Those poor women. This right here shows you just how fucked up our system is. What this man did to them is despicable and I hope he goes to jail for the rest of his life, but it's also terribly sad the fear they felt of the police force in general. That they didn't feel they could go to the police for help is horrible.
If you're a person of color, if you're a woman, if you have a criminal record you should absolutely have recourse and I feel just gutted that they didn't think they did.
We just read about Tutwiler jail in AL, a similar incident happened, and happens really often there where there was DNA evidence that a guard fathered the children of convicts. Even the Chaplain was raping women because it was so common there.
The guards that were found to be the fathers only got reassigned to new prisons, then some returned. I don't have a ton of hope for this. Sadly. I really want to finish reading Just Mercy, by Bryan Stevenson. He talks about so many horrible sentencing and prison states that are in the country. Some of the stories and cases he defends are unspeakable.
The chaplains?! JFC.
Just Mercy is in my book club's list for next year - my mom was in town visiting on book selection night and it was her recommendation.
I haven't said much about this because I am just speechless. I am reading, horrified.
I need future movies about slavery to address how Black women have been sexually assaulted during history. I remember watching someone say " Well the European settlers didn't' bring any woman so got with the Black woman instead" I had to take a walk..........
Let's talk about this for a moment.
Because this someone is stupid. It is true that these settlers did not bring women with them initially while colonizing, settling, pillaging and the like. However, they often married and were happy to marry women of color in various areas. America, India, the Caribbean, etc. However in virtually all of these cultures and colonies, that practice was frowned upon once the area was settled enough for white men to start bringing over white ladies and white daughters.
Social mores changed drastically in those time periods and the fictional stories of the day bear that out. Thackeray wrote Vanity Fair in 1848. It was set just prior to and during the Napoleonic Wars. In it, George's father tries to get him to marry an heiress to a Caribbean plantation, with the idea that her money and connections would elevate him in English society. And yet around 1850 on, that idea changes drastically and having "native blood" is something that's whispered about, a dirty rumor that could sink one's prospects if taken seriously. The primary difference in those eras is the influx of European women.
The same goes for society in India. Men in the East India Company married local women quite often from 1750ish until about 1850. Once India because a permanent place to settle and not just a get rich quick post for second and third sons, a white man would not marry a local woman.
And the same for America, you'll notice that in early settler stories trappers and the like would marry Indian women but doing so once areas were settled made a man an outcast or an "Indian lover."
Which ties in neatly to the topic of intersectional feminism and the falsehood that if the world were run by women, it would be a lovely, caring, and accepting place.
European settlers were still raping native populations though, don't get me wrong, especially in places with plantations and other slave labor sites. And depending on the ares, their wives weren't treated with the level of respect they would confer on a white women. But I just thought that was an interesting perspective, that women of color would be seen more negatively when white men were given a choice as it were in partners.
It's a topic I'd like to see more study devoted to. I'm curious to know if we could figure out if it were men preferring white women where available or white women denigrating women of color in order to reduce competition for men. I'm sure it's some combination but it does speak to the power white women had even when unequal to men.
I need future movies about slavery to address how Black women have been sexually assaulted during history. I remember watching someone say " Well the European settlers didn't' bring any woman so got with the Black woman instead" I had to take a walk..........
Let's talk about this for a moment.
Because this someone is stupid. It is true that these settlers did not bring women with them initially while colonizing, settling, pillaging and the like. However, they often married and were happy to marry women of color in various areas. America, India, the Caribbean, etc. However in virtually all of these cultures and colonies, that practice was frowned upon once the area was settled enough for white men to start bringing over white ladies and white daughters.
Social mores changed drastically in those time periods and the fictional stories of the day bear that out. Thackeray wrote Vanity Fair in 1848. It was set just prior to and during the Napoleonic Wars. In it, George's father tries to get him to marry an heiress to a Caribbean plantation, with the idea that her money and connections would elevate him in English society. And yet around 1850 on, that idea changes drastically and having "native blood" is something that's whispered about, a dirty rumor that could sink one's prospects if taken seriously. The primary difference in those eras is the influx of European women.
The same goes for society in India. Men in the East India Company married local women quite often from 1750ish until about 1850. Once India because a permanent place to settle and not just a get rich quick post for second and third sons, a white man would not marry a local woman.
And the same for America, you'll notice that in early settler stories trappers and the like would marry Indian women but doing so once areas were settled made a man an outcast or an "Indian lover."
Which ties in neatly to the topic of intersectional feminism and the falsehood that if the world were run by women, it would be a lovely, caring, and accepting place.
European settlers were still raping native populations though, don't get me wrong, especially in places with plantations and other slave labor sites. And depending on the ares, their wives weren't treated with the level of respect they would confer on a white women. But I just thought that was an interesting perspective, that women of color would be seen more negatively when white men were given a choice as it were in partners.
It's a topic I'd like to see more study devoted to. I'm curious to know if we could figure out if it were men preferring white women where available or white women denigrating women of color in order to reduce competition for men. I'm sure it's some combination but it does speak to the power white women had even when unequal to men.
This would be really fascinating to understand better, and (I hope) could also give us some context to better understand the racial implications of modern feminism.
