Sen. Franken: Rape Victims Should Not Have To Pay for Their Own Rape Kits
by Robin Marty, RH Reality Check
September 27, 2010 - 7:00am (Print)
Minnesota Senator Al Franken has spent his time in office as a staunch advocate for women's reproductive health. In the fall of 2009, Sen. Franken sponsored an amendment to a defense bill that would have de-funded military contractors who prevent rape victims from seeking justice, based on the case of Jamie Leigh Jones, who was sexually attacked while working for KBR - a subsidiary of Halliburton.
Now, the Minnesota Democrat is once more taking up the cause for women who have been victims of sexual assault. Last week, Sen. Franken spoke in front of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs about the backlog of rape kits going unaddressed in police storage, and the practice of making victims pay for their own forensic evidence.
The problem is that some jurisdictions are still billing victims for the rape kits, leaving it to the victims to get reimbursed by insurers or victims' funds. And with that objection, Mr. Chairman, I would like to add to the record four articles...that document this."
To me, the real problem is that this practice is actually legal under federal law. It is legal to bill a victim for her rape kit....Can you elaborate on this? Is it a good idea to allow victims to be billed for their rape kits, even if they get fully reimbursed later?
Sen. Franken brings up an additional issue as to the billing of rape kits to victims, even if they are reimbursed by insurance: that an insurance claim being sent to someone's home could violate her privacy by informing the family, spouse or other residents about the rape, something about which the victim may not have wanted them to be made aware.
Susan Carbon, the Director of the Office of Violence Against Women, responds to that problem as well as others rape kit issues in her own testimony.
In 2009, Sen. Franken introduced the Justice for Survivors of Sexual Assault Act, which according to his site, would "reduce the national backlog of over 180,000 untested rape kits currently in police storage" and "also address several other problems that work to deny justice to victims of sexual assault – including the denial of free rape kits to survivors of sexual assault and the shortage of trained health professionals capable of administering rape kit exams." Sadly, the bill was referred to committee, where it has now been for nearly a year.
There may, however, be a ray of hope. When asked about movement on the stalled bill, Sen. Franken's office replied:
Senator Franken has been working hard with Chairman Leahy to include three provisions from Senator Franken’s Justice for Survivors of Sexual Assault Act (S. 2736) in Chairman Leahy’s upcoming Justice for All Act Reauthorization bill, to be introduced early [the week of September 27th].
Those three provisions are:
(1) A provision that will require jurisdictions receiving STOP grants to provide free rape kits to victims or arrange for them to receive free rape kits; this provision will prohibit the current practice—permitted by law—where certain jurisdictions bill rape victims and then allow the victim to seek reimbursement from the state.
(2) A provision that will require jurisdictions to report how much of the Debbie Smith grant funds they have used to analyze DNA from sexual assault cases.
(3) A provision that will penalize those jurisdictions that fail to report the reductions in rape kit backlog levels to the Department of Justice with reductions in Debbie Smith grant funding.
Senator Franken is optimistic that these provisions will be included in Chairman Leahy’s bill.
Will the provisions make it into the Justice for All Reauthorization bill? We will know this week.
Follow Robin Marty on Twitter, @robinmarty
~Men who care about women’s rights are so attractive, there is something romantic about it.~
~Men who care about women’s rights are so attractive, there is something romantic about it.~
What about men who simply care about women?
If you care about women, you care about womens rights. How can you simply care about women, and be indifferent to rape, obviously you beleive the rapist should be prosecuted.
And you Kevin do not care about women, it is “impossible” to care about women and force them to be pregnant, and give birth against their will. Or to watch and harass them as they are going in to an abortion clinic, as abortion is private, personal, and genital, and a women or young girl does not want some sleazy men "WATCHING" them. Not wanting a woman or young girl to know how to prevent her self from getting AIDS or pregnant, you could call sex ED body protection.
it is “impossible” to care about women and force them to be pregnant
That would be rape, and I would agree with you.
Not wanting a woman or young girl to know how to prevent her self from getting AIDS or pregnant, you could call sex ED body protection.
I wouldn't call it that. I would call it a fantasy, especially as far as preventing STIs go.
abortion is private, personal, and genital
You're getting off the topic, but if that's all it was, I would have no interest in it.
What do I call it when a man cares about women but not ther rights?
Husbandry.
FBIR: "These kind of men are attractive."
Kevin: "What about men like MEEEEE?!"
*chortle* What's wrong, Kevin? Worried you aren't FBIR's knight in shining armor?
Kevin, I've meet Sen. Franken and he is honestly and genuinely engaged in his work as a senator and in this case, as an advocate for protecting women's rights. If a woman is raped it is beyond idiotic that she should have to pay for the rape kit for her own violent assault.
Sen. Franken is going beyond "simply caring" about women but advocating on their behalf. He is a feminist and I'm sure he would agree with that statement. Personally I find feminist men very attractive. My husband is a feminist and that's one of the many reasons I'm so attracted to him.
This comment has been removed and commenter Kevin Rahe has been banned for repeated violations.
RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers support the struggle for the sexual and reproductive rights and health of all persons. We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals. We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate. We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, or undermine the civility of discussion. We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.
