portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements portland metro

community building | gender & sexuality

Rapists against Rape?

stop rape
Rich Mackin is speaking about men stopping rape but has yet to claim to the sexual assualts/rapes he has committed
Rich Mackin, a known sexual assaulter, will be speaking on Tuesday, February 17th at 7pm at **** ** *** **.

Rich Mackin is presenting an informal reportback from the "Men Can Stop Rape" conference. While we, as women and trans folk in the local Portland community completely support the "Men Can Stop Rape" campaign we cannot on any level support the evening of reportbacks presented by Rich Mackin. Rich Mackin has been called out on sexual assualt and rape openly by three women and has had numerous annoynamous callouts by other women in the Boston and Portland anti-authoritarian community. Originally Rich openly identified with these statements and claimed to be working to meet with the surviviors of the assaults he committed. However, after leaving Boston for Portland, Mackin found it easier to deny his assaults and at this point uses alternative forms of media to deny his assaults and to defend any sexual assualt that he rubs elbows with. There have been many confrontations in the Portland community with Mackin, both from feminists and anti sexists alike to no avail. He, like all other other perpatrators will deny these situations when he has the support from a predominately patriarchal community and will continue to rape and assault until he is made to stop.

As long as Rich continues to garner support from the community, he has no incentive to stop his assaultive behavior. Show support for surviviors and do not attend this report back. Show further support and make a visible presence against his hypocritical stance of teaching others how to stop rape while he himself refuses to accept any responsbility for his multiple assaults.
stop rich mackin 16.Feb.2004 18:01


rich mackin is no good. he is fully aware of a list of demands put forth by two of his survivors in "baby, i'm a manarchist" but only acknowledges and fulfills those that are most convenient. i'm sick of rapists being given attention and support - he doesn't deserve any of it. the only attention i'm willing to give is to stop that fucker from making any more public presentations until he starts taking assault seriously.

post edited 16.Feb.2004 22:53

indy volunteer

the text of this article has had the address to the home edited out. this was at the request of the people that live at the address. please do not repost the address.

Re-post - Rich's clarifications from previous thread 17.Feb.2004 13:37

One of Rich's friends

richmackin  richmackin@earthlink.net

A few points of note;

1) I was "called out" on my actions three days before I moved to Portland. My move was already well planned and documented. So the timing referenced in the above article comes across as inaccurate. This doesn't excuse what I did, but I should make it clear that my moving had nothing to do with the accusations. I have evidence of this if anyone cares to split this particular hair further...

2) I have not been accused of anything, to my knowledge, by any women in Portland, unless this is to imply that referring to one incident many times by many people means it must be re-accounted for. Some people- my accusers or anonymous posters such as Gringo Stars- may never be satisfied with how I atone for past behavior, and may feel that insensitive, selfish, and yes, sexist behaviors of all sorts are as bad as forcible rape, the tone of the original post and that of some of the comments speak not to how they feel I am dealing with the past, but as if I am actively misogynist and a present danger. More on that later...

3) I have at no point denied my behavior, however, it is a matter of opinion if my actions can be described as assault. This isn't even saying I feel one way or another, but I have found many people offended to find my actions- which involved breast contact during an otherwise consenting massage and inappropriate contact during otherwise consenting bed sharing- to be lumped into the term 'rape'. A full account is, and long has been, on my web site at <  http://www.richmackin.org/> specifically at <  http://www.richmackin.org/Projects/ABC/ABC.html>.

4) Part of the problem with dealing with a problem via second hand information is that information gets twisted as it is retold. I have been hearing a lot about how I have not met the demands I was given. (And one could ask if merely presenting demands without any moderation or arbitration is the most effective mode of problem solving in itself.) But I have not heard any actual documentation of this. Actually, one of my main complaints about the demands is that they did not set up any sort of accountability, so that it seemed that whether or not I fulfilled them, there was no actual accountability- positive or negative acknowledgement. Aside from if I fulfilled the demands or note is the question- If someone says "You have to do this, but whether you do it or not, I will hate you and seek to make your life miserable, " is that an effective way to get one to do something? Above and beyond how inconvenient this has made my life, I am concerned that this is the precedent being set. The idea of a list of demands against a perpetrator is good, but the way this situation was handled was not.

5) There was never a demand to "not date for a while" as Gringo Stars states. There was a request that I "will stop touching womyn" which has been criticized my myself and others because to follow that would mean I cannot hug my mother, or shake someone's hand after a job interview. This demand specified that I was to refrain from touching women until those supporting my "quest for change (partners, therapists and friends)" felt I was ready. Two therapists, my current (and previous) romantic partner, and many friends, both in and out of radical and activist circles all seem in agreement with me there.

6) Another one of the demands was that I "involve (my)self with groups educating and facilitating men in learning to treat all people with respect and hold men accountable for their words and actions." If I did not do this, I would be villianized. Of course, as I do this, I am being villianized.

