Amanda Terkel Followed, Harassed, and Ambushed by O’Reilly Producer
My colleague Amanda Terkel recently wrote an item critical of Bill O’Reilly’s record of ridiculous statements about rape. For her trouble, Amanda got followed and harassed by one of O’Reilly’s producers while she was taking a brief weekend holiday:
– The Stalking: Watters and his camera man accosted me at approximately 3:45 p.m. on Saturday, March 21, in Winchester, VA, which is a two-hour drive from Washington, DC. My friend and I were in this small town for a short weekend vacation and had told no one about where we were going. I can only infer that the two men staked out my apartment and then followed me for two hours. Looking back, my friend and I remember seeing their tan SUV following us for much of the trip.
– The Ambush: Shortly after checking into our lodgings, we emerged and immediately saw two men walking toward us calling out my name. Watters said he was from Fox News, but never said his or his companion’s name, nor did he say he was with The O’Reilly Factor.
– The Surprise Attack: Watters immediately began asking me why I was causing “pain and suffering” to the Alexa Foundation. He never gave me the context for his questions. Confused, I repeatedly asked him what he was talking about and whether he could refresh my memory, but he just continued shouting his question.
– The Evasion: I said that it was inappropriate for O’Reilly to imply that just because a woman may be drunk and/or dressed in a certain way, she should expect to be raped. Watters asked me whether I had listened to the interview (which I had) and claimed that O’Reilly had made the comments in the context of a commentary on Mel Gibson/drunkenness. When I tried to ascertain why he was attacking ThinkProgress in particular — even though other sites had also covered the story — he said that we were part of the “smear pipeline,” which also included the “Soros-funded” Media Matters. He ignored my comments when I asked if Fox News also smears people.
– Setting A Guilt Trap: Watters ended the charade by demanding that I look into the camera and apologize to the Alexa Foundation and rape victims. I told them that I don’t speak through Fox News and if someone from the Alexa Foundation would like to personally call me, I’d be happy to speak with that person.
– More Stalking: The camera man then continued to film me as I walked down the block. After a few minutes while I waited at the light to cross the street, Watters called him back and they left.
Anything for a “story,” I guess.
79 Responses to “Amanda Terkel Followed, Harassed, and Ambushed by O’Reilly Producer”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:57 am
She should have let them follow her into the George Washington National Forest — to what police call “the secondary crime scene”.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:05 am
What a whiner Amanda is!
Oh I know, it was just like she was being raped! Oh the humanity!
Her “interview” lasted what? seven minutes? And on that basis she paints herself as the poor poor little victim.
It sounds like she said something truly stupid on camera and now is trying to cover her ass.
But the best is that she thinks she gets to write and publish what she wants when she wants, make herself a public person, but then gets to call timeout and declare herself off limits in a public place?
Why? Cuz she is just a wittle woman?
I bet it wuined her whole wittle weekend!
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:05 am
FOX News intrepid reporters. Leaving no stone unturned to keep you infor… er, well, outraged and resentful.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:12 am
when someone attempts to ambush you walk away
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:13 am
Shorter JT: She had it coming for mentioning O’Reilly. O’Reilly is not the thug, she is for being disturbed that she would be jumped like that.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:13 am
was her stalker wielding either a loofah or falafel
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 am
My goodness.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:23 am
I’m sure Amanda Terkel will take no offense at my saying that as public figures go, her profile is rather low. Certainly she is not someone the average person, or the average O’Reilly viewer, would know by name and face for her work. You could even say the same thing about Hendrick Hertzberg, who dealt with the same stunt. To what audience does the harrassment of largely anonymous people with opposing viewpoints make for compelling viewing?
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:24 am
What a whiner Amanda is!
She was stalked you asshole.
Olbermann’s guide to how to handle this scenario was pretty funny. Lots of Andrea Mackris and falafel references ought to do the trick.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:26 am
She should have gotten a gun and shot him dead. I am quite serious.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:26 am
Hey JT-
I know you are, but what am I?
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:38 am
Are you serious? These people were obnoxious, too bad. It appears they intended no physical harm or, as Jefferson, they neither picked her pocket nor broke her arm. What is the big deal.
If Bush were subjected to the same treatment – people staking out his home and travels asking him why he committed all those war crimes – we Liberals would be cheering.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:39 am
Always rememer to mention that Bill O’Reilly has sexual fantasies having to do with falafel. Say that over and over again, so that no part of the tape could be shown without that creeping into the broadcast. Also, film the filmers. Use your cell phones. Ask them who they are, ask for ids, ask them their opinnions on rape. Ask them their opinions on a number of issues, including falafels – and what it means to work for a sexual fantasist like O’reilly. Have they ever been approached by him for sexual favors. Post vids on YouTube. Hilarity is bound to result.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:43 am
If Bush were subjected to the same treatment – people staking out his home and travels asking him why he committed all those war crimes – we Liberals would be cheering.