I don't believe that boys raised to respect girls and women will turn into predators when they become men in great enough numbers to support these statistics, nor that girls who are raised to expect others to treat them with respect and dignity would date so many wrong men once they reach college age that such high date rape numbers would be reported.
I don't believe that boys raised to respect women would assert, as you have, that the "logical" solution to pervasive rape in the military is to discriminate against women by not allowing them to join the military. I don't believe that boys raised to respect women would try to deny women effective contraception or abortion. I don't believe that men raised to respect women would suggest that women who have been raped by their dates are in any sense at fault for the behavior of their date.
I don't believe that boys raised to respect women would try to deny women effective contraception or abortion.
Boys who truly respect women would be mystified by the "need" for such things.
I don't believe that men raised to respect women would suggest that women who have been raped by their dates are in any sense at fault for the behavior of their date.
And I would completely agree. However, we are responsible for making choices that put ourselves in harm's way. And the mainstream idea of "dating" today seems to result in a lot of just that.
Boys who truly respect women would be mystified by the "need" for such things.
Not unless they had extremely low IQ's.
However, we are responsible for making choices that put ourselves in harm's way. And the mainstream idea of "dating" today seems to result in a lot of just that.
So rape victims are responsible for their rape because they put themselves in harm's way by dating a rapist? Just like the over 50% of women in the military who are raped by their fellow soldiers are responsible for being raped because they enlisted?
of driving at fault for car-jacking?
Is the "mainstream" idea of marriage a fault for marital rape?
Is the "mainstream" idea of walking down a crowded street responsible for pickpocketing?
In your world, do men raised to "respect" women never see the need to engage in family planning?
Your comment is yet another version of the same-old same old used by rape apologists. Blame the victim.
If I repeatedly fail to stop my child from running into the street while he's playing, and he eventually gets hit by a car, I won't get a ticket, but I certainly deserve the blame for allowing the conditions that led to the tragedy to persist.
If I repeatedly fail to stop my child from running into the street while he's playing, and he eventually gets hit by a car, I won't get a ticket, but I certainly deserve the blame for allowing the conditions that led to the tragedy to persist.
Therefore, parents of young men who commit rape deserve the blame for allowing the conditions that led to the tragedy of rape to persist.
Therefore, parents of young men who commit rape deserve the blame for allowing the conditions that led to the tragedy of rape to persist.
You would let them off the hook? Or are you suggesting that errors are being made by a great many parents in the raising of their children?
I am not speaking to the failure of a parent to effectively protect a child. I am talking about actions by adults. I am talking about the responsibility of all people, male, female, lesbian, gay, transgender to engage in sexual activity only when it is consensual, and never to force themselves upon another person. It's a pretty simple concept. and please don't tell me that since adolescents are not technically adults so if a 17-year old rapes someone it is ok because the girl went on a date with him.
Nice diversion, though.
I am talking about the responsibility of all people, male, female, lesbian, gay, transgender to engage in sexual activity only when it is consensual, and never to force themselves upon another person.
But if there are no clear boundaries as to when sex is appropriate and when it's not, how do we know when we might expect someone to consent to it, and when they're being "selfish?"
You start by not expecting sex in the first place.
Sexual boundaries are determined by each individual and shared within relationships.
But if there are no clear boundaries as to when sex is appropriate and when it's not, how do we know when we might expect someone to consent to it, and when they're being "selfish?"
Normal people tend to ask
Also, the whole 'being selfish' business in this context is manipulative crap.
I will just reply by restating this in the simplest way:
What part of "no" is hard to understand?
Even my 11-year-old son understands it is never okay to try to force someone to do anything they do not wish to do, whether that be a touch, a kiss, or something more, and whether it pertain to physical or social interactions.
Clear boundaries are when two persons are communicating with each other actively at every stage of a sexual interaction. if you are ok to be kissed but nothing more, than that is to be respected, and so on. Period. That is why learning about sexual communication and understanding how it works as part of comprehensive sexual education is so profoundly important, whether it be with a spouse or with a partner of a different kind. I find it difficult to comprehend that these questions and remarks are to be taken seriously.
Rather than trying to set up an expected "normal" path for intimacy in relationships, it is better to actually communicate. Whether or not your partner is "normal" or "selfish" shouldn't matter as much as whether or not your needs (romantic and sexual) are compatible with their boundaries and visa versa. Start relating to each other as actual people rather than just puppets doing what society expects of them. Be willing to say bye-bye rather than try and guilt-trip someone into behavior that you want in a partner.
There are clear boundaries as to when sex is appropriate -- when both persons involved WANT to have sex. It is not 'selfish' to be uninterested in sex. Feeling entitled to have sex with someone when they aren't interested is the epitome of selfishness.
But if there are no clear boundaries as to when sex is appropriate and when it's not, how do we know when we might expect someone to consent to it, and when they're being "selfish?"
Sex is appropriate when both parties want to have the same kind of sex and are able to consent (i.e., not under the influence of drugs or alcohol, of an age and mental ability to be able to consent, etc). This is true of all sexual relationships, whether within marriage or not. Easy.
