Slog
News & ArtsFriday, December 17, 2010
Crime / Sex What She Said
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:41 AM
Furry Girl (link NSFW):
When lefties fanatically spearhead every rape/abuse allegation leveled by anyone, they are creating an environment that enables and even encourages false accusations from angry parties. While it's a travesty that police and courts tend to not believe people claiming that they have been sexually assaulted, the solution is not to unquestioningly champion anyone who makes the claim. Never believing and always believing allegations are both wrong. Rape and assault are awful, fucked up things, but that doesn't mean claims shouldn't be subjected to any fact-checking or skepticism. Murder is awful, too, and even with our badly flawed judicial system, we still generally try and sort out the facts and give the accused their day in court and a chance to defend themselves.
I said something very similar years ago in "Savage Love" and caught no end of hell for it. Rape is traumatic, and we have to take all claims of rape seriously. Very seriously. But taking claims of rape seriously and taking them at face value are two different things. False accusations of rape can also destroy lives—and not just the lives of the falsely accused. (Via Blaghag, who adds: "Questioning does not make us a 'tool of the patriarchy'—questioning is empowering.")
2
I think anybody who thinks over-zealous championing of the rights of victims (or non-victims) of sexual assault is somehow universally or even broadly associated with the left is living in a fucking dream world.
3
It is true that there was a time when "blame the victim" was the norm. It still is in some cultures, where it is believed that if a woman does not feel so defiled that she kills herself after rape she must be complicit. That said, false accusations ruin lives and are seemingly on the increase. Children even threaten their parents with calls to the authorities if they are thwarted in some way. the so-called "recovered-memory" movement has a lot to answer for on this front.
4
This is stupid in 100000 ways.
Murder and rape is a false equivalence, nobody ever doubts there was a victim in a murder.
Most murders are reported.
Nobody ever accuses the family and friends of murder victims of being "fanatical" if they defend their loved one against blame the victim bullshit.
So many more reasons. Fuck this.
Murder and rape is a false equivalence, nobody ever doubts there was a victim in a murder.
Most murders are reported.
Nobody ever accuses the family and friends of murder victims of being "fanatical" if they defend their loved one against blame the victim bullshit.
So many more reasons. Fuck this.
5
That's not exactly what I was thinking when I saw "furry girl." Yowza.
And you (and she) are absolutely correct, Dan. I'm also sure you'll catch no end of hell for this post, too, though.
And you (and she) are absolutely correct, Dan. I'm also sure you'll catch no end of hell for this post, too, though.
6
@1 That link is NSFW. Now don't read Slog at work. She's naked.
As a feminist who is pretty sensitive to the victim-blaming mentality, I completely and 100% agree with this. I think, like any other allegation, accusations of rape should be taken seriously, the victim's story should be heard and believed, but a fair trial is still in order. Pretty much everything Furry Girl said. You guys are dead-on this one.
As a feminist who is pretty sensitive to the victim-blaming mentality, I completely and 100% agree with this. I think, like any other allegation, accusations of rape should be taken seriously, the victim's story should be heard and believed, but a fair trial is still in order. Pretty much everything Furry Girl said. You guys are dead-on this one.
7
Kind of a straw man though - believing everyone gets their day in court isn't the same as believing a charge must be true.
It stumps me how many who claim such faith in Assange find it impossible to believe this great man may have made a misstep or two. I don't see how painting him as a messiah benefits Assange or his great work in the long run.
There's a lot of stupidity to the process, but there's no longer any clean alternative to it. We can only really learn whether the accusations are baseless if the bland Swedish investigation proceeds apace. Whether there's anything to the charges or not, only if we get on with it can Assange can start putting it behind him and get back to focusing on his beautiful contributions to public openness.
It stumps me how many who claim such faith in Assange find it impossible to believe this great man may have made a misstep or two. I don't see how painting him as a messiah benefits Assange or his great work in the long run.
