Thursday, March 25, 2010

Does Newt Gingrich subscribe to the "she was asking for it" theory of rape?

Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House and Georgia representative, gave a press conference here in Atlanta this morning. As reported by Jim Galloway at AJC.com, he said:

“Just as there was no place for the kind of viciousness against Bush and Cheney, there’s no place for viciousness against Democrats.

“I would condemn any kind of activity that involves that kind of personal threat.

“But look, I think there’s something very disingenuous about the Democratic leaders who attacked the tea party movement, who refused to hold town hall meetings, who refused to go back home, who kept the Congress locked up in Washington, and are now shocked that people are angry.

“I think the Democratic leadership has to take some moral responsibility for having behaved with such arrogance, in such a hostile way, that the American people are deeply upset. So let’s be honest with this. This is a game that they’re playing.

“People should not engage in personal threats. I’m happy to condemn any effort to engage in personal threats. But I think the Democratic leadership has to take some real responsibility for having run a machine that used corrupt tactics, that bought votes, that bullied people, and as a result has enraged much of the American people.”

Take a close look at the last two paragraphs. The Dems are playing games and as result have responsibility for the anger and rage that led to personal threats against them.

“Man, that tight sweater, that short skirt, the way she was walking, she was asking for it dude. Can you blame me?

And you know what? There are people that will nod their heads in approval of what Gingrich said and the rapist’s defense.

10 comments:

J said...

Get off it. Bad behavior is bad behavior. Making the profound mistake of attributing the actions of a minuscule fraction of a group to the entire group or its leadership is getting really old. I am going to give you the benefit of doubt that you blogged against all the craziness on the left when Bush was in office or the continued attacks on Cheney and Rove. Please google Cantor office attacked, Bush+hitler or Bush+effigy and be reminded that there are whack jobs on both sides.

The Curmudgeon said...

Don't make me defend Newt Gingrich, Dave.

But the 'rapist's defense' is particularly odious because it is based on a totally skewed perception. A normal person would never think that because a woman was well-shaped, wearing skimpy clothes, that she was "asking" for something (except perhaps admiring glances from men and jealous looks from women). Even if the woman was flirtatious.

But, as you know, in certain parts of the world, a woman who goes out of doors without a head covering -- or, even if covered from head to toe, goes unescorted by a male relative -- is somehow inviting assault. And the local authorities there are fine with that. It may be 'religious police' that do the assaulting.

So... part of the rapist's defense depends on what appropriate perception is under the circumstances.

Next, suppose the woman is more than merely flirtatious. Suppose she is dressed like, and acts like a $2 whore. Suppose she is a soiled dove. If she is attacked, we still disapprove... but -- be honest now -- we don't work up the same level of disgust and outrage when the perp says she was 'asking for it.' She was asking for it, but the perp didn't give her the monetary element of that for which she was asking.

So... part of the rapist's defense depends on the victim, true?

(Continued)

The Curmudgeon said...

Now, we have bad behavior by wing-nuts. But we also have bad behavior -- dubious tactics, at least (not putting the bills out in public until 72 hours before the vote while, at the same time, claiming that the time for debate had "passed" -- or the Louisiana Purchase, etc.) -- on the part of Congressional Democrats and the administration.

So... I don't know where on the sliding scale we should see the 'perceivers' (the wing-nuts making threats) vis a vis the 'victims' (Congressional Democrats). Thus, I'm not sure that the "rapist's defense" analogy holds.

I do know that personal threats of violence should be investigated and prosecuted in accordance with the law. That's what Gingrich should have said. His rather conditional 'condemnation' is weak.

Also, Mr. Gingrich and his cynical ilk have done their best to stir up the pot and to foment outrage. If you will -- they're 'asking for it' too.

We need to throw all the bums out. But I don't like the odds.

Dave said...

OK J and Curmudgeon, I'm going to try to make this objective, persuasive and not antagonistic; but, I'm not a happy camper for other reasons and it may bleed over into this.

First, J, I'm not making the mistake of blaming the baiting by Gingrich on anyone but him. My post was directed at him and his sophisticated attack. Note that I directed you to the last part of his remarks. Note also that he didn't close the circle like a dumb rapist would. The Dems did this, the Dems did this. I'm totally opposed to what some misguided but justifiably angry people did. I condemn them. But, unstated, we all know that the cute girl was asking for it.