However, since this is you, a few pointers that I wish we'd teach in sex ed. classes. Hope springs eternal, right?
- If you have any doubts about whether or not your potential sex partner wants sex, ask him/her. If you have any doubts about whether s/he really means yes, then don't have sex.
- If you have any doubts whatsoever about the ability of your potential sex partner to consent to having sex, don't have sex. Because then that would be rape.
- If at any point during sex your partner wants you to stop, then stop immediately. If you don't, then you're raping him/her.
- If at any point during sex your partner spaces out, or tenses up, or just in general doesn't seem to be enjoying it, stop immediately. See if s/he is okay, and don't continue unless s/he genuinely says that it's okay to continue.
- If you use emotional manipulation, subtle (or not so subtle) threats, hold your partner down, block the exit, refuse to take him/her home, or in any other way coerce sex, then you're a douchebag and probably a rapist.
- Sex isn't like a sport where one team "scores" and wins and the other team loses. It's a collaboration between people where the goal is to give and receive pleasure, to make sure that both people enjoy the activity.
If I repeatedly fail to stop my child from running into the street while he's playing, and he eventually gets hit by a car, I won't get a ticket, but I certainly deserve the blame for allowing the conditions that led to the tragedy to persist.
Not only does this not answer the questions, youre being so coy you fail to address YOUR points. Are you saying that women who are raped by their dates should not have been dating (running out in the street) in the first place?
Are you saying that women who are raped by their dates should not have been dating (running out in the street) in the first place?
The (college-age) women who are being (date) raped are the parents of the child in my analogy - not the child. The child playing in the street is simply a dangerous practice that they've either failed to recognize the hazards of or chosen to engage in. The dangerous practice is the form of "dating" where sexual activity is either common or typically expected. I'm not saying it's always the woman's fault, either. I'm sure that young women who have an image of dating much like mine sometimes end up going out with someone who thinks they're "dating," and gets more than she bargained for.
I'm not saying it's always the woman's fault, either.
So, you're saying that (college aged) women who are (date) raped are at fault and should be held responsible for their rape unless they agree with you about saving themselves for marriage?
We're talking about rape here. She wouldn't be claiming rape if she went into dating expecting to have sex with her date, she was expecting to NOT have sex. And mind you, 'date rape' is a term that has broader meaning than simply within the confines of an actual date. More appropriate term is 'acquaintance rape' - so often there is no actual date involved. I, for one, have been a victim of this. I know you'll say it's my fault because I was drinking alcohol with the opposite sex and passed out in their home. But NOWHERE does that give them permission then to use my body at their will while I am unconscious (and I suspect this is the description of a great number of college 'date rape' scenarios - it seems to be the goal of a lot of boys to get a girl as good and drunk as possible so that her ability to consent dwindles down to barely conscious, if at all). Sure, she can say no to the drink, but often you don't know you're heading into such a situation until it's too late. I got pregnant as a result of my situation and it was only THEN that I learned that someone had had sex with me that particular night. How insane, absurd and disgusting is that!?!?
To tell me that I'm even partially at fault for being in that situation to begin with is giving men permission to have sex with UNCONSCIOUS women because with your frame of mind, it's their fault they're 'available' to them, whether they can consent or not. Do you NOT see the problem with THAT?
Dating does not make a man feel entitled to sex. Having consensual sex (married or not) does not make a man feel entitled to sex. That entitlement comes from their belief that other people are put on this earth to see to their needs. Men who abuse their partners tend to insist on all types of "caregiving" from their partners, not just sex. The sexual entitlement is just an extension of a general entitlement complex.
Signs of this entitlement complex will be subtler the shorter amount of time the abuser and victim know each other. The rate of escalation is just about the only thing that varies between abusers. Date rapists cut right to the chase pretty early on, but some abusers seek to tangle victims into long-term abusive relationships. Same attitude, different speed toward the rape finish-line.
Often, abusers are charming, funny, smart, and aware of their appealing features. They are often considered very attractive, and they make excellent use of their sexual wiles. Their actions, consciously or unconsciously, are meant to ensare victims who are trusting and have a generally nurturing attitude toward others (people who have a hard time saying "no," often victims of abuse early in life). Abusers prey on good, innocent people. Whether they engage in dating or long-term monogamy is largely a matter of personal preference. Preferring to "date" does not indicate that a man is a rapist. Preferring long-term monogamy does not mean that a man is not a rapist.
Survivors often feel very unsafe, because it can be so hard to know who is a potential abuser and who isn't. For anyone, survivor or not, aware of the problem, it can often feel like they are constantly looking out for Schroedinger's Rapist. One "solution" would be to not engage in any kind of relationship that could potentially become romantic or sexual (so, no dating, keeping members of the sex you are attracted to in the "just friends" category), but that is isolating and harmful in its own way. You can't build a relationship that could lead to marriage (if that's what you want) without placing yourself at risk by trusting someone to not abuse you in vulnerable situations. The only option is to try and keep living a normal, open-to-love lifestyle while still being aware of the risks, because the truth is... you're never going to be 100% safe. Never.
