PZ's explanation of his false rape accusation

[Edx]

Really sorry if this has already been posted, mods please move it if it has.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/03/03/oh-lord-the-stupid/

I found this rather beautifully perfect. No amount of rationalisation can escape this part of his original story:

"I had to work fast, because I knew that if it turned into a he-said-she-said story, it wouldn’t matter that she was lying, it could get dragged out into an investigation that would easily destroy my career, no matter that I was innocent."

If women are so often not believed when they say they are raped, then why did PZ think that she would be believed to such an unquestioning degree that his career would be "easily destroyed" even if they investigated him, WITH NOTHING BUT HER WORD?

In his response, he actually digs himself in even further:

Not only is my reputation spotless, and honestly so, but there’s no way to even realistically bring such a charge against me

So PZ's reputation is by his own words "spotless" and "there’s no way to even realistically bring such a charge", and yet despite this, with nothing but the word of this girl his career would have been easily destroyed anyway. Why would it have been destroyed if she had nothing but her word against his spotless immaculate record?


You destroyed yourself PZ, you can't have it both ways. Pick one, at least, but you can't act like there's no discrepancy here.
The problem is having to admit he was wrong in either case is just too much to deal with. I see his fans in the comments are too stupid to notice any of this.

 

[Upchurch]

What?

 

[Edx]

What?

Four years ago PZ described a situation where he was the victim, or at least at risk, of a false accusation.

Years later he now tries to rationalise what he wrote with his Atheism+ feminist views.
Instead of taking an easy way out and just saying he was very wrong to believe his career was ever in jeopardy, he decides to dig himself in deeper and emphasize and highlight the contradiction.
Apparently admitting he is wrong is just too difficult, even if it means tying himself up further in even more embarrassing knots while sticking fingers in his ears and pretending there's no problem.

 

[phunk]

Edx, are you implying that if his reputation is spotless he shouldn't have to treat any potential incident the way he described? If so it seems you have cause and effect backwards.

 

[Upchurch]

Sorry, I'm having trouble parsing this...

If women are so often not believed when they say they are raped, then why did PZ think that she would be believed to such an unquestioning degree that his career would be "easily destroyed" even if they investigated him, WITH NOTHING BUT HER WORD?

PZ never claimed, at least not in this blog post, that women are not believed when they say they are raped. What makes you think he thinks no one would have believed, or at least considered, the student's story?

So PZ's reputation is by his own words "spotless" and "there’s no way to even realistically bring such a charge", and yet despite this, with nothing but the word of this girl his career would have been easily destroyed anyway. Why would it have been destroyed if she had nothing but her word against his spotless immaculate record?

...because rumors can be damaging, even if they aren't true? Further, he makes the claim that "there's no way to even realistically bring such a charge" because of the steps he takes.

You destroyed yourself PZ, you can't have it both ways. Pick one, at least, but you can't act like there's no discrepancy here.

I really don't understand what the "both ways" are.

 

[Upchurch]

Four years ago PZ described a situation where he was the victim, or at least at risk, of a false accusation.

Years later he now tries to rationalise what he wrote with his Atheism+ feminist views.
Instead of taking an easy way out and just saying he was very wrong to believe his career was ever in jeopardy, he decides to dig himself in deeper and emphasize and highlight the contradiction.
Apparently admitting he is wrong is just too difficult even if it means tying himself up further and forever in ever more embarrassing knots and sticking fingers in his ears and pretending there's no problem.

I must be missing some context here. I read the linked post as well as the links in his post (scanning for comments from him and references to him). I don't see it.

 

[Checkmite]

What is this I don't even

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I found this to be a strange claim...

How I responded to that instance is just part of a protocol for how people should work together. Here’s what I do:

I don’t harass women, or anyone for that matter.

...given that he's on video harassing a woman at a skeptics conference a few years ago. Oh, but he was just "joking".

 

[Edx]

Edx, are you implying that if his reputation is spotless he shouldn't have to treat any potential incident the way he described? If so it seems you have cause and effect backwards.

