Author: has written 5272 posts for this blog.

Jill has been blogging for Feministe since 2005.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

40 Responses

  1. eruvande
    eruvande March 23, 2009 at 3:10 pm |

    It’s also real cute how the early advertisements on this segment frame the issue as “the left brings pain to rape survivors.” REAL cute. >_< What a vile man. Telling families of rape victims that their daughter deserved to be raped because she was dressed a certain way? TOTALLY comforting, I guess.

  2. Mr.Pendent
    Mr.Pendent March 23, 2009 at 3:34 pm |

    I’m starting to think that the way to deal with these Fox stalkers is to use a stun gun. I doubt anyone would frown on a 100 lb woman tasing a man who leaps out of the bushes brandishing a metal object at her. Maybe after a couple of times he’ll learn to approach his subjects slowly, politely and in clear view. You know, like a civilized person.

  3. Cara
    Cara March 23, 2009 at 3:40 pm |

    Telling families of rape victims that their daughter deserved to be raped because she was dressed a certain way? TOTALLY comforting, I guess.

    And murdered. Don’t forget that she had that coming, too.

  4. Katlyn
    Katlyn March 23, 2009 at 4:31 pm |

    They blame women for their own rapes, but blame this woman for their suffering because she called O’Reilly out on his bullshit? Do they actually believe anyone is going to buy that shit? Anyone with at least half of a brain could see who is really causing pain and suffering.

  5. Erin H.
    Erin H. March 23, 2009 at 4:53 pm |

    I hate that man with every fiber of my being.

  6. Jenn
    Jenn March 23, 2009 at 4:57 pm |

    Let’s get this straight: a girl was raped and murdered because she dared to dress how she liked and have a vagina in public. This was her fault because she obviously had some bizarre mind-control powers (it must be true, I saw it in X-men!) that she used to rape herself. Except then it wouldn’t be rape because she obviously consented to it, being the cause of it. Oy.

    Then! Another woman takes issue to this totally nonsensical framing of a brutal crime. O’Reilly producer stalks her for the crime off having a vagina and expressing herself. This is, again, her fault because she made him stalk her. ‘Tis is the mind-blowing power of all that have a vagina, obviously.

    I really don’t get these shitbags. Honestly, if I did have mind-control powers and I could make men, especially violent men, do anything (that includes O’Reilly and his douchehound producer), right now they’d be dancing in public, naked, painted with pink glitter and singing the Village People’s “In the Navy” for my personal amusement, not out raping women.

  7. Evan
    Evan March 23, 2009 at 5:05 pm |

    I just sent an email to Mr. Watters…

    Mr. Watters.

    I would like to express my displeasure in how you handled Amanda Terkel’s remarks. Your method of journalism is cheap, unfair, pathetic and frankly, it’s incredibly easy. Stalking people and surprising them with questions is inappropriate and childish. If you want to ask her questions why didn’t you contact her and set up a private interview? She never agreed to be questioned, making her answers invalid for your use. I’m a 21 year old college student with no journalism experience but I’ll bet I could get the same results using guerrilla-like questioning. I have no respect for you, Fox News, or Mr. Bill O’Reilly.

    Have a good day.


    Evan, Secular Humanist

  8. Priscilla
    Priscilla March 23, 2009 at 5:39 pm |

    There is a blog – Johnny Dollar’s Place – which defends Fox and Bill O’Reilly at all costs. They are now defending O’Reilly and Watters while denigrating Amanda. This from Cee:

    …”In using her own small stature in suggesting that evil ole O’Reilly thought she was vulnerable enough to be prey, she is acquiescing to the WHOLLY rational concept that her appearance and circumstance could certainly effect a rapists decision to go after her….”

    http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/blog/jdp.html

  9. Jamie
    Jamie March 23, 2009 at 6:50 pm |

    Yeesh, how frakking despicable. Bringing pain and suffering? By calling out Billy boy on his misogynistic crap? How self-delusional can one guy be? How arrogant can he be?

    You know, if he keeps on doing this, as I’ve heard this has happened before, someone IS going to take a bat to the cameraman’s camera. You can only push people so far.

  10. ANNNND...One More Reason Why Bill O'Reilly Should Be Smacked Down: Stalking Women Reporters | The SmackDog Chronicles (Ver. 2.6)

    [...] Jill over at Feministe has her own followup on the entire situation…and supporters of Amanda have set up a special Facebook page in [...]