7) The "numerous confrontations" mentioned in this post include me being asked to leave a party because the residents were uncomfortable with my presence, and being kicked out of a show, (Which I would not have attended if I knew the organizers were the ones who publish Little Beirut- a well intended newspaper that has taken a disproportionate interest in this situation as opposed to dealing with sexual assault as a general topic.) Being kicked out of said show involved being asked to leave not only the show but the sidewalk on Alberta Street. The two people who asked me to leave told me that "the would not dialogue" with me about this issue. If this is considered confrontation about accountability, there seems to be some lack of clarity of these terms.

8) If I truly "will continue to rape and assault until (I am) made to stop." Shouldn't there be more actual interaction with me than anonymously posting on Indymedia? Little Beirut in fact called for "all of us" keeping me, Rich Mackin, accountable. I am not sure if this is a call for all anarchists, activists, Portland residents, or what, but wouldn't it be more logical for all of "us" to keep EACH OTHER accountable? So much scapegoating has been made against me, fine, if you don't want to like me, I will go on, but please don't think that even if I never get to attend an activist meeting again that sexual assault has been defeated. This reminds me of Monty Python's Life of Brian- where the radicals spend huge amounts of time splitting hairs and complaining, but do nothing resembling positive change. People like Gringo Stars seem very concerned with spending a lot of time writing about me, yet convinced that nothing will stop my evil ways. Well, shouldn't that be a sign that all the writing isn't that productive in doing anything more than making people who don't know me not like me?

There is a metaphor used a lot in social change- Men Can Stop Rape uses it, in which if you saw a person drowning in a river, you would go save them. The next day, if you saw another person drowning, you would save them, but by the third day, you might notice that lots of people are drowning in that river, and you have to ask what's up with that river and see why these people are drowning. Are they being pushed in or what? Clearly you would want to stop people from almost drowning instead of waiting for them to need saving.

That said, if I was truly a danger and sexual predator, how effective is posting about "shutting the fucker down"? A bunch of angry people can chat online about me all day, but isn't that pointless when I have a partner/ sweetheart/ ladyfriend who, if your thoughts on me are founded, is in incredible danger? How can Gringo Stars know someone is in such alleged danger and not try and help her? Well, I asked her if she would like to be checked in by the Portland community and she asked me to post her email... <  anail@frontiernet.net> I am sure that someone who spends lots of time with me on an intimate level doesn't know me as well as people who read a zine about me (because if something is in print, it must be true.)

9) It is odd that the poster above noted supporting the group "Men Can Stop Rape" but indirectly implies that the trainers of an anti-rape group were able to have someone as evil as I am implied to be walk among their training for several days and be oblivious to my ways. Either that, or the poster doesn't consider that professional anti-rape trainers, again, people who actually spent time speaking and dealing with me, might have a different opinion of me than people who know of me from photocopies and message boards for a reason. (For that matter, this applies to the people whose home I will be speaking at- "Gringo", did you calmly and politely seek to ask the residents what they are thinking, or merely decide that you know more about me than they do.)
Speaking of attending this workshop, if travelling cross country to attend a workshop at my own expense is half assed, what would would it take to be considered a serious effort?

10) While I am obviously posting here, to address why one might not post a response on such a message board- some people don't have computers. Some don't have internet. Some don't have much access, and some cannot spend time looking up every thread about them. I think the person who asked about this thought my housemates had commented. This was not the case, but it does show how easily things can be misinterpreted.

11) Can we all consider the effectiveness of time spent on all this? For anyone who is considering coming to protest me speaking to people in my friend's house about ways I have learned to combat sexism in our society- do you feel that this is the only effective use of your time? There isn't a way you can help society more effectively than calling one guy on shit he has been dealing with for a year? If not, how much energy are you willing to put in such a specific cause. To put it another way, Gringo, is there anything I could do, and I mean specific actions or words, that would make you happy?


please respect others privacy 17.Feb.2004 13:57

pdx imc volunteer

To whoever reposted the address:

Please respect our efforts to honor the wishes of the people in the private house where this event is going on NOT to have their address broadcast on indymedia. This is the second time we've had to go in and edit a post that contained this information. I'm sure you wouldn't like to have your home address broadcast here. I don't think they really have it coming, just because Rich Mackin is speaking there. Just because you might have a problem with Rich doesn't give you the right to take your aggressions out on the residents of that house.

How you would make me happy, Rich 17.Feb.2004 18:53


Simple; by making the survivors happy. You know; the women you sexually assaulted. Very simple. I have spoken with only two of them briefly and they are only interested in their healing process. I don't blame them.

It's soooooo simple; HONOR THEIR DEMANDS. It is outrageous that you would sexually assault them and then scoff at their demands. Pure male arrogance. Your lawyerly BS about "not being able to hug my own mother" is obviously not the point of the particular demand they made of you. You're a big boy, Rich. You realize that in this context, that "touch" means sexual touch, right? And that when I say "date" I mean the same thing, correct? You are very lawyerly for a someone who claims to want to live apart from the system.

How about instead of looking for loopholes, why don't you simply honor the demands of the survivors? You keep portraying me as an unreasonable monster who can't possibly be satisfied with anything you do. This is self-serving drivel from you and you know it Rich. I have said repeatedly that all you have to do is help the survivors healing process by honoring their demands. Don't act like I'm the bad guy. YOU are the one who have sexually assaulted these women. Although it serves you well to change the subject and point fingers at me, perhaps you should REALLY absorb the Buddhism you claim to practice and look at yourself and work towards harmony with those you have harmed.

