Some Shit I’m Sick of Hearing Regarding Rape and Assange
16 Dec
I
Claim: If you think these rape allegations against Julian Assange should be taken seriously, then you just don’t get it! Wake up and smell the set-up!
Why I’m so fucking sick of it: No really, we get it. I promise. There might be like 3 people on earth who believe the timing of Assange’s arrest was pure coincidence, but I haven’t seen them hanging out in the feminist blogosphere.
The point we’re making is that they didn’t pick him up on unpaid parking tickets here. Two women have accused him of rape. Yes, rape. Rape allegations should be taken seriously.
What “taking the allegations seriously” means:
- Accepting that Assange has been accused of real crimes, even if the authorities would almost certainly not have pursued him under other circumstances.
- If you are a WikiLeaks supporter, understanding that it is possible for the very same man to do things you really approve of AND things you really disapprove of.
- Being skeptical of claims that are used to discredit rape victims every day — e.g., “She wanted it”; “If she didn’t want it, then he didn’t know he didn’t have consent — it was all a big misunderstanding”; “Afterwards, she didn’t behave like I think a victim should”; “She’s just mad and trying to punish him”; “She hesitated to report it/wavered on pressing charges”; “She’s a crazy man-hater.”
- Recognizing that all of the above are, in fact, tactics used to discredit rape victims every day, and not Really Convincing Special Facts About This Particular Case.
- Encouraging a fair trial, if it comes to that, for both the accused and the accusers.
What “taking the allegations seriously” does not mean:
- Presuming that Assange is guilty/Ruling out any possibility that the allegations are false.
- Failing to understand that the pursuit of Assange was wildly out of proportion to the usual treatment of accused rapists.
- Being a sheep with no capacity or desire to think critically about the actions of powerful people who have been embarrassed by WikiLeaks.
II
Claim: Because nobody cares about prosecuting rape under normal circumstances, it is somehow an insult to rape survivors to prosecute Assange for it now.
Someone really fucking said that? Yeah, Naomi Wolf in the Huffington Post, for instance. Money quote:
Of course ‘No means No’, even after consent has been given, whether you are male or female; and of course condoms should always be used if agreed upon. As my fifteen-year-old would say: Duh.
But for all the tens of thousands of women who have been kidnapped and raped, raped at gunpoint, gang-raped, raped with sharp objects, beaten and raped, raped as children, raped by acquaintances — who are still awaiting the least whisper of justice — the highly unusual reaction of Sweden and Britain to this situation is a slap in the face.
Wait, what? Yeah, she actually seems to be arguing that out of respect for rape survivors who never saw justice, Britain and Sweden should not prosecute an accused rapist. It’s all of them or none of them. Or something.
Doesn’t she have a good point somewhere in there, though? Sure. To wit, “Here is what I mean: men are pretty much never treated the way Assange is being treated in the face of sex crime charges.” Usually, rapists go free.
BUT: That doesn’t mean these charges shouldn’t be taken seriously. See above. And as someone who’s worked extensively with rape survivors, Naomi Wolf should damn well know better than to smear alleged victims long before all the facts are in, perpetuate a flat-out lie about the seriousness of the charges, and generally act like a cheerleader for rape culture, under the guise of someone concerned about “real” victims. Which we all know these women are not, duh, because Assange has already been tried and found not OH WAIT.
Better idea: Decry the routine dismissal of rape allegations and shameful treatment of victims all over the damned world, but maybe skip the part about how prosecuting an accused rapist somehow makes it worse.
III
Claim: He’s being charged with rape because a condom broke! It’s just because Sweden has this ridiculous “sex by surprise” law!
Why I’m so fucking sick of it, part 1: It’s not true.
Why I’m so fucking sick of it, part 2: Even if it were true, it would still be a big deal. As Jeff Fecke put it on Twitter last night, “Am I missing something? Isn’t ‘sex by surprise’ just a euphemism for rape? Or am I just too hung up on ‘consent?’”
Seriously. If you find yourself surprised to be having sex, it follows that you did not consent! And what’s another name for “non-consensual sex,” kids?