If his reputation is in his words spotless, and women have such problems being believed when reporting rape (this is a major aspect of feminist thought around rape), then why would he have thought that with nothing but her word and despite his record she could have "easily destroyed" his career? Especially as in this post he even lays out all the steps he would take to defend himself. If its true women have such a hard time proving they were raped, and getting believed when they report rape even if it actually happened, then why was he so afraid his career could so easily be ruined by this? He could have said he didn't realise at the time how wrong he was about rape and now knows better, but instead he decided to act like there is no inconsistency.

PZ never claimed, at least not in this blog post, that women are not believed when they say they are raped.

Not in this blog post, no. Are you really going to say that PZ does not endorse and support the claims that women have real problems being believed when reporting rape and sexual assault? That's the main feminist issue about rape, that women don't feel they can report sexual assault because they will be victimblamed or not believed etc. Whether you agree with that or not doesn't really matter here, the fact is that if that is as true as they say it is, then he had no reason to fear for his career or personal life being destroyed by some girl making a claim.

What makes you think he thinks no one would have believed, or at least considered, the student's story?

I didn't say she would or would not have been believed, and it doesn't matter. The issue is that regardless of the reality of the situation, this is a contradiction. There's no way to reconcile it without saying he was wrong then, or is wrong now in some way. He certainly cant say he is wrong now and that it really would have been that easy to destroy his life (his audience would be... troubled), but amazingly he also decided to take the position that he also wasn't wrong then either.

...because rumors can be damaging, even if they aren't true? Further, he makes the claim that "there's no way to even realistically bring such a charge" because of the steps he takes.

That is what he is now saying, but the original story was he was afraid for his career regardless of any of that. That when it came down to "he said/she said", his career would still have been "easily destroyed". And he didnt just say rumors would be damaging, he said his "career" would have been "easily destroyed". If rumors are that effective at destroying someones career, then it means women are actually believed quite easily and readily when they report these things and with no evidence required and in spite of a spotless record. If that is not the case then rumors would be easily dismissed by people and would have no effect on his career or personal life. Again, this is inconsistent with his views he now shares and defends. It cannot be both at the same time. The steps he lays out show that despite all those steps it wouldnt have mattered.

I really don't understand what the "both ways" are.

If women have such a hard time being believed when it comes to reporting rape/sexual assault/sexual harassment, then there was no sense in him thinking that his spotless career would have been in jeopardy. He even makes it worse now, by laying out what he would do to defend himself, but because he didnt also say that he was originally wrong he is saying that none of that really is going to make any difference.

 

[Upchurch]

Not in this blog post, no. Are you really going to say that PZ does not endorse and support the claims that women have real problems being believed when reporting rape and sexual assault?

I have absolutely no idea. I can't say I am anything more than a very casual PZ Meyers reader.

That's the main feminist issue about rape, that women don't feel they can report sexual assault because they will be victimblamed or not believed etc. Whether you agree with that or not doesn't really matter here, the fact is that if that is as true as they say it is, then he had no reason to fear for his career or personal life being destroyed by some girl making a claim.

Are you arguing against something PZ has said or what some feminists have said?

I am for equality in the Boy Scouts, but I would not want to be held responsible for some things that other supporters of equality in the Boy Scouts have said.

 

[phunk]

If his reputation is in his words spotless, and women have such problems being believed when reporting rape (this is a major aspect of feminist thought around rape), then why would he have thought that with nothing but her word and despite his record she could have "easily destroyed" his career? If its true women have such a hard time proving they were raped, and getting believed when they report rape even if it actually happened, then why was he so afraid his career could so easily be ruined by this? He could have said he didn't realise at the time how wrong he was about rape and now knows better, but instead he decided to act like there is no inconsistency.

It is not inconsistent. If some large percentage of rape reports are not believed, then it's true women have a hard time proving it, but there are still enough of them that are believed that he should not just assume he's safe from a false report. Let's make an analogy, russian roulette. There's an 84% chance the bullet isn't in the chamber, should you play? Of course not. But if 84% of rape claims are not believed, you would certainly say women have a hard time reporting rape, right?

 

[Edx]

I have absolutely no idea. I can't say I am anything more than a very casual PZ Meyers reader.

That might be it then.

Are you arguing against something PZ has said or what some feminists have said?

Both? Do you not know much about PZ? When I said main, I mean that's one of the basis' for their entire rhetoric around. Try and find a feminist that doesn't say it.