Well, if a left-leaning O’Reilly (do we have those?) stalked down a lowly Heritage blogger in a similiar way, I wouldn’t find it funny or cheer.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:43 am
I don’t think anybody comes off looking good in this story. Bill O’Reilly is, and always will be, a gigantic assclown. Fox News was trying to create spectacle rather than news, and Bill O’Reilly is playing victim, as usual. But so is this Amanda person – nothing happened to her that doesn’t happen 5000 times a day on television. She’s just not used to being on television.
O’Reilly’s original comments were crudely rendered and insensitive, but they contain a grain of truth. I teach my daughter to look both ways before crossing the street – I don’t ‘expect’ her to be hit by a truck, and if she is I won’t blame her, because I understand that careening morons drive through my neighborhood with distressing frequency, and my daughter needs to deal with that sad reality. I don’t expect to be robbed, but I lock my doors at night. If I fail to lock my doors, I’m a fool for doing so even though the robbery is not my fault.
At some places and times, it’s foolhardy for women to dress provocatively and/or to be drunk in public. At other places and times, it’s perfectly normal and acceptable and probably not overly risky (as in most college towns). I understand there’s a fine line between saying this and blaming the victim.
I don’t think O’Reilly was blaming the victim, saying she ‘deserved’ it, and I don’t think Amanda was stalked or victimized in any way either. I do relish seeing O’Reilly on the receiving end of the kinds of outrageously unfair smears and attacks that are his specialty, but I don’t think it’s asking too much that we hold ourselves to a higher standard than that a bottom-feeding cable TV rageaholic. I am not concern-trolling by the way, but I’m sure the verbal beat-down is about to begin. Have at it.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:43 am
The best way is to fight fire with fire. Perhaps bloggers should start getting together and follow O’Reilly and question him. I think after a few days of this, O’Reilly will have another snap like his now infamous “do it live” thing.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:46 am
By the way, Matt, Voice of Reason is back making thinly veiled threats to murder people. How are you going to feel when this obviously disturbed personality finally fulfills his fantasies and you were too lazy to do anything about it?
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:47 am
“Are you serious? These people were obnoxious, too bad. It appears they intended no physical harm or, as Jefferson, they neither picked her pocket nor broke her arm. What is the big deal.”
The big deal is that folks, especially relatively unimportant folks like bloggers, should be able to walk down the frickin’ street without being accosted like this. In fairness, media like 60 Minutes did start doing this sort of thing but it was focused on people accused or suspected of serious crimes or misdeeds. Now it happens to you if you make the mistake of pissing off the wrong cable TV host. Olbermann’s right that ridicule is the only way to deal with this sort of thing (though a good asskicking would have be perfectly acceptable a few decades ago), but a lot of folks aren’t capable of it when they’re ambushed on the street.
Mike
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:53 am
She should have looked into the camera and thanked O’Reilly for the cocaine. Seriously, she has nothing to lose while O’Reilly has everything to lose–it’s a shame that he resorts to harassment, but he’s in a vulnerable position while nobody cares about bloggers and it’s a chance to turn that situation against him.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:53 am
She was stalked!
Oh the humanity!
Think of the children!
What bullshit!
And what a whiney b***h Amanda is!
She was ambush interviewed by a Fox reporter and cameraman (who announced themselves!) in broad daylight in a public place people! Think Code Pink people.
Oh yeah, you can’t think, only yield Pavlovian spasms.
She wasn’t assaulted. She was interviewed.
An interview SHE COOPERATED WITH!
She has made herself a public figure.
She has to deal with it.
If she really objected she could have handled it any number of ways.
Like walk back in her hotel where I imagine the management would toss the crew.
But nooooooo! The whiney b***h decides to take them on
AND SHE LOSES!
So not only is she whiney she is stupid to boot!
And didn’t her tres butch bud step between her and the camera?
No?!
Jeez, lose that useless girlfriend but fast!
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:53 am
nothing happened to her that doesn’t happen 5000 times a day on television.
I don’t particularly like Ann Althouse, but if two of her minions stalked and harrassed me because I thought that one of her blog posts was particularly stupid, I would find that to be something that out of range of normal expected experience of human behavior.
