Junior history major
Last week, Jillian Santos responded to my column about rape culture, as she did with one of my earliest columns against feminism late last year. As expected, she proceeded to straw-man what I said. I’ve no intention of changing her mind, either, but to attack the toxic misandry spewed frequently under the guise of a perverted form of “justice.” My column wasn’t meant to pander to political correctness, and everyone has a right to be upset by it, but straw-manning me leads nowhere.
To begin, I never claimed that simply relying on the justice system would be “dandy.” I said the fraternity members mentioned in the University of Virginia Rolling Stone article deserved to be tried by a jury of their peers, not by a mob of people or a cheap magazine desperate for a rape story. Whether you like my opinion or not, nobody has any duty to believe victims, but that does not imply hostility toward them. I believe in evidence, and there seems little of it besides Jackie’s own testimony and some prior history — to an extent. Having post-traumatic stress disorder and being depressed are not the same as being raped. And as for the argument of “perfect recollection goes both ways,” it’s pretty fair to be skeptical of what a traumatized person has said due to the nature of trauma itself (selective memory), and that also is not a sign of hostility toward the victim — it’s healthy skepticism.
I’m pretty sure I never claimed that victims should not be helped to deal with what has happened; what I refuse to support is the trampling of someone’s rights or destruction of one’s reputation simply because feminists feel as though that’s the way it should be. No matter the crime, investigations must follow legal protocol, and the accused must be given a fair trial. If people are still too deep in their feminist paranoia about a crowd of rapists on the loose under every rock and waiting for us around every corner, then maybe they should look up the Duke lacrosse case (which does not appear anywhere in Santos’ rebuttal, conveniently enough) as well as the story of Brian Banks, who did time in prison for a rape that did not occur. Tell me, are they examples of the ominous “rape culture?”
In one of the closing paragraphs of the rebuttal, Santos states that opinions like mine “will not go unchallenged.” Well, good for you. Challenging an opinion that is not popular and not in control of this college is not an achievement; that’s just standard procedure. There are no signs begging women to “walk in his shoes,” and men’s rights activists do not have much influence outside of the manosphere, so replying to me is hardly an epic deed. Keep in mind that my fellow columnist and opinion editor Patrick An had to point out in his Dec. 11 column that the accused still have rights, and he was lectured on rape culture by your allies instead of being challenged to a healthy debate. Apparently, wanting fair treatment for the accused is “misogynistic” nowadays.
In my closing paragraph, I will reiterate and clarify the points I previously made: Nobody is under any moral requirement to automatically believe the victim of any crime, but this is not evidence of societal hostility. I have never denied that rape happens or that victims are entitled to aid, but I am not going to condone what happened at the University of Virginia either. People can and will lie about rape, as they also do about other crimes. Could it be that Jackie was gang-raped at a frat party? Certainly, but evidence examined in a recognized court of law would prove it. Feel free to find any excuse to undermine the rights of the accused, but do not be surprised when people retaliate and point out how sickening that is.
Gonzalo Molinolo is a junior history major. He can be reached at gmolinolodbk@gmail.com.
