up because i know he did it" defense.

Bitch_PhD

Bitch_PhD

I'm lost
February 2007

JUN 06, 2007 06:08 PM

Roethke said:

Bitch_PhD said:

emotedcreations said:

Roethke said:
The greater point of the article given the context of the past few articles by the same author, is that he is comfortable to treat women as objects when it suits him, but is very very upset when a small amount of that treatment is directed towards his daughter.

Exactly, except I don't think that point was ever made. Obviously it could be inferred, and I was waiting for it as I was reading--the big "FUCK YOU--Al Stokke", but it never came and the article went off on a freaking "tangent".



No, that's not the greater point. That's the obvious point, and the one that lets everyone say "oh, what a jerk he is" and sit on their butts secure in the knowledge that we are much better people.

Which changes exactly jack shit.



It as a greater point than just "fuck stokke!"

Which was what I meant.




Oh, sorry, misunderstood. Should've known better.

StarBelliedBoy

StarBelliedBoy

Philadelphia, PA
December 2003

JUN 06, 2007 06:14 PM

Bitch_PhD said:
Awful stories, but beautifully illustrative of a larger point: the culture that enables people to defend rape by arguing that unconscious women are there for the taking isn't at all cut off from the culture that thinks it's okay to make one's opinions about which women are hot into a public game of male bonding.



How DARE a man consider someone attractive!

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

featured interviews