Not dating, not having extra-marital sex... that won't protect you, and it won't solve the problem of abusers running around on the street like dangerous drivers. The fact of the matter is that it is necessary for kids to go outside to play sometime, and if they are hit by such a driver... it's the driver's fault, not anyone else's. Similarly, if a woman places her trust in a man who turns out to be a manipulative, evil motherfucker... she is not to blame for the abuse she suffers.
Whether they engage in dating or long-term monogamy is largely a matter of personal preference. Preferring to "date" does not indicate that a man is a rapist. Preferring long-term monogamy does not mean that a man is not a rapist.
This is exactly what I was going for.
It's unfortunate that all of this needs to be spelled out for *certain people* to begin with, but you did an excellent job.
I agree that we need to be raising boys differently in order to reduce the incidence of sexual assault. Media literacy training, for instance, is a relatively easy way to engage in conversations about consent, coercion, and gender norms.
However, I disgree with this:
"nor that girls who are raised to expect others to treat them with respect and dignity would date so many wrong men once they reach college age that such high date rape numbers would be reported."
If men walked around with "I don't respect women," or "I feel entitled to have sex with you whether you want to or not," tatooed in a prominent place or on a T-Shirt, then maybe we would need to talk about how those silly college students just aren't identifying rapists properly. It is NOT the responsibility of girls and women to keep boys and men from raping them. It is the responsibility of boys and men to refrain from raping girls and women.
It is NOT the responsibility of girls and women to keep boys and men from raping them. It is the responsibility of boys and men to refrain from raping girls and women.
And it's all our responsibility to rid society of the notion that "dating" - especially outside a long-term committed relationship - should involve sex.
The funniest thing about Kevin's position is that he has assumed that he is somehow on higher moral ground.
I will not cede that waiting until marriage is the moral thing to do. It implies that the choices most Americans make are immoral. Sex is part of dating for many moral, kind, people.
Kevin's decision to wait may have been the moral choice for him, but it is IMMORAL to assume that his choice is the moral choice for everyone else. To insert yourself into the sex lives of everyone else is immoral. It assumes an aire of superiority and omniscience that is offensive.
Society would be served much better if people made an effort for all people to have sex consensually, when and with whom they wanted, in a safe and knowledgable space where contraception was available and comprehensive sexuality education was the norm. I shouldn't be telling people when to have sex, I should be telling them that the basic standard of behavior when it comes to sex is:
1. Don't have sex if you don't want to.
2. Don't make other people have sex if they don't want to.
3. Don't assume other people want sex when you want sex.
4. Make informed choices about your sex life, and encourage others to inform themselves. This DOES NOT mean telling them when to have or not have sex. It involves giving them access to information so they can make decisions for themselves. It involves knowing that sex within any relationship is not the gold standard for any other relationship, because people, and relationships, are unique.
Kevin doesn't know what is best for my relationships and he doesn't know what is best for everyone else's, either.
So are you suggesting people in short-term relationships that involve sex should expect to be raped and/or that those in long-term committed/married are somehow rape-proof?
I think you're (purposefully) missing the key point which is that no relationship involving sex should involve rape.
"And it's all our responsibility to rid society of the notion that "dating" - especially outside a long-term committed relationship - should involve sex."
Nope. It's all our responsibility to ingrain society with the nortion that NO SEXUAL BEHAVIOR SHOULD HAPPEN WITHOUT FULL CONSENT OF ALL INVOLVED PARTIES.
You apparently haven't heard, but neither promise rings nor wedding rings protect people from sexual assault. That whole "date rape" concept you talked about extends to include "intimate partner sexual assault." See? It's so friggin common we have a term for it, because the aftermath slightly differs from stranger rape.
I don't believe that boys raised to respect girls and women will turn into predators when they become men
However boys raised to believe that the only women who deserve 'respect' are 'good girls', boys raised to believe that if they become aroused it is because the girl was 'too provocative' and therefore is a 'bad girl', certainly do turn into predators towards the 80% of women whom they assert are 'bad girls', because they have been raised to believe that any woman who lives a normal ordinary life is fair game.
Thank you, RHRC!
Well, _YOU_ certainly don't!
With every day that passes I am more and more proud of him and of the work that I (and thousands of other women!) put into his campaign. Feminist senators RULE!
Feminist senators RULE!
Merriam-Webster has two definitions of "feminism" that in their modern implementations make the word practically an antonym of itself:
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests
One suggests that women and men are the same, and the other makes no sense unless you see women as unique among the sexes. Which one do you subscribe to?
The first definition is with regard to feminist theory.
The second definition is with regard to feminist activism.
Theory and practice are complimentary to each other, not opposing schools of feminist thought.
I'll second that Radicalhousewife. Sen. Franken is my senator too and I'm very proud of him. I'm so proud of him for taking this issue to task.
They're both adequate, I suppose, but I'd put forth that the organized activity on behalf of women's rights works to lead to the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes. It does not say that the sexes are identical, but yes, women are unique among the sexes, as are men, as are those who are transgendered.
You know, I think Kevin really gets out of line on any posts about rape. I can tolerate his weird anti-contraception views, but his rape apologism is frankly disgusting. I'd consider not allowing him to comment on any posts about rape at all. It's really insulting to rape survivors.
