Tuesday, April 18, 2006

this is not an invitation to RAPE ME

(this is something i wrote for Democratic Underground that made it to the Greatest Page -- meaning, people liked it and voted 'it up." i'm totally honored that people connected with my idea here. i want to share this with my fellow JC folk because -- well -- maybe The Fuzzy Hole isn't getting enough respect. no, that's not it... i want to share this with you becausei KNOW you won't let me down. i know you guys will flame the hell out of me. that's what friends and family are for. :) --- brook oh, click on the link above to see the post with all the formatting and links -- i'm too lazy to re-do it.)

This is one ad in a series produced for the L.A. Commission Against Assault on Women. Lets take a moment to think about what this ad is saying, and honestly examine our attitudes regarding the Duke rape controversy.

This ad appeared in a 1997 issue of L├╝rzer's ARCHIVE -- a professional journal for advertising. I've used ARCHIVE as a creative tool for years, and every time I have flipped through this issue, I stop at this ad and think, "one day we will face this in the media and it's not going to be pretty."

That day has come.

There's five other concepts in the series, btw -- a homeless theme (this is not an invitation to rape me), a prostitute (this is not an invitation to rape me), a girl in a bathing suit (this is not an invitation to rape me), a phone number on a napkin (this is not an invitation to rape me), and a couple dancing. You get the picture. Don't make me scan them.

Since the indictments came down yesterday I've been pretty disappointed in the reaction and research skills of my DU colleagues. If screen names are any indication, the problem knows no gender bounds. We can't blame this on the boys. This is a very ambiguous controversy -- and one that pulls on every kind of heart string.

This issue is clouded by issues of race. Black accuser. White accused. Shades of Tawana Brawley. Don't laugh -- I've seen it said right here on DU. The controversy is clouded by our fascination with court cases. "Calling Judge Judy," might be clever forum repartee, but it minimizes the severity of the crime. Does Judge Judy try gang rape cases? I didn't think so. Some people are angry that Duke is "being dragged through the mud," and that "the whole lacrosse team has been convicted without a trial." This claim comes from the fact that the team has been reprimanded -- as if they were reprimanded for the rape. They were reprimanded for serial violations of code.

Without examining the merits of the case, we can examine the attitudes that polarizing progressives and democrats on the issue of violence against women.

Does it make a difference to you that the accuser is an exotic dancer?
Does it make a difference to you that she is black and the accused are white? How so?
Does it make a difference to you that she returned to finish the gig? Why might she have done that?
Do you think she has a motivation for reporting a crime? Or for not-reporting a crime?
Does it matter that she is economically less advantaged than the accused? Is she a gold-digger?
What about the DNA? Can there be a rape without a positive, one-to-one DNA match?
What about the power structure in Raleigh/Durham? How do the cards stack? Against accuser. Or accused?

How you answer these questions will partially unpack some of your beliefs about rape. It won't reveal all your beliefs, but it will start to crack the code. And remember... where there's absolute belief, there's little room for thought.

We don't have to "try this case" in the media -- but the media is EXACTLY where we look for a REFLECTION of ourselves. What are you seeing in the mirror?


Blogger bill said...

Damn it! Thats it!!!

We need more skin on this site!

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 10:26:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home