There's a lot of stupidity to the process, but there's no longer any clean alternative to it. We can only really learn whether the accusations are baseless if the bland Swedish investigation proceeds apace. Whether there's anything to the charges or not, only if we get on with it can Assange can start putting it behind him and get back to focusing on his beautiful contributions to public openness.
8
The problem is that it is very difficult to prove that consent was revoked. Did the the other person hear and understand the "no"? Did they just ignore it? Sex is complicated. Which is not to say that you shouldn't be allowed to stop a sexual act in progress.
9
1 in 6 women and 1 in 33 men will be a victim of sexual assault in their lifetime. Every 2 minutes, someone in the U.S. is sexually assaulted.
Reporting has increased by 1/3 since 1993.
You want that number to increase. As of now 60% of sexual assaults are not reported to the police. If you say that someone stole your wallet, we don't automatically think it is "trumped" up. We accept it as an allegation, and let the criminal justice system deal with it. We don't start making judgements about the person whose wallet was stolen. We don't start wondering if they were tempting someone to take their wallet, if they offered their wallet to someone, if it matters that their wallet was stolen because its been stolen before. We don't say, I like the alleged offender and so I know he couldn't have taken someone's wallet.
That doesn't mean you should assume someone accused of sexual assault is guilty.
I get where you are coming from on this, but absent having no opinion one way or another on the guilt or innocence of a public figure before trial, all other options minimize the impact and either jump the gun on finding innocence or further victimize the victim making it so that someone else will not report.
On another note: Sexual assault is not just traumatic, it results in drastic financial implications. Rape is one of the most financially costly crimes--it averages between 87,000 and 110,000 worth of damage within its victims life time.
Reporting has increased by 1/3 since 1993.
You want that number to increase. As of now 60% of sexual assaults are not reported to the police. If you say that someone stole your wallet, we don't automatically think it is "trumped" up. We accept it as an allegation, and let the criminal justice system deal with it. We don't start making judgements about the person whose wallet was stolen. We don't start wondering if they were tempting someone to take their wallet, if they offered their wallet to someone, if it matters that their wallet was stolen because its been stolen before. We don't say, I like the alleged offender and so I know he couldn't have taken someone's wallet.
That doesn't mean you should assume someone accused of sexual assault is guilty.
I get where you are coming from on this, but absent having no opinion one way or another on the guilt or innocence of a public figure before trial, all other options minimize the impact and either jump the gun on finding innocence or further victimize the victim making it so that someone else will not report.
On another note: Sexual assault is not just traumatic, it results in drastic financial implications. Rape is one of the most financially costly crimes--it averages between 87,000 and 110,000 worth of damage within its victims life time.
10
@6, I actually get paid to keep up with things like the Slog. Boggles the mind, huh?
That doesn't mean I don't deserve a warning about gigantic hairy beaver shots. I'd rather not have to explain it to my coworkers in the first place.
That doesn't mean I don't deserve a warning about gigantic hairy beaver shots. I'd rather not have to explain it to my coworkers in the first place.
11
Hoo boy, no matter what you say here you've done gone and stepped in something.
Here it comes, another 500 comment thread for Dan Savage.
Here it comes, another 500 comment thread for Dan Savage.
14
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
What we have here is a "feminist left" who so desperately believes in Assange's self-mythologizing that they have already tried his accusers and found them guilty. Assange MUST be innocent, he's so...flirtatious, mmm.
If Assange was a public figure on the right these exact same people would be pillorying him mercilessly. He would be called "the rapist" in every mention.
Instead, we have umpteen commenters on the right repeating endlessly the absurd lie that Assange is only accused of not wearing a condom. That's not true. He is accused of holding a woman down with his weight (he's 6'4") and forcing sex on her. I KNOW these people have ulterior motives because they CONTINUE to repeat this lie even after they acknowledge that it's not true.
