Haven't seen Naomi Wolf but Don't believe that all this effort would be expended if the man concerned wasn't wanted by the USA. And if they could get him by easier means.
Oh, I have no doubt that the rape charges would quickly disappear if he weren't wanted by a bunch of different countries for things that aren't actually illegal in most of them. Really, though, that's part of the problem; rape isn't important enough to prosecute on its own, apparently. Adding the voice of a prominent feminist saying that no, that doesn't meet the definition of rape, is just icing on the cake of the lack of justice for the young woman involved. She's being used six ways from Sunday, by governments and individuals with a soapbox, and it's just as wrong as what happened to her to begin with.
Uhh... are you talking about the woman who Assange 'raped' while sleeping? The one who woke up with Assange rubbing on something or another in a bid for sex, and tacitly agreed? Or are you talking with the other woman, who Assange 'held down' and 'ripped the necklace off of'? The one who held a party for Assange a few days later, let Assange stay in her house afterwords, and maintained a friendly relationship with Assange until the police pressed charges?
Really, saying this is "rape" is insulting to actual victims of rape.
When I was 13 we moved into an apartment in a shady part of town. The night before we moved in our next door neighbour's apartment was broken into and the 12 year old daughter taken outside and sodomized. She was broken. It changed her life. To compare her experience with these women who Assange 'raped' is obscene.
In full disclosure, that wasn't the last time I experienced rape, either. I also volunteered for a rape crisis centre. I'm not interested in 'speaking for' any of those women. They have their own voices - just like the women who Assange had sex with. They have voices of their own. However, those who believe them to be victims of 'rape' are construing them as powerless victims. And that's a bridge I'm not buying.
It's really not that abnormal for people to maintain friendly relationships with people who have hurt them, especially with a motivation like believing in the guy's political organization. If the woman Assange woke up with sex is claiming rape, she obviously did not "tacitly agree" to the sex. This is why education efforts on sexual consent now focus on phrases like "ask first" and "yes means yes"--because a lot of people are really, really hurt by sex that the other person probably thought they "tacitly agreed" to, to the extent that their experiences can be reasonably described as rape.
You may (or may not) be interested in a movie on Netflix called "Teeth". Basically, it's about a virtuous teenager who is sexually assaulted, but in the process, discovers she has a genetic mutation called "Vagina Dentata" (or toothed vagina), which she uses to some effect against villainous males.
I'd call it a black comedy. But it's well written and fairly well acted. FYI there is no such medical condition in reality, but the concept figures largely in mythology and psychology (wrt castration anxiety in males).
Interestingly, Camille Paglia was mentioned in the credits.
It's disappointing - but not surprising - to see such sloppy argumentation coming from feminists. There's a whole lot of arguing across purposes going on and very little coherent analysis. Many of those who are yelling the loudest about "rape!" are unable to distance their experience from someone else's, for instance. That's why there's such a strong push to make an example of Assange - because this marginalized class of dissidents sees it as an opportunity to have its voice heard. But it's a shell game. Comparing Assange's 'rape(s)' - if they happened - with the experiences of tyrannized women does *more* violence to those women. It's like saying an injury obtained while playing paintball is comparable with a losing a limb in war. To say that Assange's accusers (which is somewhat inaccurate, because neither of the women named in the complaint actually pressed charges against Assange - the charges were made by the state) had experiences comparable with women subjected to gang rapes is, IMO, indefensible.
In spite of their rhetoric, a great many 'feminists' aren't interested in justice. Justice ≠ judgment, punishment, or 'correction'. Rather, I'd say justice embodies considered fairness - and that's not happening in the Assange 'rape' debacle. The rabid feminists screaming about 'rape' aren't interested in fairness, they're interested in making an example and defending their pain.
To hear feminists going on about 'who speaks for who' illustrates the bankruptcy of feminist politics and philosophy. IMO, authentic feminist voices root themselves in contingency and performativity and cyborgs. The 'witch hunt' feminists are impostors serving the interests of empire.
