Home     Writers     Op/Ed     Book Reviews     News     Bookstore     Photoshops     Submit     Search     Contact Us     Advertise  
  You are here: 

Fri

19

Jan

2007

CNN’s “journalism” is a fool’s paradise
Friday, 19 January 2007 16:45
by Gail Dines

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me a couple of dozen times, and shame on me — but also shame on what passes for journalism on television.

This truism comes to mind after my appearance on “Paula Zahn Now” on CNN this week to discuss the Duke rape case. I’m not naïve about these kinds of shows — which I know are not really about journalism but about ratings, most easily obtained through sensationalism and playing to the prejudices of the audience — but over the past 20 years I’ve gone on a number of them to discuss my work as a sociologist on issues of racism and sexism in media. Like many progressives, I do that with eyes wide open, knowing the limits but realizing it’s one of the few shots we have at a mass audience.

But this time I foolishly had high hopes after a producer from Zahn’s show actually conducted a thoughtful screening interview, unlike any I had spoken with in the past. Most producers typically are uninterested in my views and tend to ask banal questions in these pre-interviews over the phone. They usually don’t care about my arguments, but simply want to check that I have a big mouth (which, I admit, I do) and will not freeze in fear when the cameras roll. When they recognize that I am not someone who is likely to cower in the face of adversarial arguments, that’s enough for them.

But this CNN producer kept grilling me with questions that suggested that they were interested in doing a show that looked at the historical and contemporary issues of violence against black women in this society. Four phone calls later, I agreed to fly to Durham to do the show.

I was told I would be in at least two segments, possibly three. That promise was crucial; there’s no sense flying halfway across the country to say a couple of sentences between the ads. So I dug in to prepare, reading and consulting colleagues (all of them busy activists and academics, including Mark Anthony Neal, Imani Perry, Robert Jensen and Jackson Katz) about the way the media has framed the story. What an utter waste of time and energy.

The first inkling that something wasn’t going according to plan was on my ride from the airport to the makeshift outdoor studio at the Durham courthouse. A different producer called to tell me that although I study both race and gender, they don’t want this show to be about gender. I answered that this woman was brought in as a stripper and is charging that the lacrosse team sexually abused her — how could this not also be about gender? Yes, yes, yes, she answered, but the show is focusing on race. I know enough by now not to argue with a senior producer an hour before taping, and so I simply agreed.

The second clue was one of the people on the panel with me — the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, an African American man who has made his name by slandering blacks for their racism against whites and their continuing “unwillingness” to climb out of poverty. For Peterson, black men have been emasculated by black women, and his project is about making black men “real men” again. The one saving grace was that the other guest on my panel was Kristal Brent Zook, an insightful journalist with Essence magazine.

In the green room, Peterson went into a tirade against the black leaders for destroying the black community with their leftist views, and then thanked God for Fox News. When I started to argue with him, CNN producers in the room explained to us all that news media in America are doing their job — Fox’s right-wing views are balanced by CNN’s left-wing shows. About this time, I know I am in big trouble.

As the green room starts to fill with guests, I am getting the distinctly uneasy feeling that there are too many people here for a one-hour show that has promised me two to three segments. Guests come and go, and my segment cohort is still sitting in the room at 8:20, 20 minutes after the start of the show. There’s no way to watch the show in the green room, and so I have no idea as to what the other guests are saying and am clueless as to what I am walking into.

As it turns out I was on camera for less than five minutes, and most of that time was taken up by Peterson railing against the “alleged” victim for setting these poor white guys up. Kristal got to make a few points but also was cut short. Zahn was clearly more intrigued by Peterson than either of us; her body language and eye contact focused on him. As I tried to interrupt his tirade, she cut me off and returned to him. He got the last word of the segment, saying that the “stripper” has no humanity, no morality (she had children out of “wedlock”) and should be jailed for what she has done to these athletes. As I got up to leave the studio I ask Zahn how she could do a show that once again leaves this woman stripped of her dignity and rendered invisible as a human being. Zahn smiled and offered her hand as a way to tell me they are done with me.

When I got back to the hotel 30 minutes later, I already had a few emails from enraged men informing me that I am a “bitch dyke,” “dumb feminist” and “nigger lover” who is an embarrassment to the academic profession. By the next day at noon, it was a flood of emails, each one more hateful than the next. After most television appearances I get some hate mail and some support, but never such a consistently negative barrage in such a short time. It is only when I sit down to watch a tape of the show that I understood why everyone was so upset.

Rather than being about racism and sexism in the media, the show had been billed as an examination of the “rush to judgment” on the part of the media and society. The possibility that these men were guilty had been “proved” wrong, as the victim is clearly lying and motivated by money. The case is framed as a “race” issue, which for producers meant that blacks are out for revenge for past misdeeds by whites. Jumping on this bandwagon, so the story goes, was the District Attorney Mike Nifong, who was trying to curry favor with the black community in a re-election year. The consensus on the show was that if anyone is guilty here, it is the lying, immoral black stripper and the amoral, politically motivated DA. The victims here are the upstanding white men who have now had their reputations tarnished first by a stripper and then by gullible fools who believed her. And of course, within the framing of the show, I appeared as not just a gullible fool, but even worse, a gullible fool with a feminist agenda.

My anger at the way the media humanized these men as victims and dehumanized the woman as the perpetrator of a lie clearly stood out from the rest of the show. And this was, I am now convinced, the producer’s goal. I was set up in the show to be an example of the problem — white liberal elites who have taken political correctness too far. I was not brought on as a researcher or activist but as an example of how feminists “rush to judgment” in order to further their man-hating propaganda.

Virtually every email I have received blasts me as a conniving feminist who didn’t even bother to know the facts of the case. These men — yes, they all were from men — explained to me that the facts show without question that nothing happened that night, which I would have known if I were not so busy trying to further my feminist agenda.

This is truly an example of how mass media construct reality. The so-called “facts” of the case have mainly been planted by the defense as a way to spin the case. The prosecution can’t reveal all their evidence by law, but we do know, as law professor Wendy Murphy has pointed out, enough evidence was presented that “police, forensic experts, prosecutors, and a grand jury comprised of citizens, all agreed that charges should be brought.” The truth is that we actually have access to very little evidence about that night, yet every man who has emailed me is convinced that all the facts are out there and only a feminist fool would believe otherwise. This is because the “facts,” or lack of, speak for themselves and tell their own story in a society where racist and sexist ideology is internalized by a good percentage of the population and subsequently writ large onto a black woman’s body. Let’s not forget that this woman was bought and sold in the white male marketplace of sexual entertainment.

This obsessive focus on the woman is not particular to this case; routinely the media focus on the women victims, with a certain prurient interest. Instead, we should put some of the focus back on the men in this case, as we know much about their behavior that night that is not under dispute. They saw the hiring of two black women to strip as a legitimate form of male entertainment. They didn’t see the commodifying and sexualizing of black women’s bodies as problematic in a country that has a long and ugly history of racism.