Post by downtoearth on Dec 9, 2015 23:50:49 GMT -5
I haven't studied white women's attitudes toward interracial marriage in colonial (pre US) times and after, but imobviouslystaying 's comments about white women and racial tension has been studied and documented back to sufferage and around the 1860's. For a decade or two before the 14th and 15th amendments, white women were working with Fredrick Douglass and many abolishionists and thought women and black men/women would get the vote together. After black men did and not women I think there was even a specific spat between Susan B Anthony and her friend Douglass when he wouldn't prioritize helping on suffrage next. I should look up the details, but I thought I read here that she turned to racism as a basis for suffrage bc of that and bc she thought educated white women had more to add to society than uneducated blacks, Irish, other immigrants.
I haven't studied white women's attitudes toward interracial marriage in colonial (pre US) times and after, but imobviouslystaying 's comments about white women and racial tension has been studied and documented back to sufferage and around the 1860's. For a decade or two before the 14th and 15th amendments, white women were working with Fredrick Douglass and many abolishionists and thought women and black men/women would get the vote together. After black men did and not women I think there was even a specific spat between Susan B Anthony and her friend Douglass when he wouldn't prioritize helping on suffrage next. I should look up the details, but I thought I read here that she turned to racism as a basis for suffrage bc of that and bc she thought educated white women had more to add to society than uneducated blacks, Irish, other immigrants.
White women hated and were treating black women like shit way before this.
I don't know what count was what. I am glad he got some guilities. But, really?!?! You believe he raped this one, but not *this* one? Come on now.
That's what kept going through my mind. Why were some women believed and not others (notwithstanding the ones with DNA evidence)? If he could do this 18 times, why not 36? Obviously the jury is privy to other information, and truth be told I haven't read that in depth about all the accusations because it's hard to stomach, so perhaps that accounts for their findings.
I don't know what count was what. I am glad he got some guilities. But, really?!?! You believe he raped this one, but not *this* one? Come on now.
That's what kept going through my mind. Why were some women believed and not others (notwithstanding the ones with DNA evidence)? If he could do this 18 times, why not 36? Obviously the jury is privy to other information, and truth be told I haven't read that in depth about all the accusations because it's hard to stomach, so perhaps that accounts for their findings.
I'm here too. I'm assuming the evidence was as strong with the other charges.
I don't know what count was what. I am glad he got some guilities. But, really?!?! You believe he raped this one, but not *this* one? Come on now.
That's what kept going through my mind. Why were some women believed and not others (notwithstanding the ones with DNA evidence)? If he could do this 18 times, why not 36? Obviously the jury is privy to other information, and truth be told I haven't read that in depth about all the accusations because it's hard to stomach, so perhaps that accounts for their findings.
I might have misread, but I thought there were multiple charges per victim. I thought there were only 13 victims. So they might have had lesser and greater charges under consideration for each victim, so he was convicted of *something* for each victim, and two charges for some of them.
That's what kept going through my mind. Why were some women believed and not others (notwithstanding the ones with DNA evidence)? If he could do this 18 times, why not 36? Obviously the jury is privy to other information, and truth be told I haven't read that in depth about all the accusations because it's hard to stomach, so perhaps that accounts for their findings.
I might have misread, but I thought there were multiple charges per victim. I thought there were only 13 victims. So they might have had lesser and greater charges under consideration for each victim, so he was convicted of *something* for each victim, and two charges for some of them.
I hope we get some clarification on this. I hope all of those women feel like justice was served. One woman allegedly took the stand high (who could blame her) and was supposedly combative with the defense and I hope her voice was still heard.
That's what kept going through my mind. Why were some women believed and not others (notwithstanding the ones with DNA evidence)? If he could do this 18 times, why not 36? Obviously the jury is privy to other information, and truth be told I haven't read that in depth about all the accusations because it's hard to stomach, so perhaps that accounts for their findings.
I might have misread, but I thought there were multiple charges per victim. I thought there were only 13 victims. So they might have had lesser and greater charges under consideration for each victim, so he was convicted of *something* for each victim, and two charges for some of them.
Yes, 13 victims. But at this point I haven't seen anywhere what charges match each victim. So the scenario you lay out is entirely plausible, but so is the scenario where 4 charges from one victim were guilty and zero from another were.
Jesus, reading the list is absolutely appalling. And the most disturbing thing is that this isn't getting a ton of coverage! The young black males murdered by police is fucking horrific, but the media is covering it. This is barely being covered! I couldn't believe the reports that women's groups weren't in the courtroom.
It's so sad to see that black men are totally marginalized, but black women are barely seen as entities. So awful.
What got me on the buzzfeed article (besides the accounts of rape and sexual assault, of course) was how commonplace it was to be stopped by the cops and have your "name checked" when you were doing nothing wrong. That's illegal search and seizure, right? It was definitely enlightening as another piece to my privilege to realize this was an everyday thing for these women and it is very, very highly unlikely to happen to me.
Post by downtoearth on Dec 11, 2015 13:06:24 GMT -5
I am relieved that he had so many counts that he was found guilty on. I hope the victims and the women of this community don't have to be exposed to him or someone like him in a position of power ever again!