I don't think you or anyone else gets to tell women who experience rape at the hands of a known assailant who pushed for reluctant consent or took a lack of no for consent that their rape was not a rape. It was not the same as a gang rape, but it's still rape.
If that's how you construe 'rape' the concept ceases to have meaning. Nearly everyone would be 'rapists'.
"Known assailant"? Yeah, Assange definitely fits that description.
"Lack of consent"? According to the police reports he got consent. You may disagree with the veracity of that consent, but neither woman accused him of unconsensual sex. They said they didn't consent to sex without a condom, but their actions said something entirely different. That makes the argument for 'rape' completely and irreducibly political.
I'm unwilling to discuss the specifics of this case. However, I stand by my definition: it's rape if the woman has not given consent paired with enthusiastic participation. If that makes practically every man a rapist (and it doesn't make the men I've known rapists, or any of the men with whom I've discussed such details for that matter) then we really need to rethink what we're teaching young people about sex.
Consent is not unilateral or unambiguous, so - like any other subjective state - it makes an exceptionally poor criterion. Further, it localizes 'rape' within a very constrained axis of violence (see, e.g., Zizek's Violence). At the level of ideology in actuality 'rape' occurs far more often than you seem to realize. Moreover, saying asymmetries of power are endemic to sex is like saying birds like to fly.
But I totally agree with your conclusion: We really need to rethink what we're teaching young people about sex. To that end, I would point out that sexuality is discursive and articulated via culture. Thus, if we are to 'rethink what we're teaching young people about sex' we'd need to re-articulate social formations from the ground-up.
It denigrates the experiences of many, many people to insist that they have no right to be hurt by sex that they did not consent to by calling it "not really rape". Rape exists in varying levels of severity, but we have to use words like "rape" and "assault" to encompass the experiences that traumatize people so that those people's experiences are ALL taken seriously, not just the physically forceful stranger rapes/gang rapes.
This isn't an issue of 'lives being taken seriously'. *NEITHER* of the women have accused Assange of rape. They could have. They were encouraged to. They did not.
The women did not consent to the act that took place, which was sex without a condom. They only consented to sex with a condom. Ergo, Assange entering them without a condom was rape.
Now *there's* a line of argumentation I can agree with. According to the reports I've read the use of a condom was a contested issue with both women. These reports describe Assange as repeatedly pushing for sex without a condom. However, given that both women remained in the company of Assange and made no effort to distance themselves from him, it seems likely that this negotiation wasn't seen as 'rape' by either of them at the time. In retrospect they might have liked to have chosen differently, but neither of the women behaved like someone defending themselves from sexual predation. Many have pointed to the 'powerlessness' of the women or some such nonsense, but that projects a cowardly incompetence onto two women who seem quite capable to me. Apparently one of them enjoys climbing mountains for a hobby, for instance. A woman of that presence seems an unlikely candidate for the role of 'passive victim'.
But one thing that's being glossed over here is the gravitas of the accusation: with claims like this a person is tainted. Given Mr. Assange's politics and relationship with empire, *extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence*. The FBI and CIA tried character assassination on MLK, too. Indeed, there's a long and sordid history of people getting taken down by *exactly* these sorts of means. Take, for example, the reaction by Signa and other health conglomerates to Michael Moore's 'Sicko' (as discussed on Democracy Now!). They conspired to "take him out" by any means possible and internally claimed to know more about him than he knew about himself. But drawing these parallels is improper when the accusation is 'rape'. In our liberal age to question the veracity of the claims insinuates chauvinism or misogyny. Likewise, focusing on context and specifics isn't conducive to this witch hunt, and that's why most of the feminists' vitriol is generalized rants about the subjugation of women, the prevalence of sexual predation, and the psychology of victimhood - it obfuscates the politics. From the vantage of the power elite that's a very effective use of power.