One of the team buddies, Ryan McFadyen, sent out an email on the night of the event where he wrote “ive decided to have some strippers over and all are welcome …. I plan on killing the bitches as they walk in and proceed to cut their skin off while cumming in my duke spandex.” Later that night, 911 got a call from a black college student out walking with her friends who was called “nigger” as she walked past the team’s house. And to top it all, not one lacrosse player has come forward to express any regret at that night’s events or offered any apology for being part of a drunken strip party that humiliated and degraded two black women.

It would seem to me that all of this undisputed information would make for a compelling CNN program. On such a show, I would be happy to share these emails calling me a bitch, whore, and cunt. That wouldn’t be a rush to judgment, but instead an acknowledgement of what women know — any one of us could be the next victim turned celebrity whore.

Gail Dines, professor of American Studies at Wheelock College in Boston, is one of the organizers of the upcoming conference “Pornography and Pop Culture: Reframing Theory, Re-thinking Activism.” http://www.wheelock.edu/ppc/. She can be reached at gdines@wheelock.edu.
Related Articles:
Research Reveals Fool's Paradise (4700 Hits)
by Stephen P. Pizzo "As fool's paradise is a wise man's hell." - Thomas Fuller You've heard the term, "fool's ...
Paradise Lost. Logging and the Environmental and Social Destruction of the Solomon Islands (6327 Hits)
by Andre Vitchek A large fiberglass boat propelled by a 40HP engine speeds across the pristine waters of Marovo Lagoon, a double-barrier...
Tomgram: A Consumer's Paradise of War (3565 Hits)
by Tom Engelhart Stuff Happens - The Pentagon's Argument of Last Resort on Iraq It's the ultimate argument, the final bastion against...
Oslo Redux: Fool’s Gold in Israel/Palestine (1341 Hits)
by Remi Kanazi Who doesn’t want to blame all the problems Israel/Palestine is currently facing on newly appointed Israeli Prime...
Freewinds attacks Bonaire again - Cruise Boats Destroying Paradise (2440 Hits)
by Sean Paton Our last film on the Freewind was 2 years ago May 2007. After the Freewinds being in the spotlight concerning asbestos...


Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Trackback(0)
Comments (74)add comment

a guest said:

0
These Guys. . .
may be innocent in the eyes of the law, but failing to condemn their behavior only paves the way for a similar group to be guilty next time.

Enlightening piece about how cable news operates.
 
January 19, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
"Undisputed information"?
You have an interesting viewpoint, but your argument would indeed be more powerful if you did know more about the case. For instance, it is true that these guys hired 2 strippers, but you seem to think they requested Black strippers, when in fact they specifically requested a white and a latino. Would've been racist to turn away the 2 that showed up, though, right?

As for the 911 call, it is undisputed that it was a fraudulent call made not "by a black college student out walking", but by Kim Roberts (the other stripper), who has admitted making the call because she was made at the guys at the party. She also admitted on 60 Minutes that the "n" word was used by only one guy, and it was in response to her calling him a "limp-di## white boy". No excuse, I suppose, for using the "n" word in response, but it does explain it.

The McFadyen email was a spoof on the novel/movie American Psycho, sent only to his friends who would get the silliness of his reference. To you, it appears that it was evidence of nefarious motives...but of course McFadyen has never even been implicated in any bad activity whatsoever...total red herring!

Sorry, but those critics that said you don't know the facts, well, they're right. You proved it in this very article by documenting your misunderstandings.

I hope in the future you will hold back on judging people until you know the facts. Take care, and sorry you were duped by CNN. I do agree with you that the media are a snakelike bunch.
 
January 19, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
...
The author clearly lacks even a basic understanding of the known facts of this case, as amply demonstrated by the preceding post.

Although she holds out the possibility that unknown evidence may support the charges, she does not address the open discovery laws of NC, which require the prosecution to release all evidence.

The grand jury reference is a hoot. Does the author even know who testified at the GJ? What "forensic evidence" was presented to the GJ?

Finally, of the evidence that is publically available, what supports the (false) accuser's charges of kidnapping and sexual assault? We will never know from this piece, because the author studiously avoids a discussion of the evidence.
 
January 19, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
facts
I agree, you dont have all your facts correct about this case. You also dont understand NC law and how grand jurys work in NC. You also assume that nifong did a good job at the beginning of this case, but as the record shows the police or nifong never interviewed anyone at the party even though the "guys" wanted to. Also, you leave out important prosecuter motive, an election in Durham with nifong running behind. I hope that your anger over what CNN did to you and your anger over feminist issues which dont really apply to this case subside soon. I personally dont think you were set up by CNN, I think you were disappointed that your agenda was not considered. Maybe next time writting an editorial will suffice. At least with the written word there is no debate. smilies/cool.gif
 
January 19, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Facts of the LAX case
I'm amazed that you have the nerve to write about something you obviously know little about. If you want to write about the facts of the case visit http://z9.invisionfree.com/Lie...howforum=3 You might learn something.
 
January 19, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Rush to Judgement
I was not brought on as a researcher or activist but as an example of how feminists “rush to judgment” in order to further their man-hating propaganda

Your article proves that they chose their feminist well. Please do some research into the case. Some that read this may think you know what you are talking about.
 
January 19, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
...
I was one of those who sent you an email Dr. Dines
There was nothing hateful or racist in my email.
I just thought I'd point out that it is a FACT that the stripper is "the accuser" and it has NOT yet been proven that she was indeed "a victim" (and imo, never will).
I was disapointed when I did not get a reply from you.
 
January 19, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
a guest
I also sent an e-mail which was not hateful or racist and I did receive a reply. Actually the facts that are alleged to have been spun by the defense are from discovery provided by the DA's office.

It is unfortunate that it seems to be impossible to view the facts without looking through a veil of bias.
 
January 19, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Some facts rather than myths.
For some facts an authoritative source would be the FBI whose 2005 statistics shows that while 33.6% of rapes committed against white women are by black men 0% of rapes committed against black women are by white men. Read that again 0%.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/p...v0542.pdf

 
January 19, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
NC discovery requirements
You wrote "the procecution can't reveal all of their evidence". North Carolina requires the procecution to give all evidence to the defence. Enough people have seen the files that I doubt we don't know everything.
It's the defense that doesn't have to reveal everything.
 
January 19, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
lies, damn lies and statistics
I have read lots of statistics regarding incidence of white on black rape, however according to most statistics, crime in general is intra-racial, not inter-racial.

This case has never been about facts.
 
January 19, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
More factual corrections
In additon, you are also wrong about the lack of any apologies. The lacrosse team captains have apologized for staging the party with underaged drinking and strippers. I am sure it is flattering to be invited on news shows, but if you don't what to be humiliated in the future, I'd suggest you do your factual homework first. And, relying on like-minded ideolgoues such as Wendy Murphy and Mark Anthony Neal is probably not the best way to learn "facts." By the way, I am a woman, and the mother of a college-aged daughter. You and your like-minded colleagues are not helping women, either young or old, with your focus on "victimology."
 
