I hear that Boston is playing LA in the Men's NBA finals. It is the third year in a row that the Lakers have made it to the finals, and they won last year after defeating the Denver Nuggets. There are a lot of Lakers haters out there, but I'm not simply hopping on the bandwagon. You see, I don't exactly hate the Lakers per se. I really despise Kobe Bryant. So I'm not so much cheering against the Lakers (and no, I don't care that they used to be the Minneapolis Lakers) as I am cheering against Bryant.
I'm getting ahead of myself. I've blogged about this stuff before: celebrities and violence against women. It is so fucked up, the way that celebrities get away with assault, sexual harassment, rape, and even the murder of women. Sure, these accusations are simply allegations. Innocent until proven guilty, right? I'm not so sure. We as a society let them off easy. And maybe you think that this is the way that it should be- after all, they're innocent, right? Let me tell you why I'm such a skeptic and why I dislike Bryant and what he represents.
In 2003, Kobe Bryant flirted with a female employee at a Vail resort. She went to his room, they kissed, then he allegedly raped her. She claims the kiss was consensual; the sex was not. In the end, the charges were dropped because the victim refused to testify.
Rape is severely underreported, and well, it's not difficult to see why. At rape trials, it is not the defendant's behavior that is on trial. It is the victim's. Rape accusations are so suspect that it is up to the victim to prove that the sex was not consensual. The cross examination is so grueling that trial's have been called "the second rape." When it comes to rape, it is actually the victim who must defend her behavior- did she fight back?, did she really say no?, what was she wearing?, what was she doing in his room so late at night? And so on. The question should not be "well, what did she expect to happen?" but "why did Bryant think he was entitled to sex?" A kiss is not a contract, and neither is a late night visit to a hotel room. If she says no, it's rape. Women are allowed to say no, even after consenting to a kiss.
I know that I'm not being fair to Bryant (I say this as if he really gives a shit). After all, these things happen all the time. Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger faced sexual assault allegations (he was suspended and ordered to undergo behavioral evaluations). Jets quarterback Mark Sanchez was accused of sexually assaulting a woman while he was at the University of Southern California. And former New York Giants linebacker and Hall of Famer Lawrence Taylor was recently arrested for the rape of a 16 year old girl. Just do you don't think I'm just picking on football and basketball, here are some others: Boxers have been convicted of rape (Mike Tyson), baseball players have been acquitted of sexual assault charges (former Minnesota Twins legend Kirby Puckett- yes, it stings a little to write about that), and lacrosse players have been accused of rape (see Duke men's lacrosse players). Most recently, a University of Virginia men's lacrosse player has been charged with the first-degree murder of a UVA women's lacrosse player.
Any of these cases- rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment- rarely go to trial. (oh, and I would bet you that rape charges get reduced to sexual assault charges) Keep in mind that just because these cases don't go to trial doesn't mean that these athletes are innocent. It doesn't mean that what these women say happened didn't really happen. There is a difference between dropped charges and innocence. Yet, this is what we forget as we cheer on and continue to revere our favorite athletes. But I repeat, just because charges get dropped does not mean that they are innocent. Perhaps it means that women, like the one that accused Bryant of rape, don't want to testify and be victimized again and slandered by the press and society at large. Perhaps it means that these women fear that they don't stand a chance against these metaphorical Goliaths. I'm sure that there are many more reasons. I don't know why charges get dropped and these cases never go to trial. However, dropped charges should never be conflated with innocence.
There is a link between sports, particularly team sports, and violence against women. It has to do with masculinity, power, violence, control, and conquering an opponent. Women are something to be used, something to be conquered. Women are the opponent, and men must prove their masculinity (just like they should on the playing field) and do so. Otherwise, they are not "real" men. This link should come as no surprise. After all, violence against women is about male dominance, power, and control. Athletes aren't the only ones who commit violent acts against women, but they may be more likely to do so given the violent nature of their sport (some sports more than others, of course).
These athletes get to go about their lives as if nothing has happened. Yet, these women are scarred, maybe for life. You may think that these men should be able to go on with their lives. After all, you may argue that we should judge them solely by their athletic ability, not their personal character. We should care about their ability to shoot a basketball in the hoop or hit a homerun. I disagree. These athletes are role models. They are household names. Kids- boys- look up to them. What kind of message does it send when we revere athletes despite the charges against them? Despite the convictions or acquittals? What does it say about a society that continues to admire athletes that have faced accusations of hurting, disrespecting, even hating women?
