Men. MEN. Self centered. Idiotic. Entitled. Think everything in the world is for them to use and abuse. So sick of it.
I can feel that Iâm going to get shot down here for deploying ânot all menâ, but honestly, the fatherâs letter above made me feel sick to my stomach, quite literally; and I do think itâs an unhelpful over-generalisation to put this down to âmenâ as opposed to something more specific.
But this is also a selection bias for the worst of people. Most parents do not do this scorched earth defense of their children. Thatâs why these cases are notable.
Well yes, it makes no difference in the sense that, either way, you finish the paragraph thinking âassholeâ.
But I think one (dubious) reading paints him as a one-dimensional moustache-twirler, while the other is a bit subtler and can be learned from.
Itâs not news that a convictâs parent would say âmy son deserves leniency because heâs a good person deep downâ. Whatâs striking is why he claims his son is so virtuous: namely, that he enjoys steak and having a good time. In other words, he must be a good person because heâs had a nice life. Itâs rare to see it made so explicit, but this âgolden childâ theory is one of our societyâs unstated core valuesâ to have privilege is to deserve privilegeâ and hereâs a chance to take a hard look at what that belief means.
All I can say is there is a low standard for men.
Switch men for people and youâre closer.
So how does a closer look change assumptions, end result, and dialogue?
Iâm curious what insight you find there applicable elsewhere.
Sticking with men.
Setting aside the semantic discussion about what he meant by âactionâ, letâs consider the actual argument he is making - that his sonâs 20 years of not-raping offset his 20 minutes of raping.
â0.0038% of his life spent raping? Heck, thatâs a rounding error!â
Let the punishment fit the crime. Solicit volunteers to subject the fella to â20 minutes of actionâ. If his father feels thatâs too steep, offer to let him substitute for half the allotted time.
What makes you say heâs âextremely unlikely to reoffend?â Thereâs no evidence of that, and some evidence that heâs from an environment that doesnât think rape is that serious.
Also, thereâs a third justification for punishment: deterrence. This judge has essentially decreed that rape is much less bad than marijuana use. Thatâs. . . problematic.
Must be nice to be able to use such simple logic.
I appreciate the sentiment, but it is not at all clear that the parents of the victim are in any way beholden to the malevolent fuck that fathered the rapist. They do not owe him their perspective, they do not owe him their emotional labor.
Must be nice to ignore the stats. I suppose mass shooting perpetrators in the USA arenât raced white in your world either.
Thanks for missing the point.
Ha ha because rape is good whe itâs against people you donât like!
Good job at legitimizing rape as a tool of the justice system.
Exactly. Itâs the utter tone-deafness and insensitivity that are causing the outrage, because they reveal what sort of upbringing the young man has had.
There are ways to defend someone in a case like this. You could say, âMy son committed a dreadful act in a moment of weakness which is totally out of character. He and our family are deeply remorseful. Our apologies go to the young woman he harmedâŚâ and on and on. Weâve all seen such statements. Instead, he doesnât even mention the victim, but talks about how poor Brock is totally off his feed, but willing to lecture other students on the perils of putting themselves in a position where Brock could rape them. The question of Brock expressing remorse doesnât come up.
Brockâs new vocation will apparently allow society to âbreak the cycle of binge drinking and its unfortunate results.â
How does that work? Binge drink. Get raped. Binge drink. Get raped. Because I donât think thatâs how it works.
Too fucking low and as long as men donât hold men to higher standards, itâs not going to get any better.
Not so sure I missed it, but happy to try and understand.
As sickening as the â20 minutes of actionâ quote is, what about this: â[he is] committed to educating other college age students about the dangers of alcohol consumption and sexual promiscuityâ. Talk about missing the whole point of, well, everything. The dangers of alcohol consumption? Sexual promiscuity? Neither alcohol consumption or sexual promiscuity are necessarily bad things in of themselves. To focus on this is just missing the entire point at the most fundamental level.
As many times as I have read this, I just canât give a single solitary fuck about the plight of the defendant here.