January 19, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
baby, it's cold outside
perhaps if you froze in thought while on camera for even the briefest second before opening your self admitted big mouth, your tee vee appearances would go a little better for ya!

must say in your defense, you have a big set to write the above piece without checking a single fact of the case. dare to be stupid!
 
January 19, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Column not an endorsement for Wheelock
Does your institution have any semblance of quality control? How could it let a staffer to appear while so ill-informed? This wasn't an ambush, it was about the Duke rape hoax case. With the help of the NY Times (which has seen the complete case file), the rest of sentient America has reached the conclusion that a lying 28 YO stripper falsely accused a group of young men about raping her and was/is willing to send them to prison for 30 years. Case closed.
 
January 19, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Please check your facts!!!!!

Sorry, but those critics that said you don't know the facts, well, they're right. :-

They ordered strippers--one white and one latino. The problems started when two black women showed up.
 
January 19, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
More facts
I can't believe you didn't know by know that the 911 call was made by the other stripper, Kim as they were leaving.

So, now the players are on trial for allegedly using the "N" word?
 
January 19, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Mz. Dynes
To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, better to keep your pen in your pocket and be thought of as an ill informed feminist fool than to have written the above article and removed all doubt.
 
January 19, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Preparation?
For some one with liberal acedemic credentials why would you prepare by studying the works of other liberal academics? Wendy Murphy has been severly criticised for lying in her coverage of this case. Mark anthony Neal has also been criticized and in his own writings has called strip clubs the "new church" a statement that hardly condems the hiring of strippers.
A google search would have yeilded hundreds of articles about the case and allowed you to learn the facts which you obviously didn't bother to do as the above posts point out. I would suggest much of the anger directed at you stems from the willfull ignorance and blatent lying that has been advanced by those with feminist and racial agenda's.
One final question, if you knew the facts of the case would you have appeared.
 
January 19, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
a guest
I agree with the previous comments, get your fact straight. You know nothing about the case. I’m embarrassed for you. Females like you make the rest of us look bad. No wonder people do not take females seriously.

Before you condemn the male population with your twisted views, become a mother and raise a son.
 
January 19, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
facts
Gail Dines, you need to re-think here.

Gail honey, stippers are not humiliated and degraded by the men who watch them perform. Strippers are used to rowdy, raunchy, drinking males asking them lewd questions. They aren't bothered by it a bit.

Gail, none of this is true:

"
Later that night, 911 got a call from a black college student out walking with her friends who was called “******” as she walked past the team’s house. And to top it all, not one lacrosse player has come forward to express any regret at that night’s events or offered any apology for being part of a drunken strip party that humiliated and degraded two black women."



Gail, perhaps if you tried to be a little more accurate and learned a little more about real life, you wouldn't be so uptight all the time, and you'd get better emails.
 
January 19, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
I am not a man

To quote Dine, she wrote:
"Virtually every email I have received blasts me as a conniving feminist who didn’t even bother to know the facts of the case. These men — yes, they all were from men" This is a bold-faced lie as I wrote to you and I loudly proclaimed that I was a feminist and a graduate of an all-women's college...YOu haven't the honesty or integrity to address criticism in realistic terms but have to LIE to make a point...
 
January 19, 2007
Votes: +1

a guest said:

0
Are you listening Gail?
Time for an apology I think, if you want to salvage your credibility (and if you're not too busy whining on about pornography.)
 
January 19, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
The police and forensic experts did not believe the charge
A correction to what you cite from Wendy Murphy, which certainly shortens the litany of people who thought charges should be brought. The police did not file any charging document, meaning, no officer was willing to charge the students based on the investigation. When this happens, the material is merely presented to the DA to do with as he chooses. Second, no forensic expert --not one-- found any evidence supporting the filing of charges, and all of them told the DA this prior to the presentation before the grand jury. So what you do have is a grand jury composed of citizens responding to a limited presentation by a DA who only presented what he chose to present. Hardly the extended list that Ms. Murphy would have one believe.
 
January 19, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Hilarious
"The prosecution can’t reveal all their evidence by law..."
In fact, the prosecution are obliged by law to reveal all their evidence.
The truth is that we actually have access to very little evidence about that night
In fact, the NY Times, and others, have been granted access to the full case file that Nifong has. Many of the defence motions that have been filed are available from the defendant's lawyers on the web for free. Many of these contain appendices which are the evidence provided by Nifong. The last court proceeding gave rise to a transcript, which is on the web.

In fact, the evidence out there is compelling, and you don't want to listen.
 
January 19, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
...
I won't repeat the facts as everyone else before has so eloquently explained them to you, Ms. Dines, but I might also suggest that you study up on the law before you go on a rant and blast someone for referring to this young lady as the "alleged victim" or "the accuser." Has there been a trial? Has it been proven that a crime happened? Has even one defendant admitted anything? No. None of that has happened, which means in this case--as in every case in the country that has not yet gone to trial or guilty plea--all we have are allegations.

But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your rant.
 
January 19, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Real Feminists don't need scapegoats to punish for what is in the PAST
Just to be straight here. Kim Roberts, the fellow stripper on the job with the accuser, was the "black student" who was supposedly out walking with her friends when they were called names. She admits she made that 911 call fabricated the circumstances she says heated words occurred in and has even admitted she made racially charged remarks as well, perhaps even first. So no…no “black student” was subject to passing, random, racist, catcalls. This has been confirmed by Kim Roberts. No one excuses the use of the word ******, being used by anyone, but the only person who needs to apologize for its use is the individual who used it, and that was none of the 3 who stand charged, and this was confirmed by the sole black LAX player who was present. Also the student who did make the distasteful joke email is the only one responsible for any apology for his behavior NOT the Duke 3.

Another thing, the players did not buy black women for their entertainment. In fact they did not ask for black women at all. That was just who was sent. Again, not to condone drinking and stripper parties but these aren’t jail worthy offenses, and the strippers had also been drinking, the accuser was also, it has been said, using medicines she should not have been mixing with alcohol... and if anyone was buying such a sexualized commodity as stripping, it was because the defendants were selling this service. (Also not laudable), and not victimization, as its apparent they preferred a relatively easy evening dancing earning hundreds of dollars for their performance to working a week for that at any other job. I am not a man, I’m not a conservative. I consider myself to be a feminist who believes in personal responsibility from all sides. No man should face jail, based on the words or emails of another individual, or based on his sex or race, or financial status or as a redress of actions of his collective race or sex for past injustices as a scapegoat. What next a call for reparations? Will men born today be made, forever, to pay for the past? Where is the call for personal responsibility from both men and women? Luckily the feminists I know don't need to constantly play the victim card of the nasty men of the world.

These men need to be judged as individuals and so far, as individuals they have said nothing racist, and do not appear to have assaulted this woman and thus do not have anything to apologize for besides having a college age boy’s predilection towards drinking and partying. So when you complain that the CNN program made it seem like you hadn’t researched the case…forget it…you didn’t and your written word proves it.

Anyway. That's my opinion.
 