I tried reading some of Naomi Wolf's articles in the Huffington Post, perhaps not the one you read; a link would be appreciated. But I don't see her trivializing rape. She seems rather to be complaining that the so-called justice system in very many places trivializes rape, and therefore considers it an anomaly that they are doing the opposite in the Assange case.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-22 02:17 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-22 04:02 pm (UTC)but
Don't believe that all this effort would be expended if the man concerned wasn't wanted by the USA.
And if they could get him by easier means.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-22 04:07 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-22 09:16 pm (UTC)Really, saying this is "rape" is insulting to actual victims of rape.
When I was 13 we moved into an apartment in a shady part of town. The night before we moved in our next door neighbour's apartment was broken into and the 12 year old daughter taken outside and sodomized. She was broken. It changed her life. To compare her experience with these women who Assange 'raped' is obscene.
In full disclosure, that wasn't the last time I experienced rape, either. I also volunteered for a rape crisis centre. I'm not interested in 'speaking for' any of those women. They have their own voices - just like the women who Assange had sex with. They have voices of their own. However, those who believe them to be victims of 'rape' are construing them as powerless victims. And that's a bridge I'm not buying.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-22 11:41 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-22 11:51 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-22 07:31 pm (UTC)I'd call it a black comedy. But it's well written and fairly well acted. FYI there is no such medical condition in reality, but the concept figures largely in mythology and psychology (wrt castration anxiety in males).
Interestingly, Camille Paglia was mentioned in the credits.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-22 09:05 pm (UTC)In spite of their rhetoric, a great many 'feminists' aren't interested in justice. Justice ≠ judgment, punishment, or 'correction'. Rather, I'd say justice embodies considered fairness - and that's not happening in the Assange 'rape' debacle. The rabid feminists screaming about 'rape' aren't interested in fairness, they're interested in making an example and defending their pain.
To hear feminists going on about 'who speaks for who' illustrates the bankruptcy of feminist politics and philosophy. IMO, authentic feminist voices root themselves in contingency and performativity and cyborgs. The 'witch hunt' feminists are impostors serving the interests of empire.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-22 10:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-22 10:43 pm (UTC)"Known assailant"? Yeah, Assange definitely fits that description.
"Lack of consent"? According to the police reports he got consent. You may disagree with the veracity of that consent, but neither woman accused him of unconsensual sex. They said they didn't consent to sex without a condom, but their actions said something entirely different. That makes the argument for 'rape' completely and irreducibly political.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-22 10:47 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-22 11:00 pm (UTC)But I totally agree with your conclusion: We really need to rethink what we're teaching young people about sex. To that end, I would point out that sexuality is discursive and articulated via culture. Thus, if we are to 'rethink what we're teaching young people about sex' we'd need to re-articulate social formations from the ground-up.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-22 11:46 pm (UTC)It denigrates the experiences of many, many people to insist that they have no right to be hurt by sex that they did not consent to by calling it "not really rape". Rape exists in varying levels of severity, but we have to use words like "rape" and "assault" to encompass the experiences that traumatize people so that those people's experiences are ALL taken seriously, not just the physically forceful stranger rapes/gang rapes.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-23 12:18 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-22 11:44 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-23 12:16 am (UTC)But one thing that's being glossed over here is the gravitas of the accusation: with claims like this a person is tainted. Given Mr. Assange's politics and relationship with empire, *extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence*. The FBI and CIA tried character assassination on MLK, too. Indeed, there's a long and sordid history of people getting taken down by *exactly* these sorts of means. Take, for example, the reaction by Signa and other health conglomerates to Michael Moore's 'Sicko' (as discussed on Democracy Now!). They conspired to "take him out" by any means possible and internally claimed to know more about him than he knew about himself. But drawing these parallels is improper when the accusation is 'rape'. In our liberal age to question the veracity of the claims insinuates chauvinism or misogyny. Likewise, focusing on context and specifics isn't conducive to this witch hunt, and that's why most of the feminists' vitriol is generalized rants about the subjugation of women, the prevalence of sexual predation, and the psychology of victimhood - it obfuscates the politics. From the vantage of the power elite that's a very effective use of power.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-24 03:38 am (UTC)