Why Natalee Holloway Is Lucky She Is Not Around to Make Accusations

[BrklynLiberal]

This is such an interesting article it was difficult to pick out only three paragraphs. There is no copyright. I think it should be OK. Sorry :(
Why Natalee Holloway Is Lucky She Is Not Around to Make Accusations
Reported by Judy - April 20, 2006

Natalee Holloway is lucky she is not around to make accusations against anybody who may have done her harm. Why? Just look what has happened to the woman who says members of the Duke lacrosse team gang-raped her. Fox News has turned her into the criminal, attacking her credibility and rallying to the defense of the white privileged defendants in the case. It's all about the underlying political agenda of Fox News.

Everything on Fox News has a political agenda -- even coverage of missing white women, which we all know far exceeds the coverage of missing people of any other gender or race on this network. But what is the Fox News political agenda regarding missing white women and how does Fox News coverage of the Natalee Holloway disappearance and the alleged gang rape of a woman by members of the Duke lacrosse team exemplify that?

The thinking of Berkeley linguist George Lakoff -- Don't Think of An Elephant -- helps explain Fox News' political agenda in these matters. Fox News' editors and reporters subscribe to a world view in which men rule -- what Lakoff calls the strict father paradigm. The father is the boss in the family, and by extension, George Bush is the boss in the country, the world. Family members are subject to the strict father's severe discipline, which they need in order to learn how to survive in the world. Besides meting out discipline, the father's job is to protect the famly members from the dangerous outside world.

Lakoff contrasts this view of the world (he calls it a "frame") with the world view of progressives. Progressives see the family as made up of nurturing parents who are both equal and equally responsible for raising children in a loving environment that stresses empathy and caring over strict discipline. Now, according to Lakoff, most people have both world views embedded in their psyches but using certain words or phrases can activate one frame or another. When the strict father frame is active in viewers, George Bush and conservatives win. It is Fox News' job to keep that strict father frame active in its viewers at all times.

Within this world view, Fox News recognizes only two kinds of women -- victims and sexual deviants/whores. Natalee Holloway represents the first kind. In Fox News' world view, we can feel sorry for her because she has been a victim of the dangerous outside world. More importantly, we can feel sorry for her because she is no longer around to level charges against her accusers.

Suppose Natalee Holloway had been able to escape her attackers that night and go to the police with her story of what happened? Then Natalee Holloway would have slipped from the category of victim to sexual deviant -- the same Fox News category that encompasses the alleged victim in the Duke lacrosse gang rape case, the female teachers who have sex with their students, and most progressive women politicians, such as Hillary Clinton and Dianne Feinstein.

Why would Holloway have switched categories? Because her going to the police would necessarily have entailed making accusations against males. And unless those males were non-white, by making an accusation against a male, Natalee Holloway would have been challenging the authority of the strict father figure, which is the touchstone of so much conservative thinking. Strict father figures are to be obeyed, not challenged. Once a woman, even a likely victim such as Natalee Holloway, challenges that authority, they must be destroyed through character assassination, and the targets of her accusations must be defended at all costs because they are society's supreme authority figures -- privileged white males.

<snip>

Then Huddy and Jerrick went to questions from the audience, and who is the first person they call on? A guy from New Jersey who just happens to have known the family of one of the accused, Reade Silbermann. The New Jersey delivers a character defense of Silbermann, unrebutted in any way by a spokesperson for the victim or women's advocates, and laments how Silbermann will never be able to get his good name back when he is cleared. The audience applauds. (Amazing,isn't it, that Huddy and Jerrick were able to find this guy randomly in the audience on the first try? Is Fox News actively working with defense attorneys in this case to skew public opinion in favor of the defendants?)

Then "Dayside" went immediately to the Holloway case in Aruba. Julie Banderas cried no tears about the potential impact of trying the case in the press for the defendants in the Holloway case. In fact, she still is trying to implicate Joran van der Sloot even though police have arrested someone else.

