Your Lying Eyes

Dedicated to uncovering the truth that stands naked before your lying eyes.

E-mail Me

Twitter: yourlyingeyes

25 April 2006

An Astounding Perspective on the Duke Rape

While I'm willing to cut African-Americans some slack in their commentary on this, this column in Time takes is so absurd I would suggest that Time's editors are racist (if I were one to use such a term) for their patronizing decision to print it. This is how the author sees the larger issue surrounding the case:
The fiasco at Duke reminds us of the vulnerability of black women, of most minority women in America who have never been protected from sex crimes by (white) men — at least not in the way that white women were historically "protected" from black men.
Well, no, if she means "historically protected" in the sense that a white man hitting on a black woman would be hung from the highest tree, then it's true they don't have that kind of protection. But white-on-black rape is so rare, one might think that they very well might. See this quote on interracial crime from back in September last year:
Every year there are about 15,000 black-on-white rapes but fewer than 900 white-on-black rapes. There are more than 3,000 gang rapes of whites by blacks—but white-on-black gang rapes are so rare they do not even show up in the statistics.
The author finishes solemnly:
Women of color in this country — and, to an extent, women in general — still teeter on that fine line between being seen as exotic objects of desire and, well, objects.
Unbelievable - "to an extent, women in general..." With 15,000 black-on-white rapes each year, I'd say to quite an extent. Women of color clearly do have plenty to fear - from men of color. The editors of Time should be ashamed of themselves allowing such stupidity into their journal. But then again, I have to admit, the Wall Street Journal does print Fred Barnes, so there is precedent.

20 Comments:

Blogger agnostic said...

Aside from the crime data on who's more likely to rape who, which would take some investigating to figure out (though not much) -- what about your entire lifetime of experience of lad mags or porn geared toward white men?

How many greater-than-50% black women have been featured? Not to be mean, just stating facts, but black women are the only group that no one fantasizes about other than members of their own group.

Contrast that w/ mestiza or mulata Latinas -- plenty of red-blooded men from just about all groups fantasize about them. Also contrast that w/ black men -- plenty of women from various groups fantasize about them. But white guys fantasizing about black girls? No way jose: "too exotic" is what they'd say.

April 25, 2006 11:54 PM  
Blogger ziel said...

Yeah, and my impression is that the feeling is mutual - there's just isn't much electricity in the wm/bf matchup. It's a ridiculous angle - when you see an article like this in BlackNews.com you figure, ok, whatever, but having such craziness in Time is a bit more troubling.

April 26, 2006 12:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also, the number of white on black rapes is probably inflated because Hispanic criminals are counted as white criminals.

April 26, 2006 10:39 AM  
Blogger ziel said...

The stats I quoted are from "The Color of Crime" and so I'm pretty sure they already have the hispanic component broken out.

April 26, 2006 7:11 PM  
Anonymous erob said...

I just took a quick poll of kids in my dorm room and 5 out of 5 said they would "do" a "black chick" if she was "hot" enough. Would they higher a black stripper? 5 out of 5 said they would if she was "hot" enough. Note that "Hot" is also interchangeable with "drunk".

April 26, 2006 7:40 PM  
Blogger ziel said...

Note that "Hot" is also interchangeable with "drunk".

It's also probably interchangeable with "white."

April 26, 2006 7:53 PM  
Anonymous erob said...

don't forget asian uncle.

April 26, 2006 10:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It really is absurt, maybe you can understand the media not paying attention to the 15000 black on white rapes (and all the ones that go undetected), in order not to inflate racial feuds. Fine, we can lie a little for “public good”. But not mentioning the obvious is one thig, living in bizzaroworld is another.

Liberal theory proclaims rape is part of social power relations, so white men should in theory rape black women. Of course liberal theory is junk, in fact rape is sexual, testosterone driven, and a function of aggressively and bad norms. But when the data doesn’t match their theory they don’t just ignore the data, they just invent an alternative reality where white rich men routinely rape black women.

I think you have missed one point here: it is not the (granted) low attractiveness of black women to white men that is the driving force, white men simply are statistically much less prone to going around raping defenseless strangers.

I did however not point of attacking Fred Barnes, for no reason and with no arguments.

April 27, 2006 2:36 AM  
Blogger Tino_G said...

"however not see the point of attacking..."

April 27, 2006 2:37 AM  
Blogger ziel said...

tino - my gratuitous snipe at Fred Barnes was obviously intended as a bit of humor because Barnes has a reputation for never allowing logic or internal consistency to intrude on his opinions. Since I was accusing Time of allowing these stupid statements in this column as a patronizing bow to the author's race, I thought I should point out that editorial standards are not so strictly applied elsewhere absent any race issue.
As far as backup, that's why I linked to Scott McConnell's review of Barne's latest book.

April 27, 2006 8:10 AM  
Anonymous Russell said...

Of course, the well-recorded disparities in cross-race rape are the elephant in this room, but I wonder whether the author actually does have a point about America prior to about the 1950s or 60s. Was there a lot of unpunished white rape against blacks? It would seem to be plausible, given that the risk of penalty for a white man raping a black woman was likely fairly small.

As you point out, this is currently a moot point, as with the end of de jure and most de facto racism in this country, white men can no longer look at black women as a "safe" rape possibility.

April 27, 2006 3:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fogel showed that even during slavery white owners raping or having sex with black slaves or prostitutes was surprisingly rare.

April 27, 2006 4:51 PM  
Blogger Tino_G said...

Sorry! Wrong text! Please erase. This is what I wrote

OK, but the article you link to has no arguments either. We disklike Bush, we know Iraq was bad, Barnes doesn’t think so, therefore Barnes is stupid.