But, but, but… broken condom! This would be a big deal, too, actually! No, not the broken condom itself, but the refusal to stop putting your penis inside someone who’s told you to stop.
Consenting to sex with a condom and consenting to sex without are two entirely different things, as it turns out. A little vocabulary lesson: It’s not rape because you weren’t attracted to the guy or didn’t feel like fucking at all that night or were saving yourself for marriage. It’s rape because at some point, a rapist completely ignored your lack of consent. And yes, it is actually possible to both consent to sex and not consent to sex in the same night, with the same person! For any number of reasons, including that you are willing to have sex with a condom, but not willing to have sex that carries a far greater risk of your becoming pregnant and/or contracting an STI. Oddly enough, those risks can have a serious impact on one’s willingness to fuck! Like, enough to make a hypothetical woman say, “Stop!” when she becomes aware that a condom has broken.
And what do we call “continuing to put your penis inside a woman who’s told you to stop,” boys and girls?
Hint: The answer is not “the best known cure for blue balls.“
33 Responses to “Some Shit I’m Sick of Hearing Regarding Rape and Assange”
Thursday 16 December 2010
Some Shit I’m Sick of Hearing Regarding Rape and Assange « Kate Harding
via kateharding.info
Flickr - projectbrainsaver
www.flickr.com
|
Well said. Obviously.
it is possible for the very same man to do things you really approve of AND things you really disapprove of.
Julian Assange: like Orson Scott Card, except with rape allegations instead of unfortunate political views.
EXACTLY!
Yay! Perfect summary. Just re-tweeted it. Michael Moore chuckling and repeatedly saying ‘the condom broke’ is completely disgusting.
Fantastic post! I’m so incredibly frustrated that people can justify his actions because he’s controversial.
#3 has been especially nauseating to me the last couple of days, as the reports of “holding down a woman with his weight” came out. I don’t think any woman who’s had hetero sex can’t think through that scenario: maybe you’re having a good time, you’re like “hell yeah sex, just get that condom,” and then something gets weird and there is no condom and he’s holding you down and you can’t get out from under him and you say “WTF, stop it” and he doesn’t, and who the fuck does not think that is rape and just as fucking scary as Bill Napoli’s–wait, I mean Naomi Wolf’s–list of “rape-rape”? How can you actually think through that scenario and go “sex by surprise heh heh”? It makes me fucking despair at how many straight men just flat-out think rape is okay if it’s not someone with a knife.
It makes me fucking despair at how many straight men just flat-out think rape is okay if it’s not someone with a knife.
You and me both.
Note to new readers: All first-time commenters have to go through moderation, so if I’m away from the computer, your comment might not show up right away. And if you’re an asshole, it won’t show up at all.
Also, comments shut down automatically after 24 hours.
I guess rape is the equivalent of driving with a taillight out.
Fantastic post! Thank you.
Thank you for this post!
You have made me so, so happy by doing this, doing this in plain English, rationally, without apology to either side and humorously. You’re pretty much my hero right now. Retweeting to all who’ll pay attention.
Because nobody cares about prosecuting rape under normal circumstances, it is somehow an insult to rape survivors to prosecute Assange for it now.
Wuh tuh fuh? How back-to-front is it possible to be? I’ve been thinking for days, the disgraceful thing is that so many other rape allegations *don’t* get taken seriously, not that some finally are being. I’m not sure I’d call it even a baby step in the right direction, but the apologists are advocating an enormous stride *backwards*.
I think your ‘translation’ of the Naomi Wolf article is odd, bordering on deliberately unfair. Personally I read it as ‘the police forces (and other relevant organisations) in all these countries should be doing more to prosecute all rapists’, which seems like a much more straight-forward interpretation of the whole article and the anger it expresses at all those places and organisations which have failed raped or assaulted women.