January 19, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Duke's shame comes not from a few students, but from the top.
Professor Dines, I think the above beating will suffice. Perhaps a crime was committed, perhaps not. The players have sufficient legal help to ensure the truth is known, although I worry that the truth will not guarantee justice. Were these students to be found guilty this would be the only group rape by white men of a black woman recorded in this century. Reference the FBI. The violence against black women you protest is being perpetrated by black men, not white.

On to another, larger question: Based upon what principal did Duke's president force the accused to leave school? Based upon what principal did 88 faculty members decide to become involved in and influence the investigation, prosecution and jury selection of a criminal case? I am a former Duke student. I am not just disappointed in the school of which I was once proud, I am ashamed that so many of the people to whom we entrust our children are devoted more to their social agendas then are they to the education and welfare of the children whom we place in their care.
 
January 19, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
holy cow!
Whoa, everyone has to jump on the bandwagon to attack this woman! Ok, maybe she was wrong about the facts of the case; maybe her research attempts were misguided; maybe she jumped to some conclusions about racism and sexism. People, feminists, have different experiences and tolerances and this woman was compelled by what she heard about the case to worry about racism and sexism. So she jumped the gun! Why does everyone have to attack her? One attack would have been plenty; the rest of you could have used your time better than repeating the attack. She had a shitty experience on CNN and she was honestly upset when they told her they would feature in a three part thing and instead they gave her five minutes. The whole thing was a lousy experience and nobody deserves to be called whore, bitch, cunt etc. When she wrote it was men, I read it as it was only men who called her these names. Not that she was claiming that no woman wrote to her. Hopefully the women emailers were more civil. By the way, when people claim the 'facts' were all on the internet or whatever, there seems to be a belief that what they read in the internet is true. Every writer has their bias and probably a combination of the various sets of 'facts' made the truth.

It seems to me-- dare I say?-- that what must be motivating all of these harsh words when you can see it has already been said-- is an anger-- that can't just be about this case. It seems to be an anger about female accusations of male sexual actions. I can't think why else everyone had to prove the same angry point over and over. It's a bigger issue than just this one occurrence. It's a volatile issue, and it's hard to know where to stand in general: With a history of the courts and people not believing women, it's not strange that a feminist aware of this would assume the opposite. That is, many people will assume the men are innocent, others that they are guilty, regardless of the facts. It's much bigger than this. And it is worthy of discussion. But the strong emotions that the topic brings on in many of us should not be dumped on the head of one person.

Gail Dines, I apologize for the behavior of the previous pack. You seem to have made some mistakes, but you didn't deserve this lousy attack sequence. I hope you can take some information out of this without being overloaded with the anger and hate that have been directed at you. Everybody makes mistakes, and especially on volatile issues like this one. And CNN did treat you shitty, which was more the point of the article!! Good Luck.

Natasha
 
January 20, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Clear Title in Peterson
Did you get Reverend Peterson's permission to type up this rot? If not, you better give him a call and get his permission as soon as possible. This is necessary because since the broadcast of that program over the nation's airwaves, he owns you.
 
January 20, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
being outrageous - priceless
Gail Dines is laughing all the way to the bank.

Media feminists are well compensated for their verbal gymnastics. But few have her ability to so convincingly make fools of themselves.

She can now earn megabucks giving lectures on university campuses.

Even I would pay to see the spectacle.
 
January 20, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Holy Cow ! Natasha
First, please don't apologize for the behavior of others. As they have not given you any license to speak for them, it is meaningless and in fact detrimental as you undercut the value of anything they have to say. Your apology is classic enabling behavior.

Second, a lack of civility always reveals more about the uncivil person than the object of their behavior.

Third, back to the point of the numerous posts before yours. Dr. Dines has a clear lack of knowledge on many aspects of the case.

Finally, the media is a "beast" that must feed itself. At times, it will indiscriminately throw whomever it needs to into the fire. Dr. Dines, in her opinion, is yet another victim.
 
January 20, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Strippers as scam artists
In your research Gail Dines, haven’t you seen women with intelligence and savy to know how to get by with guts and bravado? Women who learn how to spin a lie to take advantage of a situation, to ply on the sympathy of strangers yet also bark loudly to get their way. You’ve never seen that? You’ve never interviewed a woman for whom you have had a grudging respect for her intelligence and perception to manipulate despite what they do for a living?

Before painting the picture that all strippers are victims you should know more about how they sometimes scam their clients. Anyone dealing in the skin trade gets street smart about it; if they don’t then they don’t survive. These women had been in this a while, they were surviving. The alleged victim survived so well she was back out working in 2 days after she sobered up. Doesn’t she carry a full load at NCCU and has a grade point over 3.0? Is this really a poor slow witted black person who gets by on the fringes through handouts and government programs so she is forced into being a victim? Be careful of the stereotypes you employ, you are talking about a veteren of our United States Navy (who was kicked out for getting pregnant while shipboard and her hubby was on shore duty).

On the night in question a lame joke about a broomstick was "flipped" into outrage and turned into a cause to leave by the young women thus pocketing $400 each for 5 minutes work. Do you think they never heard such jokes before? My, my ,my... They sought to intimidate a bunch white boys who didn't know how to handle trumped up snarly princess temper tantrums. The women were laughing all the way to the bank and even sought one last dig by phoning in a false claim of being shouted at from across the street. They were luring the police there to get them busted for underage drinking.

You have got to know that women who do this for a while get a bead on how to control their customers either through guile or intimidation. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't - this night it worked and they were getting away with it until Kim Roberts decided she didn’t want to mess with the passed out a**h*** in her car. But the Accused Victim was on a roll. In her fogged brain she must have thought if one scam worked let's try another - I've done this one before - so I'll cry rape to get what I want - these sucka' white boys fall for anything - all you gotta do is shout at these momma's boys and they cave.

And now you are being manipulated. Someday this revelation will come to you in a blinding flash and you will feel victimized.
 
January 20, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
She Could Make it Go Away
...with a simple apology.

But Ms. Dines isn't going to do that, is she? Not because she isn pursuing any noble goal or universal truth. She is not going to apologize because, in her world apparently, it doesn't matter what the facts of a given situation are.

Her comments and, to put it politely, confusion about many facts of the case, clearly indicate that she is of the opinion that the Lacrosse players deserve to be put on trial just because.

Ms. Dines and anyone still actually trying to justify these charges and arrests have one common thread: watch how quickly anything they write changes from facts about this case and these men to yet another why whitey is evil treatise.

If Ms. Dines wants to write to chronicle crimes against blacks by the white majority or crimes against women by men, super. I'm all for it. I would probably even agree with most of it.

But destroying the reputations of three promising young men to push a social agenda is not justifiable in any possible way. Sadly, it is exactly what Ms. Dines and others seem to be pushing for.

There is only one comment that a sane, fair person can make about this case now: drop the case, leave them alone, they didn't do it.
 
January 20, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
White male marketplace?
To quote you: "Let’s not forget that this woman was bought and sold in the white male marketplace of sexual entertainment."