It is also bizarre to hear exactly the sort of feminists who would previously have given you a thousand words on why not using a condom after you have promised to do so is in fact a kind of rape suddenly discover that hey, it's just a little slip, a sexy, sexy slip, because who wouldn't want to have sex with Julian Assange, after all? It's sickening to hear this garbage.
Assange is not being crucified. He's being charged in a court of law. Whether he's guilty or not is going to be determined in that court, not on blogs. You don't know what happened, I don't know what happened, nobody knows what happened. That's what courts are for.
To come out and say "he's obviously guilty" is wrong. But no one is doing that. And to come out and say "he can't be guilty, he's on our side, he's one of us, he's so brave", which is what Furry Girl is doing, is just as wrong.
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
What we have here is a "feminist left" who so desperately believes in Assange's self-mythologizing that they have already tried his accusers and found them guilty. Assange MUST be innocent, he's so...flirtatious, mmm.
If Assange was a public figure on the right these exact same people would be pillorying him mercilessly. He would be called "the rapist" in every mention.
Instead, we have umpteen commenters on the right repeating endlessly the absurd lie that Assange is only accused of not wearing a condom. That's not true. He is accused of holding a woman down with his weight (he's 6'4") and forcing sex on her. I KNOW these people have ulterior motives because they CONTINUE to repeat this lie even after they acknowledge that it's not true.
It is also bizarre to hear exactly the sort of feminists who would previously have given you a thousand words on why not using a condom after you have promised to do so is in fact a kind of rape suddenly discover that hey, it's just a little slip, a sexy, sexy slip, because who wouldn't want to have sex with Julian Assange, after all? It's sickening to hear this garbage.
Assange is not being crucified. He's being charged in a court of law. Whether he's guilty or not is going to be determined in that court, not on blogs. You don't know what happened, I don't know what happened, nobody knows what happened. That's what courts are for.
To come out and say "he's obviously guilty" is wrong. But no one is doing that. And to come out and say "he can't be guilty, he's on our side, he's one of us, he's so brave", which is what Furry Girl is doing, is just as wrong.
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
16
The problem is that we hear the phrases 'day in court' and 'innocent until proven guilty' brought out for sexual assault cases like they are for nothing else.
If a famous athlete gets arrested for a dui or a fight or other crime, we don't hear cries of 'reasonable doubt!' People look at the evidence and make an assessment.
If a politician gets arrested for soliciting sex in an airport bathroom, we don't say 'he was never convicted of anything, so we don't know what happened!' We look at the evidence, and think, yeah, that probably happened. And his name is mocked for all time.
When someone is accused of sexual assault we hear 'false accusations ruin lives' and 'there's no conviction' and 'arrests don't require much evidence' and 'this is complicated' or, my personal favorite 'nobody knows exactly what happened, so we can't comment on it at all.' Really? Why is that the standard ONLY for sexual assault.
The reality is that the cases where 'the left' rallies around some accusation of sexual assault there is usually TONS of evidence that the person has the personality of a predator. If someone is accused of murder, and there is evidence that they are violent and lack empathy, then I'm more likely to think they are guilty.
Lets look at the evidence and make informed decisions. I agree. But the reality is that in sexual assault a large number of people rally around 'lack of proof' and 'reasonably doubt' to refuse to look at evidence that the assaulter is exactly the kind of person who commits unreported assaults all the time.
If a famous athlete gets arrested for a dui or a fight or other crime, we don't hear cries of 'reasonable doubt!' People look at the evidence and make an assessment.
If a politician gets arrested for soliciting sex in an airport bathroom, we don't say 'he was never convicted of anything, so we don't know what happened!' We look at the evidence, and think, yeah, that probably happened. And his name is mocked for all time.
When someone is accused of sexual assault we hear 'false accusations ruin lives' and 'there's no conviction' and 'arrests don't require much evidence' and 'this is complicated' or, my personal favorite 'nobody knows exactly what happened, so we can't comment on it at all.' Really? Why is that the standard ONLY for sexual assault.