  11. ANGRY
    ANGRY March 23, 2009 at 7:42 pm |

    Everyone is missing the larger point: RUPERT MURDOCH is the one paying for these stalkers. Bill O’Reilly is middle management, Ailes runs the division, MURDOCH and his sons OWN THE COMPANY.

    MURDOCH AND HIS SONS have engaged in a pattern of abusive behavior through their goons. The Murdoch’s use their thug employees like verbal baseball bats on the TV, the radio stations they own, and the print media the own.

    The focus on the goons gives a free pass to the boss in the shadows. Ultimately MURDOCH is responsible for what his goons are doing. And now Murdoch is paying to have young women stalked and harassed in order to intimidate them and leave them fearful that if they speak up against his goons thugery that they too will be hunted and harassed.

    This wasn’t about getting an interview. This is Murdoch sanctioning brown shirt like stalking and harassment.

  12. JP
    JP March 23, 2009 at 7:57 pm |

    O’reilly is forever on an ego trip. He’ll just frame our outrage as proof of how the big bad lefties pick on poor widdle him. GOD! that man is insufferable

  13. Zelie Martin
    Zelie Martin March 23, 2009 at 8:31 pm |

    Still I think the main point is lost. When you dress provocatively you’re gonna get noticed. And if you’re intoxicated on top of that you lose your ability to make good judgments as well as the physical ability to evade or escape from dangerous situations. And for women to be dressed like that, while intoxicated, late at night and alone, from a safety standpoint is just dumb.

  14. Tom Foolery
    Tom Foolery March 23, 2009 at 8:46 pm |

    Aside from the whole “being in the wrong thing,” misusing ambush journalism just frustrates me. The time to approach someone unexpectedly with a camera is when they’re a powerful or influential person with many layers of isolation between you and them, and they’ve been ducking your questions purposefully. Not when you just want to score some cheap points against somebody who criticizes you.

    Also, @ Zelie, you are totally going to get an earful very, very soon.

  15. Andrew
    Andrew March 23, 2009 at 9:19 pm |

    O’Reilly and his minions attacking Amanda Terkel reminds me of the Chinese proverb: “When the genius points at the moon, the idiot looks at the finger.”

  16. Drasties - Dutch on the World - World on the Dutch

    [...] fox news knows whats wrong with america: amanda [...]

  17. Jenn
    Jenn March 23, 2009 at 10:53 pm |

    Still I think the main point is lost. When you dress provocatively you’re gonna get noticed. And if you’re intoxicated on top of that you lose your ability to make good judgments as well as the physical ability to evade or escape from dangerous situations. And for women to be dressed like that, while intoxicated, late at night and alone, from a safety standpoint is just dumb.

    Zelie, STFU. Who approved that comment? Really, please don’t anyone bother explaining the obvious. Vicious mocking displays more intelligence than this asinine post.

  18. Amanda Terkel | Daily News
    Amanda Terkel | Daily News March 24, 2009 at 4:01 am |

    [...] Standing with Amanda Terkel [...]

  19. Priscilla
    Priscilla March 24, 2009 at 6:58 am |

    On last night’s O’Reilly factor, he (once again) revictimized Moore while calling the rest of us who were outraged by his comments “left wing loons.” He showed Jesse Watters calling Terkel “dishonest” because she wasn’t able to comment about the “context” of O’Reilly’s comment (which had to do with something O’Reilly had said, previously in the broadcast, about Mel Gibson’s drunkenness.) Bill alleged that the outrage over his insensitive remarks “hurt rape victims” (WTF?) Nowhere did he reference his comments about Shawn Hornbeck. But the most bizarre thing was his blaming of NBC and Media Matters. You can read all about it and watch the video on News Hounds:

    http://www.newshounds.us/2009/03/24/oreilly_harasses_young_female_in_response_to_allegations_hes_insensitive_to_rape_victims.php

    You can also listen to the radio tape on his disgusting website. There was no “context” in his comment about Moore except an attempt to smear and blame her. He can’t get out of his by further smearing Terkel.

  20. Kate
    Kate March 24, 2009 at 8:00 am |

    Here is the email I just sent Mr. Watters. I figure maybe the poor guy just didn’t know the right way to approach the situation (snark).