Actually, Precious performs as an "exotic dancer" at a Hillsborough, NC strip joint called The Platinum Club (where the famous 60 Minutes clip was shot). It's about two miles down the highway from where I live, and I can tell you, any white male that thought about watching Precious perform there had better make sure he has a black male escort.

Clearly, you know nothing of the specifics of this woman's background. Her main audience is black males, not white males. I know that doesn't dovetail nicely with the points you want to make, but it's the truth. Sorry.
 
January 20, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Hiding your guilt.
A huge crime was committed against three innocent young men partly by y dishonest lawmen and the media but also by women such as you who's careers depend upon portraying women as victims and all men as oppressors. Now this case has been exposed for what it is you are all trying to hide what you did by trying to pretend that the boys are somehow less innocent than we all know they are.

Shame on you.
 
January 20, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
my agenda my viewpoint my opinion my profession?
Professor: Thank you for your article explaining how ill used by cnn you were. Imagine being assured of at least 2 segments and then having to share your short time with someone who you seem to think was only spouting viewpoints consistent with their preconceived positions and agenda, not to mention politics. I'm sure the parents of students at good ol whitlock are reassured to see your fine example of professorial reasoning and objective regard for the truth, good to see how those tuition dollars are being spent. If you get around to it, maybe you could write another essay on how your fit of pique over how poorly treated you were by the media compares to how the 3 duke students were treated by the media, the legal system and by a false accuser. You can leave race and gender out of it.
 
January 20, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
The problem won't be solved until we have the courage to face it.
Professor Dines, I'm the Duke alum who commented above. Allow me the privilege of a second comment. I again checked the 2005 (2006 aren't yet finalized) FBI statistics and found a remarkably small number of serious hate crimes, 8380 incidents, of which there were 6 murders and 3 rapes. There were 0 gang-rapes of black women by white men but over 5,000 gang rapes of white woment by black men. Giving consideration to these facts one can draw several conclusions: 1)The FBI considers very few crimes to involve hatred generated by race, gender or sexual orientation. 2)If Ms. Mangum has actually been gang-raped, statistically the perpetrators will almost certainly have been black men and statistically the group most likely to have intervened to save her would have been...white men. A further sad statistic is the 94,000 rapes reported nationally. If feminist studies are to be believed, only approximately 10% of all rapes are reported. This would mean close to a million rapes were perpetrated in the US in 2005. Law enforcement statistics indicate each convicted rapist is guilty of 5 previously reported rapes, implying he is guilty of 50 total rapes, reported and unreported. Focusing on 2005, this would imply that there are perhaps 20,000 men, .02% of the US adult male population committing forcible rape on a large group of people. Analyzing their numbers further, 366,600 of these rapes would have been committed by approximately 8,000 black men. The final grim statistics? Approximately 0.011% of white US males are rapists, but 0.072% of black US males are rapists. My conclusion? Rape is the most serious of under-reported crimes, with most victims suffering in silence (in particular, law enforcement statistics indicate approximately half of all rape victims are males, who almost never report the crime), with an incredibly small part of the US male population victimizing nearly a million people each year, however, if you choose to make of this a race issue you will be faced with the uncomfortable statistical truth that black men are 7 times as likely to be rapists as are white men. Every 86 seconds someone in this country is raped by a black man and every 90 minutes in this country a white woman is gang-raped by black men, while the FBI has found zero cases of white men gang-raping a black woman in this new century. Clearly the anti-white racists need the Duke students to be guilty for an emotional boost because, without this case their position looks ridiculous and they appear intellectually dishonest.
 
January 20, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Where is your grievance?
"I was set up in the show to be an example of the problem — white liberal elites who have taken political correctness too far. I was not brought on as a researcher or activist but as an example of how feminists “rush to judgment” in order to further their man-hating propaganda."

I hate to sound simplistic but where is your grievance? We do have a problem in higher education with jargon driven, epistomologicaly meaningless drivel disguised as scholarship and if this program wanted to highlite that (which sadley they did not, it was not the topic of conversation) then so much the better for them. The Duke hoax is a classic example of the the notion that "words have consequences", a notion that seems to be missing from some of todays critical theorists. I am also surprised that you did not see it coming (on CNN) you should have known they were using you as a proxy for the members of the so-called Group of 88 who refused to come on the show.
 
January 20, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Dines does not address the problems with her paradigm, this article cops out.
Dines does not answer the accusations of misconduct by the DA in Durham. She wants to talk about her basic paradigms for gender and race issues, without getting into the specifics of this case.

I don't doubt she was set up by Zahn's staff, but if you are trying to represent a particular viewpoint, and the specifics of the topic do not support your view, you have to come prepared, very much prepared, to switch the discussion to facts that support your paradigm.

Since it's television, and there is no intention to have intelligent discussion, just to put on straw men, she should have come prepared to ask short, intelligent questions which would try to make people see her side better, like,
"Why do you think blacks viewed this differently than whites at first?" (don't go into ongoing differences, just that blacks were more paranoid, and why, but not preachy about it.

Not that I want to help her, because I don't consider her thinking very strong, but I care about prosecutor abuse, and want that to be the topic.
 
January 20, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Stupid is as stupid does
Ms. Dines - you looked like an idiot on television because you think, speak and act like an idiot. A racist, man-hating idiot. The real tragedy is that people like you, who so perfectly epitomize the banality of evil and the totalitarian p.c. mindset, are being paid to poison young minds. You have the critical thinking capacity of an emotionally-challenged (to use the p.c. term) six year old. The whole country has seen you now for what you are, and you don't like it. I don't like the fact that so many colleges carry "feminist manhater theory 101" as classes and employ simple minded idiots like you (I know I keep repeating the word "idiot" but you are an idiot and repetition is security for...oh, you can finish the quote (maybe not, being such an idiot)
 
January 20, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
media jester
I cannot believe that Gail Dines does not understand that her role on CNN was that of court jester, brought in for her entertainment value and to provoke the others on the show.

The court jester performs a valuable service. By being or pretending to be outrageous, he/she can knock people a little off their pedestal without really threatening the order of things.
 
January 20, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
ethnicity and education: amusing
As an Asian American graduate of Duke, it is funny to see the white trash anti-PC Southern crowd come out to support Northeastern lacrosse jock elites against the liberal "against the institutionalized oppression of the blacks" establishment. Those of you that are Duke grads well know the actions of the lacrosse team so don't whitewash that aspect. As for the rush to judgment, we all know what's going to happen to Nifong.

But this is the internet, where everyone can post their hateful tirades anonymously (do you sense the sarcasm--most of you are probably too ignorant to pick up on it).
 
January 20, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
...
Hi asian american. I didn't pick up on the sarcasm. Please explain. Sldo guess why I think you sound like Karla Holloway.
 
January 20, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
The sins of the granddaddies

Don't you just love the attitude of those who really wanted to see the boys fry "They drank and watched strippers like no God fearing black boy ever would!!" and "Heck who cares if they are innocent their grandfathers probably did something!"


