Whoa, Back-the-f*ck-up, Amy Dickinson.
Amy Dickinson is an advice columnist for the Chicago Tribune. She is often on NPR, too. I used to think she was okay. Until she informed a woman who had been raped that she was “a victim of [her] own awful judgment.”
*insert needle scratch across record*
You can read the article here. Basically, a girl writes to Amy and relays a story about going to a frat party, getting intoxicated and being in a room alone with a boy. She told him no, she did not want to have sex. At some point, she realizes that he has gone against her wishes but she has a delayed reaction due to the alcohol. They are then interrupted and must leave the room. She asks Amy: “I guess my question is, if I wasn’t kicking and fighting him off, is it still rape?”
What is so massively offensive about Amy’s response is that she does not say, definitively, “YES.”
Instead, she says that the woman is a victim of her own bad judgment. Then she warns against “getting drunk at a frat house” as it may result in “unwise or unwanted sexual contact.” The problem here is that her logic reads like this: “You got drunk at a frat party. Don’t you know that getting drunk like that often leads to unwanted sexual contact?”
Amy seems to have forgotten that there is no rape without a rapist. She completely skipped over that little tidbit.
You don’t just get drunk and suddenly there’s some unwanted sexual contact. There’s another party involved who is doing the unwanted sexual contact. Perhaps Amy meant to say: if you get drunk at a frat house, your chances of unwanted sexual contact increases because rapists are more likely to target you. But she just leaves it at “drunk at frat house = unwanted sexual contact.” That’s unacceptable because while it may be a woman’s choice to get drunk at a frat house, that doesn’t mean she is consenting to unwanted sexual contact.
You know why rape happens, Amy? Because there are rapists. Not because someone got drunk.
I won’t be purchasing another Tribune or contributing to NPR while this woman still works for them or is associated with them.
Disgusted in Chicago,
RandomEsq.
p.s. Please pass this on to your readers and encourage their voice be heard on the Tribune’s website. I have left my comments there, as well.
Share This
Just a random attorney writing about daily life with Little Filthy, my rotten dog.
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:47 am
Respectfully, I think your analysis is too one sided. Frat house? Beer?
Without being in the room that night, it is impossible to say with certainty that the boy was adequately notified. This bothers me personally because I have made some horrible decisions while intoxicated in college and I agree, I put myself in some bad situations and it was mostly my fault.
The victim doesn’t know what she did while blacked out, she could have been encouraging him. No-one will ever know the real truth. I think the article is painfully truthful. Unless you have experienced an alcohol induced black out, you can not understand this. The victim needs to be aware and needs to blame herself a little bit so she won’t do it again! Once you black out you are more susceptible to doing it again and again.
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:58 am
What a bitch. Thanks for posting this.
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:00 am
Anon – She doesn’t say she was blacked out – just that her reactions were delayed, I believe.
When you say, “without being in the room that night, it is impossible to say with certainty that the boy was adequately notified.”
You are a law student, no? What you’re doing here is changing the hypothetical. The situation posed includes the girl saying “no” and informing the boy of that. So you can not justify Amy’s response by changing the hypothetical to “maybe she encouraged him.”
The response Amy gave was to the set of facts as presented which we will assume are true. In which case, I stand by my response.
If the situation were different, as you have described, then my answer may change – but my reaction was to the situation as presented as true because I don’t think Amy wanted to respond to this girl and say, “Are you sure you didn’t encourage him a little? You were drunk. Maybe you don’t remember doing it.” Can you imagine a raped woman in the emergency room speaking to police and someone saying that to her?
And I disagree that one must experience an alcohol induced black out to understand “this” – partly because I’m not entirely sure what the ‘this’ is referring to.
I *fully* agree that it is *not* necessarily wise for a woman to go get drunk at frat parties – which is why I said that perhaps what Amy meant was: “if you get drunk at a frat house, your chances of unwanted sexual contact increases because rapists are more likely to target you.”
But I fully disagree with how she answered this woman’s question and how her response completely skipped over the fact that someone must be willing to take advantage of a drunk girl before she gets taken advantage of.
I appreciate you taking time to write a response – I find it’s always best to flesh out the arguments to fine tune the points. Please do not hesitate to disagree; a respectful dialogue is always welcome here.
-R.
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:35 am
Ugh. Not cool. So not cool.
Your response to this awful Amy woman is spot on.
Sure, women can safeguard themselves against increasing the risk of a sexual attack/rape but it is not her fault if some opportunist scumbag takes advantage.
So many women live with guilt and shame because they’ve been told by society that an assault was their fault and this woman is perpetuating it. What I don’t understand is women failing other women like this.
Grrr. Good on you for writing this post.
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:23 am
Not that I read advice columnists anyway – I can screw up my life on my own just fine, thanks – but I read one of Amy Dickinson’s first columns and vowed to never read her again. Her advice wasn’t bad, per se, but her tone was snippy and snide.
And having worked for an advice columnist many years previous, having read some of the heartwrenching tales that came across his desk, I thought, “Screw you, lady. Do you understand how confused a person must be to write to a stranger at a newspaper to ask for help?” I do not understand why she’s lasted so long.
I’ll post links to your post, and send a note to a few of the folks I still know in the Tower.
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:07 am
That’s rape. Anyone who says that unwanted sexual contact (which was not consented to) is a fool. Sex required consent. No consent= rape. Simple.
I’ll visit the site and comment. Thank for the heads-up.
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:13 am
http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/
Check out this great post on “Grey Rape,” BTW. Really interesting info. People who rape tend to make a habit of it. It isn’t just “boys being boys” and there is no excuse for it.