Particularly since we’re not asking for comments from a normally-inaccessible-businessman or other such figure. Seriously, the consequence of talking smack about O’Reilly is to get stalked and harrassed by his lackeys? Why not just invite her onto his show?
(as afficionados of The Daily Show can tell you, O’Reilly also has frequent commentaries against reporters who commit the awful act of following celebrities in order to photograph them)
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:54 am
Bosch’s poodle—the difference is that usually getting hit by a car is an accident. I think we can all agree that no driver should ever purposely run down a pedestrian, no matter where they’re standing.
Rape is not an accident. The point is that if someone doesn’t want to have sex with you, you can’t force them, no matter what they’re wearing. The analogy of being careful not to cross the road where an accident might occur doesn’t hold up, since it is not unreasonable to expect men to not have sex with people who say “no” or whom they have to force. Since men can control this and can make a choice in the way a truck driver can’t if a pedestrian jumps out in front of him, there is never anything that mitigates the rape, nothing that a victim can wear that makes a rape more likely or contributes to it, since the word “no” is the only signal that matters.
Yes, I think you’re blaming the victim.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:04 pm
JT–calling someone a “whiny b**ch” in a post about the culture’s response to rape (reflected through O’Reilly, who speaks for many victim-blamers), aggression, power and intimidation really demonstrates the whole problem that you and O’Reilly are part of.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Also, being ambushed while on vacation, after being followed (because no one knew where she was) sets up a power differential and a basis of intimidation that is much different than an interview. It is about intimidation, punishing and humiliating anyone who dares criticise the tin-pot despot-in-his-own-studio and “voice of the little guy”.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:17 pm
I think Bosch actually makes a careful and well reasoned point and Anthony is wrong to say he’s “blaming the victim”. His analogies hold up well and Anthony’s attempt to dismantle them makes no sense. It’s reasonable to essentially tell people to be careful. That is not the same thing as blaming them when something terrible happens and they were not being as careful as they could have been and it is not the same as excusing criminal behavior.
That said, O’Reilly is a tool, but Terkel is being a bit thin skinned about being ambush interviewed. It’s true that journalists and lefties have done this sort of thing time and again. Though, in fairness, Jeffery Davis, Michael Moore did not ambush Charleton Heston. He approached the man’s secured compound, identified himself, asked for an interview, and was invited inside and granted an interview. That’s hardly an ambush.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:23 pm
One day this idiot is going to stalk the wrong person, it won’t be the 5 foot 100 pound person, but will be someone who kicks that dudes ass, I can’t wait for that day.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Would it have been better if it was 60 minutes?
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Rob Mac–you have to be careful crossing the street because a car might hit you. It is not analogous to say that you have to be careful in what you wear because a man might rape you. Stepping into a street when a car can’t get out of the way isn’t the same, because there is no point at which a man just can’t avoid raping you. It doesn’t matter if you’re walking around naked and just had sex with 10 guys, you always have the choice and the right to say “no” and none of that implies that you’ve done anything to invite a man to rape you or not been careful enough, since a rape isn’t just “something terrible happening”, it is a conscious choice by a man that nothing can invite if the woman says “no”. So, I do think saying that women should be careful in what they wear both reduces men to out-of-control sexual beings that just can’t resist violence if they see a short skirt and blames the victim for something that is not at all her fault.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:26 pm
One day this idiot is going to stalk the wrong person, it won’t be the 5 foot 100 pound person
Bill O’Reilly, being the consummate bully, is smarter than this. He knows well enough to choose his victims wisely.
The 60-minutes-style ambushes are usually with the sort of people who won’t give access or interviews under normal circumstances. Contrast this with Michael Moore, who actually asks for and gets to talk with Charlton Heston, as well as the central conceit of Roger & Me which is about his repeated attempts to simply ask for an interview from GM’s many layers of handlers.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:35 pm
At some places and times, it’s foolhardy for women to dress provocatively and/or to be drunk in public.
Yes to the part about being drunk, although I don’t see any good reason to single out women for the advice that being drunk is stupid in some situations, but I think the part about dressing “provocatively” is logically indefensible. Rape is usually, mainly about power and control and hurting someone, not lust. If more attractive or better dressed women are more likely to be targeted for it – and I’m not even conceding that without evidence – the simplest explanation is that they look more feminine, and that’s what the rapist wants to hurt or thinks he has a right to control. And aside from the ridiculous-in-real-life situations where a geeky girl is ignored until she takes off her glasses and lets down her ponytail, IMHO a woman’s attractiveness is apparent whether she’s wearing a miniskirt or jeans.