 
January 20, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
reply to g dimes
Ms Dimes - Knowing you were going on a Paula Zahn show,should have been your first clue. This "reporter" herself knows nothing about the case. This is simple and easy research to get the facts of the case. Everyone has told you about NC discovery laws. Defense attorneys writing motins is not spin. I do not believe you about hateful emails. Just as the gang of 88, you are making that up. Everyone who has taken your position has wound up hurting their own reputation. Rverend Jesse P. is a brilllant man, trying to help his people move forward. Last, you are not dealing with a crowd of freshman at Wheelock U.here. There are people far better educated on this blog(not me) and your statements won't wash.
 
January 21, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Studies
If you are representative of the level of scholarship in the _______ studies courses, I fear the days of the easy ride are over.

The Duke case is just the beginning.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2007/01/whole-university-system.html

The whole univeristy system in America is corrupted by the _______ studies departments.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2007/01/setting-reichstag-on-fire.html

It is not going to get better. Every time one of tthe members of a __________ studies dept. is interviewed on TV it will get worse. You have put blood in the water. Sharks will be closing in for the kill.

M. Simon
 
January 21, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Honesty and truth matter
I note that you have little regard for "facts" especially when they get in the way of telling a good story, however, this article is nothing more than a series of lies and should be clearly titled FICTION
 
January 21, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Hi Gail
Look, some of the comments come across as nasty. Don't focus on that aspect. There is also a lot of good and well meant advice in amongst the comments. You could learn a lot here - focus on the facts, don't let your theories cause you to prejudge matters.
 
January 21, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Gail you consulted Robert Jensen?
So I dug in to prepare, reading and consulting colleagues (all of them busy activists and academics, including Mark Anthony Neal, Imani Perry, Robert Jensen and Jackson Katz) about the way the media has framed the story. What an utter waste of time and energy.

If you wonder why people think you are clueless consider your sources.. Robert Jensen gained famed as the University of Texas Journalism prof that claimed the USA was guilty of worse attrocities than 9/11 and that we had that coming to us. Now Prof. Dines do you think Bin Laden was the victim too?
 
January 21, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Good can spring from embarassing mistakes
Way up at the top of the thread, commenter #2 said, "Those critics that said you don't know the facts, well, they're right. You proved it in this very article by documenting your misunderstandings."

Yep.

Prof. Dines has unwittingly followed the trail blazed last April by the 88-plus members of Duke's faculty who rushed to judgment. Perhaps if she can type those four bitter words--"Sorry, I was wrong"--it will teach the Group of 88 something worthwhile.

AMac
 
January 21, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Good can spring from embarassing mistakes, #2
Link to KC Johnson's web-log that was stripped from "Yep":

http://tinyurl.com/3x5f4l
 
January 21, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
duke lacrosse
I would be among the first to agree, confering with Mark Anthont Neal is a waste of time and energy. You got paid. didn't you? I do not believe people are sending you hate mail. You made that up.
 
January 21, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Can anyone defend Black women with impunity?
Can anyone defend Black women with impunity?
by ALTON H. MADDOX JR.
Originally posted 1/18/2007

http://www.amsterdamnews.com/N...488&sID=34

A recent “editorial” in the Wall Street Journal was titled “The Michael Nifong Scandal.” This description defies logic. A scandal has a moral connotation. It would apply to the pedophiles in the Catholic Church who masquerade as priests.
This term should have no relationship to a prosecutor seeking justice for a sexually abused woman of African ancestry. To be sure, a prosecutor charging white, privileged males for the sexual abuse of a Black woman is unprecedented. Thus, Durham District Attorney Michael Nifong is a traitor to the history and precepts of white supremacy.
In four hundred years, no white man has ever gone to prison for raping a Black woman. Either Black women are not sexually attractive to white males or Black women find white men sexually irresistible. The former is untrue. See Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hennings. The latter is also untrue. See Melton A. McLaurin’s “Celia A Slave.”
On Sunday, “60 Minutes” claimed that the Duke rape case is “unraveling” before our eyes. This is also untrue. Instead, the legal system is destroying Michael Nifong before our very eyes. The North Carolina General Assembly and Congress are holding the hammers.
In only one other case, in American jurisprudence, has an attorney been destroyed amid a criminal proceeding. The New York Legislature and Congress were holding the hammers. This is a breach of the “separation of powers” doctrine.
It was People v. Sharpton wherein a grievance committee gave me the option of doing in my client, Rev. Al Sharpton or else. I chose “or else.” It would have been unethical to do otherwise. The hammer was designed to undermine Sharpton’s rights under the Sixth Amendment.
Only two attorneys in the history of American jurisprudence have ever sought to secure justice for Black females raped by white men. The modus operandi has been the same in both cases. In the Duke case, CBS-TV is leading the charge. In the Tawana Brawley case, CBS-TV also led the charge aided and abetted by the New York Times.
Blacks demonstrated in front of CBS headquarters for weeks while this criminal enterprise was engaging in media defamation against a fifteen-year-old girl, a victim of white terrorism and sexual abuse. It is in CBS’ genes.
Pre-trial publicity is not new to American jurisprudence. It is usually designed to poison the community against the accused before trial. A potential jury, therefore, sits as junior prosecutors. In the Duke case, prejudicial, pre-trial publicity is aimed at the victim. The media took the same approach in the Brawley case.
Nifong did not indict those three Duke lacrosse players. A grand jury in Durham County, North Carolina indicted them. CBS should target the grand jury and review the grand jury minutes before recruiting a lynch mob for Nifong.
Since the indictments are still in play, a judge must believe that where there is smoke there must also be fire. Otherwise, the indictments, in the Duke case would have been dismissed months ago. A judge and not a prosecutor has the authority to dismiss an indictment.
Unlike the credibility issues in the Duke rape case, there was no eyewitness testimony and no scientific evidence including DNA to connect six boys to the rape of the Central Park jogger, Patricia Meili. Nonetheless, CBS was organizing a lynch mob against innocent boys.
An admission alone is always insufficient to establish any crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet, five of those six boys were falsely imprisoned for years and the New York Court of Appeals upheld those baseless convictions.
In order for an indictment to be dismissed, there must not only be insufficient evidence of the top count of the indictment but also the lack of evidence of lesser-included offenses. So far, the judicial system must believe that something happened. To be sure, something did happen.
Typically, there is always overcharging in the drafting of accusatory instruments. The mere fact that a count of the indictment is dismissed is not equivalent to pronouncing a suspect either legally or morally innocent. These players are certainly not choirboys and they are, at least, presumptive racists.
These players engaged in identity theft to secure the presence of two Black strippers for a KKK-type rally. They gave false names to the escort service. The escort service was never told that two Black females would have to perform before a white mob of drunken, racist hooligans. This is criminal fraud.
Strip joints employ bodyguards to protect strippers because it is well-known that a mob of drunken and unruly males will, biologically, take matters into their own hands. These females have civil claims in addition to criminal prosecutions.
In addition, there is no question that these racist jocks hurled racist epithets at these women. The use of the word “nigger” to degrade a Black person is, in itself, an assault. This lewd atmosphere reeked of white terrorism and gave rise to sundry hate crimes.
The most important question in this case, based on biology, should be answered in a court of law. After the white lacrosse players watched this Black female shake her butt and private parts, in a sexually arousing fashion, did their white phalluses come to attention? Being full-blooded males, what made the phalluses come to “at ease?” In other words, what happened next? This is the answer that North Carolina is seeking to cover up.
The media and the defense lawyers in the Duke case have misled the public. In every lawsuit, there are two methods of proof: direct and circumstantial. Of the two methods of proof, circumstantial evidence is the strongest. No need exists for direct evidence in this case.
The complaining witness’ purportedly inconsistent statements are a reflection of problems of class and race in this society. In 1997, before a national television audience, Eliot Spitzer actually commanded Rev. Al Sharpton to change his story by boycotting his own defamation trial.
He did except when he was ordered to appear by the plaintiff, Steven Pagones. Attorney Johnnie Cochran, an ancestor, was the host of the Court-TV program. Sharpton was behaving the way any Black person is expected to behave in a white supremacist system.
When a Black woman accuses white men of rape, all bets are off. Warfare ensues. Anyone who seeks to protect a Black female victim had better prepare for a life of poverty. Gov. Spitzer and his mentor, Robert Abrams, are of this view in New York and no self-respecting Black female should support them.
Before the Civil War, courts routinely ruled that it was legally impossible for a white man to rape a Black woman. Today, through media and politics, most Blacks still embrace pre-Civil War law. This results from brainwashing. See “The Manchurian Candidate.” The only antidote to propaganda is critical thinking.
 
