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.