Bethany Patchin speaks out (and a NYT article)

[lovefromgirl]

You are correct. My attitude is based on my professional experience dealing with the court system, which is long and substantial. The best way to get justice in the USA is to be a wealthy male, a hot female, or to plan strategies assuming the judges are old and inflexible i their thinking, the attorneys are shysters, and the jurors are morons.

See, I haven't got that experience. Like I said, naïve. It is kind of sad that you do have that experience--sad for the state of our system of justice, sad for anyone who tries to seek justice--and I suppose the only thing I can say is that I hope my generation will work for change, even as I plan for the worst case scenario.

[aerynoctober]

lovefromgirl: Good for you. That's the attitude I went in with. I hope you find much more success than I did.

[silvia]

Sounds like Bethany is vacillating about her revelation now: http://bethanypatchin.blogspot.com/2011/07/hmmmm.html . I'd be happy to change the title of this thread, if it would help Google-wise -- but I'm afraid the cat's pretty far out of the bag by now...

[DomWackTroll]

"Open to Invited Readers Only." What did that last post say, silvia?

[Rosa]

Antifundie, great post. I wish I could have said it that clearly.

It's like that story about the woman whose rapist contacted her on facebook; he never quite got, until much much later, that it was rape.

[DomWackTroll]

Now she's opened the blog back up but deleted the rape posts.

[fundiefan]

I have very mixed opinions on the whole situation. There were some pretty ugly things in my marriage and when we divorced, part of the courts declaration is that we don't publicize our grievances. Basically, not badmouthing the other. And we don't even have kids to protect. It is part of standard declarations of divorce. It wasn't specific to us as a whole, although there were some specifics added and stated.

Trusted friends and therapists are the way to get it out, say it, deal with it.

I don't know her and have no place to judge her choices or make any comment on whether it 'really' was rape or not. She says it was and who can doubt her? It was her life. She lived and experienced it, behind closed doors. Only the two of them know for fact what did and didn't happen and how it happened. If she felt and feels violated, she was. Legally, though, if it wasn't reported and charged, it's badmouthing him to make it public knowledge.

Her ex did do the NYT article with her though and it did not mention the rape, so it's entirely possible that they have discussed matters and made decisions regarding what to talk about and everything that goes with it. They obviously cooperated in doing the article. They both left fundie land behind and are both learning and healing and growing and dealing with the damage that way of life inflicted.

I guess I'm just saying I have no opinion and nothing to contribute to the discussion because I can see different sides and also do not have a definitive view of how one should deal with traumatic experiences in their lives. There is no rule book and there are no clear cut right/wrong, black/white answers.

[raineymott]

I don't know her and have no place to judge her choices or make any comment on whether it 'really' was rape or not. She says it was and who can doubt her? It was her life. She lived and experienced it, behind closed doors. Only the two of them know for fact what did and didn't happen and how it happened. If she felt and feels violated, she was. Legally, though, if it wasn't reported and charged, it's badmouthing him to make it public knowledge.

OK, forgive me if I'm way out of line here...but I'm tending to think like the person who said the fundies can't win. I have no clue of any legal ramifications. But I couldn't help thinking about this in relation to what happened to me and other quivering daughters. If we say we were abused, it was behind closed doors, pretty much nobody outside the immediate family knew really what was going on. In a lot of cases, we could press charges against family members, but if we don't, it's badmouthing them to talk about the abuse and make it public knowledge?

[aerynoctober]

OK, forgive me if I'm way out of line here...but I'm tending to think like the person who said the fundies can't win. I have no clue of any legal ramifications. But I couldn't help thinking about this in relation to what happened to me and other quivering daughters. If we say we were abused, it was behind closed doors, pretty much nobody outside the immediate family knew really what was going on. In a lot of cases, we could press charges against family members, but if we don't, it's badmouthing them to talk about the abuse and make it public knowledge?

I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.

"The Biblical doctrine of submission and how we attempted to apply it pushed our marital sex life into areas that I and several professionals considered abusive, which is why I left." = Not objectionable and would be very, very hard to make legally actionable.

"The father of my children, with whom they spend three days a week BTW, ass-raped me. A lot." = Doing serious damage to the children's relationship with their father.

