by Hannah Wallen
Statutory rape victim ordered to pay child support or face jail
Another male statutory rape victim has been ordered to pay child support to his rapist under threat of jail for failure to pay.
The Arizona Department of Economic Security tracked down Nick Olivas and ordered him to pay back child support after the mother of his child, conceived when he was 14 and she was 20, filed for public assistance in 2012.
The age of consent in Arizona is 15 years old, making the woman’s choice to name Olivas as the father of her child an admission of statutory rape. While no source is reporting any charges filed against the admitted rapist, the state of Arizona has demanded $15,000 from her acknowledged victim, along with childbirth expenses, plus 10 percent interest. His wages are currently being garnished at about $380 a month.
This ruling is not unique. Alabama, Kansas, and California have made similar rulings requiring underage rape victims to pay child support to their rapists, including victims whose assault took place when they were too young to legally hold jobs.
It is, however, inconsistent with the experiences of female victims, who cannot be placed under financial obligation to their rapists because they have the legal choice whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.
It is inconsistent with the state’s attitude regarding criminals suing their victims. The Arizona Crime Victims Protection Act, passed in 2012, bars persons engaging in or fleeing after engaging in felony conduct from suing their victims for injury incurred in the attempt or commission of the crime. Given that naming a then fourteen-year-old as the father of her child is an admission of statutory rape, it is a contradiction for the state to pursue the victim on behalf of the perpetrator in this case, especially without taking that admission as reason to pursue criminal charges against the confessed perpetrator.
Also inconsistent is the media response. Unlike in cases of female victims of male rapists, sources reporting this story have all named the victim but are not naming the admitted perpetrator.
New male contraceptive could be available 2017
In other news, recent progress in research indicates that Vaselgel, an internal barrier method of male birth control, may be available as early as 2017. A recent press release from the Parsemus Foundation, the non-profit organization spearheading the research behind Vasalgel, reported successful blocking of sperm in baboon trials after an initial glitch with their testing methods. Reversal is planned to begin in October, and human trials are anticipated to begin next year.
Though funding for Vasalgel research got a big boost from a Packard Foundation donation, the Parsemus Foundation still faces an existing $27,000 shortfall in comparison to expenses. Interested parties can donate at https://parsemusfoundation.secure.nonprofitsoapbox.com/donate by suggesting option A, Vasalgel from the menu under the Campaign heading below the listing for donation type and amount on the page. Donations can be made anonymously or publicly and can be dedicated in honor or memory of someone.
You can follow Vasalgel on Facebook at facebook dot com backslash v a s a l g e l.
by Hannah Wallen
The right to due process, a fair and honest hearing when facing criminal status or penalty, is a fundamental aspect of our legal system that people generally take for granted. That is, until one encounters any of the areas in which that right has been compromised or even outright violated. Then we begin to realize the many ways in which our due process rights are under attack.
Most people are familiar with credit reporting systems, but never think about the fact that while the standard for our legal system considers the individual innocent until proven guilty, the opposite is true in credit reporting, leaving the individual responsible for contesting fraud or errors in his report that affect his ability to obtain loans and lines of credit. Tolerance of that system has led to a Lexis-Nexus owned employee blacklisting system for employers called Esteem, which works similarly to a credit reporting system but with less transparency or recourse. A class action lawsuit is pending in California over the use of that system as a violation of the due process rights of the accused.
The assault on due process rights is not just by corporate systems. Within the family court system is a tangled web of hidden violations.
Judges routinely place gag orders and other enforced means of shielding the state’s actions from the public when government agencies remove children from their homes and sue to transfer legal custody from the parents to the state.
In the course of terminating parental rights, the state strong-arms parents by hearing cases without giving low-income families the benefit of legal representation, by excluding or ignoring evidence in favor of the parents, excluding witnesses, and allowing children’s testimony to be manipulated by the people attempting to sever their relationships with their families.
Recognition of due process rights for a man deemed an estranged father and facing the imposition of child support can vary depending on his and the accusing mother’s residence. By and large, men in this circumstance are considered guilty until proven innocent, are held liable for court and agency errors, and can even be held liable for support in some cases for children they did not actually father. And, as was stated in today’s news report, underage boys can be financially obligated to their rapists under the child support system, and most have no recourse to escape that debt.
The most well-known area of attack on due process, however, is sex crimes. While organizations like the ACLU have fought to maintain the innocent-until-proven-guilty standard for criminal court, feminist groups have successfully fought to impose the opposite standard on men accused of sexual misconduct. Rather than prosecution having to prove the accused guilty of an imposition, the accused is expected to prove that his action was not criminal.
They’ve also won legislation imposing the exclusion of potentially exculpatory evidence in order to shield accusers from embarrassment during proceedings when their own behavior is questioned. They have successfully fought to eliminate the requirement of evidence to corroborate an accuser’s word, and to allow admission of previous criminal records in sex crime hearings, including arrests and even mere accusations. This makes sex crime cases an exception to existing justice system standards, which require proof of the crime and exclude previous accusations or arrests that did not result in convictions as evidence in criminal hearings.