This is no "bickering online"... these are public services. As long as you are so arrogantly unapologetic and irreseponsible towards the pain you have caused, you will be accurately described as such, publicly and repeatedly. Someday you will be forced to reckon with what you have done. For now, you make BS excuses and disavow any responsibility for your despicable actions. Thanks for trying to change the subject though.

All women should know for their own safety.

hosts should take responsability 17.Feb.2004 19:21


To the imc volunteer who edited the address : People who make a choice to host an event with a known assaulter do not deserve the respect of having there location withheld. The people who support the survivors have a right to go to this event and protest. This kind of behavior is completely irresponsible and not what I would hope to see from Indymedia. Withholding a location because folks wish to protest is something our fascist government does and I am sickened that a wonderful group of folks like IMC would do that. People have a right to dissent, isn't that something that IMC holds true to? I'm sure that this was just a mistake and I hope that you will repost the address soon.

Festering wounds are not "healing" 17.Feb.2004 19:47


GRINGO writes: "they are only interested in their healing process."

Bullshit. People who are only interested in their own healing process don't orchestrate nationwide witch hunts against the people who wronged them. They don't publicly promote themselves in every possible medium as "survivors of sexual assault." That's NOT healing. That's a lust for vengeance. That's scratching at the wound until it bleeds again and again and again. Get a grip on yourself, you fatuous blowhard.

GRINGO writes: "I have said repeatedly that all you have to do is help the survivors healing process by honoring their demands."

Well, let's look at a copy of Little Beirut #4 to examine some of these "demands."

"#1: You will cancel your upcoming tour in order to devote your time and energy to reparations and education."

Too late for that one. He didn't cancel his tour, and therefore failed to meet that demand and will never be able to go back in time to change that. As a result, GRINGO and his ilk have no other choice but to hate Rich forever.

Also, it's a stupid demand. Rich had just left Boston to move to Portland, and needed some money to support himself until he could get a job here. Every penny counts in those situations. Rich makes money by selling his zines. This demand was petty vindictiveness on the part of the "survivors." It does _nothing_ to "heal" them.

"#3: You will fully disclose your history of sexual misconduct with to: sexual partners, past, present and future; anyone with whom you share a short or long term living space; all activist groups you have worked with/are working with/will work with; any space you perform in, and anyone who distributes your publications."

Again, how does this help the healing process of the "survivors?" It doesn't. It's primarily vengeful and petty demands to make Rich's life more miserable. I happen to know that he's complied with most of this. Does it set their minds at ease to know that he's complying with these demands? Probably not, because they've made it clear that they're out for Rich's blood, not their own healing.

But, imagine if he didn't bother to track down and call the women he was involved with 10 years ago and more. GRINGO & Co. would have to hate him forever because he's not complying with a demand. Give me a break.

Some of the other demands make a great deal of sense, and those in particular I'm sure Rich is complying with. Some of the others are more vindictiveness. There's really not much in those demands that promotes "healing" for the "survivors." In the final analysis, all I can say is: GRINGO - get over yourself and find something productive to do with your time.

get a grip 17.Feb.2004 21:02

pdx imc volunteer

I hope you don't seriously mean to equate Rich Mackin or the people at the private house where he is speaking with VIPs of "the fascist gov't." The two are utterly incomparable. The people at this house did not voluntarily choose to become public personalities. They are not using their privacy as a way to enrich themselves and their friends at everyone's expense. The comparison is ridiculous. Again, if you have a problem with Rich, you can take it up with him. You don't have a right to use indymedia to try and get in the face of anyone he ever associates with, or to try and stir up a posse to do it for you, and I doubt most people associated with indymedia would agree that this is a proper use for it.

heard enough of this bullshit 18.Feb.2004 00:52


"To the imc volunteer who edited the address : People who make a choice to host an event with a known assaulter do not deserve the respect of having there location withheld. The people who support the survivors have a right to go to this event and protest. This kind of behavior is completely irresponsible and not what I would hope to see from Indymedia. Withholding a location because folks wish to protest is something our fascist government does and I am sickened that a wonderful group of folks like IMC would do that. People have a right to dissent, isn't that something that IMC holds true to? I'm sure that this was just a mistake and I hope that you will repost the address soon."

I am glad the indy editors deleted the address. It is a private residence that was never publically announced.

This Rich fellow seems damned either way. The demands upon him tell him to seek therapy, so he goes to some seminar and is going to report about it and how men can combat rape and gets skewered for it. This seems like just the sort of thing asked of him.

The people hounding Rich have lost all perspective and seem willing to harm and vilify anyone who does not tow their line, including publically posting a private residence online.

Kudos to indymedia for not giving in to this dominating bullshit!!!

poor, poooor sexual predator Rich 18.Feb.2004 07:45


To the lawyerly defender of Rich; so the survivors are evil witches who wish to make their wounds worse and have an irrational hatred for Rich for no reason? I would LOVE some of what you are smoking. Do you actually know any survivors? Have you ever been an ally? Your heart-warming defense of an unapologetic sexual predator is ever-so-touching, and patently male-privileged.