Wouldn't YOU, as an adult, feel guilt and shame and deep conflict if the day came that you realize you loved and were emotionally close to and felt loyalty to someone who ass-raped your mother? Now, imagine you were ten years old.

[fundiefan]

OK, forgive me if I'm way out of line here...but I'm tending to think like the person who said the fundies can't win. I have no clue of any legal ramifications. But I couldn't help thinking about this in relation to what happened to me and other quivering daughters. If we say we were abused, it was behind closed doors, pretty much nobody outside the immediate family knew really what was going on. In a lot of cases, we could press charges against family members, but if we don't, it's badmouthing them to talk about the abuse and make it public knowledge?

I was essentially agreeing, but didn't - and don't - have the right words. If her ex were to make an issue of it, the 'legally' position can be badmouthing, etc. I was trying to say that whatever route she took/takes, there could be ramifications. By behind closed doors I meant - it was her experience and it was not public, so how can anyone question it was rape when she says it was? We weren't there. They were. She says rape. There is no reason not to believe her.

She can't win. Not only here, but in the court of public opinion and the court of personal values and beliefs. IF it were made an issue by her ex - meaning if he chose to pursue some sort of case against her because of her words - the badmouthing would be their issue and it's not for anyone else to say what it is or isn't.

[Lainey]

She can't win. Not only here, but in the court of public opinion and the court of personal values and beliefs. IF it were made an issue by her ex - meaning if he chose to pursue some sort of case against her because of her words - the badmouthing would be their issue and it's not for anyone else to say what it is or isn't.

So much this.

[Rosa]

You know, my mom was the soul of discretion around my parents divorce, and it was pre-internet, but we *still* learned a lot of stuff about them they'd rather we not know. It was actually really important to my becoming an adult, trying to figure out how they conducted themselves in their terrible marriage.

[silvia]

"Open to Invited Readers Only." What did that last post say, silvia?

I have the post in my Google reader, so could share here, but am a little reluctant since Bethany's now taken it down (and, honestly, I wish her nothing but the best, so if she's decided it shouldn't be public, I'm inclined to respect that). Basically she talks about how she's considering taking the posts down, she admits it's better to be on the safe side for her kids' sake, but still has angry words for people who have criticized her for her revelation.

[aerynoctober]

I have the post in my Google reader, so could share here, but am a little reluctant since Bethany's now taken it down (and, honestly, I wish her nothing but the best, so if she's decided it shouldn't be public, I'm inclined to respect that). Basically she talks about how she's considering taking the posts down, she admits it's better to be on the safe side for her kids' sake, but still has angry words for people who have criticized her for her revelation.

Since you were the OP: I've no idea if it would help to edit the thread title or not, but surely it wouldn't *hurt* ? :?

[silvia]

Since you were the OP: I've no idea if it would help to edit the thread title or not, but surely it wouldn't *hurt* ? :?

Agreed. Done.

[fundiefan]

Unfortunately, I see this going the same way as any other rape victim telling her story. The victim is put on trial when someone else committed the crime. The victim is questioned and doubted and put on the defensive. That's why many rapes are not reported in the first place. Granted, she isn't reporting, but she is speaking out. All sorts of things have come up here about how wrong this was for her to do, because her kids might read it, etc. It's no different than a victim being put on the stand and questioned as to why she delayed reporting it or went home and took a shower or went to work as if nothing happened. Saying she shouldn't say anything because of the kids isn't, to me, any different than saying she shouldn't say anything because she was the one wearing the string bikini. Both make her the one with the obligation and the one on the defensive.

[bunny]

But it could cause her real legal issues to do it that way, not to mention Metafilter (a wellknown public blog) has a thread on it now. She has deleted the problematic info but it is very much on Mefi.

The problem with releasing the info this way is she has now lost total public control of it. Folks, I am a rape victim myself, and I see it from her perspective in a way but I also think in the long run that post did her absolutely NO favors.

Oh, and to the folks on here blaming patriarchy for what happened to her, bear in mind that the type of rape she referred to is absolutely a forbidden type of activity in the fundie world. When my husband was in Bible college they literally rounded up all the guys and told them straight out that it was one thing you do NOT do. Oral may or may not be debated, but the back door is NOT considered an option whatsoever.

My thought is he wanted sex, didn't want any more kids, but did not want to use birth control either.

