RAPE DOUBLE STANDARD

DID I MISS THE CLAMOR FOR THE NAME OF THE CORPORATE EXECUTIVE WHOALLEGED IN RECENTLY FILED COURT DOCUMENTS THAT THE REV. PAUL R.SHANLEY SEXUALLY ASSAULTED HIM 37 YEARS AGO? I have been soengrossed in the high-minded suggestion that the interests of fulldisclosure require the release of the name of the Colorado woman whoaccused Kobe Bryant of rape that calls for the news media to revealthe identity of "John Doe" must have escaped my notice.

Unless, of course, it never occurred to anyone to challenge aprominent man's desire to preserve his anonymity in the face of abrutal, degrading crime.

The allegations against the popular Los Angles Lakers star haverevived the debate about the fairness of publishing rape chargesagainst the accused while protecting the identity of the accuser. Itwould be a reasonable question if only it was not so narrowly andinconsistently framed.

It is not about the name; it's about the blame.

It is hard to claim the mainstream news media are respecting theprivacy of Kobe's accuser when her name is just about the only thingwe have not revealed. We have told you where she went to high school,what she is studying in college, which song she sang at her failedaudition for "American Idol," how she coped with a breakup with herboyfriend and the more recent death of a friend. We have parked oursatellite trucks outside her parents' home, interviewed anyone whosat near her in algebra class, and made a cottage industry out ofunearthing clues to her mental health.

Why the fevered search for extraneous information to discreditthis young woman's account of what happened at the Cordillera Lodgeand Spa on June 30? She may or may not be telling the truth; that'swhat trials are meant to determine. If the public insists on itsright to know everything about a 19-year-old woman who accuses abasketball star of rape, why doesn't it demand a comparable scrubbingof a 53-year-old Boston businessman who says a priest molested him ata cabin in 1966?

Because there is a double standard, that's why, a double standardthat makes the businessman's allegation against the infamous priestinstantly credible and the young woman's charge against the reveredsports hero immediately suspect. Why would he make up such a thing?He's obviously interested in seeing that justice is done. How do weknow she is not just a gold digger? She's obviously after his money.

In an ideal world, there would be no disputing the arguments ofthose opposed to the special treatment accorded to rape victims.There is something paternalistic about the notion that women needsuch protection. There is logic to the view that shielding a victim'sname only reinforces the shame and the stigma of rape.

We do not live in an ideal world. We live in a trash radio culturein which a Los Angeles disc jockey with a record of wife beatingbroadcasts the name of Bryant's accuser under the banner of genderequity. A Web culture in which sports-besotted misogynists use theInternet to transmit loathsome innuendo about the young woman whodared to challenge their hero's carefully crafted image. A mediaculture in which even the mainstream press refuses to acknowledgethat it subjects women who charge rape to a scrutiny it applies to noother crime victims. (When is the last time a reporter pried into thepast of an assault victim looking for evidence of prior aggression orsniffed around for signs that a professed victim of fraud has ahistory of gullibility?)

Sure, we should print the names of rape victims. Let's do it onthe day we abandon the tired, old assumption that all women who bringrape charges are either "nuts or sluts." Let's do it on the day welook past the beautiful wife and the high-priced PR machine pressedinto the service of the accused. Let's do it on the day weacknowledge that all rapists do not skulk in the shadows of backalleys. Oh, and let's not hold our breath.

Eileen McNamara can be reached at mcnamara@globe.com.