    Mr. Watters,
    As a journalist, I’m sure you know that there are right ways and wrong ways of gathering information, interviewing an individual, and putting together a responsible and factually-accurate story. Your recent actions, wherein you hounded Amanda Terkel in what could only amount to a publicity stunt, are indicative of a total lack of journalistic ethics. Moreover, these actions suggest that you may need a refresher course on some basic principles of investigating a story.

    If you are truly committed to investigating the complicated issue of how rape ought to be discussed in the public sphere, then there are a few options you might consider pursuing:
    1. Read the literature put out by academics who study rape and its effects on the men and women who survive it;
    2. Reach out to the community organizations that serve rape victims to discuss the services they provide and what sort of discourse is least likely to silence or harm rape survivors; and
    3. Talk to rape survivors who make themselves available to discuss their experiences and what sort of public discourse they find helpful or hurtful.

    I strongly suggest that you schedule ahead of time any discussions you might like to have with the individuals above. Not only does this show the people you will be working with the courtesy and general respect that they deserve, but it also makes it more likely that you will be able to get accurate and considered information from those discussions.

    Finally, it is important to remember that there may be people who have different views and opinions on some of what you will be discussing. The appropriate way to handle this occurrence is to ask the sorts of questions that allow you to fully explore what the underlying facts and analytical frameworks are that lead these individuals to have a different perspective than others discussing the same topic. When asking these questions, remember that it is important to also provide the individual the opportunity to actually answer the questions — yelling, interrupting, or arguing with them is probably not the best course of action.

    I hope that you will find these suggestions helpful. As we all know, this is an important topic — one that deserves the attention of the media. I am sure you are, with the resources and support of Fox News, more than up to the challenge.

  21. Renee
    Renee March 24, 2009 at 8:18 am |

    I read this over at think progress. Bill is nothing but a bully who cannot stand to be criticized for the misogynist things that he says and does period. Considering what a known douche the man is I am quite frankly surprised that any charity or foundation that supports women’s rights would ask him to speak. When I think of the words white male privilege he is definitely one of the first people that comes to mind.

  22. piny
    piny March 24, 2009 at 9:59 am |

    (I’m not sure I shoud even respond to Zelie, since–Jill’s right–the comment was only auto-allowed out of ban hell, but.)

    Even if we assume for the sake of argument that women can protect themselves by behaving a certain way or dressing a certain way (or growing to a certain height), successful risk-avoidance is not safety. A woman who is told that she must never walk around her own neighborhood at night is not safe. She has already been subjected to battery. The threat of rape controls and curtails her entire life, even down to the clothes she’s allowed to wear and the foods she’s allowed to consume.

    That’s why Bill’s comments were so reprehensible, and how they were so damaging. A focus on the victim’s behavior, and by extension the behavior of all women, doesn’t only relieve each rapist of responsibility. It makes us as a society complicit in sexual assault, because it makes all of us instruments of rape culture. It turns rape into a social punishment for bad female behavior. It doesn’t protect women. It uses a specific injury to commit a general one.

  23. Alara Rogers
    Alara Rogers March 24, 2009 at 10:44 am |

    Now O’Reilly, Bill O’Reilly, middle-aged, on his TV show. He’s a blowhard, some middle-aged guy in a suit, talking tough like he’s got the right to piss on the whole world. Now, again, there you go. So every person he insulted in the world is gonna pick that up sooner or later. He’s walking around in broad daylight, no helmet, no bullet-proof vest, got a famous face and voice and a whole lot of controversial opinions, and he runs into some thug with a grudge…

    Somehow, if O’Reilly were to be physically assaulted or murdered in public, I doubt very much that those discussing his fate would describe it in these terms.

  24. chava
    chava March 24, 2009 at 10:46 am |

    * sputter* He did WHAT?

    Aside from the fact that it’s victim blaming and just…ugh, the numbers don’t even support his asinine assertions. You are MUCH more likely to be sexually abused/raped/killed by a man you know. So you could be wearing PJ’s and no makeup, and be in more danger. Gah.

    That said, I do wish we had a framework for telling young girls (and boys as well), hey, might not be such a good idea to wander around drunk at 2am, that didn’t descend into victim blaming.

