What’s this? Two athletic-oriented Harpyness posts in one day? Strange but true. To pick up where PhDork just left off, I bring you a charmingly old-fashioned misogynist column in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Thanks to our lovely reader who sent us the tip, which was quite enough to bring on a midweek migraine. The columnist, Ed Blazina, is concerned about allegations of rape that are made against professional athletes, especially on the heels of a woman accusing Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger of sexual assault. Blazina worries that the dudely dudes of the NFL and other pro sports organizations are all just sitting ducks for the nefarious machinations of women who have nothing better to do than lie about being sexually assaulted so they can grab money and attention.
Look, nobody is pretending that false rape allegations are never made. But Blazina seems to think that is the only issue here. He obviously doesn’t care about those athletes who have committed sexual assault (to say nothing of the women who were rape victims), because it’s a hell of a lot easier for him to stand on a soapbox and rail about the poor athletes who are accused of rape “Because they are high-profile performers, lightning rods who face temptations and risks when they interact with the public” — not, apparently, because they actually commit the crime. Blazina notes that “In many cases . . . incidents involve athletes on the road in hotels”, and includes a list of athletes accused of committing rape in hotel rooms, including Mike Tyson, who was actually convicted. Question: if you’re dedicating your column to proving that athletes are vulnerable to false accusations, why include Tyson to completely undermine your argument? Not only is the column offensive, it’s nonsensical.
Even the column’s title is enough to cause teeth-gnashing: “Athletes Susceptible to Sexual Allegations”. My guess is that Blazina will never write a corresponding column entitled “Women Susceptible to Sexual Assault and Objectification By Men, Athletes or Otherwise”. He quotes former football player Ralph Cindrich as saying “Unless a guy is going to be a monk, he’s going to go out and get involved with women. You never know what might happen. . . . Any time you are going to a golf event and you’re with a bunch of guys in a hotel, you’re open to something like this.” Congratulations, Mr. Blazina and Mr. Cindrich, you’ve accomplished a brilliant employment of a red herring. Blazina cites several cases that ended in criminal acquittals (think Kobe Bryant) or died before reaching court, conveniently ignoring that acquittals do not always equal innocence, just as convictions do not always equal guilt.
A December 2003 study by USA TODAY showed the difficulty in winning a criminal sexual misconduct case against an athlete. The newspaper found that in allegations involving 164 athletes during the previous 12 years, 22 cases went to trial and six resulted in convictions. Another 46 cases resulted in a guilty plea to a reduced charge.
Maybe, Mr. Blazina, there can be difficulty in winning these cases because we live in a culture that worships these men and, y’know, boys will be boys, men will be men, and women should know better than to be alone with these dudes. Or they have to be after money and attention. Or they’re bitter.
The column includes another quote from Cindrich, who says that “It’s an allegation that really only involves two people. Who else really knows?” Well, Ed Blazina thinks he knows! He wants women to stop victimizing the dudes of the sports world, these poor men who have left themselves vulnerable so that the women will end up pouncing. Really, this is not about the isolated Roethlisberger allegations as much as it is about the widespread belief that women who accuse famous men of sexual assault either got what they asked for or are just lying. Talk about dudely privilege.
Why is it that when a woman makes an allegation of rape, she’s told “Well, if you wouldn’t have been drinking/flirting/wearing a short skirt/somewhere other than your home/hanging out at a bar/talking to a man you just met, you wouldn’t have been assaulted”, but no one thinks to warn these athletes that if they don’t want to be accused of rape, they might want to avoid the limelight/flashing their wealth/flirting/drinking/hooking up with women they just met?
@Awkward Avenger: Why is it that when a woman makes an allegation of rape, she’s told “Well, if you wouldn’t have been drinking/flirting/wearing a short skirt/somewhere other than your home/hanging out at a bar/talking to a man you just met, you wouldn’t have been assaulted”
Because it seems like few people will admit that women are straight-up attacked without doing anything to invite it, especially when the perpetrators are “special” enough to be famous.
This makes me think of the comments made in the aftermath of Steve McNair’s death about his paramour “not following the rules.” You know, the rule that you can bang as many sports stars as you want as long as you don’t interfere with their real lives. Alleging rape, whether it happened or not, isn’t part of the “rules.” And you should’ve known the rules, since you were hanging out in the same vicinity as a famous athlete. Your presence in the same bar is consent enough.
That sidebar is spectacularly horrible. Athletes don’t really rape. But when they do it’s not their fault; after all they ARE athletes!
My husband, normally a rock-solid feminist, and I had a heated discussion about these allegations last night. He is convinced that the fact that the accuser didn’t go directly to the police supports the presumption that she’s a liar who’s trying to get a big check. I could not get him to understand all the reasons why a woman in her situation would fear doing that-her bosses shut her down when she told them what happened, she was afraid of losing her job, she may have feared putting herself into the hands of a bureaucracy which is notoriously unsympathetic to rape victims (“but they have women to handle this now”-sure, in every department, 24/7).
But the column you cite is the biggest reason of all. Male athletes are among the most privileged in our society. From the time they show special talent, they are coddled, protected and idolized. They can blow off classes, bully people, cheat, lie, break laws and violate women in every way as long as they produce for the fans. Bringing a rape charge against a pro athlete is a sure way to bring hatred and vilification on yourself. I don’t know if these particular charges are true, but I have no doubt at all that for every one woman who comes forward, there are many, many more who keep their rapes and beatings to themselves.
This is why I gave up paying to attend sports events years ago. I confess to watching sports on tv, but they’ll never get a dime of my money.
I see the women on this board just cannot let go of the word EPIC. You know to me Feminism was about releasing ourselves from labels, yet I see young feminists today embracing them as never before. The power to name the unnamed to me has kindof backfired, now some of us wallow in names that are attached to our backs. I guess EPIC dims as age encroaches, and I don’t mean to offend, when I was in my 20s like those posting here I thought every battle was epic too.
Margaret? Do you see the “Missing the Fucking Point” category under the title of this post? That wasn’t originally directed at you, but I think you need to see it in print.
Is this post about the use of language? Is this post about labels or naming? Is this post even about assessing the contemporary state of feminism? No, no, and NO. This post is about how dominant cultural paradigms revere male sports figures despite rape accusations levelled against them.
You’ve weighed in on your opinion of the contemporary usage of “epic” before. We heard you then, although we wondered what the hell that had to do with anything. And then we realized: nothing. It had to do with nothing, other than your need to wave your little “look at me” flag. And it still doesn’t. If you don’t like our use of a contemporary idiom…well, there’s a giant–one might say EPIC–blogosphere out there for you to read.
Whether you misinterpret posts willfully or out of ignorance I can’t say, but I’ve re-read through your commenting history and noted it happening frequently enough that I feel comfortable informing you that your distractions are unnecessary and unwanted. If you want to productively contribute to the conversation already under way, feel free. If you want to derail, nitpick, or just talk about whatever you feel like talking about, you’re going to find yourself banned.
I am late, but–
Awkward Avenger–Now you are going to be expecting men to use condoms to prevent pregnancy even though they don’t feel as good. You and your darn logic!
Also, SoaLG, if you sent this as a letter to the editor of the paper, I would be thrilled. It’s not a huge publication like the NYT, and I think they could use a kick in the butt now and then that they don’t generally get.
[...] here at Harpyness have been down on professional athletes recently. And no wonder; our judicial system–financed by our tax dollars, I should point [...]