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:50 am
@Anon – I re-read your comment and noticed this once more: “it is impossible to say with certainty that the boy was adequately notified.”
What is adequate? What if she had been completely passed out drunk and unconscious and then he had sex with her because she did not give him any indication at all that she did not want to have sex with him? What’s crucial here is her consent, not her adequate relaying of the answer “no”.
-R.
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:11 am
“What’s crucial here is her consent, not her adequate relaying of the answer “no”.”
Bravo Cookie.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:47 am
RE- I love how passionate you are about certain issues. You make me smile.
2nd, I also re-read anon’s comment and was confused by the fact that it mentions that she was blacked out drunk and this boy decided that it was ok to have sex with her. If she is blacked out, I am guessing she didn’t say no, or anything else for that matter.
A rapist is a rapist is a rapist. *period*
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:47 am
Great post RE. Nothing gets me more riled up thant the “blame the victim” approach. I’ve been working on a post about this very thing for a while because not only does this happen with rape but in many other situations where someone has been TARGETED by someone else and has been victimized in some way i.e.; abused, taken advantage of, robbed, etc. and not neccesarily in ways that are a CRIME. Sure there are things that can make a person more susceptable to being a vicitm but a victim never ASKS or WANTS to be taken advantage of and they do not ATTRACT perpetrators; they are exploited by them. Without the perpetrator there would not BE a victim!
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Amy would not be so snide if she were in the victim’s shoes. That’s all I have to say about that.
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:41 pm
First, thank you for being respectful. It took a lot of nerve for me, a law student to try and point something out to you, an attorney. I was expecting a lashing
clearly you have a better eye for leaps in logic. Yes, I did add facts out of personal experience which is wrong and I also based my opinion on your post alone. I confess I just read the actual article right now and again I think you took her wrong.
This is what you said: “What is so massively offensive about Amy’s response is that she does not say, definitively, “YES.”
And this is what the article says:
“No matter what — no means no. If you say no beforehand, then the sex shouldn’t happen. If you say no while its happening, then the sex should stop.”
I think that is definitely yes.
My previous comment is based on my experience with girls, binge drinking, blacking out and most importantly regret. It’s easier for a girl to live with herself and deal with the shame of putting herself in a bad situation by inventing another cause—date rape. I do appreciate your great respect, passion and empathy for women and rape. I am not a monster just a little jaded.
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Anon – Pfft! I’m sure you could point out 10 things of mine that are clear examples of a complete lack of logic. I’m not at all caught up in who someone is and if that validates their opinion – by all means, I’m glad you spoke up! Because I think you bring up a valid point that I’ll raise at the bottom of my comment.
I do see what you’re saying about Amy’s statement (”No matter what — no means no. If you say no beforehand, then the sex shouldn’t happen. If you say no while its happening, then the sex should stop.”) I think what struck me and bothered me is that it read to me like this:
Q: “Someone had sex with me after I said ‘no’. Was I raped?”
A: “Here is the definition of rape.”
I think what this woman needed to know was that the answer to her question is “YES” – and I didn’t like how Amy didn’t give that straight answer.
I think you’re good and right to bring up a point that I think Amy was trying to make – albeit poorly. The issue, I think, is this:
“Does a woman who drinks to the point of impaired judgment in a situation in which a reasonable person should know that that impaired judgment may lead to being the target of unwanted sexual contact or rape – does that women bear any responsibility for said unwanted sexual contact or rape?”
I think you and Amy and I actually agree on that answer but the confusion comes about because there is a very big distinction that no one is pointing out.
Obviously, a woman drinking does not cause rape in and of itself. We all know that in order for the rape to occur, there needs to be a rapist.
So, what’s the subtle difference here? It is this:
If you drink to the point of impairment, the result is a situation in which you have greatly increased the chances that you will be victimized through unwanted sexual touching/rape.
So, no, it doesn’t cause rape. But it may vastly increase the chances. And so the point I think Amy is making is, “Don’t *do* that! Drinking increases the chances that someone will victimize you. Don’t do that to yourself.” I think the frustration you feel is the very same that many of us feel when you see someone do something that puts them at great risk.
I think the frustration is with people who knowingly put themselves at great risk of something bad happening and then, when that bad thing happens, seem to be throwing up their hands and saying, “This is entirely not my fault!”
So what’s the difference here?
I think the difference is that the key ingredient to the bad thing happening is someone is willing to rape another person.
The final ingredient and the only necessary one for this scenario is that – someone willing to have sex with someone else despite being told no. And so I think what I and so many of those upset people are saying is, “Why are you seemingly blaming her for being raped by first pointing out to her that she increased her odds of it happening?”
So then the Question and Amy’s response looks like this:
Q: “I got drunk and impaired and told a boy that no, I did not want to have sex with him but he proceeded to have sex with my anyway. Was I raped?”
A: “You increased your odds of rape yourself. Here’s the definition of rape.”
It sure looks like she’s blaming the woman. Even though people aren’t seeing it in such naked terms, their gut understands that that was what happened.
So, in the end, I hope that all Amy is guilty of is incredibly sloppy expression. You have made a good and valid point and I think both of our responses are correct and not mutually exclusive. Thank you again for writing – and my apologies for the pedantic response!
-R.
December 4th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
I agree with you and that no means no. That rape can’t happen with out rapist. Yes girls can do things to protect our selves but sometimes rape still happens what about those women Amy is it there fault? Can I repost this on my blog?
December 4th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
@Bobbi – Of course!