I completely agree with Katwa because of this singular statement:
I'm not saying it's always the woman's fault, either.
This exposes the core of Kevin’s sexism and his complete lack of respect for women as well as his disregard for crimes against women.
RAPE IS NEVER – I repeat NEVER – the woman’s fault. There is no excuse for forcing yourself onto someone. NO EXCUSE. It is not sometimes a woman’s fault, and it is not partly a woman’s fault. If you rape someone, it is completely – I repeat COMPLETELY – your fault.
If something is deemed wholly wrong in this society – AS RAPE IS – then there is and can be NO situation where RAPE is acceptable.
Furthermore, the very act of dating involves an expectation of intimacy, though individuals vary on how and in what ways they would like to be intimate. Regardless of any person’s expectations of intimacy, it remains their responsibility to only engage in intimacy that both partners deem appropriate. Period. No exceptions, NO CONFUSION.
I will not stand for the degradation of women in any form.
And I will also not degrade men by suggesting that they cannot process in an ‘al fresco’ situation how far their partner wants to go. Men aren’t unintelligent or incapable of responding to the needs of others. When anyone ignores anyone else’s boundaries, it is A CONSCIOUS and INTENTIONAL decision.
I would ask RH to consider removing comments that suggest there is any excuse for RAPE. Not only are they reprehensible, they are often the words many victims have heard, and Katwa is likely correct in suggesting that such comments could be traumatic.
Al Franken is awesome. I have always been a fan of his political work, but this just solidifies it.
Kevin, your coy little rape-apologist comments disgust me. You imply that simply being involved in "dating culture" leads to an expectation of sex no matter what. Wrong! Being a rapist leads to an expectation of sex no matter what. Aside from knowing the attacker, there is no difference between "rape" and "date rape." Let's call it what it is: rape. You have some kind of backwards, purtianical belief that dating is to blame for rape when in fact the blame lies in rape culture. And then you seem to think that simply being in a non-longterm relationship = consent and expectation of sex at any time. It also looks like you really don't understand the concept of consent.
I know someone who was raped by a friend. It's extremely insulting to imply that simply going out and having a good time with someone = consent to sex later on. That is exactly how a rapist thinks.
I guess once you label yourself pro-choice, past transgressions can be forgiven, even if they involve passing off a comment about drugging and raping someone and taking pictures of them once you're finished as a joke. In case you are unaware, that's what Franken did. Before some of you jump all over Kevin, you would do well to look at the guy you are declaring some kind of "hero" to women.
Your critique of Franken may be warranted and fair - I will have to research it.
However, even if Franken was disrepectful, it doesn't make the critique of Kevin incorrect, or innappropriate.
Kevin made blatantly offensive comments about blaming victims for being raped. I will not apologize for "jumping on that" and calling him out. His comments stand alone as insulting, hurtful, and in my opinion, disgusting.
Sen. Franken addressed this in his nomination speech at the MN DFL convention,
Franken finally tackled the controversy head-on in his nomination speech to delegates, where he said some of the things he said and wrote over 35 years as a writer were "downright offensive."
"I understand that," Franken said. "And I understand that the people of Minnesota deserve a senator who won't say things that make them feel uncomfortable."
He received a lot of flak from feminists for this including me. Before his endowment I was supported college professor and peace activist Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer. I was disappointing when When Nelson-Pallmeyer lost the endorsement. It doesn't change the fact that I am proud of the work that Sen. Franken is doing. I think he is well aware he messed up but at least he is not Sen. Vitter. I believe Sen. Franken is a feminist and even feminists screw things up occasionally.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/07/al-franken-wins-senate-en_n_105857.html
This isn't even about being pro-choice, it's about not making rape victims pay for their own rape kits and it's about not stooping to victim-blaming, as Kevin is so wont to do.
I wasn't aware that Franken made such a horrible "joke." But you have a fair point. After reading around, it looks like it happened in 1995 at some SNL staff meeting. That doesn't make it forgivable, but the fact that he is pushing for this bill shows that he is on the side of advocating for women and rape victims in the here and now. It's possible that pushing for justice for rape victims comes from a sense of remorse in regards to what he's said in the past. He also addressed the matter in his campaign.
And like I said, I am a fan of his political work... not his "comedy."
And like I said, I am a fan of his political work... not his "comedy."
I listened to Al Franken regularly when he had a radio show on Air America and read (and appreciated) his books taking on Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh etc.
With the exception of Ron Reagan, Al Franken was the most sensitive to, informed and aware of women's issues of all the male radio personalities who identify as 'progressive'. And even the WORST of the progressive men cannot hold a candle to the deeply offensive, overt, daily misogyny of the conservative personalities, male or female, religious or secular.
My comment about Kevin is not related to Franken at all. Every single post about rape Kevin has made disgusting comments blaming the victims.
Every single post about rape Kevin has made disgusting comments blaming the victims.
Yes, and if you go back to any discussions about rape we have had here you will notice the conservatives concentrate on two things. Blaming and shaming the victims and, equally disgusting IMHO, insisting that the rape victims carry any possible pregnancy to term.