  25. Anna.liscious
    Anna.liscious March 24, 2009 at 12:18 pm |

    My email to Mr. Watters:
    Dear Mr. Watters,

    While I understand that the point of your show is to shock, the actions taken against Amanda Terkel this past weekend were absolutely reprehensible and inexcusable. Stalking and verbal attacks do not equal journalism and disagreeing with callous remarks made by Mr. O’Reilly does not constitute insulting rape victims. The combination of news and entertainment has the potential to refresh and educate audiences, inviting them to question their own views and exposing them to new ideas. However, after hearing of the “research methods” and “interview tactics” employed this weekend, it seems clear that The O’Reilly Factor exists to push O’Reilly’s backwards ideas and sometimes punish people for disagreeing with him rather than to enrich the American socio-political debate. Conservatives should be ashamed to have you on their side, as should journalists and TV producers, and rape victims should rally to have O’Reilly removed from his upcoming speaking engagement for your absurd, disgusting, totally unprofessional behavior.

    Indignantly,

    Anna

    This man is a creep. Ugh.

  26. Rusty
    Rusty March 24, 2009 at 12:34 pm |

    Apparently what happened was in the comments to Amanda’s original post, someone posted the link to the foundation O’Reilly was going to be addressing and encouraged people to e-mail them in protest. What upset O’Reilly and caused him to sic the stalk and attack dogs on Amanda was that (according to a representative of the family that was on O’Reilly’s show), alot of the e-mails to the foundation were harshly worded and it upset Alexa and her family. Not sure what any of that has to do with NBC News or even Amanda Terkel, but I think it clarifies the situation somewhat.

  27. Alara Rogers
    Alara Rogers March 24, 2009 at 12:41 pm |

    That said, I do wish we had a framework for telling young girls (and boys as well), hey, might not be such a good idea to wander around drunk at 2am, that didn’t descend into victim blaming.

    I think the way to do it successfully is, as you said, tell young girls *and* boys. Men are murdered *much* more often than women, and actually suffer far more crime in general at the hands of strangers — women are in more danger at home than men are, but out in the world it is actually *men* that are in greater danger. (From other men, of course — let it be noted that men commit almost all the crime against everyone, but when a man is beaten, mugged or murdered it is no consolation to him that his own gender did it.) So if we told our teens of *both* sexes, “hey, it is dangerous to walk home alone at 2 am,” we wouldn’t be specifically targeting *women* with “Be afraid! You’re a woman! The world is dangerous to you!” (which is where the victim blaming comes from — “She’s a woman, she should have known she wasn’t safe to walk down the street!”), while sparing our men their false confidence that the world is their oyster and they can go anywhere and do anything without consequences.

    And hey, if more cops pulled up alongside teen boys and said, “Say, son, it’s dangerous out here. Would you like a ride home?” rather than “What are you doing around here this late at night?”, implying that the boy *must* be a criminal… well, people live down to expectations. Treat a person as a criminal and they get the idea that maybe that’s what they are, and at least some crime comes from this.

  28. Daily Femmostroppo Reader - March 25, 2009 — Hoyden About Town

    [...] Standing with Amanda Terkel [...]

  29. piny
    piny March 24, 2009 at 3:58 pm |

    Apparently what happened was in the comments to Amanda’s original post, someone posted the link to the foundation O’Reilly was going to be addressing and encouraged people to e-mail them in protest. What upset O’Reilly and caused him to sic the stalk and attack dogs on Amanda was that (according to a representative of the family that was on O’Reilly’s show), alot of the e-mails to the foundation were harshly worded and it upset Alexa and her family. Not sure what any of that has to do with NBC News or even Amanda Terkel, but I think it clarifies the situation somewhat.

    Well, yes, that is different from stalking a woman for daring to disagree with your views on proper female behavior.

    It’s always hard to know whether someone is being an asshole on purpose or in the service of some dearly-held assholish principle. However, the abusive handling of the confrontation, the refusal on Bill’s part to accept any responsibility for his rape apology, and his categorical unwillingness to understand that one or two rape victims hear that crap pretty much continuously after the assault…all of these things plus his general personality make me very skeptical about his concern for the Alexa family.

    I think that women have every right to complain about sexist victim-blaming, especially under the pretence of victim-advocacy, and I don’t think Terkel is responsible for the language used by some commenters.

  30. OutcrazyOphelia
    OutcrazyOphelia March 24, 2009 at 5:30 pm |

    What an awful excuse for a human being. Somehow his words that blamed a woman who was raped and murdered for her own fate don’t hurt victim’s families, but pointing out that someone who does not believe in the humanity and dignity of all people regardless of gender is not the best person to speak at an event that will be attended by victims and their families is harmful and should be apologized for. It just goes to show that he has a knee jerk reaction to any dissent, no matter how well founded it is. I want to know how questioning his victim blaming hurts the organization? Does he think he’s right? Is he going to speak about how women need to wear pants and not leave the house after dark at the event? Ugh.