The reality is that the cases where 'the left' rallies around some accusation of sexual assault there is usually TONS of evidence that the person has the personality of a predator. If someone is accused of murder, and there is evidence that they are violent and lack empathy, then I'm more likely to think they are guilty.
Lets look at the evidence and make informed decisions. I agree. But the reality is that in sexual assault a large number of people rally around 'lack of proof' and 'reasonably doubt' to refuse to look at evidence that the assaulter is exactly the kind of person who commits unreported assaults all the time.
19
@14 -- as someone who is on the "feminist left" (I assume, I'm not sure what that means exactly), I just want to clarify that while I agree with Furry Girl and Dan, I am NOT of the "he's on our side so he can't be guilty" camp.
Truth is that I (or we) don't know either way. Knowing that rape allegations are more often true than false, I feel he is PROBABLY guilty, though he hasn't been through trial and therefore I don't judge him either way. That said, if he is guilty, that makes him a rapist piece of shit, regardless of the whole WikiLeaks thing.
Truth is that I (or we) don't know either way. Knowing that rape allegations are more often true than false, I feel he is PROBABLY guilty, though he hasn't been through trial and therefore I don't judge him either way. That said, if he is guilty, that makes him a rapist piece of shit, regardless of the whole WikiLeaks thing.
20
I think thoroughly investigating an allegation of rape (up to and including the possibility that the allegation may be false) is part and parcel of taking each and every allegation very seriously.
I have no idea if Assange is guilty of rape, and I don't think it is relevant to what I think about his politics (to which I am very sympathetic) or to the larger enterprise of Wikileaks.
But you have to admit the timing of the charges is one hell of a coincidence.
I have no idea if Assange is guilty of rape, and I don't think it is relevant to what I think about his politics (to which I am very sympathetic) or to the larger enterprise of Wikileaks.
But you have to admit the timing of the charges is one hell of a coincidence.
21
I'm not saying it's rational, but the reason people elevate rape accusations to a special status is because, VERY FREQUENTLY, rapists get off on technicalities or lack of evidence.
But false accusations of rape ought to be capital crimes. They make it so that real rape victims are more afraid to step forward, and non-rapists are afraid to behave normally around others.
But false accusations of rape ought to be capital crimes. They make it so that real rape victims are more afraid to step forward, and non-rapists are afraid to behave normally around others.
22
@14: At first I thought I disagreed with you (for practically the first time), but you're right on the money. While my guess is that the charges are a bit trumped up/exaggerated, I have faith that the judicial system will work it out. The hero worship of Assange is supremely frustrating. However, I did not really get the impression that furry girl's fangirlism for Assange was the reason for the post.
23
A friend of mine was date-raped a few months back by some dickwipe she met over the internet, but she was too shell-shocked to call the police until after a few hours, some of which she spent with her attacker. Not only did her parents refuse to press charges (the police advised them not to, saying that getting a bite to eat afterwards makes it seem like there was consent), they went ahead and blamed her for the whole business.
Why is it that people will get all worked-up and lynch-mob-y over some fabricated stories, and dismiss some true stories as the victim asking for it? I don't have the foggiest idea.
Why is it that people will get all worked-up and lynch-mob-y over some fabricated stories, and dismiss some true stories as the victim asking for it? I don't have the foggiest idea.
24
I guess it's not surprising that these attitudes turn up among sex positive people who either reject or distance themselves from feminism. And I say that as someone who mostly likes both Furry Girl and Dan.
Look, we live in a world where women who make rape accusations are frequently vilified and humiliated and are properly served by the justice system far, FAR too rarely. We live in a world where rape victims are so frequently doubted that they often doubt themselves. We've seen that here in this column. We live in a world where rape is dramatically under-reported, not over-reported.
