Skip to comments.1960's Michigan Coed: William Ayers 1965 Gang Rape [WARNING: GRAPHIC LANGUAGE]
Posted on 10/15/2008 7:30:59 AM PDT by KayEyeDoubleDeeEdited on 10/15/2008 7:49:56 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
click here to read article
With that kind of “common sense” we are all ruined. Never excuse such behavior.
“Character cannot be made except by a steady, long continued process.” ~ Phillips Brooks
You have to believe; not let them get you down and they will surely try.
Because we rule by law and not the mob.
Even a lion will sometimes purr! ;-)
Part of the problem is that a huge part of the voting public in the US doesn’t remember the Weather Underground or that time period. And we don’t teach kids that stuff.
She had to prove to him she wasn’t a bigot so he would let her leave.
First the media has not run this campaign. The people who run the media(not necessarily the media)have run this campaign.
I don’t find most of us here on FR uninformed. We know what’s going on. We need to fix it. And the only way to do that is to believe in your principles; etc. That’s where you start. Then you put it into practice.
When moral monsters try to justify rape and kidnapping and split hairs over it I will call them foul ugly names.
Yeah, right....she deserved it! /sarc
I have never been of a mind that men cannot understand something like rape, but I may just revise my opinion.
bump! ping! bump!
Rape ok with you?
” It means that she was a child of the sixties fraught with all of the conflicting messages that she received from her parents, her friends and the culture at large on issues of race and sex. “
In 1965 when this took place she was already 19 or 20 years old and a sophomore in college, I think that she was more a child of the fifties.
It is like WFB once wrote. Principles have sharp edges and they cut deeply.
That should smart.
Man, you are relentless. Please note that I was the first person on the thread to say that the situation described in the article was inarguably rape. And I have consistently held that position. So, no, rape is not ok with me.
But when someone raises the question of whether the victim in this case holds any responsibility or whether her actions involved a kind of tacit consent, I think that is a legitimate question. I completely disagree that she was responsible and have stated as much, but it remains a legitimate question.
I pray that your hostility on this issue is not based in personal experience which would be completely understandable. But the name calling diminishes your case.
But WFB was a master at intense, yet civil, discourse with erudition, humor, and courtesy—even toward those with whom he disagreed. He would not brook the ad hominem attack (though he might subtly sneak one in as a joke on his opponent.)
You are sliding down the slippery slope that I am condemning. Once she has been kidnapped and imprisoned, every subsequent action is under duress until she is free to walk out in the open air. I don't care whether Ayers "asked" pretty please with sugar on top. It is under duress.
_I_ certainly don’t want a terrorist sympathizer in the White House. _You_ don’t. But I think we all here have to face the reality that this issue simply isn’t catching fire with the voting public.
McCain needs to tell the people how destructive the Obamalama’s economic policies would be to them and their children’s futures. That is what resonates. Not this.
Two points. First Buckley could be viciously condemnatory of those over whom he took moral umbrage. Go read him extensively.
Second you are misusing the term ad hominem. An ad hominem attack is a rhetorical fallacy defined as substiting name calling for argument on the substance of the issue.
But I am not arguing the substance of this issue, whether Ayers is guilt of rape, false imprisonmnet and kidnapping, according the stated facts. That is clear cut, if the facts are as stated. Furthermore, Ayers is under no legal jeopardy at this point on these facts.
Instead I am arguing that those who forward an arguement that maybe Ayers is innocent because the author was complicit are moral monsters. That is a substantive issue and not an ad hominem even though it is an argument directed against those who would let Ayers out of the vicegrip of what I hope is our collective moral code.
So how many times do I have to repeat this? I agree it was rape. I agree it was under duress. And I have even stated that the episode is only one of many reason that Bill Ayers deserves to (at the very least) spend the rest of his life in prison. The slope I am on ain’t slippery.
But in the words of that most eminent of philosophers, Archie Bunker, “Whatever.”
Correct - he is almost certainly a psychopath according to his actions on many fronts.
Should have been a medical record of this....I wonder if it can be produced.
We are arguing whether it is an ad hominem attack to call moral monsters those who suggest that she was complicit.
Character issues like close pal terrorist bomber Ayers, personal Reverend of Hate Wright, favored club vote and grant fraudster Acorn, bribe giver Rezko-the-Syrian, the Obama-supporting corrupt Chicago machine etc etc are all getting out there, getting repeated, gaining steam.
Character is the issue.
If he were that reprehensible, someone would have no problem disregarding the law.
The statement that Ayers is a terrorist because he set of bombs is not an ad hominem. It is merely definitional.
The claim that a journalist who argues to let Ayers off the hook is a moral monster is not an ad hominem. It is not directed to the substance of whether or not Ayers is a terrorist, but rather at the moral fiber of the journalist trying to justify terrorists and terrorism. Substitute one crime for another and a freeper for the journalist and you have the same argument.
Your problem is that you crawled down into the gutter with your friends and now don’t like it pointed out that your clothing is bespattered.
“Judging from her choice of friends in 1965, I’d say she was still a child in the sixties.”
Her “friends” were even older, and were like her, children of the fifties.
“... were among the worst with respect to the treatment of women.”
As were the Black Panthers.
You’d be surprised how:
Sometimes a foot in a mans nuts helps to clear his head.
I agree with that, and I like to think I would do that, but as a 19 year old I’m not sure I would have had the courage I have as an old lady (and of course, I’m smart enough not to put myself in that position now either).
But, I think that it must be difficult for men to really grasp how one who is weaker and smaller can be intimidated just by the allusion of force. Even now, I don’t know what I would do in a situation where I could do what someone told me, or risk real physical injury or death. I mean, it’s very easy from the comfort of my computer chair to say, “Yeah, I would fight back” but I cannot second guess someone who is in that actual position.
The totality of the situation could lead to rape and kidnapping charges. If the DA got tough with his brother, his brother would have been forced to offer testimony about the coercion. Testimony that a credible threat was made regarding leaving the room is sufficient grounds for charging one or both people. In the 1960s climate, this incident would never have been prosecuted. In today’s climate, it would be prosecuted if the woman was credible and insisted on prosecution.
When Fred Hampton was killed, the Black Panthers wanted the SDS to make posters, but the SDS was broke. OK, that's a good reason if you're not a radical thug, but...
So the Black Panthers wailed on Ayers and his buds. Ayers rationalized it as he had it coming due to his having benefited from “white privilege”.
Remember another "Perpetrator"???
"Just put some ice on it"!!!
That bothered me. What does she mean "At this point"? Did she sleep with him again later?
Yes, she was raped. No, she didn't practice due diligence to protect herself.
We can thank Ayers’ rehabilitation on his wealthy father. Were Ayers the son of the middle class, I can assure you he would have done hard time and would be a pariah.
It happened a lot in the civil rights days with the Freedom Riders, etc. Young black males quickly realized that guilt trips worked on young white females, particularly the Jewish ones. They were easy...
That’s fine. Point is, she consented.
That's fine, and it was also my point. She didn't kick, scream, yell, and by her own account she wasn't hit at all. And she laid down for the brother, who had enough decency to not take his turn. She consented because she didn't want to be called a bigot.
We are in agreement. You ever see “Fritz the Cat”? Captures this whole phenomenon very well.
The treatment they got when they WERE pretty and naive is what made them that way.
This was from forty years ago. Leftist chicks will charge you with sexual harassment in the blink of an eye.