Therefore, dressing more or less provocatively within the limits of normal American culture makes no difference. If you think wearing a hijab would help, go ahead and advocate for that. Until then, though, focusing on clothing really is blaming the victim.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Going after her on her weekend get-a-way was a bit much, but simply asking her questions was not. She works for an organization closely linked to the BHO admin and publicly discussed a controversial issue.
P.S. “voice of reason” is a satire of “liberals”. I realize how difficult it can be to tell the difference between a real “liberal” and a satire of same.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Also Re: the original post, I think anyone would be justified in being frightened or at the very least weirded out to have someone follow them for two hours to talk to them. On a weekend. When that someone is a minor-league, no offense to Terkel, journalist/media figure. Not that the weekend or minor-league parts matter. JT and Phaedrus are being stupid at best here.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:48 pm
24Ahead—whether women should be blamed for rape is only a controversial issue in the minds of….well, you guys.
I don’t recognise anything liberal in “voice of reason”. If it’s a parody, it’s much closer to a parody of Glenn Beck. Or to the real Glenn Beck.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:52 pm
“Are you serious? These people were obnoxious, too bad. It appears they intended no physical harm or, as Jefferson, they neither picked her pocket nor broke her arm. What is the big deal.”
I think the key problem is that this type of stalking/ambush is completely incommensurate with Amanda Terkel’s public profile. George W. Bush is a public figure with full-time security and armies of flacks to answer his phones and blow people off. If you want a quote from some random blogger, you just pick up the phone and call them. If someone stonewalls you and blows you off, then maybe you wait outside their door with a camera and shout at them. But stalking and harassing someone like this is pretty sleazy.
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:03 pm
How are you going to feel when this obviously disturbed personality finally fulfills his fantasies and you were too lazy to do anything about it?
That would require Matt to actually read his comments. Remember, folks, Matt isn’t setting up a dialogue between us and him, he’s setting up a dialogue between us and us.
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:07 pm
To the defenders of this predatory stalking: PRINT YOUR FULL NAME, ADDRESS, AND PHONE NUMBER.
Anyone who is defending predatory stalking behind the cloak of anonymity is a COWARD.
This wasn’t about finding “truth” this was about making someone feel threatened in order to bully them into silence.
Rupert Murdoch’s support of right wing extremism has degenerated from supporting Hannity’s fascism to airing clearly insane extremist Beck to now unleashing predator O’Reilly’s stalkers.
It needs to be said: Murdoch’s a traitor with no loyalty to America, in fact, Rupert Murdoch is clearly intent on poisoning political discourse in America.
At this point anyone still watching FOX “news” is clearly identifying themselves as a predator with fascist inclinations with no loyalty to America.
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:09 pm
The moment she was sure these people were following her she should have called the cops. Let the Fox jerks interview him for all they like, but stalking is stalking, and that’s what they were doing.
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Remember, folks, Matt isn’t setting up a dialogue between us and him, he’s setting up a dialogue between us and us.
I remember once that MattY expressed surprise that anyone would bother to read the comments at all. I don’t think he realizes that if his blog didn’t have comments, there would be little reason to read his posts at all.
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Let’s be clear to state the purpose. It’s not to have an interview or they would have called her on the phone first to schedule one.
The purpose of this is to bully, intimidate, and silence critics.
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:18 pm
I am sure Alexa’s friends and family are proud that in the name of their little Alexa two creepy men with video cameras are following around a young woman and her friend. I am sure that is what they wanted when they setup the foundation honoring a rape victim.
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:43 pm
After reading Anthony’s posts I think he has one point, which is that the provocative dress part probably doesn’t hold up. I’m not aware of any evidence, even circumstantial, that aggressors are triggered by provocative dress and would have behaved themselves otherwise. So I take that part back and am pretty embarrassed at having written that. None of the rest of it though.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Next time, Terkel should go on vacation with Bill Moyers
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Bosch’s Poodle: I don’t think you were blaming the victim or anything. I thought the words you wrote were reasonable. But then I thought about all the people I know and see on a daily basis and the way people dress in New Orleans when it’s hot and I realized that for me to think you were dressed provocatively you would basically have to be naked.
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Bosch’s Poodle: Thanks for your honest reflection on this issue.