Denny, that’s what I was getting at in the part where I acknowledged that she has a good point. Legitimate outrage doesn’t change the fact that she called the Assange arrest an “insult” and a “slap in the face” to rape survivors, that she wrote “I see that Julian Assange is accused of having consensual sex with two women, in one case using a condom that broke” and “the alleged victims are using feminist-inspired rhetoric and law to assuage what appears to be personal injured feelings” in a previous article, and throughout all these HuffPo pieces, she keeps using her status as a well-known feminist to bolster her argument that the charges against Assange shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Yes, what you say.
Consent is not really that difficult a concept. By the wonderful world of coincidence, I was discussing this on another friend’s blog recently, and it’s always worth repeating that sex without consent is rape. Period.
Thanks for this post. I’m retweeting and google reader-ing as many posts like this as possible, but am a little worried that I’m just bouncing this stuff into an echo chamber. I don’t really hang out with anyone who thinks that rape is bad, unless there’s a mitigating circumstance (he didn’t know! he’s really cool!) in which case never mind bitch just wanted dinner first.
Thank you for this post! Really summarized everything I’ve felt about this ‘sex by surprise’ narrative/nonsense since last week. Assange =/= wikileaks
“Assange =/= wikileaks”
I wish more WikiLeaks fans would stick to making that point. If Assange is tried and found guilty, they’re going to have to repair the reputational damage WikiLeaks will take from that (hopefully not by screaming ‘conspiracy’ for the next ten years), and by conflating his political status with these charges they’re not helping to keep the reputation of the organisation separate from the reputation of the man who founded it.
On the gripping hand, if Sweden do extradite him to the US once they have him in custody (before or after a Swedish trial), it’s going to look pretty rotten. I seem to recall Sweden was heavily involved in the US/UK extraordinary extradition mess.
A voice of sanity! Thank you, Kate.
Well said, Kate — I’ve been trying to articulate point two under “taking allegations seriously.” Posted to Facebook.
Just deleted the first comment from someone who cannot grasp #3!
I already mentioned this, but for those of you who haven’t met me before, let it be known that I am an arrogant, man-hating cunt who hates free speech, can’t tolerate dissenting opinions, and lives to preserve my echo chamber of brainwashed sycophants. So keep that in mind when trying to get a comment through moderation.
All hail our new comment-moderating overlords
By the way, I’m seeing a rendering glitch in your comment form here – there’s a gap above the email input, meaning it lines up with the website label, and the website input is below that with no apparent label.
Google Chrome 9.0 on Linux, so probably not a huge deal if it works okay on more common platforms.
a-effing-men! thank you.
“If you are a WikiLeaks supporter, understanding that it is possible for the very same man to do things you really approve of AND things you really disapprove of.”
True.
But for someone to do something atrocious and then to risk their life and livelihood attempting to do something they think is morally vital, is very very unlikely.
Are you kidding me? I have not heard anyone actually spell out the “I don’t believe he could be a rapist because he also did something I find heroic” argument quite so clearly, but there it is. Wow.
Why?
Nice people do shitty things. Read a newspaper.
“But for someone to do something atrocious and then to risk their life and livelihood attempting to do something they think is morally vital, is very very unlikely.”
This depends on the person in question sharing your definitions of “atrocious” and “morally vital.” Bush thought he was sent by God — pretty much the definition of “morally vital” to the person who thinks it — to start the Iraq war.
The reaction to the allegations against Assange pretty much demonstrate that a large chunk of the world don’t think rape is atrocious.
*doesn’t
Rape apologism ate my grammar!
Confidential to latest douche whose comment I’m not approving: Actually, my part one answer links to a piece that’s based on a reading of the Swedish penal code. And I notice you conveniently ignore part two. And if you truly believe that “While the allegations are merely allegations we should ALL shut up,” I nominate you to go first.
HELL yes. Thank you for the excellent answers round-up; I’m going to link this to a lot of people I know who are fucking up on #2 and #3.
Oh fuck, finally! I’ve had all these conversations on Facebook with people making exactly the fallacious arguments you’re pointing out. It’s so refreshing to see you call bullshit.
Nicely argued and supported, Kate – like you, I was shocked at Naomi Wolf’s take on this issue. Is she drinking too much these days?