The difference in treatment of the back-to-back stories was jarring and cried for an explanation.

Because Holloway is not around to make allegations, she can safely remain in the victim category. She is not challenging male authority, thus she is a "safe" victim. If she were alive and making allegations of a horrific experience at the hands of male attackers on the beach that night, Fox News would drop her like a whore with syphyllis. Natalee Holloway would become the issue to a much greater extent than she has so far -- what her sexual history was, what she told police and any inconsistencies that existed in her story, what kind of a woman goes to the beach with guys she doesn't know, and on and on -- and the white male suspects would become the victims.

There have been other cases of the strict father frame at work on Fox News. John Gibson's attack on CBS legal analyst Wendy Murphy on Wednesday (April 19, 2006) is one of them. His contempt for the victim was visceral. You could almost feel his outrage at the challenge to his authority as a strict father figure.

Which brings us back to Fox News' political agenda. Strong progressive women fall into the sexual deviant category not because of their sexual activity necessarily, but because of the threat they pose to the strict father paradigm. They are sexual deviants because they don't fit into the conservative frame of a family where the father rules without challenge. They must be attacked and destroyed unmercifully because every right-wing male knows that if Hillary Clinton is ever elected president, his authority within his own family is at risk -- or so he fears.

The challenge for progressives, according to Lakoff, is to avoid activating that strict father paradigm in American voters at all costs. In the case of women who cry rape, that means focusing on caring and compassion for the victim, in hopes of activating that nurturant parent frame that exists in many Americans' psyches and deactivating that strict parent frame.

The strict father frame never sleeps on Fox News. And that's why Fox News' watchers should not sleep either.

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/04/20/why_natalee_holloway_is_lucky_she_is_not_around_to_make_accusations.php

[Branjor]

1. Excellent analysis....

So true, unfortunately.

[glitch]

2. Thanks for posting this. I think Thom Hartmann was talking about it

on Friday and I wanted to look it up. But forgot. K & R

[BrklynLiberal]

4. I heard it on the repeat this AM and DID look it up because I thought

it was so important and had to post it..
:thumbsup: :hi:

[supernova]

3. So dead on the money

The only good victim is a dead victim. :-(

[Jade Fox]

5. Very good.....thanks BrklynLiberal

[BrklynLiberal]

6. It is my privilege to share this important article

:hi:

[madrchsod]

7. very interesting article that is for sure

natalee was acting like a "drunken little slut" but is redeemed by being dead? kind`a makes ya think in what century are the people of fox news living in? the entertainment side panders to the lack of moral sexuality of it`s audience..my head hurts

[femmedem]

8. Sounds like I'm going to have to read Lakoff's book.

As I read the article, I thought of an old flame with whom I used to have vehement political disagreements. We couldn't talk about abortion. We couldn't talk about capital punishment. His god was a vengeful god, and he believed in imminent Armageddon.

I always thought--still do--that his political and his religious beliefs had everything to do with his crazy/violent authoritarian Dad, who did things like shoot guns off in the living room and molest his stepdaughter.

But how can a toddler not love his almighty Dad? And why wouldn't such a toddler grow up to believe that God is the Ultimate Disciplinarian, that Fear=Respect, that the Duty of the Good is to Punish the Bad?

Point being, how futile is it to try to change such a world view with facts and figures? Maybe in this article lies the beginning of a path across this cultural divide--a way to speak to each other, not just about rape, but about foreign policy, drug policy, the war on terrorism, etc. and etc.

[BrklynLiberal]

9. It does seem that there is clue to the language we have to speak in order

to be able to communicate with them.

[femmedem]

10. It has to do with moving away from abstract theories

and more toward specific people, I think.

In my little city, where lawyers and homeless people talk to each other as they stand in line at the downtown coffee shop, you'd be surprised how many Republicans volunteer at the soup kitchen.