For those of you defending a “watch what you wear” approach to rape, let me ask you this: let’s say there was a series of events where it was common (or at least a trend) for gay fellows to grab a man’s penis when he walked around in shorts, and then say “well, you should be more careful and not wear shorts that invite us to grab your penis.” Would that defense hold up? Or would your response be that sexual violence is an inappropriate invasion even if what we wear makes someone else feel hot and bothered. I think it is striking that we men, who don’t have to deal with not only rape but daily comments on how we look, frequent touching, exhortations to “smile, honey” etc., don’t realise the power imbalance we further when we make a woman’s clothes at all part of the equation for why a man commits violence against her. If it were happening to us, if what we wore was deemed “inviting violence,” we wouldn’t accept that behaviour.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Anthony – Where I still disagree, though, is that you’re saying dress shouldn’t be a factor in triggering an assault, but I happen to agree with you. If it did, however, then it would be foolish to ignore that fact. My comment above is based on my belief that there’s no good reason to think that provocative dress triggers assaults – I’m not aware of any evidence, and it doesn’t make any intuitive sense (begging the question of why I said it in the first place, I suppose).
But if it did trigger it, then of course I’d try to instruct my daughter to take those facts into account.
I mean, when I travel, I’m acutely cognizant of how dress is interpreted. I’ve sweated away many an afternoon in Central America while wearing jeans because I knew that men in shorts can be provocative in certain areas, and I wanted to avoid trouble. One must take the world as it is sometimes.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Did anyone else catch the bit on the Daily Show a couple weeks ago where O’Reilly was irate that some reporter did a semi ambush interview with Levi Johnston? O’Reilly goes on and on about how abusive and horrible that type of pournalism is. Of course cue the nearly infinite vault of clips of O’Reilly’s people doing just that.
It is like they don’t realize that there is the thing called tape that saves all of their past broadcasts…
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:40 pm
O’Reilly goes on and on about how abusive and horrible that type of pournalism is.
LOL. I hope that is intentional, because it’s very accurate to describe the kind of work O’Reilly does.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Bosch’s Poodle–You’re right, it is important to take how dress is interpreted into account in certain situations. I don’t think that raping women is a part of our culture, though, in the way that reactions to dress are embedded in other cultures to the point that it is appropriate to take note and dress accordingly.
I’ll have to think about what exactly this means for the responsibility of women regarding dress and the issue of rape. Obviously, I don’t walk around dark alleys in bad neighbourhoods with money sticking out of my pocket, but this seems somehow different. I hope to be able to articulate how in due course.
I think I was reacting more to the long history of downplaying rape as an act of violence against women in our legal system and popular culture, letting rapists off the hook based on a woman’s sexual history or attire. I know that you weren’t doing this, but I think I am overly sensitive to anything that comes even close, given the history and that this type of thing (questioning the sexual past of a victim, which is irrelevant b/c no matter how much sex she has with guys A-G doesn’t give guy H the right to sex if she doesn’t want it) keeps many women from reporting rape (or from being taken seriously.)
So, I’ll think about what you said and thank you for taking my comments seriously.
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Buy Viagra Online…
http://url.edna.edu.au/4bbN Buy Viagra Online…
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Cyrus,
That was a greta typos wasn’t it! I wish I could claim I was that clever but sadly just a bad typist.
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Eric, I think you are referring to this daily show clip: http://gawker.com/5150308/bill-oreillys-vengeful-paparazzi
It is delightful! Anyone who has not seen it I would highly recommend it.
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Statistically, it’s even more foolhardy for your daughter to be in a room with you alone, Bosch. Statistically she’s at a far greater risk of being raped by you, or perhaps by your brothers if you have any, than by any stranger who might leap out of the darkness because she’s showing a little too much leg in the wrong part of town.
But I’m willing to bet that you don’t spend any time at all telling her how to defend herself from being raped by you, or by your brothers. Even though those are much more likely events than stranger rape. Doesn’t that sort of put the lie to your warnings about wardrobe simply being advice in her best interest? I’m not saying you want your daughter to be raped; more likely, you’re setting up a framework that, if she is raped, will allow you to reach a conclusion about the crime you’ll be able to live with. Since, more than likely, you’ll be close friends with or even related to her rapist.
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Looks like lil Ezra has got his JList scurvy crew all activated and slathering foam from their mouths. Dan Rather invented this crap & 60 Minutes did it for decades with nary a peep from these hypocrites.
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:45 pm
daveinboca–that analogy has been refuted above. It’s not the same thing.
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Anthony:
I have no clue if there’s any empirical evidence on this. But if it were the case that women dressed provocatively are more likely to be harassed and/or assaulted, then I would say that yes, it is foolhardy for a woman to dress in such a way. And it’s certainly foolhardy for a woman to get drunk to the point that she can’t fully control her actions or perceive what’s going on around her.