What astonishes me is that such men would feel free to insist that we all follow their twisted and self serving notions of 'morality' even to the point of allowing them access to out children. I wouldn't want Paul or Kevin anywhere NEAR my children. They're the sorts of men I warn my daughters about and raise my sons to avoid at all costs.
The idea that any girl/woman who chooses to spend time with a man should EXPECT he'll try to rape her isn't too complementary to boys/men either. It is, of course, a great way to get women out of the classroom and the office and get them restricted to the home again. No word yet if they'll have to wear burkas to the grocery store and when out in the yard just in case a man happens to see her and is overcome with lust.
The idea that any girl/woman who chooses to spend time with a man should EXPECT he'll try to rape her isn't too complementary to boys/men either.
It certainly speaks to the quality (or, rather, lack thereof) of conservative men and the extremely low expectations they place on themselves and their sons. I'm beginning to understand why that one little guy got so upset last month when I mentioned that a man is always at least 50% responsible for each and every unwanted pregnancy.
There appear to be a number of convenient loopholes for poorly raised conservative boys in the abstinence-only-sex-education package. It's pretty easy to see why they snigger when they're told to respect women. Clearly their fathers do not.
Franken, just like lots of other people, did indeed behave badly in the past and then became more informed on the issue and CHANGED. This is called GETTING IT or even GROWING UP. It is pretty ridiculous to divide people into 'good/evil' based on one incident in the past and never allow any possibility of redemption. On that basis, nobody should pay any attention to the writings of Apostle Paul because before his conversion he persecuted Christians and that irrevocably taints anything else he ever did afterwards. On a policy level, I am far more interested in what people are thinking NOW than what they said years ago.
This comment has been removed.
RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice. We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals. We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate. We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article. We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.
--RH Reality Check staff
And I would take someone who is actually pushing for legislation that will help victims, regardless of what jokes that person has made, over someone completely ineffectual who likes to finger-wag on a web forum. Actions speak louder than words.
And I would take someone who is actually pushing for legislation that will help victims
The fact that he is pushing to help rape victims is precisely why the right is trying to smear him here. Well that and the fact that they actually believe their stereotypes about "the Left" and get angry when we aren't anywhere near that stupid and credulous.
NOW ... actually came out and defended Franken's comment
Sources? I can imagine that NOW would politically back Al Franken, but I have trouble believing that they would literally defend a rape joke.
To make light of rape, as Franken did, requires a very sick mind.
True. Obviously, though, with this new bill it's clear that he now feels empathy for these victims, and feels remorse for what he has said. Personally, I think it's sick to make women pay for their own rape kits. Are you telling me that because of Franken's heartless comments in the past, and because you disagree with him politically, that you are now against his campaign to bring justice to rape victims? I think that is even more heartless.
As for your little tirade about the left "looking the other way" or "making all sorts of excuses..." I wonder if you recall that John McCain (and an aide in his campaign) have also made rape jokes...?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/15/sources-recall-mccains-jo_n_112955.html
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/07/15/john-mccain-thinks-rape-jokes-are-funn/
Franken is a smart guy. He very well knows that the VAWA allows a woman to receive a free rape kit with the state picking up the tab. I really don't know what he's talking about when he claims that it's legal for a state or jurisdiction to bill the woman for a rape kit, as it's not unless that state gives up its VAWA funding, which no state has done nor will do. He's just, and I say this as nicely as possible, playing you all for fools, which is why he's a good politician.
I really don't know what he's talking about when he claims that it's legal for a state or jurisdiction to bill the woman for a rape kit, as it's not unless that state gives up its VAWA funding, which no state has done nor will do.
I see you're under the naive impression that "states" and "jurisdictions" operate with full coordination and agreement on policy and enforcement.
He's just, and I say this as nicely as possible, playing you all for fools, which is why he's a good politician.
You are, and I say this as nicely as possible, rather dumb about how state and local governments operate, which is why you're not a very good troll.
I'll agree that Franken is a smart guy, however.
You are playing us all for fools Panhandler.
Ode To Pro-Rape Republicans
Thirty Senate Republicans voted to keep rape victims who work for defense contractors from having their day in court. How? By voting against an Al Franken-proposed amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations Bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies (like Dick Cheney’s KBR) “if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.”
Franken was inspired to sponsor this amendment by the ordeal of Jamie Leigh Jones, who was gang-raped by her co-workers while working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. A clause in Jones’ KBR employment contract made employer-friendly private arbitration her only recourse, precluding Jones from seeking justice in court.
I hope all those pro-rape Republicans (listed below my limerick) are proud of themselves:
Ode To Pro-Rape Republicans (Limerick)
By Madeleine Begun Kane
Though Republicans yearn for support
From females, they’re bound to fall short:
Their position on rape
Is in criminal shape
Cuz they treat it like less than a tort.