[bloom]

18. There is this essay online:

http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html

Metaphor, Morality, and Politics,

Or,

Why Conservatives Have Left Liberals In the Dust

[femmedem]

20. Fantastic essay. Thanks.

Now I'm wondering what percentage of people believe in the conservative metaphor vs. the liberal metaphor. The answer would tell us if it's strategically better to strengthen the liberal, "nurturing parent" metaphor or explain liberal policies in terms which fit acceptably into the conservative "strict father" metaphor. Or, as the OP suggests, can both metaphors resonate with most people, in which case a skillful liberal politician can sway conservatives by invoking the nurturing parent metaphor?

Off topic a bit, but restorative justice is a good example of an idea which can be framed appealingly using either metaphor.

http://www.restorativejustice.org/intro/

[bettyellen]

22. liberal policies don't fit the "strict father" frame.

it's a totally "togh love" no safety net, use your bootstraps kinda philospophy.
and what's so ugly about it, in order to go along with it, is that you have to assume that a large segment of the population is unruly or bad in some way and or you have to feel endangered. . i don't think you can "activate" the tough dad frame without hatred, fear or desperation.

[BrklynLiberal]

25. and that is exactly what the Bushites do with "terra terra terra"

[bettyellen]

26. fear resonates emotionallly- and survival is a more primary instinct

than any other. how about the survival of our way of life though?
i think we really have to nail them on how the cuts in social programs and the war are destroying families.

i think between katrina and health insurance/ costs coupled with wage stagnation - people feel fucked. as well they should.

[readmoreoften]

11. This is dead on.

Explains it PERFECTLY.

[Solly Mack]

12. very good

thanks for posting

[troubleinwinter]

13. K & R for this excellent article. Thank you for posting it.

[MannyGoldstein]

14. Oh Come On

There's some point to what you're saying, but the Duke case is not helping your case. All of the potential attackers took DNA tests - all came back negative. At least one of the two alleged attackers has an iron-clad and extensive alibi, showing that he almost certainly wasn't there when the attack took place. The accuser has a significant record - I believe that she was on probation when the event was alleged to have occured.

Unless there's some evidence that we don't know about, this is a he said/she said, with the "he"s having very good evidence.

[bloom]

16. you've only been hearing the defense side

apparently

[BrklynLiberal]

19. Your response just proves the point of the essay.

[Marie26]

15. What an excellent article.

I'd never thought about it that way before, but it makes perfect sense. Natalie Holloway represents the "daughter" in need of patriachial protection from the big bad world. The Duke case represents a woman who is challenging that same patriachal world-view.

[bloom]

17. That is an EXCELLENT analysis.

Everyone should read it.

Of course some are already too caught up in worrying about the effects to the lacrosse men that they don't recognize a case when they hear one.


I did notice about a year ago - those two men with Van De Sloot were trying to smear Holloway and trying to make everything out to be her fault because she supposedly went in the car of her own free will - so it had to be her fault. Pretty similar to some of the rape apologists with the Duke case.


I think it is very odd how rape victims become "defendants".

[exlrrp]