Of course this would reflect badly on men, and reflect some judgment that men are “out-of-control sexual beings that just can’t resist violence”. That’s unfortunate, but so what? Your statement that you “don’t walk around dark alleys in bad neighbourhoods with money sticking out of my pocket” reflects badly on poor people. Are you saying that poor people are predators that can’t resist theft? It’s never morally right for a poor person to steal from you, just as it’s never right for one person to physically or sexually assault another person. But it’s still stupid to walk around the Bronx at night while playing with your iPhone.
I guess part of my analogy rests on an assumption (or you could say, a normative judgment) that playing with your iPhone on the street is a fairly frivolous and unnecessary activity, just as a woman dressing skimpily, or getting drunk, is frivolous and unnecessary. Maybe you disagree.
I’m a heterosexual man, and my friends consider me to have very feminist views, though maybe you can’t tell from this post.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Next time, maybe you all could give us the WHOLE $*(ing story so you wouldn’t look like such idiots. Stop with the sound bites… we’re not stupid. I’m becoming a Republican because of you incompetent asses!!!!
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Bosch’s Poodle
You are, in effect, blaming the victim (as are others who agree with you, even foolishly thinking they’re offering helpful “advice” just like Bill O). Your intentions may seem benevolent, but the effect is the opposite: it only serves to legitimize the misogynistic bigotry. Besides, do you honestly think that you know more than women and girls do in “preventing” misogynistic violence, a tremendous fear that guides just about everything they do? Do you honestly think that rapists will be even remotely thwarted if women (and girls) were to immediately stop all alcohol consumption? Of course, not. Rapists (who target women and/or girls) attack their victims because they can and society lets them get away with it.
Tell me, how many times have you told men not to rape? Ever notice how we always put all the responsibility on the woman or girl to prevent a misogynistic bigot from assaulting and torturing her? We don’t tell gays to not be “provocative” or cause homophobes to “panic” in order to prevent gay bashing. As a Latino, I’ve never been told (thank God) not to act a certain way or else I’ll get attacked by racists. And yet when it comes to women and girls, we always lay the responsibility, and, thus, the blame with them.
If you honestly think that this “advice” is remotely helpful rather than incredibly harmful, I have one word: Afghanistan. There the woman and girls do everything they’re told by men–who, too, know about how to rape “prevention”–and yet the country is a bastion for misogynistic hate crimes. Looking to women to mitigate misogynistic violence, only emboldens and justifies anti-female intolerance and hate.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Edit:
In the last paragraph, I meant to write, “There the woman and girls do everything they’re told by men–who, too, know about rape “prevention”–and yet the country is a bastion for misogynistic hate crimes.”
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:20 pm
nbt, I don’t have time to respond at length, but I think part of the problem is that “well she had it coming, look what she was wearing” is often the first thought even without empirical evidence. The fact that that reaction has established itself as common sense–as similar to walking around teh Bronx playing with your iPhone–tells us something. There is also the context of perpetrators going free, victims not being taken seriously by the justice system, etc., which isn’t true in the case of robbery, no matter how irresponsible the victim may be judged to be. I’ll try to post more later.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:37 pm
For those who still trust Amanda Terkel, here’s a liberal brain teaser.
She now says:
nor was I ever contacted by Fox News for the opportunity to issue a statement or appear on the O’Reilly Factor
Brain teaser: what isn’t she saying?
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:59 pm
She should have studied Bill Moyers reaction when Fox did this to him. He made the Fox producer look like an idiot. Of course, he had help from those around him at the time.
Fox Ambushes Bill Moyers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_2IZT4VgDY
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:00 pm
24Ahead–don’t you mean AmandaTerkel and TheO’ReillyFactor?
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:54 pm
We should be able to simultaneously (1) teach young boys to respect women, to have minimally feminist values, and as Davidson put it, “not to rape”; and (2) accurately assessing the incidence of dangerous males out there, encourage our daughters/sisters/amigas to be sensible.
Davidson says that as a Latino, he’s never been told to act a certain way, in order to avoid riling up racists. Well, that’s good. I would point you, though, to the atmosphere immediately after 9/11, when Arabs, Persians, S.Asians (I am a member of one of those categories) encouraged each other not to read from Qur’ans in public, not to wear T-shirts with Arabic writing, not to speak in native languages on airplanes. That certainly wasn’t a first-best state of affairs, but given the public mood, it was prudent. [Eventually, after maybe 6 to 12 months, it became a good idea to "test boundaries" and "normalize" our cultural behavior and try to make sure that regular non-brown Americans began to see it as just part of the landscape...]