If Rich ever CARED to honor the demands, then he could have. He CHOSE not to. It's all about choices. When he didn't honor one demand, then he could have consulted and filled another.

These women don't want tosee any more women go through what they have gone through, and I don't blame them. Great to know that there are guys like you who will stand up for any male, no matter what he's done (not).

Rich is constantly self-promoting. It's easy to "combat rape" by making public appearances and making a show out of things. It's much more meaningful and difficult to confront the behaviour of your own self, and Rich has decided not to do that, in favor of grandstanding to prove he's a great guy.

GRINGO STARS is endangering women 18.Feb.2004 11:05


GRINGO, one of the main reasons I'm so outraged and willing to defend Rich is because you and your lynch mob are not doing ANYTHING to make women in the community safer. Quite the contrary. By blowing certain incidents out of proportion, you will make many people in the community far more skeptical the next time a person claims to have been sexually assaulted.

There are people, like yourself, who will automatically jump to the defense of any self-proclaimed survivor, regardless of any evidence. On many levels, that's commendable because the majority of times the person has been assaulted and needs community support. The incidents with Camas and Hank seem to fall into this category.

Unfortunately, there are other incidents like that with Rich. It's ludicrous to call what he did "rape" and the victims "survivors." It's completely silly. Yes, they were violated. Yes, Rich did something very wrong. Yes, it's important to establish community standards of conduct and accountability.

But, claiming he's a sexual predator? Bullshit. Persecuting him like he's a deviant psychopath who's going to harm every person he comes into contact with? Grow up. Claiming that this persecution is part of the "healing" process for the "survivors?" You've just destroyed the last of your credibility. No rational person will take you or your accusations seriously in the future.

The people you need to reach out to most, and need to educate most, are the men who might potentially engage in violence/oppression against women. They are the real threat. Your over-the-top hysterics and lynch mob mentality will alienate the overwhelming majority of men and force them to tune you out as so much white noise. That's not going to help anyone, particularly not the women you claim you want to help. Get over yourself.

Finally, I'd like you to point out in specific detail which demands Rich is not complying with. I've looked at the "survivors'" demands, and it appears that Rich has taken them seriously and worked to satisfy the majority of the reasonable demands.

TURNIPS, you are free to disbelieve survivors in favor of believing predators 18.Feb.2004 11:50


...that is your right to uphold the patriarchy, moist definitely. I strongly disagree with it. Which demands has Rich actually honored? Any of them?

I will not discuss specifics of the sexual assaults, but Rich is dishonest in what he has admitted to versus what the survivors have gone through. By all means, it is your patriarchy-given right to side with Rich and to deride anyone who diverges from the standard court/cop/judge "it's her fault not his" typical reponse, but you should speak with the survivors (and yes they most definitely consider themselves survivors) of Rich's sexual assaults (and yes they definitely consider its exual assault). The standpoint that the survivor should be believed is almost NEVER "credible" as the idea that the survivor is telling the truth is foreign to the patriarchy.

Your division between "violent stranger rape" and other, more common yet less sensational, forms of rape is worse than useless. What Rich did was truly sexual assault. Rich's actions were NOT confined to mere breast-touching, despite his self-exonerating claims.

I have not been remotely "over-the-top" or "hysterical" (a word invented to invalidate womens' opinions, btw) about Rich. I have said nothing that the survivors haven't already said. Rich won't face up to what he's done. He admits he hasn't honored the demands. Is that commendable, do you think? should the survivors just "get over it" and "get on with their lives"? How sweet of you.

All Rich has to do is respect those whose lives he deeply negatively affected (yes he did) and I would commend his real efforts to make amends. As of now, he has made non-apologys which essentially attack those he has already attacked. That's disgusting to me, personally. That's OK with you?

Polarizing 18.Feb.2004 13:00

Polar Bear

"People who make a choice to host an event with a known assaulter do not deserve the respect of having there (sic) location withheld."

Sounds a lot like "if you're not with us, you're against us"

This is the same logic that Bush used to bomb Afghanistan...

You Must Have A Thick Head 18.Feb.2004 15:51


listen....rich mackin opened this event up to everyone!!!! rich mackin gave this address out to his friends home. indy media blew this topic up by blankin out the address. this event already took place. the event was shut down due to a mutual agreement that rich can not teach anyone about assult or rape till he owns up.

wow gringo 18.Feb.2004 16:48


You talk a lot about Rich not meeting the demands, but then decline to go into any detail about which demands he isn't meeting. As a matter of fact, you seem to fail at giving details every time you speak about Rich Makin, something that doesn't tend to occur when you write about other things. Where are your links? Your bibliography? My opinion is that you and all these other anti-Richees have become so emotionally biased in this issue that you no longer have any credibility at all. Oh yeah, and Rich Makin participating in an event that is about stopping rape is actually a fullfillment of one of the demands, so what the fuck is your problem there?

It's unfortunate that you have turned into such a mean-spirited troll, Gringo. I used to think that you were pretty level-headed.

Ummmm...No Your Wrong 18.Feb.2004 19:31


Demand number three was broken by Rich last night. This states that Rich must make everyone aware of his status as a sexual assulter/rapist before any event. Rich also is to admit his status as a rapist and sexual assulter. He dosn't. The demands also state that Rich is to get the go ahead from his survivors before educating others. He didn't. We could keep goin and goin and goin.....but hows about you just get your head outta yr ass and deal with your ignorance on your own.

wow indeed 18.Feb.2004 19:39


The demands made of Rich Mackin are on page 4 of this pdf file;

Of the 8 demands, Rich has claimed to follow 2 of them (5 and 6). Demand #1 was outright dismissed by Rich right off the bat, so he can't really fulfill that one. Since it concerned a one-time event, check that one off. Making up for that disrepect will have to be worked out between Rich and the survivors. Most of the rest of the demands, Rich actually makes fun of and discounts.

I can't respond to your attitudes toward me, clamydia, since I have no control over that. Since I am not personally a survivor of one of Rich Mackin's sexual assaults, I cannot divulge details about the sexual assaults I am aware of. that would be disrespectful towards someones' privacy and is harmful towards a survivor.

Why should I NOT be emotionally biased when there is an UNREPETANT sexual predator who attempts to "work against rape" (whatever that means?) while he won't own up to his own behaviour? That is pretty fucked up, don't you agree?

If displaying emotion means that you have no credibility, then I am a profoundly incredible human, since I am quite emotional. I just don't understand how people can sit by, and in the name of "peace and harmony", not want to address injustices and actually make the world a better place. Is it incredible to emotionally rail against war? Or to flip off a cop like you (and others) have done, clamydia? Does that harm your credibility? No - it means you are informed and ANGRY at having to put up with BS abuses of power, both political and cultural. The non-angry sheeple haven't woken up yet is all.

If only Rich would own up and meet the demands, I would have respect for him. It takes guts to do what hsi survivors are asking him to do. Prove me wrong, Rich. Please.

reply 18.Feb.2004 23:01

Indy Reader


The only accusation I have heard is breast fondling. You say it is otherwise yet give no details. Excuse me if you do not like it, but I will not condemn someone on hearsay. I refuse to call someone a rapist unless I am convinced they are.

From reading what I can of the issue, it seems to be something of a witch hunt. If this is an incorrect assessment, then you and others have failed to make a good case. Simply accusing people of supporting abusers because they do not see issues in black and white is not convincing.

Here is the intro to Rich Mackin's statement: (from his website listed in above comment)


I am writing this because I have been accused of sexual assault. Not legally, but via a zine called "Baby, IÕm a Manarchist!" (a play off of the song, "Baby, IÕm an Anarchist!" by Against Me!) and related rumors. The short story is that sexual assault has two main schools of definition. To some, any crossing of any physical boundary is assault. This is a difficult definition, however, because the phrase "sexual assault" does not invoke the idea of boundary violation; it invokes the idea of its more common definition: of violence, malice, and cruelty. In the middle is a huge grey area that is important to discuss- all the more so because of how rarely it is.

One of the "demands" that was made of me in this zine was to make a public statement of what exactly I did. Of three women who have publicly accused me of wrongdoing, one (who we both agree would be best left unnamed) has worked with me to draft a statement (In fact, the delay of submitting this column results from her request that I allow her time to digest this.) Another, Tali, (I use her name because she names herself in the zine) at one point Instant Messaged me her own version of the story, and I agreed with it and asked her to send me an email of that conversation. Instead, she told me to use my own words. A third, Laura (who also uses her name in the zine) has not responded to any contact on my behalf, so clearly I cannot get approval of anything I say, even though she demanded that I get it.


Mackin says here that this statement is drafted with cooperation and then approval from two accusers, one being Tali. Do these women refute this statement? If not, then I would most certainly disagree with the term rape, or even sexual assault in descibing Mackin's behavior. Sexually obsessive and insensitive yes, rape and assault no.

If this is the definition of sexual assault and rape, then the majority of men and women are guilty. By these terms, I have been sexually assaulted many a time by girlfriends, lovers, and friends who wanted more than I did.

If the accusers refute mackin's statement, then that needs to be clearly stated and a counter statement presented. If indymedia is not the place for that, then stop trying to tell people they are wrong for questioning when the story is not revealed. That is just common sense.

Also, definitions of terms need to be clearer. People are changing the meanings of terms like rape to suit their own viewpoint, and then calling others names when they do not agree to those changes. That is rather bullying.

I won't name names 18.Feb.2004 23:28


...because I have respect for the survivors wishes.

All I hear from you is "Mackin says" Mackin says Mackin says. I also hear you refer to the survivors as "accusers" which connotes your pithy judge position on the subject. You are undoubtedly male (yes I am psychic) and have no real need to heed warnings about your fellow male.

Suffice it to say that it IS rape to have an *unwanted* finger inserted in one's vagina. Penis or not, it is a sexual assault, and yes, it is rape. It is not "a problem with women" or an "indiscretion" or some such other Mackinesque BS. I am divulging nothing that isn't in the zine itself. You have obviously chosen, by default, to believe Rich ("Mackin says Mackin syas"). So much for your judgish "objectivity." That is your choice. Cops and other judges much like you, also have their patriarchal legal procedures that universally blame the victim and protect sexual predators. Call it a witch hunt all you want, as if sexual assault is not a real problem, as if we should broadcast everyone's pain for anonymous internet judges. If you feel bullied, I suggest you deal with your own timidity and build your knowledge about such matters until you have the confidence to confront this kind of subject without becoming afraid.

Witches do not exist (not the kind you are referring to). Sexual predators DO exist.

Indy Reader Should Get A Clue 19.Feb.2004 07:15

Tammy Harlad

Indy Reader- You should look into reading some books about supporting surviviors.

Truth be Told 19.Feb.2004 14:46

ChildLikeOwl'sEyes Web-less

May Great Creator's Blessings Brighten All Of Your Days,

This site seems to sure have need of them!
The fires of emotion from the heart, need be wielded wisely, do not let your mind be clouded by them, or you can be read as openly as a book.
The truth points to itself, and speaks for itself and no-other but itself.

P.S. the re-actionary speaker has no time to act.......
If we are United, Will we Stand?
If we are Divided, Will we Fall?


indy reader does have a clue 19.Feb.2004 15:09


since it appears gender and credentials matter to the way in which gringo responds, let me preface this by saying I am female and a feminist. (I spent a couple of years volunteering for the Portland Women's Crisis Line, credentials enough for you?)

Working on a crisis line, we are in a position to support survivors unconditionally. We don't make judgments, but are there to believe the caller. We also don't recommend the survivor go and start a public campaign of vengeance. We encourage them to take care of themselves, and if they feel able, to seek justice in a court of law. While feminists might support the publishing of names of accused rapists, I highly doubt many would condone such unmediated demands made of the accused rapist without trial, without constitutional defense, without the opportunity for impartial judgment.

Certainly, the courts have not been impartial to rapists and survivors. The opportunity still exists for that impartiality, and the situation has improved through the hard work of feminists before us. I see no impartiality in this lack of trial, lack of jury, judgment, and punishment.

I fully agree with Indy Reader here:

"If the accusers refute mackin's statement, then that needs to be clearly stated and a counter statement presented. If indymedia is not the place for that, then stop trying to tell people they are wrong for questioning when the story is not revealed. That is just common sense."

That you respond with a detail that is titillating and hearsay does not help your argument. Rich has given his version of events. That we as people who are being asked to judge him are expected to piece together the survivors' version of events does not help the situation.

REGARDLESS of what happened, Rich Mackin has not been charged or convicted, and has a right to do what he wishes. In Buddhist thinking, regardless of what he did, he is not the same person he was at the time of those alleged incidents. I have met him, I don't know him well, but he strikes me as a sincere seeker. Even if a former rapist, it seems to me if he was clueless before, he has now got a clue.

It really disturbs me that this discreditation campaign exists the way it does. This doesn't do feminism any favors. I don't see the good it does to right a wrong with something so unaccountable. Apparently as anarchists you distrust the court system. Fine. Bring in some impartial feminists as mediators, and quit this game of accusations that have no specificity to them.

Oh I Forgot 19.Feb.2004 15:13

ChildLikeOwl'sEyes Web-less

Witch-hunts or not, I am a male-witch, NOT WICCAN, pagan though ya know.
Names are labels by which we summarize ourselves, re-difine or re-interpretate your terms all you want, it doesn't matter, what matters is the work & toil still ahead, if people seem to think they can change things in this world for "The Better", than they're going to have to learn how to 'Work-With' each other, and learn how to forgive each other, as well as take responsability for our own actions, NOT OTHER PEOPLES ACTIONS, the best teacher thinks before they act, acts before they speak, and speaks accordingly to back up their action, while at the same time teaching by example and learning from their students. In the end, Wisdom is the only thing that can set you free.......

P.S. i haven't heard any good anwsers to any problems in the past two years, just a-whole-lot of solutions, many of which do not even accept constructive criticism anymore.

Be REAL With Yourself, What Else Have You To Do???


the courts are the only legitimate arbiter of justice, Enji? 19.Feb.2004 19:04


The survivors that I know are more or less anarchist, living apart from the system, avoiding the corrupt courts, cops, etc. And with good reason. Precious few men are ever convicted. And the survivors know that being convicted will make things worse for future victims since incarceration in the US prison system destroys souls. The survivors made known only the details they felt comfortable with publicizing, and they are giving Rich the remarkable and lenient opportunity to amend for his own actions. Sometimes it makes a survivor feel better to convict the perpetrator, and sometimes it is worth the endless cross-examining that the judicial system puts survivors through in order to get to the truth - to some survivors that is worth it. But for many, as you well know, they want to deal with things in their own way, somehow making what happened to them less likely to happen in the future. That's the way they led me to understand it. The fact that this calling out does not meet your personal standards does not mean it is "doing feminism no favors". How does being repeatedly cross-examined, forced to relive traumatic experiences, in the patriarchal court system do feminism any favors exactly?

facts remain; Rich is not honoring the demands made of him by the survivors of his sexual assaults. He even mocks the demands. Those are the facts, Enji.

again 20.Feb.2004 03:21

Indy Reader

Gringo -

You make some assumptions. One, I have not chosen to believe anybody. I have simply read what info was posted on the page. Two, I am not interested in being in the position of judge. My comments were pointing out that if you want people to believe you, then you need to provide information. I reiterated what Mackin said because he is the one who said something specific. I made the point that if his account is incorrect, then a correct account should be posted.