Do you accept that assuming my characterization of PZ's views about women having such a problem being believed and victimblamed when reporting rape/sexual assault is accurate, that what I said is an inconsistency/contradiction is correct?

 

[Edx]

It is not inconsistent. If some large percentage of rape reports are not believed, then it's true women have a hard time proving it, but there are still enough of them that are believed that he should not just assume he's safe from a false report. Let's make an analogy, russian roulette. There's an 84% chance the bullet isn't in the chamber, should you play? Of course not. But if 84% of rape claims are not believed, you would certainly say women have a hard time reporting rape, right?

Your russian roulette analogy is rather silly. How many bullets are in the gun? According to PZ's original story with nothing but her word, in spite of his (now) list of points on how he'd defend himself, he says she would "easily" destroy his career. So despite all that she'd still easily destroy him! He didn't say that it would have been unlikely but that he didnt want to take a chance, now did he? The problem for you is the word "easily", there's no real way to rataionlise why that word is in there, especially when its in a sentence saying that regardless of any evidence her word would be enough to do it. And this is someone with what he says is a spotless record and can provide all kinds of evidence of his character and who is actually innocent, who thinks she will easily destroy his career despite all that. The figures provided by feminists of women who are not believed or "victimblamed" we must presume that they are talking about assaults that actually did happen, and cases with reasonable evidence to take it serious. So the high figure must be assumed to be even higher than that, in terms of what risk he should have felt there was.

So which is it? Was PZ wrong to be so worried about being falsely accused, or is the extent with with women are not believed greatly exaggerated?

 

[Babbylonian]

Do you accept that assuming my characterization of PZ's views about women having such a problem being believed and victimblamed when reporting rape/sexual assault is accurate, that what I said is an inconsistency/contradiction is correct?

Why would anyone accept that based on the thread so far? The only assumption I would make is that you have an axe to grind against feminists or some subset of those who identify themselves as such.

 

[phunk]

He said could, not would. You understand the difference?

 

[Edx]

Why would anyone accept that based on the thread so far?

Because its 1+1=2 stuff. If we take his original post we'd have no choice but to interpret that PZ believes that women are SO easily believed to such an unquestioning degree that someone with a spotless record like him and all the evidence he can present wouldn't likely make any difference and with nothing but her word could "easily destroy" his career.

He said could, not would. You understand the difference?

Um, relevance? The issue is how easily she could have destroyed his career. Can you not deal with the issue presented here? Despite his spotless record and all the evidence he'd present, with nothing but her word, could she still easily destroy his career? Was that a reasonable fear for him to have or not?

 

[Checkmite]

Your russian roulette analogy is rather silly. How many bullets are in the gun? According to PZ's original story with nothing but her word, in spite of his (now) list of points on how he'd defend himself, he says she would "easily" destroy his career. So despite all that she'd still easily destroy him! He didn't say that it would have been unlikely but that he didnt want to take a chance, now did he?

This is serious reaching. The fact that a large number of reports of sexual harassment or assault aren't believed or acted upon does not logically lead to a conclusion of "therefore, there is no need to defend against an accusation".

 

[phunk]

Um, relevance? Regardless of whether she wanted to destroy his career or not, the issue is how easily she could have. Can you not deal with the issue presented here? Despite his spotless record and all the evidence he'd present, with nothing but her word, could she still easily destroy his career? Was that a reasonable fear for him to have or not?

He did not say she could easily destroy his career. He said the accusation could lead to an investigation, and that could destroy his career.

You don't think being investigated in a rape case would seriously hurt someone's reputation, even if they were eventually exonerated?

 

[Travis]

I'm afraid I don't follow the logic laid out here. Are you saying no one should take steps to clear their name if they are accused of rape based on the idea that most rape attack reports aren't believed?

 

[Edx]

He did not say she could easily destroy his career. He said the accusation could lead to an investigation, and that could destroy his career.

Come on follow this through, why would the investigation destroy his career?

You don't think being investigated in a rape case would seriously hurt someone's reputation, even if they were eventually exonerated?

No, not unless people easily believed those who make the claims. David Icke can call people reptilian aliens, or Alex Jones can say George Bush blew up the WTC but people don't take those claims seriously so they arent affecting their careers.