The core of Barnes argument, that Bush is a Washington outsider and in his policy has not followed the beltway establishment is true (also the theme of Time magazine 2004 man of the year cover, American revolutionary). This regardless if you AGREE with Bush and think Iraq has harmed America or not. Ridiculing Barnes for this analysis is petty and unintellectual.

Here is the ironi:

The article is written for paleocons like you, who don’t need to be convinced that Iraq is a horrible failure, therefore, no substantial real arguments in the text (except the usual “brink of civil war” stuff). That is fine, for a particular audience that accepts your ideological premises.

But why than attack Barnes for doing the same thing? His audience does not think putting Saddam out of business constitutes disaster, even for the prize of 0.7% of GDP per year, so far 2400 dead and annoying solid unwavering allies like France and Belgium.

Basically the article is not a review of Barnes and the novel points in his book about Bushs relationship with the DC establishment, it is just yet another critique of the Iraq war . He never refutes Barnes point about Bush as a dissident, saying Bush was part of the Southern establishment is simply not an argument about DC, and pointing out that Bush is the son of someone who WAS part of the beltway establishment (really?) just emphasizes Barnes point, given how different they have behaved in this respect.

Writing that Barnes is right about Bush being an outsider but (in your opinion) wrong about the effects of this on his policy would have been more fruitful.

OK getting of the subject.

In the 50s and 60s you should also remember how extremely rare white crime was to begin with. I have never heard that whites raped blacks with impunity, nor does the author present any evidence to support this point, except the same crazes mythology that makes him think rich whites regularly rape black women. As I said If whites seldom rapes or had sex with blacks during slavery you have to wonder (only 7% of black were mulatto when slavery ended, after 200 years of slavery)

April 27, 2006 5:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great site loved it alot, will come back and visit again.
»

May 23, 2006 12:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm impressed with your site, very nice graphics!
»

May 23, 2006 4:19 AM  
Anonymous Betty friedan said...

Police investigating the Duke University lacrosse team on rape allegations "omitted" notes from a second dancer at the party, who told authorities the alleged victim had been drinking, was acting "crazy" and that her colleague's accusation was a "crock," a defense attorney said Thursday. In court documents filed Thursday, attorney Kirk Osborn said that Durham, North Carolina, police "intentionally, deliberately and/or recklessly omitted" information from a probable cause affidavit -- information Osborn says would have persuaded the judge not to file felony charges against three of the players. The district attorney's office did not return a call seeking comment.

http://lawdogbehindthebadge.blogspot.com/2006/06/latest-on-duke-rape-case.html

http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2006/06/duke-lacrosse-how-da-and-some-police.html

http://moneyrunner.blogspot.com/2006/06/more-on-duke-rape-case-second-dancer.html

June 09, 2006 12:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Duke Lacrosse Rape Accuser Mentioned No Condoms Were Used
It seems the defense keeps finding more to support their side of things, with each new piece of information they get. Now from that stack of 1,300 papers, they have discovered that the stripper accuser mentioned no condoms were used. No condoms and…
The stripper’s body was completely void of any sign of a sexual assault (except for signs of recent vaginal and anal from her boyfriend). The alleged crime scene was completely devoid of DNA.

It is impossible that a crime scene with three drunk men in a small enclosed room with a fighting and clawing woman being orally, virginally, and anally penetrated not leave any DNA evidence of urine, blood, vaginal fluid, sweat, fecal matter, scat smears, saliva, tears, or semen... especially if condoms were used. How would they take off the condoms during all this chaos without spilling, smearing, or touching the content inside or outside of the condom?

When investigators questioned the stripper after DNA tests on the semen found inside her vagina and rectum didn’t match any of the Duke players, the stripper admitted to having had sex with at least three men around the time of the alleged rape. The stripper named her boyfriend and two men who drove her to Duke.


When questioned, the “drivers” said they would drop her off at several places, including hotel rooms.

It appears that the stripper has sex with men for rides to her strip shows…Nasty!

June 09, 2006 12:49 PM  
Anonymous Betty Friedan said...

The stripper originally claimed that the second stripper helped with the rape!

Just when you think this case hit rock bottom, there’s about 50 feet of crap, then you find a sub-basement.

If Mike Nifong doesn't get disbarred after this, then there really is a corrupt system in Durham that protects rich white guys. In Nifong's case - stupid rich white guys with transparent political agendas, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Nifong can turn a pig's ear into a silk purse.

June 12, 2006 3:43 AM  
Blogger ziel said...

Ms Friedan (you don't mind if I call you Mizz?) you're right this is astounding. Nifong deserves to be disbarred if he doesn't have some really good evidence that he (and the defense team) is holding back on - but there's no chance of that. He's a disgrace, for sure.

June 12, 2006 6:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

[url=http://kfarbair.com][img]http://www.kfarbair.com/_images/logo.png[/img][/url]

בית מלון [url=http://www.kfarbair.com]כפר בעיר[/url] - [url=http://www.kfarbair.com/about.html]חדרים[/url] גדולים אנחנו מספקים שירותי אירוח מגוונים כמו כן ישנו במקום שירות חדרים המכיל [url=http://www.kfarbair.com/eng/index.html]אחרוחות רומנטיות[/url] במחירים מפתיעים אשר מוגשות ישירות לחדרכם.

לפרטים נא גשו לאתרנו - [url=http://kfarbair.com]כפר בעיר[/url] [url=http://www.kfarbair.com/contact.html][img]http://www.kfarbair.com/_images/apixel.gif[/img][/url]

January 20, 2010 8:05 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home