March 24th, 2009 at 12:25 am
all these bloggers like poor little Amanda have no problem writing about anything they want hiding behind their computer screens and then of course they get so upset when someone questions them.and to think she was ambushed!! oh my gosh…..and all the little fans that write in about shooting O’Reilly or talk about what Olberman says….do any of you work or is this your life? I would suggest going out and actually getting a career and contributing to society instead of blogging all day long…no wonder you want the government to give you everything
all liberals are alike…they cannot stand when someone disagrees with them…they will do whatever it takes to shut someone up.they protest, will hurt other people to get what they want….so poor little Amanda, you need to know that Bill O’Reilly got you on TV…you should be happy…you are a nobody that got highlighted for writing a stupid blog.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:32 am
DKM–that’s right, one should be able to put ideas out there without being stalked and ambushed. She wasn’t invited to an interview, she was treated in an intimidating manner intended to silence her. You write that “liberals..cannot stand when someone disagree with them…they will do whatever it takes to shut someone up.” Doesn’t this sound like what O’Reilly does from his position as a prominent TV host whenever anyone disagrees with him? If the treatment of Terkel wasn’t designed to intimidate and shut her up, he could have invited her to an interview, not had his goons accost her. Media Matters posts his lies and points them out, and he calls them a “smear” website. It seems as though your complaints about “liberals” really describe people like O’Reilly, who have much more influence and power than any liberal blogger.
March 24th, 2009 at 6:32 am
Just one more data point indicating that
Bill O’Reilly = Enormous Douchebag
March 24th, 2009 at 7:45 am
Bill O’Reilly = Enormous Douchebag
Yes, and also classic bully. DKM should check out how this clown, who regularly calls people cowards for not appearing on his show, reacted to basic questions from Terry Gross when he wasn’t in charge, didn’t have a cough button, etc.
Classic coward and bully.
March 24th, 2009 at 8:15 am
Re: Well, that’s good. I would point you, though, to the atmosphere immediately after 9/11, when Arabs, Persians, S.Asians (I am a member of one of those categories) encouraged each other not to read from Qur’ans in public, not to wear T-shirts with Arabic writing, not to speak in native languages on airplanes.
As a South Asian, and one who’s sometimes mistaken for a Muslim (to my extreme annoyance), I’ve found that wearing a cross helps one get through security quicker. Presumably a Hindu medallion would work too.
March 24th, 2009 at 8:34 am
You’re right–in the unfortunate post-9/11 climate members of targeted minority communities tried to take steps to avoid abuse by the ignorant and angry. It is a shame that this was the case, but I don’t think the analogy to rape holds up, mostly because of context. Courts never dismissed a Muslim’s claim as abuse by saying he was “asking for it” by reading from the Quran (even if some members of the public would make this detestable argument). With women and rape, the “look what she was wearing” argument has been used to intimidate women from coming forward and to let many rapists escape sanction. And, as others have pointed out, makign this argument discursively makes rape–which is about power and violence–into an issue of sex, promiscuity, “sluttiness”, etc.
March 24th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Buy Propecia…
http://www.folkd.com/user/buypropeciaonline Buy Propecia…
March 24th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Re JT & DKM
Shorter JT & DKM: Rape should be legalized to keep the bimbos in line.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Hector, why is it to your “extreme annoyance” that you might be mistaken for a Muslim? I understand from your previous writing that your family is of Hindu background, and you follow Christianity. But S.Asian Hindus don’t look any different from S.Asian Muslims or S.Asian Christians. (other than facial hair and dress, perhaps, but those are less common in America) Why are you shocked or annoyed that a non-brown person would assume the wrong religion about you?
March 24th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Acting in the public realm carries with it certain limitations on privacy. As others have said, most of us on the left don’t really mind it when those we perceive as mouthpieces of the obnoxious right are pinned down by an intrepid reporter about something they’ve said/written. It’s hyperbole to call this “stalking”.
However, this is part of a larger problem in the US. I’d support certain right-to-privacy laws that prevent this sort of thing in general, and restrict the conditions under which the media has access to people in their private lives. For example, families struck by tragedies with their houses surrounded by the local television reporters.
I find it ironic that someone is calling numerous people cowards while using a pseudonym.
Anyway, my name is Keith M Ellis. I live at 4701 Irving Blvd NW, Albuquerque, NM and my phone number is 505-715-5217. I’ve been writing on the ‘net for two decades, almost always under my real name, and my address and phone number has usually been available on my web page. I’ve never had a problem with anyone harassing me.
