[CN: sexual assault, domestic violence]
A thoughtful and well-executed response to Amanda Marcotte’s Slate piece, by Angus Johnston, was published today. My open letter is mentioned in it and as such, I was notified when the article went up. I’d been keeping an eye on Twitter for reaction and came across Marcotte’s back and forth with Johnston. I was immediately disappointed and frustrated. Statements like this one tell me she is missing many points her critics have made:
@studentactivism But it’s simply not true that I advocated for a broad policy. I didn’t. I won’t. You can’t make me.— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte)
Marcotte claims she didn’t advocate for “broad policy,” something I’ve seen her tweet once or twice this week (to the small handful of criticisms she actually replied to). I’m not sure how Marcotte defines “broad policy,” but a few key points from her Slate article would easily lead someone to believe she is promoting, something at the very least near to, broad policy. Never once does she clarify “not in all cases” or “this may work only for certain circumstances,” but rather alludes to abusers and rapists who will attack again when victims don’t testify. A tough-love attitude throughout, Marcotte never states this is something she feels should not be available or used in all cases. Without clarification, one would inference she is okay with such a policy whenever the law deems necessary. What an awful idea! This not only puts the blame on the victim, but also promotes the idea that if we report and if we testify, that justice will be served; not to mention the false notion that our doing so will prevent an attacker from ever assaulting another person.
In her Slate piece, Marcotte states, “The victim’s refusal to cooperate is a problem endemic to the prosecution of domestic violence.” I cannot stomach victim-blaming, in whatever form and whoever the messenger is. (more…)