  31. Anon E. Mouse
    Anon E. Mouse March 24, 2009 at 6:13 pm |

    Email sent to Watters:

    Dear Mr. Watters,

    While Anonymous appreciates that many people would like to get into the business of trolling we feel that it is important for you to understand that it is a serious business. Your attempts to troll Ms Terkel were sorely lacking in lulz and seemed more suited to a school yard bully than a professional journalist. As you failed to produce either meaningful information or good entertainment we would like to respectfully request that you stop harassing Ms. Terkel (or, as the kids at the far left website Ebaumsworld.com would say, GTFO). Further, we fail to see why you would volunteer to be Mr. O’Reilly’s personal army. Perhaps the incident would have been more entertaining had he shown up in person to attempt to troll Ms. Terkel, but his absence suggests that he feared that his performance might, as he famously said at his previous job, “fucking suck.” I would like to remind you that Mr. O’Reilly has previously proven to be a rich source of lulz despite his procurement of dogs and a curtain, and that his continued unlulzy behavior reminds us of Hal Turner.

    Sincerely,
    The internet hate machine.

  32. Ellid
    Ellid March 25, 2009 at 6:16 am |

    If the people at the Alexa Foundation were upset, well, they are the ones who asked a victim-blaming misogynist to raise money for their organization. Crying foul because people are calling O’Reilly (and them) on this is a bit much.

    Also, nothing, NOTHING justifies Watters tailing Amanda Terkel on vacation and treating her the way she was treated.

  33. golublog
    golublog March 25, 2009 at 11:40 am |

    Bill O Reilly has always been a terrible bully, I feel he to generally has no respect for women. When a women commentator comes on his show he tries to intimidate them as much as possible. He brings up women’s issues for easy ratings, and then tears apart any women who comes on the show to present an alternate opinion.

  34. Kanye East
    Kanye East March 25, 2009 at 6:15 pm |

    It’s hard to disagree with the charge that O’Reilly is a self-important gasbag, but there is kernel of truth in what he’s saying. In a perfect world, nothing would have happened to this poor lass other than perhaps a gallant fellow giving her a ride home. But we live in a fallen world, not utopia, and must show some prudence.

  35. Yolanda C.
    Yolanda C. March 25, 2009 at 7:11 pm |

    It’s hard to disagree with the charge that O’Reilly is a self-important gasbag, but there is kernel of truth in what he’s saying.In a perfect world, nothing would have happened to this poor lass other than perhaps a gallant fellow giving her a ride home. But we live in a fallen world, not utopia, and must show some prudence.

    Okay Mr. East, but here’s the problem with that: Being a perfect lady showing proper “prudence” ain’t never stopped a rapist or harasser. Many sober and properly dressed women have been assaulted by strange men, sometimes in broad daylight. Let’s not even get into the subject of men who rape women they know or are related to.

    And no, dear Mr. East—we don’t live in a fallen world: We live in a world where assholes with privilege bully people who don’t have privilege. And as long as there’s a such thing as heteromale privilege, women and queer folks will continue to be targets of rape and battering by straight men.

  36. Kanye East
    Kanye East March 26, 2009 at 2:04 pm |

    Okay Mr. East, but here’s the problem with that: Being a perfect lady showing proper “prudence” ain’t never stopped a rapist or harasser. Many sober and properly dressed women have been assaulted by strange men, sometimes in broad daylight. Let’s not even get into the subject of men who rape women they know or are related to.

    True enough, but I think we can both agree that one is far less likely to land a lunker throwing a bare hook into a mud puddle in front of one’s home than a juicy fly into a hatchery pond. It’s not blaming the victim to say the victim acted with little regard to her own safety in this case. And let’s not forget that Moore’s rapist/killer had a female accomplice in raping and murdering his victim.

  37. Gary
    Gary March 26, 2009 at 8:18 pm |

    Sorry to get off the real subject but, how is Mel Gibson a anti-semite? Just because he produced a movie which reflects exactly what the bible has written? Come on, lets not get too dirty with labeling people because they tell the truth others don’t like to hear because it smears a certain religion. Quite frankly, the concept correlates with the book burnings done under the most evil man the world has ever seen… history is painful, why not learn from it..

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.