[antifundie]

I'm sorry, but how does it do her no favors?? So, she "badmouths" a man, and she's tarred and feathered, but HE RAPES HER, and she's supposed to wipe it under the rug "for the sake of the children?" NO.

If her husband had broken her bones, smacked her around, and given her visible bruises, her kids would have seen that. But somehow, because it's sexual, they should be sheltered from the situation?? No.

Honestly, I usually do stick up for the kids--I do. And I do feel for these children. But at this point, I'm guessing that Bethany needs to put herself and her healing first--and if that means talking about the full extent of the abuse she endured, good for her--I think it's incredibly brave. Maybe some other woman will see that and realize that she can speak out/get out too.

Maybe her ex-husband has apologized and gotten therapy/counseling. We don't know. Maybe they have talked to their kids, or plan to talk to their kids. IN THIS CASE, maybe (I don't know for sure) dad can be changed (if he wants to) and learn to be a better partner to future women. We don't know.

[Lainey]

Unfortunately, I see this going the same way as any other rape victim telling her story. The victim is put on trial when someone else committed the crime. The victim is questioned and doubted and put on the defensive. That's why many rapes are not reported in the first place. Granted, she isn't reporting, but she is speaking out. All sorts of things have come up here about how wrong this was for her to do, because her kids might read it, etc. It's no different than a victim being put on the stand and questioned as to why she delayed reporting it or went home and took a shower or went to work as if nothing happened. Saying she shouldn't say anything because of the kids isn't, to me, any different than saying she shouldn't say anything because she was the one wearing the string bikini. Both make her the one with the obligation and the one on the defensive.

:shock: ...Get out of my head! :shifty:

[Lainey]

Oh, and to the folks on here blaming patriarchy for what happened to her, bear in mind that the type of rape she referred to is absolutely a forbidden type of activity in the fundie world. When my husband was in Bible college they literally rounded up all the guys and told them straight out that it was one thing you do NOT do. Oral may or may not be debated, but the back door is NOT considered an option whatsoever.

I have no words.

[Alecto]

I've been involved in several family court matters, and I suppose this has colored my perceptions of how things work. For those of you who haven't experienced this, let me give a bit of a primer so I can hopefully explain why I feel how I do:

There are three criteria in child custody that come into play here.

1. Best interests of the child

2. Custody will go to the parent that will most likely facilitate a HEALTHY relationship with the noncustodial parent

3. Court provisions forbidding publicly demeaning or badmouthing the ex-spouse

Number 2 and 3 reflect back to number 1. Legally, what she did would give her ex-husband room to argue for a change of custody based on the fact her public statements interfere with the healthy relationship he has with his children. He has never been convicted of rape or abuse, and his ex-wife has not argued that he is abusive, otherwise he wouldn't have his children 3 days a week. He could very easily argue his wife's statements are meant to alienate his children from him. He also would have criteria for #3, which would add weight to any petition in front of the court.

Legally, she is on very shaky ground by being so explicit. If she spoke that she "felt" violated, or she "felt" like she was abused, it's one thing, but saying directly that he raped her without any substantial evidence backing the claim, such as a police report, is asking to be taken to court and possibly lose primary custody of her children.

If her husband did rape her, then I personally thing not endangering your primary custody arrangement is more important than speaking publicly about your experience. Children eventually grow up, and this won't be an issue, and then she could speak more freely.

I also don't want to say he did rape her, because I firmly believe in people being innocent until proven guilty. I've seen too many false accusations of abuse, rape, and molestation in custody and divorce cases to not be a bit jaded.

[aerynoctober]

I've been involved in several family court matters, and I suppose this has colored my perceptions of how things work. For those of you who haven't experienced this, let me give a bit of a primer so I can hopefully explain why I feel how I do:

There are three criteria in child custody that come into play here.

1. Best interests of the child

2. Custody will go to the parent that will most likely facilitate a HEALTHY relationship with the noncustodial parent

3. Court provisions forbidding publicly demeaning or badmouthing the ex-spouse

Number 2 and 3 reflect back to number 1. Legally, what she did would give her ex-husband room to argue for a change of custody based on the fact her public statements interfere with the healthy relationship he has with his children. He has never been convicted of rape or abuse, and his ex-wife has not argued that he is abusive, otherwise he wouldn't have his children 3 days a week. He could very easily argue his wife's statements are meant to alienate his children from him. He also would have criteria for #3, which would add weight to any petition in front of the court.