Did this guy rape those women? I don't know. Obviously, like everyone else here, I don't have nearly enough information to know. Am I going to go around all over public forums doubting and trying to discredit his accusers, though? Absolutely fucking not. Not only because I have similarly insufficient information about that, but because I don't get to pretend that I don't live in the world described above and that that sort of behavior doesn't contribute to those problems.
There is a justice system in place to figure that out. A highly imperfect justice system with imperfections that far more frequently benefit accused rapists than their accusers, but it's there. And yeah, when in light of all that information I see someone sharing a bunch of anecdata about false rape accusations and getting worked up over the totally unverified and unsupported idea that specific women might be lying about being raped, I don't tend to think too well of those people and their attitudes about violence against women.
Look, we live in a world where women who make rape accusations are frequently vilified and humiliated and are properly served by the justice system far, FAR too rarely. We live in a world where rape victims are so frequently doubted that they often doubt themselves. We've seen that here in this column. We live in a world where rape is dramatically under-reported, not over-reported.
Did this guy rape those women? I don't know. Obviously, like everyone else here, I don't have nearly enough information to know. Am I going to go around all over public forums doubting and trying to discredit his accusers, though? Absolutely fucking not. Not only because I have similarly insufficient information about that, but because I don't get to pretend that I don't live in the world described above and that that sort of behavior doesn't contribute to those problems.
There is a justice system in place to figure that out. A highly imperfect justice system with imperfections that far more frequently benefit accused rapists than their accusers, but it's there. And yeah, when in light of all that information I see someone sharing a bunch of anecdata about false rape accusations and getting worked up over the totally unverified and unsupported idea that specific women might be lying about being raped, I don't tend to think too well of those people and their attitudes about violence against women.
25
Since when is believing every rape allegation part of the status quo? Most women go through hell to prosecute and most don't report. Maybe there's a feminist somewhere making the allegation that Assange definitely raped these women but most feminist websites I've been too are mostly pissed off with the treatment of the news and lazy fact-checking, as well as victim-blaming, "no-it-can't be!" etc. So I don't see some huge conspiracy of "fanatics" being fought off here.
26
@22 I have faith that the judicial system will work it out.
*ahem* AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Sorry. You were joking, right?
Not that I'm hero worshipping Assange, or saying that he's not guilty. But, he is definitely not going to be subject to a fair trial or investigation. And, as @20 said, the timing of the charges is EXTREMELY suspect to railroading.
*ahem* AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Sorry. You were joking, right?
Not that I'm hero worshipping Assange, or saying that he's not guilty. But, he is definitely not going to be subject to a fair trial or investigation. And, as @20 said, the timing of the charges is EXTREMELY suspect to railroading.
27
Oh for the love of christ. Of course the circumstances to the prosecution are fishy. Of course it smells rotten given sweden's terrible record with prosecuting sex crimes. But every single person who hasnt instantly come to assange's defense; who dares to say " let the justice system play itself out"; who actually points out there are actual charges here differing from the daily kos fables being spewed out has been accused of going aginst a modern scottsboro boy. AND I DONT CARE IF IT"S THE RISEN JESUS, if he's in an encounter with a woman, and the woman says no, and he doesnt stop. THEN THE RISEN JESUS SHOULD GO TO JAIL.
29
While I was in highschool, a girl accused a guy I knew of raping her at a party. The next day the guy was beaten severely at school, twice, and while trying to get home, by various groups of people.
When the police got involved, the girl confessed that she lied because she was drunk and angry. But that guy was never the same again.
We cannot always take rape allegations as truth.
When the police got involved, the girl confessed that she lied because she was drunk and angry. But that guy was never the same again.
We cannot always take rape allegations as truth.
30
So, 'innocent until proven guilty' now constitutes blaming the victim, or is indicative of society's backwards stance on rape allegations?
It sucks, but rape allegations (particularly date rape, and rape by a prior sexual partner) are notoriously difficult to prove, since the 'evidence' is often consistent with consensual sex. Just proving that sex happened isn't enough to prove a crime occurred.
