Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau


Comments (70) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. leftwingpatriot

    leftwingpatriot GoComics PRO Member said, almost 2 years ago

    Rolling Stone has backed away from its UVa rape story.

  2. Darsan54

    Darsan54 GoComics PRO Member said, almost 2 years ago


    They backed away from the one woman’s story, but not the overall reporting.

  3. Argythree

    Argythree said, almost 2 years ago

    This isn’t just about the ‘Rolling Stone’ story. And sorry, Garry Trudeau, but there never will be a funny line to end this story.

  4. DavidHuieGreen

    DavidHuieGreen said, almost 2 years ago

    The problem lies in lies.
    If nobody ever did, all crimes could be punished.
    Since some do lie, charges need to be filed, proof needs to be established.
    Making claims long after the fact is not the way to solve the problem.
    There is even the problem of consent given then the claim made it was revoked without any proof of the revocation or the consent in the first case.
    The only way to even hope to deal with it is to make it public as quickly as possible and avoid any possible misinterpretation by such things as flirting, going off alone with someone else, drinking such that limit of consent is in question, being quickly tested in case drugs were used, giving up all pretense of privacy.
    Women’s advocacy groups have fought against teaching women how to avoid becoming targets or victims because they believe it condemns previous victims rather than worrying about avoiding future ones.
    Actually, a body cam would be helpful. I would certainly keep my distance from anyone wishing to record my every deed and misdeed, and I’m not even a rapist.

  5. leftwingpatriot

    leftwingpatriot GoComics PRO Member said, almost 2 years ago

    I do not know the facts regarding this event and I am not passing judgement on any involved. Rolling Stone has decided, for whatever reasons, to take a second look at the story.

  6. ceylondiver

    ceylondiver said, almost 2 years ago


    The Washington Post has run several stories on how the Rolling Stone article came about, and some of it is disturbing reading. The unnamed friends of the alleged victim that RS didn’t bother to contact were interviewed by the WP and they claim that “Jackie” seemed “upset” on the night in question but not the slightest bit injured. (Given that she told RS that she was thrown through a glass table and beaten and raped repeatedly for three hours on top of jagged fragments of glass, and then penetrated by a beer bottle, it does seem to call her credibility into question.) They also say that the story she gave them that night was completely different: definitely (oral) rape, but no beating, no glass table, no beer bottle. They said a few more things about “Jackie” that I won’t repeat here (see the articles for further ref) but none of it answers the question of why in the world Sabrina Rubin Erdely felt she had such an unimpeachable witness in this anonymous woman that she did no other interviews or research. Whatever the truth of Jackie’s story, the journalistic standards in the RS article seem to have been abysmal. And as many have pointed out: Now rapists and their lawyers can point to this article as “evidence” that women lie. Now future rape victims may hesitate to come forward, out of fear of not being believed.

  7. TJDestry

    TJDestry GoComics PRO Member said, almost 2 years ago

    How about a responsibility to report, and comment, responsibly? Yes, rape is bad. But trashing UVA this long after the report was debunked? Come on, Garry, either give up the screenwriting gig or give up the cartoon, but you obviously can’t keep up with them both.

  8. ajnotales

    ajnotales said, almost 2 years ago


    If you don’t like his work now, then why are you watching it? I think both the strip and the series are fine works, and I enjoy them both. Instead of just standing by and insulting Trudeau, why not produce either or both yourself and show us all by your example how it should be done.

  9. Doughfoot

    Doughfoot said, almost 2 years ago

    Ask someone to give a detailed account of a severely traumatic event that happened several years ago that he or she did not record or even talk about at the time, and that person may get it all wrong. That’s the way memory works.

    It is a truism in police work that forensic evidence is better than eye-witness testimony. Different witnesses in Ferguson “saw” and more particularly remembered very different things, perhaps based on their expectations and prejudices. Just think how different members of your family tell old family stories, how differently you remember them.

    The woman at UVa did not just “make it all up” and she probably wasn’t lying in the conventional sense of intentionally telling an untruth.

    I am reading Malala Yousafzai’s memoir right now (good book), and she gives a detailed account of the day she was shot in the face by a Talib. The actual shooting she does not remember at all, but knows about it from others present. If it turned out that she got details wrong. That the bus was on a different street, that the number of assailants was four not three, that the other girls on the bus were arranged differently, etc. would that prove that she was not shot?