21. This starts out stupid

and then goes downhill from there
This is a really LOUSY title, completely stupid: "Why Natalee Holloway Is Lucky She Is Not Around to Make Accusations"
Do you REALLY think Natalee Holloway is "lucky" she is dead so she doesn't have to hear what Faux News Has to say??? If so, you are completely unfeeling person with no sense of humaity at all
I bet her parents wish she was alive regardless of what FauxNews has to say!! And ANYBODY with sense or an understanding of the situation, thinks so also.
This article adresses FauxNews response like its the only one in the world, the only important one--there's other MSM outlets also--are ALL the MSM outlets guilty of "a world view in which men rule -- what Lakoff calls the strict father paradigm. The father is the boss in the family, and by extension, George Bush is the boss in the country, the world." Youre trying to tie in GEORGE BUSH to the natalee Holloway case? Give it a rest!! I dislike the man as much as anyone but fair is fair
"Why would Holloway have switched categories?" Holloway didn't "switch categories,"--she's DEAD!-- this is an extraneous construct applied after the fact. "Because her going to the police would necessarily have entailed making accusations against males." Yes, thats what making accusations of rape entails: going to the police and making accusations against males--no real surprise or stretch there. SHES DIDN'T GO TO THE POLICE BECAUSE SHE WAS DEAD!! Not because she was afraid of taking on male privilege!!
"Strict father figures are to be obeyed, not challenged. Once a woman, even a likely victim such as Natalee Holloway, challenges that authority, they must be destroyed through character assassination, and the targets of her accusations must be defended at all costs because they are society's supreme authority figures -- privileged white males."
Um, this is all well and good as a social construct but this tries to portray as fact that society encourages rape and vilifies the victim. It HAS happened bu Society's mores have changed tremedously in my lifetime about this. Just go talk to ANY police officer about this, especially a FEMALE police officer about their procedures for handling rape. They'll tell you they aren't following any rules to "protect white male privilege" they'll tell you theyre trying to solve crimes.
"Because Holloway is not around to make allegations, she can safely remain in the victim category."
This is AMAZINGLY stupid!! She's not "safely remaining" ANYTHING--she's DEAD!! The victim of a brutal crime!! How can she "safely remain" ANYTHIN?? SHE'S DEAD!! D-E-A-D!!
Equally Stupid: "Strong progressive women fall into the sexual deviant category not because of their sexual activity necessarily, but because of the threat they pose to the strict father paradigm."
Who exactly said that the Duke victim is a "strong progressive woman?" threatening the strict father paradigm Doesn't sound to me like she's the strong progressive woman to build a strong case around, strong progressive women aren't stripping for fraternities in the early morning hours. Tawana Brawley wasn't a strong progressive woman either
"In the case of women who cry rape, that means focusing on caring and compassion for the victim,...." It also means a fair investigation to determine if there actually was a crime and victim and a fair trial for anyone who's broken the law. As this is outside the range of Faux News sphere of influence, who gives a dam what they say?

I'm expecting a lot of flames about this but go ahead---this aricle is really stupid

[bettyellen]

23. you had me at Tawana...

*bingo*
ha ha ha.
at first i thought the whole article went over your head. then you had to say that.

[ThomCat]

24. Sadly, this seems very accurate.

n/t

[Lisa]

27. "the father of the family must be master in his own house"

This was a polling question asked over a period of several years -- the results may be of interest here, since they pertain to some of the points made in the excellent article posted by BrklynLiberal.


"Every year thereafter a smaller proportion of Canadians agreed. By 1992, the year before Kim Campbell became our first female prime minister, only 26 per cent of Canadians still said dad should be on top -- a drop of 16 per cent in less than nine years. Our colleagues in France had been tracking this question since 1975 and they, too, were finding the same kind of systematic decline in the preference for patriarchal authority. So, too, in other European countries.

Nineteen ninety-two was the first year we began conducting social-values research in the United States, the world capital of individualism and egalitarianism, of civil rights movements and affirmative action (remember, an American was the first to deflower the feminine mystique). We speculated that the United States would be ahead of Canada and France on this trend.

We found to our surprise that 42 per cent of Americans told us the father should be master, while 57 per cent disagreed and 1 per cent had no opinion. The gap between the two countries was a substantial 16 per cent.

Many, including veteran U.S. analysts, found our research hard to believe. We kept doing our annual polls in Canada, which continued to show erosion in support for patriarchal authority. By 1996, Canadian support had dropped to 20 per cent. But the 1996 U.S. numbers showed a two-point increase in the proportion who thought dad should be boss."

http://erg.environics.net/news/default.asp?aID=456



The researchers went on to write a book, about differences between Canadians and Americans regarding authoritarianism and individualism.
http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=3501

[DubyaSux]

28. Maybe she's more lucky....

....to be dead rather than having to consult with a PR firm to learn how to spin the situation to her advantage.

[Karenina]

29. Excellent and

SPOT ON! :kick: