Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Tuesday, January 23, 2018

Society has gentle epithets for the man who victimized Erin Andrews.

He was an unwanted admirer and a peeping Tom. The names sound almost playful. Like it’s a joust, a tit-for-tat, back and forth between the sexes. Only, in Andrews’ case, the cad stepped over the line secretly recorded the sportscaster and “Dancing with the Stars” cohost naked. Millions of other cads ogled the video images online.

That’s how some would like to downplay the ramifications. But it doesn’t go far enough.

Andrews’ attacker, Michael David Barrett, delivered an explicit, personal threat to women everywhere, but especially to those in the public eye. You exist for my pleasure, your rights to privacy be damned.

Barrett may not possess the mental capacity to grasp the full reach of his crime. That’s the crux of the problem: Millions of people don’t. So they feasted on this man’s spoils, clicking on the video of Andrews he shot through a peephole in her hotel room at the Vanderbilt Marriott in Nashville as she undressed.

In 2010, after pleading guilty to stalking Andrews and uploading the video to the Internet, Barrett was sentenced to 30 months in prison and three years’ probation. His confinement is over, but the damage he did continues.

Here’s what his crime means to women.

Without anyone physically touching you, you can be assaulted. You can have your dignity shattered, your personality altered, your sense of peace and purposefulness surrendered. All someone needs to do is secretly snap a few photos of your naked body, a few sexually compromising shots and angles, and release it on the Internet.

Perpetual molestation is achieved. Forever. What you lose can never be reclaimed because the images have been launched; they are free to anyone with an Internet access to be downloaded, shared and visually groped.

During Andrews’ $75 million civil suit this week, a witness for Vanderbilt Marriott, where the viral recording was made, admitted that the video was played while he was out with friends for dinner. He’d just left the courtroom hours before.

Andrews’ stalker had nearly 17 million eager accomplices. That’s how many times the video has been viewed, according to an estimate of an expert at the trial. The hotel is accused of negligence because Barrett learned Andrews’ room number, and was allowed to check into the room next to hers. Then he altered the peephole in the room’s door to record her.

No doubt the publicity of the trial’s outcome will draw more clicks.

It illustrates how distant we are from shutting down these attacks of non-consent.

Indeed, American society is barely beginning to address the truth about physically violent sexual assaults, cases where women are raped and hurt. Too many people are still befuddled by the fact that most such attacks are by someone the woman knows; her date that night, a man she considered a friend, someone that she had a few drinks with in the hours prior. He might even be her husband.

The questions asked in cross-examination are: What was she wearing? How many drinks did she consume? Did she kiss him? The fingers are first pointed directly at the woman, not the man.

The reason is that women’s bodies, but not men’s, are considered somewhat public property. So when a video surfaces, people look, not even thinking that they have no right to do so.

Andrews testified about what the attack did to her ability to trust, about the insecurity and humiliation it inflicted, about how she feels she must obsessively check the Internet. For this, she was grilled by defense lawyers about the many product endorsements she has gained since the incident — as if falling into abject poverty and depression are necessary proofs of her victimhood.

Some have insinuated that Andrews used the resulting publicity to drive her personal brand. That she manufacturing the furor for notoriety. After all, isn’t that a trope? The sex tape that launches a minor star’s career.

What an old ploy! Doubt the woman, put her in place, a subjugated spot where she can’t even express the emotional harm done.

Now some accuse Andrews of not being tough enough. Of being a complainer.

She’s tough enough. Erin Andrews earned spot in a field not traditionally friendly to women. She’s a sportscaster, one of the few women to rise to the highest ranks. She’s talented and competent.

Sure, most people realize Barrett’s huge intrusion. We get that part of the crime. We’re mortified by his behavior even.

And yet, 17 million people and counting felt that they had a right, an invitation, to click and view what only Andrews should be giving permission to see.

Mary Sanchez is an opinion-page columnist for The Kansas City Star. Readers may write to her at: Kansas City Star, 1729 Grand Blvd., Kansas City, Mo. 64108-1413, or via e-mail at msanchez@kcstar.com.

(c) 2016, THE KANSAS CITY STAR. DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC

Photo: Erin Andrews at the 2012 premiere of What to Expect When You’re Expecting in New York. Wikimedia Commons. 

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 The National Memo

8 Responses to Why Do We Make Light Of The Assault On Erin Andrews?

  1. And the great pall of masculinity drops yet another tarp over the planet. “Boys will be boys,” and It’s a MAN’S world BS.

    Look no further than the gutter minds of the GOP in those disgraceful Republican debates for the reason we need REAL change in this country…An equal number of women on the SC, in government, business and religion.

    Who raises men to think they don’t have to respect a woman’s rights? Daddy Autocrat that’s who. These Daddies Boys grew up seeing a daily example of how women in this country must always be second to any man and that includes laws. Men First and to Hell with Women..When do these boys ever grow up?

  2. They want to use the defense that it helped her career. No I don’t see how it helped. I watch sports and knew who she was and knew she would be getting endorsements and offers. She wasn’t on vacation, she was working. The film could create a very uncomfortable work environment. Maybe Erin is too classy to say it but Erin has actual talent. She did not choose to make a sex tape like other so called celebrities. I hope she gets everything she asked for from the loser who taped her and the hotel which did not protect her privacy and also took steps to help the attacker. The idea that any woman should be grateful that someone thinks enough of her to want to take nude pictures is disgusting. No woman should be publicly shamed for the entertainment of losers. She is a reporter, not a freak sideshow.

  3. I wonder if the author has considered that, in using the occasion of the civil suit to remind the whole world of the crime, she will likely encourage another 17 million viewings of the evidence.

  4. Erin was harmed emotionally by the pervert, and I hope she wins her case. I do think that 75 million dollars is too much……maybe 5 million.

  5. I have two young daughters. If this happened to them I would pursue every legal action against a corporation like Marriott. That Marriott, a Mormon controlled organization that prides itself on high moral values would stoop to this abusive and outrageous defense to protect a measly 75 million dollars is disgraceful and shameful. The excruciating agony Ms Andrews has suffered can never be healed. Marriott would have been better advised by its legal staff to apologize and settle rather than drag her through this digesting ordeal once again. The American system of Justice is sadly misnamed.

Leave a reply