Here’s the list of the thirty pro-rape Republican Senators:
Lamar Alexander (R-TN) John Barrasso (R-WY) Christopher Bond (R-MO) Sam Brownback (R-KS) Jim Bunning (R-KY) Richard Burr (R-NC) Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) Tom Coburn (R-OK) Thad Cochran (R-MS) Bob Corker (R-TN) John Cornyn (R-TX) Mike Crapo (R-ID) Jim DeMint (R-SC) John Ensign (R-NV) Michael Enzi (R-WY) Lindsey Graham (R-SC) Judd Gregg (R-NH) James Inhofe (R-OK) Johnny Isakson (R-GA) Mike Johanns (R-NE) Jon Kyl (R-AZ) John McCain (R-AZ) Mitch McConnell (R-KY) James Risch (R-ID) Pat Roberts (R-KS) Jeff Sessions (R-AL) Richard Shelby (R-AL) John Thune (R-SD) David Vitter (R-LA) Roger Wicker (R-MS)
Really? Are you sure about that???
I would say you really need to check into that or you really are clueless about what states and counties can do while receiving VAWA funding because I know for a fact that they can bill because I was billed for my own rape kit!
~I did not know Al Franken said those things, they are disgusting I am against it.
Even so Kevin and men like Kevin scare me. They are bad for women’s, and little girls mentality, physical well-being, social well-being, and our future.~
"Give me a Kevin over someone who makes jokes about raping someone any day of the week. To make light of rape, as Franken did, requires a very sick mind."
~To cause a woman, or little girl against their will extreme vaginal pain and terrorize them with anticipating it first for nine months requires a sadomasochistic mind.~
How many articles are there on this site about something Christine O'Donnell said in the 1990's, all of which was far less egregious than anything Franken has said regarding rape?
She has said more idiotic things than Sen. Franken. For one, she was asked at the First State Patriots candidate forum, "what role 'czars' should have in running the government." She answered “I would say to President Obama that czar is a title of nobility and therefore unconstitutional." She obviously has now idea what "czar" in U.S. political terms means. Czar is a shorthand term in Washington for a special advisor to the president. Being that Pres. Reagan appointed the first "czar" she doesn't know anything about GOP political history.
Video clip: http://www.delawareliberal.net/2010/09/21/omg-odonnell-is-moronic/
For example, contrary to what one poster wants to believe, Franken did not receive "a lot of flak from feminists" for his comment.
Bullshit! I don't make excuses for anyone in political office, and I'm not defending what Sen. Franken said. I'm a realist and understand that the antiquated two-party system in this country offers us few real choices. MN feminists who supported Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, Franken's opponent in the primary, believed that the DFL should endorse Franken because he had a better chance of defeating Norm Coleman who was anti-choice, pro-war.
looking the other way or making all sorts of excuses when it comes to defending the words or actions of people who they share a similar ideology with.
And the GOP/religious-right does this all of the time.
She has said more idiotic things than Sen. Franken. For one, she was asked at the First State Patriots candidate forum, "what role 'czars' should have in running the government." She answered “I would say to President Obama that czar is a title of nobility and therefore unconstitutional." She obviously has now idea what "czar" in U.S. political terms means. Czar is a shorthand term in Washington for a special advisor to the president. Being that Pres. Reagan appointed the first "czar" she doesn't know anything about GOP political history.
You're comparing O'Donnell claiming that the title of czar is unconstitutional to Franken joking about drugging, raping and, as I frequently hear around here, shaming women? Get real. I'm sure you very well realize that there's a difference being making a factually incorrect comment, and making a blatantly offensive comment. To try to compare the two comments, as you did, is to try to make light of what Franken said.
Bullshit! I don't make excuses for anyone in political office, and I'm not defending what Sen. Franken said. I'm a realist and understand that the antiquated two-party system in this country offers us few real choices. MN feminists who supported Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, Franken's opponent in the primary, believed that the DFL should endorse Franken because he had a better chance of defeating Norm Coleman who was anti-choice, pro-war.
Yes, you really are trying to make excuses, first by trying to treat Franken's comments as being in the same vein as O'Donnell's comments, then by stating that just because we live in a two-party system that you really had no choice but to support Franken. Essentially, you're implying that it doesn't matter what someone says or does so long as you agree with their political ideology. That's not true. Rarely are there only two people running in an election. Vote for a third-party candidate or don't vote at all.
And the GOP/religious-right does this all of the time.
The GOP/religious-right are rather remarkable at self-regulation, for no other reason than the fact that they have to be because they get scrutinized far more than their counterparts. So while the Harry Reid's of the world can get off with blatantly racist comments, the Trent Lott's can't. While the Bill Clinton's of the world can get away with infidelity and sexual harassment, the Mark Sanford's can't. While the Al Franken's of the world can get away with offensive jokes, the John McCain's can't. It's just the way it is and it's fairly undeniable that such a bias exists.
O'Donnell said something idiotic, Franken said something stupid and insensitive. O'Donenell didn't say a factually incorrect comment. Did ya watch the video? At the time of the statement she believed that there are czars in the U.S. That is incredibly moronic and stupid. I'm sure she has been taken aside by the GOP and schooled on what to say in the future. Franken said his stupid and intensive statement more than 14 years ago, O'Donnell recently made her beyond idiotic statement.