Legally, she is on very shaky ground by being so explicit. If she spoke that she "felt" violated, or she "felt" like she was abused, it's one thing, but saying directly that he raped her without any substantial evidence backing the claim, such as a police report, is asking to be taken to court and possibly lose primary custody of her children.

If her husband did rape her, then I personally thing not endangering your primary custody arrangement is more important than speaking publicly about your experience. Children eventually grow up, and this won't be an issue, and then she could speak more freely.

I also don't want to say he did rape her, because I firmly believe in people being innocent until proven guilty. I've seen too many false accusations of abuse, rape, and molestation in custody and divorce cases to not be a bit jaded.

Speaking from extensive professional experience at several levels (including as a Court Appointed Juvenile Advocate), Alecto has spoken the truth. She has jeopardized her custody and then some.

[fundiefan]

Speaking from extensive professional experience at several levels (including as a Court Appointed Juvenile Advocate), Alecto has spoken the truth. She has jeopardized her custody and then some.

That is assuming that her ex disagrees and will take action. That is assuming that more is happening and will happen than a woman telling her story. That is assuming that her ex will immediately take her to court over her words.

Given he is on his own journey out of the fundie life, that is a whole lot of assuming. It's also giving a lot of motive where it is not obvious. She is telling her story. He may or may not react. Yes, IF he reacts, she could have hurt her position. She may honestly and serious considered all her options and made the choice that was best for her, regardless of consequences.

Then again, choosing not to act because of possible REaction is a way that many people and systems keep control of others.

I have years of personal experience with that one. The possible ramifications are used as tactics to keep control. The possible outcome is used as a reason to justify everything said and done.

My point is that as far as FJ is concerned, anything having to do with her ex and any reaction he may or may not have is pure speculation and a lot of motive assigning with no evidence.

Although the NYT article did not mention her statement of rape, he did participate in it. He did talk to them. That shows some level of cooperation in the healing process, on and for both sides. Who is to say there is not a great deal more cooperation in the healing process between the two of them?

Unless or until her ex takes her to court, saying she should or shouldn't do something because he could is futile.

[aerynoctober]

That is assuming that her ex disagrees and will take action. That is assuming that more is happening and will happen than a woman telling her story. That is assuming that her ex will immediately take her to court over her words.

Given he is on his own journey out of the fundie life, that is a whole lot of assuming. It's also giving a lot of motive where it is not obvious. She is telling her story. He may or may not react. Yes, IF he reacts, she could have hurt her position. She may honestly and serious considered all her options and made the choice that was best for her, regardless of consequences.

Then again, choosing not to act because of possible REaction is a way that many people and systems keep control of others.

I have years of personal experience with that one. The possible ramifications are used as tactics to keep control. The possible outcome is used as a reason to justify everything said and done.

My point is that as far as FJ is concerned, anything having to do with her ex and any reaction he may or may not have is pure speculation and a lot of motive assigning with no evidence.

Although the NYT article did not mention her statement of rape, he did participate in it. He did talk to them. That shows some level of cooperation in the healing process, on and for both sides. Who is to say there is not a great deal more cooperation in the healing process between the two of them?

Unless or until her ex takes her to court, saying she should or shouldn't do something because he could is futile.

I ask again. Would you not feel intense guilt, shame, conflict, and confusion if you found out that you had a close and loving relationship with someone who ass-raped your mother?

If your answer is yes, then you have all the evidence you need that it was psychologically damaging, at the least, to make the information public. It puts the kids in the position of feeling intense pulls toward loving their father (with whom they spend just shy of 50% of their time and who, even by their mother's account, is a good father) and the natural desire to hate, loathe, despise and detest someone who would ass-rape anyone, much less your mother.

In the post-feminist era, we women are full adults with moral and legal accountability for our actions and words. That's a double-edged sword. You can't be a helpless victim who is entitled to all sorts of understanding when it suits you and not, when it doesn't.

[treemom]

"Redheadskeptic" isn't a fundie celebrity. We are not using her name. Her four (!) children's names, ages, and photos weren't in the New York Times yesterday. Very big difference.

So? The problem is RHS alleged sexual misconduct but she isn't a fundie celebrity? And you don't think her daughter might be able to google it one day?