Those convicted of sexual misconduct can also be penalized disproportionately to the seriousness of the crime, with misdemeanor convictions in non-jury hearings resulting in felony-level penalties equal to house arrest, the duration of which can span decades. Such penalties are routinely imposed even when convicts comply with court-ordered therapy in return for the promise that punishment will be mitigated upon completion.
Now, the Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act, or Campus SaVE Act, in the U.S. has subjected students at post-secondary educational institutions to a new violation of their due process rights: imposition of life-altering penalty without a criminal trial or any of the legal protections that are still afforded to criminal trial defendants. Colleges and universities are required to respond to student accusations of sexual misconduct by investigating and holding hearings in which an even lower standard for evidence is used to convict the accused. A student’s entire academic career and future professional prospects can be permanently derailed by one accuser and a panel of employees with no legal training, all without benefit of legal counsel or a real jury trial.
This has resulted in wrongful punishment of students on several campuses. Civil rights organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union, Stop Abusive and Violent Environments, and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education have become involved in efforts to reverse the Campus SaVE Act and protect students from wrongful, life-altering punishment.
Due process on campus
by Jonathan Taylor of A Voice for Male Students
At issue: as of 2011 U.S. higher education has been required by the Department of Education to investigate every accusation of sexual assault on campus and to administer punishments to those who are found “guilty” by school officials. They are to reach their decisions via an extremely low standard of proof (the preponderance of evidence standard) and with little to no procedural safeguards normally found in a court of law. The main AVFMS resource page for due process issues can be found here:
There are currently 41 publicly known cases of students suing schools for unfairly punishing them after they were falsely accused. The most recent lawsuit was filed almost one month ago today at Temple University in Pennsylvania. The AVFMS database of these lawsuits can be found here:
A recent sensational story: at Columbia University, Emma Sulkowicz, who alleges she is a rape victim and that the school “dismissed” her accusations (actually, they investigated and found the accused “not guilty”), is carrying her mattress through school as performance art for her senior visual arts thesis. Although her case was taken up by the district attorney’s office, she declined to pursue it because it would “take too long.” This, among other things, leads me to suspect that she is probably not a genuine victim. AVFMS did a writeup of her case here:
The Campus Accountability and Safety Act (CASA) is proposed U.S. federal legislation that has bad implications for due process on campus via the introduction of a “confidential advisor” who takes up the cause of the accuser and also performs investigation roles (conflict of interest). The law also requires administrators to administer academically worthless surveys to students about attitudes regarding sexual assault; these surveys are highly susceptible to political hijacking. See the AVFMS writeup of CASA here:
Senator Mark Warner, one of the bill’s co-sponsors, has publicly said that there are some due process concerns that need to be addressed. A relevant excerpt of his statements (and a link to a longer article about him) is featured at COTWA here:
SB 967 is a law that is about to be passed in California. It is an “affirmative consent” law that will institutionalize a nebulous definition of consent on campuses. The biggest problem is that the legislation gives colleges leeway to define consent as “only verbal” consent. For example, under such a model, sex could be deemed “rape” by a school simply because it was accompanied by nonverbal (but not verbal) signs of consent. COTWA did a good writeup of SB 697 here:
There has been a lot of good press coverage for due process issues, particularly from Asche Schow of The Washington Post. I have linked 11 of her articles on the subject here:
Summary of events leading to GamerGate
December 4, 2013, Zoe Quinn submitted her game Depression Quest on Steam Greenlight. After a few weeks, Zoe complained that the imageboard Wizardchan had been harassing her for attempting to re-release a game that was already up online on Steam.
Wizardchan defines itself as:
A Japanese-inspired image-based forum (imageboard) for male virgins to share their thoughts and discuss their interests and lifestyle as a virgin. The name of our website is inspired by the term wizard, a meme of Japanese origin that means 30-year-old virgin. In contrast to other imageboards, Wizardchan is dedicated exclusively to people who have no sexual experience.
During this time, Zoe receives press from sites such as Kotaku for being brave in the face of Internet bullies and is given free publicity for her game.
Zoe Quinn’s game is then released on Steam (a games distribution platform for computer systems) on the date of Robin Williams’s death. Zoe’s ex (Eron Gjoni) creates a blog titled “The Zoe Post” and talks about his relationship with her, from when they meet online on OKCupid. He also posts images and textual facts about Zoe cheating on him with other developers and journalists in the gaming media. The most important one is Nathan Grayson, a writer for both Kotaku and Rock, Paper, Shotgun.