I'm getting ahead of myself. I've blogged about this stuff before: celebrities and violence against women. It is so fucked up, the way that celebrities get away with assault, sexual harassment, rape, and even the murder of women. Sure, these accusations are simply allegations. Innocent until proven guilty, right? I'm not so sure. We as a society let them off easy. And maybe you think that this is the way that it should be- after all, they're innocent, right? Let me tell you why I'm such a skeptic and why I dislike Bryant and what he represents.
In 2003, Kobe Bryant flirted with a female employee at a Vail resort. She went to his room, they kissed, then he allegedly raped her. She claims the kiss was consensual; the sex was not. In the end, the charges were dropped because the victim refused to testify.
Rape is severely underreported, and well, it's not difficult to see why. At rape trials, it is not the defendant's behavior that is on trial. It is the victim's. Rape accusations are so suspect that it is up to the victim to prove that the sex was not consensual. The cross examination is so grueling that trial's have been called "the second rape." When it comes to rape, it is actually the victim who must defend her behavior- did she fight back?, did she really say no?, what was she wearing?, what was she doing in his room so late at night? And so on. The question should not be "well, what did she expect to happen?" but "why did Bryant think he was entitled to sex?" A kiss is not a contract, and neither is a late night visit to a hotel room. If she says no, it's rape. Women are allowed to say no, even after consenting to a kiss.
I know that I'm not being fair to Bryant (I say this as if he really gives a shit). After all, these things happen all the time. Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger faced sexual assault allegations (he was suspended and ordered to undergo behavioral evaluations). Jets quarterback Mark Sanchez was accused of sexually assaulting a woman while he was at the University of Southern California. And former New York Giants linebacker and Hall of Famer Lawrence Taylor was recently arrested for the rape of a 16 year old girl. Just do you don't think I'm just picking on football and basketball, here are some others: Boxers have been convicted of rape (Mike Tyson), baseball players have been acquitted of sexual assault charges (former Minnesota Twins legend Kirby Puckett- yes, it stings a little to write about that), and lacrosse players have been accused of rape (see Duke men's lacrosse players). Most recently, a University of Virginia men's lacrosse player has been charged with the first-degree murder of a UVA women's lacrosse player.
Any of these cases- rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment- rarely go to trial. (oh, and I would bet you that rape charges get reduced to sexual assault charges) Keep in mind that just because these cases don't go to trial doesn't mean that these athletes are innocent. It doesn't mean that what these women say happened didn't really happen. There is a difference between dropped charges and innocence. Yet, this is what we forget as we cheer on and continue to revere our favorite athletes. But I repeat, just because charges get dropped does not mean that they are innocent. Perhaps it means that women, like the one that accused Bryant of rape, don't want to testify and be victimized again and slandered by the press and society at large. Perhaps it means that these women fear that they don't stand a chance against these metaphorical Goliaths. I'm sure that there are many more reasons. I don't know why charges get dropped and these cases never go to trial. However, dropped charges should never be conflated with innocence.
There is a link between sports, particularly team sports, and violence against women. It has to do with masculinity, power, violence, control, and conquering an opponent. Women are something to be used, something to be conquered. Women are the opponent, and men must prove their masculinity (just like they should on the playing field) and do so. Otherwise, they are not "real" men. This link should come as no surprise. After all, violence against women is about male dominance, power, and control. Athletes aren't the only ones who commit violent acts against women, but they may be more likely to do so given the violent nature of their sport (some sports more than others, of course).
These athletes get to go about their lives as if nothing has happened. Yet, these women are scarred, maybe for life. You may think that these men should be able to go on with their lives. After all, you may argue that we should judge them solely by their athletic ability, not their personal character. We should care about their ability to shoot a basketball in the hoop or hit a homerun. I disagree. These athletes are role models. They are household names. Kids- boys- look up to them. What kind of message does it send when we revere athletes despite the charges against them? Despite the convictions or acquittals? What does it say about a society that continues to admire athletes that have faced accusations of hurting, disrespecting, even hating women?
No comments:
Post a Comment