Obviously we live in a dominating system which does much injustice through the courts. That does not mean anyone who asks questions is immediately part of that system, or a dominator, or insensitive to the suffering of others. Your vehemence does not lead to much fruitful conversation.

The world is not so black and white. There are many cases of rape allegations that turned out to be lies. For various reasons. I certainly am uncomfortable with this notion that any accusation is taken as truth and anyone who asks a question is supporting the accused. This does not sit right with me.

Now if I knew and trusted you personally, your statements would have more weight. Likewise, if a woman friend who I knew well, said someone raped her, I would simply believe her. However, in a forum like this, where voices are of people one knows virtually nothing about, it is silly to expect people to believe anything that is said. That is why I think places like this website, are not good places for such issues to be dealt with, other than in general terms.

If the only choice you give me, is that I am either with you or against you, then I respectfully decline to be with you.

Also, I agree a better word should be there than accuser. However, I refuse to use the term 'survivor'. I lived with a man from Vietnam. He grew up there during the war. He was walking along one day with his best friend, when a small missile made a large hole right through his friends chest. That is far from the only horrific thing he witnessed. Is he a survivor? How about all the people in prison, there basically because of the color of their skin. Are they survivors? How about all the people in Afghanistan and Iraq who now have uranium poisoning and who are giving birth to deformed babies. Are they survivors?

I realize it is not PC, but I actually find the term offensive. There are millions of people around this earth who are facing nearly unimaginable suffering. Perhaps the word survivor belongs to all of them. Perhaps it belongs to anyone who, in the midst of the insanity we call daily life, yet endeavors to live a sane, humble and compassionate life.

You should definitely talk to a survivor 20.Feb.2004 13:00


Rape survivors often kill themselves. The feelings of powerless and shame can literally ruin your life. For many survivors, every day is a struggle. I have known many survivors, and life after rape had often become a horrible trial, a burden.

The reason that they term themselves "survivor" is that they refuse to call themselves "victims" - and that what was done to them is horrible yetthey choose to survive it. Post-traumatic stress syndrome is a condition applied to those who are war veterans as well as survivors of physical and sexual abuse/assualt. Those are the people who get so scarred from their experience that it affects their entire life and all of their relationships, their self-esteem.

I consider it incredibly cold of you to deny them the term survivor. It is obvious in every one of your comments that you have little (although some) concern for survivors.

You ARE playing the judge - you complain that you don't have the full dirty account of everything that happened to those that Rich has assaulted. I understand that you don't trust me. I have provided as much information as I was provided - by people I trust. Do you trust Rich, though? Why?

I think you need to learn more about what rape does to people. You are lucky to be so insulated from the reality of sexual assault.

post 20.Feb.2004 18:02

Indy Reader

Gringo -

I have known (unfortunately) a number of women who have been raped. The results have been rather different. One friend of mine, when I found out, I treated her very delicately. She laughed at me and said I should treat her as I always have, that she had been raped, (forced intercourse) and that she was undamaged. I did not ask her specifically, but I am confident to say that she would refuse the term survivor because it still does carry the sense of victim. Another woman has a strong and underlying mistrust of men and still carries a basic internal hurt.

How or why a person is scarred and damaged is complex. Sexual assault and rape is but one way human beings can be harmed by other human beings.

As for Mackin, he posted an account, which he says is approved by Tali and another woman unnamed. People say he has not abided by the demands, but nobody has said the account is false, or not approved by Tali and the unnamed woman. So I say, if this is true (the account) then it seems the response is out of proportion to the offense and seems something of a withhunt. A laying on one person the blame for many accumulated ills.

That is an internet observation, not a position I assert to be true. I know little about this situation other than the few words written in this thread.

Oh, and there are witches. Some of many generations. This I do assert to be true.

What happened last tuesday 20.Feb.2004 20:33

Just sayin'

Ok, here is what happened, as I understand it...

Mackin is accused of sexual assault- that is a fact, we can (and have been) argue forever about it, but he definitely was accused.

Mackin, in response to being accused, attends local men's groups and a workshop in DC for Men Can Stop Rape. (Again, he does other stuff that may or not be sincere or stupid, but he does these things as an established fact.)

Mackin, returning from DC, wants to tell the men at said men's group about what he learned at the Men Can Stop Rape event. Apparently, he invites a few people he doesn't know that well, thinking they would be interested.

These people tell other people, who decide the best course of action it to stop this event of a man talking to other men, allegedly all for the purpose of working against oppression, without first hearing what Mackin plans to say, or what the men he plans to speak to think about this.

