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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(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.