January 21, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
...
Dr. Dines wrote: "My anger at the way the media humanized these men as victims and dehumanized the woman as the perpetrator of a lie clearly stood out from the rest of the show."

What a shocking sin -- *humanizing* a male human being! And any criticism of any female person who has radically changed her testimony at least a half-dozen times about a matter that could send people to prison ... why, *of course* that's dehumanizing ...
 
January 21, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Why dump on CNN?
It's not obvious from the above story and comments that CNN was playing any underhanded games. There's a complaint that the Prof. was promised an appearance on two or three segments. Perhaps CNN intended to do that. But after hearing her speak for five minutes, somebody realized that they'd made a mistake, and concentrated on a guest who seemed to have something more interesting to say. Neo-Marxist class/race/gender warfare just isn't that interesting, even to CNN viewers. While I consider CNN despicable in general, I'm not convinced that this a case of network malfeasance.
 
January 21, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Alton Maddox's opinion? Why not Lester's, while we're at it?
In evaluating the piece by Alton H. Maddox copied in #53, try Googling his name (with quotes, thus "Alton H Maddox").

That will tell you plenty about his credibility, and his acquaintance with the truth.
 
January 22, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Are you serious?
I feel like I'm someone who doesn't understand the punchline. You're upset because you came across as a fool and blame CNN for that? Unless CNN also has editorial control over this article, I'm not sure how they are responsible for you looking like a fool.

Just taking a guess, but I'm assuming the segment you were invited to be a part of was about a specific criminal case. Ideology has nothing to do with the facts of the case. Showing up without even a passing acquaintance with the facts of the case under discussion would be more than enough reason not to retain you for further segments. For any serious news outlet, anything less would be journalistic malfeasance. They are a news outlet, not a platform for ideological rants that are divorced from the facts...that's the theory anyway.
 
January 22, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
...
The FBI says NO white men have raped black women? Am I the only one who has trouble believing that? Not the idea that none were convicted, so please, don't show me the url again. Just the idea that it hasn't happened is highly unlikely. So what *does* happen if a black woman accuses a white man of rape? Do the people giving Dr. Dines so much hell *honestly* believe that everybody gets a fair shake with the legal system in this country? That a rich man doesn't have a better shot at getting off than a poor one? Is this case supposed to *prove* that justice is somehow always served and our courts are not subject to the same prejudices that the average American holds?
 
January 22, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
The FBI figures are correct - uncomfortable as that fact is for many of us.
As the case in Durham shows, the authorities and the media are desperate to convict a white man of raping a black woman, (a gang of white men would be even better)the fact that none ever have is a huge embarrassment to PC politicians and law enforcement.

Many people on the media and law enforcement thought that with the Duke case they had found what they had long been searching for, which was why they were so quick, indeed frantic, to rush to judgement.

However, much as they would love to the press and media can not create crimes which have not happened, and uncomfortable as it may be to accept it, in the same was as the profile of the average sole serial killer is white, the profile of the average gang rapist is not white, and it is NOT racist to admit that.

We will never solve the rape crisis we have in this country unless we start being honest about it and not telling lies which make us feel more comfortable.

All rape victims are equally important, and we must stop ignoring the genuine ones because the race of her attacker does not sit comfortably with out prejudices.
 
January 22, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Maddox
Maddox steps up to show his ignorance of the case. A disbarred lawyer, he does not even know that there are no transcripts of the Grand Jury proceeding in North Carolina. He wants to review the non existence notes. Well, so do the Duke 3 supporters. Unfortunately, its against state law for the GJ members to tell what went on that day. Naddix chooses not to know that the DAs representatives gave the presentation to the GJ. Maddox is looking for support for his appeal of his disbarrement.
 
January 22, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Undermining the real victims
Women like these two who call rape when, according to all they evidence, no one was, undermines those of us who have actually been victimized. It makes it even more likely that actual rape victims will never tell because they are certain that no one will believe them.

As a woman and a feminist...I see these women as the enemy here far more than the men. The men may not have acted in an entirely appropriate manner (the name calling, for example). However, it also does not appear that they lied. These women have-by the hard, factual evidence, been lying. They do not care if they ruin the lives of these men. Why should they? According to our society the poor men were already criminals simply by being white and male-let alone attending college or playing sports. How dare they not be poor, downtrodden or abused! What angers me the most about these women, however, is the fact that they do not care what their lies might do to those who have been through real physical and emotional trauma that actual rape victims face.
People like you, Ms. Dines, just aid and abet these women. You claim feminism as a convenient label for your anger that needs to have a victim itself. Facts mean as little-or less-to you than to those who you claim to be far more honest than. People like you are what give feminists a bad name, madam.
 
January 22, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
reflections from an equalitist
As individual citizens who are commenting to this article, I find it amusing how so many are responding as though they themselves have reviewed the evidence. I sincerely doubt that any one who has commented above has actual first hand knowledge or experience with the case being discussed. As such, would it not be considerably more constructive to view the big picture this case paints?

It is essential to understand that this case would not have occurred if not for the initial step of the men seeing objectification of the female body as a form of entertainment. Regardless of who is the victim in the details of the case, the overall incident speaks to something larger.

For me, what is most disturbing about this entire situation (and especially the fact that so few find it disturbing) is the reality that this case is about women who were purchased for other's entertainment. This goes beyond the details of the individual case and points to a major blight on our societys take on human rights issues.