Yes, you really are trying to make excuses, first by trying to treat Franken's comments as being in the same vein as O'Donnell's comments, then by stating that just because we live in a two-party system that you really had no choice but to support Franken. Essentially, you're implying that it doesn't matter what someone says or does so long as you agree with their political ideology. That's not true. Rarely are there only two people running in an election. Vote for a third-party candidate or don't vote at all.
I never said they were in two statements were in similar. You brought up O'Donnell. Look Panhandler, don't tell me what to do. You don't know me SO BACK OFF. I'm not a member of the DNC or GOP/RNC. I'm an anarchist that usually votes Green Party. In this case many of us voted major party because we knew the race would be close, and it was, duh. The reality is, with campaign finance laws the way they are, and the structure the current U.S. political system in place, this favors a two-party system. I would love to see proportional representation like in Europe as a means of voting. Both the DNC, and RNC are going to make sure we keep this system as status quo. No one is going to rock the boat to let a third party in.
The GOP/religious-right are rather remarkable at self-regulation.
Yeah they do a great job and self-regulation and censorship of themselves. They're great at covering things up like sex scandals. Just to name a few, John Ensign, Larry Craig, and Mark Foley. The GOP/RNC also has FOX news to do most of their dirty work for them.
Republicans often present themselves as both the moral police and the moral authority. So when they are hippocrites to the issues they spout day in and day out, and condemn others for, the scrutiny they face is fair.
If you want Dems to be scrutinized more, I would probably be amenable to that depending on the misdeed and their platform. I'm not the moral police. For example, I think being gay is just fine. If you spend all your time condemning homosexuality, though, you're going to face some questions from me when you're found engaging in homosexual sex. Sorry.
However, in your original post, if you have forgotten, you asked us all to give Kevin a break because Franken wasn't so awesome. It appears to me that you're asking for the standards to be loosened for both, not strengthened.
You never addressed the fact that Kevin was incredibly insensitive and sexist. You asked me to lighten up on him and then to come down harder on Franken. Yes, Franken said something stupid. He apologized. It was a long time ago. His ACTIONS suggest he is in a far more sensitive place. Kevin said something asinine YESTERDAY.
Making a law that prohibits states from charging women for their rape kits is different that a law or act that provides funding or reimbursement. It sends a message that the practice is inherently wrong, versus fiscally challenging. We don't ask victims of other crimes to pay for the supplies needed to investigate the crimes committed against them, and we shouldn't do so for rapists.
I get that you don't like the left. Or Franken. But what do you have against rape victims? And what part of Kevin blaming victims of rape for the crime committed against them do you think is OK?
Kevin makes the sad mistake that far too many in our society make. Rape is not about sex or sexual gratification, it's about power and control. The most effective way to humiliate and degrade a woman is to force yourself upon (and into) her without her consent. Unless you've been raped, you cannot understand the ramifications of this violent action, or the years and years and years of emotional scarring that occurs afterward that can include everything from depression to post traumatic stress disorder and even suicide.
That society goes one better than this and puts any blame at all upon her, such as making her pay for her own rape kit to bring her attacker to justice, is reprehensible and cruel.
Nothing - absolutely NOTHING - a woman does forfeits her rights to her own personhood, giving a male carte blanche to take from her what she is not willing to give. We're not talking about an accident here (the child/accident analogy is wildly inaccurate). We're talking about a CRIME. At no point should we ever let a criminal off the hook for their willful and deviant behavior. To suggest otherwise is to say that men are animals without full capacity to control their sexual urges... and that's not fair to either sex.
Kevin was full of statistics earlier, but the one statistic that should chill anyone to the bone is the fact rape is tragically unreported due to our cutural tendencies to blame victims (in whole or in part). Though 1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime, more than half will not report this to the police, and of the ones who are brought to court only 13.6% will serve any time in jail. Factoring in unreported rapes, that means 15 out of 16 go free.
Why this should matter to *everyone* is that these criminals are far more likely to be serial criminals that will commit other crimes against both sexes, including violent crimes. This means that prosecutuing rape becomes a human issue, not just a woman's issue.
http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-offenders
Kudos to Al Franken for trying to ensure these criminals are brought to justice. It is the most responsible thing to do for the sake of everyone.
To everyone else; be educated, be outspoken and most of all be compassionate. Odds are you know someone who is suffering this silent shame when they shouldn't be.
Sometimes I'll hear some of my guy friends say blatantly sexist things, about girls who are "easy", about girls who are "asking for it", having a total victim-blaming attitude, and I find it so interesting that they don't even realize how insulting they're being to their own gender. When you blame the victim, you're saying all men are inherently rapists, they have no control over their sexual impulses, are essentially wild animals with an insatiable appetite for sex and power which can only be controlled when women behave and dress modestly.
This is not how I would describe my male friends, or boyfriends- this is not how they would describe themselves. In fact I think they would find this description very hurtful. It's interesting how men will excuse rapists for their actions because they're just "being men", but at the same time deny that they would ever force themselves on a woman because obviously that's wrong. As though they think that some men are rapists, some aren't, and women just need to get better at telling them apart, and that's just the way it is. So weird.
Is Kevin Rahe stupid?