Mundane Matt puts up a video called “Hell hath no fury like a lover’s scorn” that is quickly taken down by YouTube under a DMCA violation, claiming that a non-moving photo of the game is stealing intellectual property. Gamers quickly begin to investigate and discover that Zoe lied about Wizardchan harassing her and faked bad life events for monetary gain. Gamers become angry over possible media corruption. InternetAristocrat creates his first video covering current events about special interests relating to Zoe not being disclosed to the general public. Many sites such as 4chan, Reddit, Kotaku, Gamasutra, and Rock, Paper, Shotgun start massively censoring anything relating to the issue and paint a picture that anyone speaking about it is a misogynist. Kotaku’s own defence states that it does not talk about personal business. InternetAristocrat makes another video calling out this hypocrisy.
Website users who hated one another (4chan, Reddit, and Tumblr) begin coming to an understanding with one another and begin to fight the censorship. During this time, Zoe, Adam Sessler (a games reporter), and Phil Fish (Zoe’s friend and fellow game developer) begin lashing out. They complain that their account info on many sites were hacked by 4chan. No one claims responsibility, and people questioning the incidents believe that the hacks were lies. Phil Fish continues lashing out, then leaves the gaming industry.
Through investigation, the new alliance finds out that Zoe and her friends sabotaged a charity for helping women develop video games called “The Fine Young Capitalists.” And Zoe herself went to go start her own, with all proceeds going into her own PayPal account. 4chan does something it never does, in typical 4chan style, by uniting to become the majority donors to “The Fine Young Capitalists” Indiegogo campaign and creating a character in the wake of the incident: “Vivian James.” Meanwhile, social justice warriors (SJW) begin an outcry on Twitter, telling “The Fine Young Capitalists” that money from “The Cathedral of Misogyny” is toxic. “The Fine Young Capitalists” Indiegogo campaign is hacked a few days after, but it’s restored. During this time, new information emerges about friendships and relationships in the gaming media. The Fine Young Capitalist have no press of what has happened to them and are doxed by Zoe. They announce this on Reddit and the attention turns from Zoe to gaming journalists.
Anita Sarkeesian then releases her new “Tropes vs Video Games” video. Tim Schafer, creator of games Grim Fandango and Psychonauts, retweets the video. YouTube video game personality JonTron comments about Sarkeesian disabling comments on her video and is immediately attacked by SJWs. At the same time, SJWs dox and threaten to kill a 10-year-old child. Zoe Quinn plays the victim over the situation with Anita Sarkeesian. SJWs adopt that anyone who does not agree with them are misogynists.
Attacks from all sides continue. Devin Faraci, owner of the site Badass Digest, tweets that he has more respect than anti-SJWs. TotalBiscuit and Boogie2988 release videos relating to the events and are both attacked by SJWs. During this time, Reddit has a resurgence of censorship. Kotaku and Polygon both acknowledge public outrage and both have a press release about journalistic integrity. Polygon seems to avoid the issue, while Kotaku announces its writers cannot donate to patrons of game-related individuals. During this time, a shift in media occurs in which some SJW writers and supporters quit industries or set their Twitter accounts to private. Joss Whedon retweets a post by Anita Sarkeesian about how SJWs are winning the fight.
Joss Whedon’s former colleague Adam Baldwin of Firefly gets involved and begins the hashtag GamerGate, which is quickly adopted by gamers, who now have a banner to be under. The outcry for journalistic integrity becomes stronger and the movement is fully born. The first plan of action is called “Operation Disrespectful Nod.” Gamers email the advertisers of gaming websites that they feel are corrupt in an effort to stop advertising on their sites. SJWs remain on the attack, Twitter user Ninouh90 starts using the hashtag #notyourshield to battle SJWs talking for other people’s races, sexual preferences, and gender to stop the stigma that all gamers are “white, neckbeard, basement dwellers.”
Zoe tries to make amends with “The Fine Young Capitalists.” However, at this time, it is stated that she cost them $10,000. Anita at this time claims she was run out of her home by threats on Twitter. She then claims that the authorities have been reported. Searching through the public domain, her claims are found to be untrue. Also, police would tell her NOT to display screenshots of the tweets in question when she did. Directly after, many gaming journalism websites write articles about the “death of the gamer.” Gamers become outraged and noticed game sites are working together.
What GamerGate stands for
#GamerGate is a movement of people who love playing video games but who are tired of having media personalities present content as honest and trustworthy when they do not disclose information about relationships and interests relating to the articles they write creating bias and special interests work. We are tired of getting lied to for a hobby we grew up with, helped build, and love.
GamerGate is not about gender, or Zoe Quinn, or Anita Sarkeesian, or keeping gaming a boys club. We do not believe in oppression of women, race, or color. We do not, nor support, doxing individuals or Twitter harassment.
- Relational aggression and victim gender – a tale of two standards | HBR Talk 165 - January 14, 2021
- Antifeminism, relational aggression, and the men’s rights movement | HBR Talk 164 - January 7, 2021
- Update with Deborah Powney | HBR Talk 163 - December 31, 2020