It seems though that it isn't the whack jobs that are the problem here, it is the leadership that is trying to blame the other side for being attacked by the whack jobs. Boehner, if that's the spelling, gave a gratuitous speech "attacking" the whacks and then blaming the Dems for having the temerity to point out the attacks.


Curmudgeon, "[a ]normal person would never think that because a woman was well-shaped, wearing skimpy clothes, that she was "asking" for something..."

Exactly. A rational Republican wouldn't try to deflect the blame from a whack job who threatened a Dem for supporting the health care bill. But Gingrich did just that.

We don't live in other parts of the world where a woman can be attacked because of her sex and the authorities look on, and to the point here, where it is OK to attack a politician because he voted for a bill you don't like, even if you "really" don't like it.

Moving away from the political arena, don't worry, I'll return:

"So... part of the rapist's defense depends on the victim, true?"

Not at all. We aren't talking about, at least I'm not, fumbling between boys and girls that goes wrong. If a woman says no, that is the time to stop fumbling.

To move back to the political,

"Now, we have bad behavior by wing-nuts. But we also have bad behavior -- dubious tactics, at least (not putting the bills out in public until 72 hours before the vote while, at the same time, claiming that the time for debate had "passed" -- or the Louisiana Purchase, etc.) -- on the part of Congressional Democrats and the administration."

Curmudgeon, you are doing the same thing that Gingrich did, the Dems played games (quite similar to those played by the GOP when it was in power) and the games pissed some people off, wing nuts though they be.

Bad behaviour doesn't justify threats. And more importantly, it doesn't excuse Republican deflection of blame of the wing nuts.

I'll quit now and go back to the other things that are causing my attacks on you guys.

Lifehiker said...

Gingrich, who? Isn't he an irrelevant afterthought after all these years?

But besides that, I'd just say that there's a big difference between calling people names and making death threats or throwing bricks through windows. The conservative rhetoric in blogs and on the airwaves is responsible for inciting these acts, and ranking republicans and conservatives are being very quiet about calming the waters.

I've come to the conclusion that universal suffrage has become a mistake. Giving the unlettered in both parties the power of the ballot has created an environment where demogogues and crazies have far too much sway. Appeals to these jerks have resulted in the political chaos we now suffer.

Dave said...

Gingrich isn't irrelevant after all these years, LF, he is indeed the mainstream of the GOP, playing the responsible elder statesman as opposed to the Becks and Palins, thus even more dangerous. A counterpoint to Sharptons and Jacksons.

I won't go to your oligarchy model, especially since there are people of letters that espouse what the fringe are preaching.

Jeni said...

If I can throw a more uneducated comment into the mix here -cause all the legalese you guys sometimes insert does throw me off a bit at times - quite frankly, I think all too many of those serving in Congress and the Senate (and other high offices too for that matter) need to take either a refresher course of some type in ethical behavior or, for some, perhaps take the class for perhaps the first time. Two wrongs do not make a right. And with respect to the rape/she asked for it bit, "NO" means just that regardless of the circumstances -dress, occupation, whatever. I may not approve of what a woman is wearing -too seductive, revealing, etc. -and I may not approve of her actions pertaining to a circumstance (payment for services rendered or some such) but regardless of those issues, she still does not deserve to be raped. And, using that analogy then, because one politician or a group says or does something should not then make other actions and reactions correct/ethical. That's my view to what I think you guys were saying and I could very possibly have misinterpreted some stuff along the way too.

J said...

"The conservative rhetoric in blogs and on the airwaves is responsible for inciting these acts,..."

Plain and simple nonsense. Also - have any of you followed my suggestion to google the rhetoric of the Bush years - or perhaps the attack on Eric Cantor's office? Is Rush responsible for all of the stop signs in my neighborhood spray painted with Bush and a swastika????

Jim Donahue said...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-us-health-care-threats-cantor,0,2057248.story

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Richmond police say the bullet that hit a window of Republican Virginia Congressman Eric Cantor's office had been randomly fired skyward.

Of course, the police in Virginia are notoriously liberal.

Jim Donahue said...

So, now it's coming out that a) it wasn't "Cantor's campaign office," but rather the office of a consultant working for him b) there was no signage connecting the office, one of many in the building, to Cantor. Other reports -- conflicting information out there -- say the bullet didn't even hit the office of the consultant, but another office in the same building.

But otherwise, yeah, the incident is exactly as Cantor described it.