Worries about this are overblown and men who write pseudonymously for supposed privacy reasons are really just making excuses for being provocative without risking repercussion. It’s a different matter, though, with regard to women. They do get stalked just for being women.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:36 am
It doesn’t matter how a woman dresses. It is never anyone’s fault when they suffer from a criminal act, regardless of their actions, assuming their own actions were legal.
Personal responsibility is not a transferable quantity that behaves in these sorts of situations in a zero-sum way. We do have a responsibility to ourselves to take care of ourselves, make judgments about our safety, and similar. When we make a judgment that proves to have been wrong, then we have failed ourselves to some degree…but that has nothing to do with what someone else does.
If I leave my car unlocked, I am no more responsible for the car being stolen than had I left it locked. Most particularly, I am no more responsible for the thief’s choice and act of stealing my car. His is no less responsible for what he’s done because I made it easier for him. He broke the law, he has a very well defined civic responsibility not to break the law. Yes, I do think that I’m responsible for the safety of my property and when I choose to not lock it up, and it’s stolen, then I’ve failed in that responsibility to some extent. But that has nothing to do with how responsible the thief is for his theft.
It’s interesting to compare who we think of situations that, in this context, involving men that might be considered similar to the rape situations people are discussion. For example, being a white, apparently affluent male walking alone at night in the ghetto and getting beaten and mugged. Sure, people would say that’s foolish. Maybe some would say that he deserved it for his foolishness. But few people would also condone the mugger’s action on the basis that the white guy was such a tempting target. So why do people try to excuse rapists on this basis? A crime is a crime; a criminal is always responsible for his/her actions.
In this world which is so often dangerous to women, women certainly do have some responsibility to themselves to be concerned about their safety and to make decisions accordingly. But there is neither a legal nor social imperative that any of us do everything we can do to protect ourselves and avoid being victimized by a crime—we’re rightly left to make those judgments ourselves. I think no one has the right to criticize someone else for making what seems to be a poor decision about their own personal safety…these our personal decisions and they vary greatly.
So how a woman chooses to dress, or whether she goes to a frat party, or whatever, is her own personal concern and a matter of her own personal judgment about her safety and actions. She is answerable to no one else about these decisions and these decisions in no way mitigate or otherwise affect someone else’s decision to break the law and to violate someone.
It’s not really complicated.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Keith Ellis, I mostly agree with you. I find O’Reilly usually a moron, occasionally entertaining. Here, if you read Amanda Terkel’s original post linked above, you can see what he said about a rape victim who was assaulted while walking along the West Side Highway in Manhattan in the middle of the night. A charitable interpretation might be to see his words as essentially “Well, that was stupid of her,” along the same lines as someone might say “It was stupid of you to leave your car unlocked in a bad neighborhood.” A more cynical interpretation might be to see his words as “By dressing scantily, she was actively encouraging strange men to come along and have sex with her. It’s not their fault!” I would lean more towards the charitable view.
March 24th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
No one has the right to judge a woman for engaging in allegedly risky behavior. Safety precautions are a highly individualized decision. We all, men and women, have to balance our interest in safety against our interest in freedom. For example, I have a friend who does not walk alone outside after dark. To me, this seems an unacceptable limit on my freedom; therefore, I accept a slightly increased risk in order to enjoy freedom of movement. We all draw the line between freedom and safety in our own idiosyncratic ways, depending on our personal priorities.
Some commenters have mentioned what they would “instruct” their daughters to do or refrain from doing. Certainly, it may be appropriate to provide a minor in your care with a set of hard-and-fast rules. But it would be of greater value in the long run to ALSO teach them how to make their own judgments as to their safety and to start thinking for themselves about the situations in which they might value safety over freedom and vice-versa.
This applies to sons too. However, it is women and girls who generally subject to infantilizing lecturing and “instruction” about what we can and can’t do in the judgment of other people. It is worth noting that men face greater risk than women of violence by strangers — yet men’s right and ability to make their own judgments about safety is rarely questioned.
March 24th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Laurie, well, I’m a 30-year-old man, and my mom is constantly telling me to stay out of dark or unsafe places at night! Cheers.
March 27th, 2009 at 9:01 am
Buy Propecia Online…
http://url.edna.edu.au/eVAJ Buy Propecia Online…
April 16th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Good morning. It really doesn’t matter if the person who hurt you deserves to be forgiven. Forgiveness is a gift you give yourself. You have things to do and you want to move on.
I am from Papua and also now am reading in English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: “The last year has seen a bloodbath in the indian skies, but one about which no one.”
Thank
Elvin.