Maybe I am wrong here, but wouldn't a more mature, less punitive, and generally positive way to work this would be to politely contact the men, ask what the deal with without showing up as a mob in the front lawn and see what Mackin had to say BEFORE deciding that he was doing it for one reason or another? Maybe after hearing him, you could say, "wow, that guy really is a sexist a-hole" but isn't the more "radical" open minded and generally better thing be to judge AFTER getting information? These people already set the evening aside to deal with this event, what could they lose by hearing from the guy? Even if he is a rapist, wouldn't it be worth hearing from a rapist to learn about them? You know, "know thine enemy?"

A few questions...

1) Has anyone actually contacted Rich's ladyfriend to see if she is in danger? Seriously, if the guy is a danger, and he is dating someone, wouldn't it be irresponsible not to "save" her? If not, is this really about Mackin's threat, or making him a scapegoat?

2) Would all the people who showed up to protest Rich be willing to publicly vow that they have never committed any form of assault of any form and be willing to subject themselves to public scrutiny on the same level he faces if they cannot say otherwise? (I suppose this would mean getting in touch with every ex lover...)

3) If the survivor dictates the terms, and some people feel being shouted at or threatened verbally is a form of assault, and shouting "fuck you!" Is a way to threated sexual violence, do the residents of that house get to draft a list of demands against the guy who shouted "fuck you" to them?

4) Do any of the people who protested Rich have any stickers or such that say "Justice, not Vengeance" or "Hatred is not a family value?"

well gringo 20.Feb.2004 21:45


i do have to wonder about what is true, what is not true, and how much weight to give things you say.

from the beginning you have leaked little titillating pieces of the the story. at first it was sexual assault, then it was rape. it certainly makes the situation seem larger and more monstrous when you withhold facts and leak them out bit by bit.

whatever, i'm done arguing that.

it was quite clear i was not saying courts are the only arbiter of justice.

you pick and choose what you wish to give emphasis to, gringo, and that makes me wonder about the whole situation.

to me the most important thing i said was why not get some impartial feminists to mediate the situation? you ignored that completely. but then that would weaken your polemic, wouldn't it?

and no, anonymous survivors making demands of an alleged perpetrator does not meet my personal standards, nor i hope of the majority of feminists in this town. i don't think it's lenient to have a vengeful list of demands that allows a group of people to harass a person indefinitely until those demands are met, even more so when those demands have not been arbitrated by anyone impartial. reminds me too much of lynch mobs.

are enji and reader correct? 20.Feb.2004 22:31


Are the survivors simply crying "rape" and putting on a show? Should they simply forget what was done to them and move on, quit being such babies about it? Is them asking for Rich to meet demands in order to make them feel better simple immature petty vengeance?

Picking and choosing what to emphasize keeps us all from sounding like we have tourette's, Enji - it's called expressing yourself clearly. You have far more faith in the patriarchal judicial system than I do. Not everyone is so lucky to have such positive experiences with it as you apparently have.

I personally think that whatever the survivors ask for, they should get. Give them their power back. I think Rich should own up to what he has done. I think feminist arbiters would be a great idea, ONLY if the survivors think so.

Why should unapologetic rapists go "unhated" when social ostracism is the one proven method for bringing perpetrators to finally own up to their own actions? Anger is a healthy, cleansing emotion. If more people were angrier about politics, then we wouldn't be in the schitt we are in now. People need to get MORE angry. It's healthy. Don't deaden your senses and emotions. people should NOT accept what Rich has done. He got away with it, scot free, with no real apology even. I write what is real, and hence emotion comes into play. Call it "polemic" if you want. It pisses off many people who know what the deal is.

Personally, I trust and respect two of the women Rich has violated. I have not said anything they haven't already publicly said. I have heard plenty of Rich's slippery BS. Maybe others haven't. Go hear what he has to say. I know he is eager to demonize the women he has violated. Go listen. His non-apologys might sate you. His typical frat boy excuses might make it all OK to you. It won't be difficult to get ahold of him. He loves an audience.

Good ol boys 24.Feb.2004 11:15


It's hard to see this many people supporting a serial rapist. WHY? I came up with the fact that one in four women are sexualy assulted. That makes for a lot of rapist and sexual assulters. Perps that support each others crap excuses, denial and munipulation. These good ol boy society's of perps are frigin everywhere. It's sick. It's fucked that people are even trying to compare a "fuck you" to sexual assult and rape, that people think it's alright for a rapist to break his demands, that people are backlashing the hell out of people holding this man accountable. Rich made a call out for an educational report back that was "open to all". This report back was shut down by the men in Rich's men's support group (not a mob) due to the fact that Rich has not met his demands and had been untruthful with his group. This group didn't even know about all of Rich's assults. They were diappointed and amazed in Rich's untruthfulness. Rich could not even admit that he had comited sexual assult or rape. Rich can not be a teacher to anyone at this point. He is a danger and his gal pal knows about his assults and rapes. It's everywhere. It has to be a massive part of his life. He has no choice but to deal with it. He never gave any of his suvivors a choice but to deal with it. Bravo to those holding him accountable.