 
January 22, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
"purchasing " what is for sale.
This case is about a false claim of rape - most of us have read the read the motions of the defense and the discovery put out by DA Nifong via NCs open discovery law. This is not a case of hide the pickel. Actually, the guys rented their time - this service for rent at the stripping joint. $400.00 for two hours ( which turned into four minutes) is great money and I can see why strippers do it. That is why I am not disturbed by "renting the time of a stripped." I think they would have been better showing a stripping film. At least the strippers would have been good looking and professional. All work is honest labor and these womaen have as much right to make a living as anyone else.
 
January 22, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Grand Jury
The grand jury that indicted the three lacrosse players returned over 80 indictments that same morning. 80. They didn't start until after 10:00, they took a lunch break, and they were done by 2:00. How much careful consideration does that imply? Even casual students of the law know that grand juries serve, for the most part, the role of rubber stamp.
 
January 22, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
reply to "purchasing" what is for sale
" All work is honest labor and these womaen have as much right to make a living as anyone else"

Interesting comentary. I do believe however that you are misguided in your acceptence of the "renting" of a female body as one would say, rent a car. You do an eqlaquent job of highlighting the point I made about the blight on our societies take on human rights.

I do believe that if strippers were given the option to make good money doing other jobs that did not degrade them, most would relish the opportunity.
 
January 22, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
political correctness & degrading jobs
To anyone but a socialist, there is no such thing as a degrading job if it pays well enough.

A PhD in gender studies working for minimum wage cleaning toilets at a fast food restaurant. That might qualify as degrading.
 
January 23, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Don't you folks get it?
I cannot believe the vitriol being directed at Dr. Dines here. Don't you people understand? The "accused" in this case are men. Even worse, they are white men. Of course they are guilty! It doesn't matter what the so-called "facts" are! White men are responsible for all of the ills in the world; these bastards are not only guilty of a highly-improbable rape, they probably masterminded the Kennedy assassination as well! And the "accuser" (victim, really, is the appropriate term) is a black female, and therefore every word out of her mouth is 100% true, even the words that contradict each other. Little things like logic and consistency are secondary at best when placed against the holy truth that issues forth from the mouths of an African-American female. There is no possibility at all that a member of such a privileged class could ever, ever, ever tell a lie.

Now, on a more serious note: Dr. Dines, I invite you to consider yourself analogous to a mentally-challenged person who can't help but burn buildings to the ground just to enjoy the glow. One would ordinarily feel sorry for a person with such a handicap, but for the tremendous damage he does to innocent people. Similarly, you are to be pitied for your obvious deficiencies, but this is mitigated by the harm people like you inflict on society. I hope that you manage to summon the mental wherewithal to take a deep breath, take a step back from yourself, and take a good long, hard look at what you've become. Try to recognize that people are individuals, they are not groups. Perhaps the following exercise might prove helpful: walk down the street, and each person you see, look at him and think not, "There goes a black female" or "there goes a white man" or "there goes a Latino couple", try instead to think, "There goes a person, a human being just like myself." You might find the experience productive.
 
January 24, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
...
"I do believe however that you are misguided in your acceptence of the 'renting' of a female body as one would say, rent a car."

And why is that? Why is there a qualitative difference between paying a person to show up at a certain location and shuffle papers, paying a person to show up at a certain location and scrub toilets, and paying a person to show up at a certain location and remove her clothing?

Feminism is supposed to be about choice. It's supposed to be about removing restrictions on womens' behavior. If a woman decides that it's to her advantage to trade a gander at her goodies for a pile of cash, who on Earth are you to forbid her? What gives you the right to overrule her choice in the matter?

Those who scream about "exploitation" are the real anti-feminists; they are the ones who would remove a woman's choice to do as she wishes with her own body.

"I do believe that if strippers were given the option to make good money doing other jobs that did not degrade them, most would relish the opportunity."

And if I were given the opportunity to make a million bucks a week playing video games, I'd dump my present employment in a heartbeat. And if most janitors were offered positions as middle managers, they'd jump at the shot, too. Also, if my grandmother had balls, she'd be my grandfather. What is your point?
 
January 24, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
One more comment
Dr. Dines, I don't know if you're still reading these comments. I can fully understand if you are not, but on the event that you are, I have one more mental exercise for you to try. Please give it your honest effort; I think you'll find it illuminating.

Imagine that the facts of the case, such as they are, were exactly identical, but the races were reversed, with a few other details changed to remain parallel. The black members of a sports team of a college located in a mostly-white town are accused of brutally raping a white stripper. The entire town rises in outrage, "wanted" posters are published with the pictures of all the black members of the team, faculty members publish an open letter thanking the community for not waiting for the wheels of justice to turn before condemning the alleged rapists. Despite the team's protestations of innocence and at least one of the accused's absolutely ironclad, unshakeable alibi, the prosecutor faces a tough primary and is in trouble with the city's white population, and he brings charges. After publicly stating that DNA tests would exonerate the innocent, the prosecutor withholds DNA evidence that would do just that. The accuser's story changes several times, her statements mutually contradict not only each other but the statements of the other stripper at the party, the neighbor, and all the available evidence. Notwithstanding all of this, advocates for whites continue to condemn the men and demand their punishment.

I suspect you would be outraged by the above turn of events. So would I. The difference is that my outrage involves no inconsistency, since I would be equally outraged by this set of events as I am by the "real" set of events, which is fundamentally identical but with the races reversed. This is because I, unlike you, am not a racist. I judge all men by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. A pity you do not.
 
January 24, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Trackback from a 'Liestoppers' post (1/25/07) by a Duke alumna
[In her blog entry, Wheelock College professor Gail Dines] did stumble on an important point. Why is a national story of alleged sexual assault treated as a racial issue rather than a gender issue?
 
January 25, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Trackback from a 'Liestoppers' post, #2
ack, the link:

http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2007/01/only-race-matters-duke-woman-speaks.html

AMac
 
January 25, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Dear God!
I'd just like to say that in over a decade of perusing the internet, I've never witnessed an ass-kicking of this magnitude.

Ms Dines, you will either have to be a certified fool or arrogant beyond belief not to take some of these critical words to heart. There are just too many, and they can't all be wrong.

I would also advise you to stop whining. It's an embarrasment to the femenist/progressive movement.
 
January 25, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Wheellock College must be really PROUD to have you!!
Can you taste the sarcasm? A few choice emails from Alumn to the college and fewer students can only be the outcome of this.
 
January 26, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Dr. Dines will assume any disagreement with her views is evidence of racists and sexists behavior
Of course I would be hopeful that Dr. Dines understood why people are outraged over a miscarriage of justice even if the falsely accused are white rich college atheletes. Her wanting to consult with "activists and academics" (this should be an oxymoron unfortunately it is not)over an issue determined solely by facts rather than notions shows that her interest in the case is only to further her agenda and not to shed any light on the truth of the matter. In a crimminal cases the facts are the begining and end of all issues. Did A rape B ..theories about class, race and sex should be left out of the discussion. Next time Dr. Dines consult with people familiar with the facts.
 
January 27, 2007
Votes: +0

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

adsense

Top