    RS should have checked their story, or left out out exact names and dates to “protect the innocent” if they could not get better confirmation of the account, and presented it as something remembered.

  10. gammaguy

    gammaguy said, almost 2 years ago

    We all interpret things based on our own experience and expectations.
    I myself suspect that that last panel — and maybe the whole episode — is a complaint against what many people think he should be writing. I wonder what his mail has been like.

  11. Balto Bill

    Balto Bill said, almost 2 years ago

    That’s why I don’t go to parties anymore. The punch lines are too long.

  12. Doughfoot

    Doughfoot said, almost 2 years ago

    Boopsie is wrong that colleges “cover up” sexual assault in some kind of cynical way. The fact of it is, these cases are complex. Very few rapes are of the “a stranger with a knife jumped out of the bushes” variety. Most are of the betrayal/seduction variety, and most involve alcohol. Just because you regret what you did last night does not necessarily mean you were raped. On the other hand, it might. Institutions have in fact a responsibility to protect their members, and that includes accused and accuser. A college has many parts and they do not act as one. In misbehavior matters, different parts of the college must act as counselor, prosecutor, defender, investigator, etc. Of course there will be mixed messages.

    David Huie Green is correct that, if the facts were always perfectly clear, if everyone always told the truth and all agreed on exactly what happened, then all crimes could be punished. Absent that, and given our society’s proper emphasis on punishing only those proven to be guilty rather than accused or suspected of being guilty, “better that many guilty go unpunished than one innocent suffer” (to paraphrase John Adams), it is incumbent on all of us not only to avoid doing wrong, but take some responsibility for keeping out of harm’s way and protecting ourselves.

    That being said, Born Talking Back is also correct in saying that the society as a whole bears responsibility. I don’t know of any cases in this country where a raped woman has been raped again by those she went to for help, but consider the case of a woman told by her friends not to officially report an incident because it would make her unpopular (!), or the woman who is reluctant to report an incident because she doesn’t want to get the man in trouble (!), because she didn’t think he really understood what had happened.

    If we don’t want secret courts that operate behind closed doors, crimes have to be made public. The story of the crime has to be repeated and repeated. This is very hard or many victims. Prosecuting the person responsible is hard, and when women are told the truth about it, some would rather do nothing than face that ordeal. Are they wrong? Is it wrong to warn them about what is ahead? Is warning them of the reality of it the same as trying “cover up” the crime?

    As a society, it is difficult to simultaneously represent sex as a form of “recreation” to be entered into casually, and represent sex in which mild coercion is involved (if you don’t, you can get out of this car and walk home) or consent is impaired (I would never have done that if I was sober), as a heinous crime.

    The message should be simple, clear, and unambiguous: avoid making yourself vulnerable, and if anything does happen, don’t shrug it off, or hide in shame, it IS a big deal: a crime has been committed and the evidence must be collected, and the guilty party must be exposed. You should not be ashamed, you should be damned angry! — And for those who would initiate sexual activity, the message should be equally clear: if the object of your desire is reluctant, or even if enthusiastic but drunk, you are in immanent peril of committing a serious crime the consequences of which could ruin your life.

    If sexual assaults were always, or even usually, as blatant, as violent, as in the RS story, the problem would be a lot simpler to deal with.

  13. said, almost 2 years ago

    Trudeau is showing, as opposed to telling, the difficulty of having a public conversation about rape, the prevalence of rape, the conflict of views about definitions of consent, gender wars, and so on.

    I think, that by using the voices of Sam and BD, he calls attention to his own admission that he himself does not have all the answers. Perhaps he would like his readers/viewers to recognize the complexity and stumbling blocks preventing a calm conversation. As we see in many of these comments today.

  14. johngregor

    johngregor said, almost 2 years ago

    Institutions “cover up” sexual abuse for the same reason that Governments “cover up” contact with aliens. These rape-fantasists live in an imaginary world where sexual brutality lurks around every corner. When reality fails to cooperate with their imaginations, instead of admitting that they are deluded, they add new levels to their fantasy world about giant cover-ups aimed at hiding “the truth”. It’s all BS, but it sells newspapers.

  15. Squoop

    Squoop GoComics PRO Member said, almost 2 years ago

    You’ve come a long way, Boopsie.

  16. Load 15 more comments. | Load the rest (55).