This is absolutely a terrible thing for women who are victims of rape -- but legally speaking, we can't just convict people based on allegations unless there's an airtight case. I can't understand why anyone here would have a problem with that.
I don't think anyone's trivializing rape when they say false allegations ruin lives. That's simply a fact. And given that Assange is an obvious target for a smear, I wouldn't be surprised at all if these allegations were false. If they're not false, or not greatly exaggerated... well, then Assange is just another of the millions of rapists out there.
But so what? It's still a distraction from the data being released by wikileaks, which, honestly is what we SHOULD be talking about. This is much bigger than one man, and much bigger than a rape allegation or two.
It sucks, but rape allegations (particularly date rape, and rape by a prior sexual partner) are notoriously difficult to prove, since the 'evidence' is often consistent with consensual sex. Just proving that sex happened isn't enough to prove a crime occurred.
This is absolutely a terrible thing for women who are victims of rape -- but legally speaking, we can't just convict people based on allegations unless there's an airtight case. I can't understand why anyone here would have a problem with that.
I don't think anyone's trivializing rape when they say false allegations ruin lives. That's simply a fact. And given that Assange is an obvious target for a smear, I wouldn't be surprised at all if these allegations were false. If they're not false, or not greatly exaggerated... well, then Assange is just another of the millions of rapists out there.
But so what? It's still a distraction from the data being released by wikileaks, which, honestly is what we SHOULD be talking about. This is much bigger than one man, and much bigger than a rape allegation or two.
31
@26, you're an idiot. "Definitely not going to be subject to a fair trial" my ass.
As for timing, perhaps you should educate yourself on how EAWs work. Assange has actually received MORE leeway than is customary with an EAW. If he was Joe Blow, he'd have been in a Swedish jail for a while already. That's because he, unlike most people, has excellent, expensive lawyers and the unremitting gaze of the media.
As for timing, perhaps you should educate yourself on how EAWs work. Assange has actually received MORE leeway than is customary with an EAW. If he was Joe Blow, he'd have been in a Swedish jail for a while already. That's because he, unlike most people, has excellent, expensive lawyers and the unremitting gaze of the media.
33
An abbreviated timeline:
August/2010 A warrant for Assange is issued by the Swedish Prosecution Authority.
August/2010 The law firm of Borgstrom and Bodstrom quickly volunteer to represent the two accusers, Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen.
Thomas Bodstrom, former Justice Minister, has an interesting background: he came under investigation four times by Sweden's constitutional committee while Justice Minister after arresting members of the Pirate Bay file-sharing operation. He was also instrumental in pushing through the EU’s data retention directive.
And here’s an interesting quote on the attorney Bodstrom:
“Thomas Bodström will be remembered as the minister of justice who flushed the Swedes' civil rights down the head. He wants to eavesdrop on people who aren't even suspected of criminal activity, he wants to monitor all computer traffic, he wants to read all your email, he wants to store your telephone calls, and he wants to remove the prohibition against using the military against civilians.”
- Anna Sjödin January 2006
(sgt.d: It’s important to understand that Bodstrom was also responsible for pushing through a harsh warrantless-wiretapping-type legislation in Sweden, extremely similar to what the Bush administration had pushed through in the States. Also, Bodstrom once remarked, while Justice Minister, that he had the right to bug any and every newspaper in the country without first obtaining a court order or warrant.)
[Anna Ardin is, or was, the political secretary and press officer for the Swedish Brotherhood Movement. Also a member: Thomas Bodstrom.
It was the Social Democrat Party that invited Assange to speak on its behalf at an event in Stockholm that month. Ardin had arranged Assange's travel for the event.
At the very beginning of the Assange investigation, and during it, details were illegally leaked to the tabloid, Expressen, owned by the Bonnier family. Attorney Claes Borgström’s two sisters, Annette Kullenberg and Kerstin Vinterhed, both work for Bonnier family newspapers, and Anna Ardin happened to intern at the publication, GT, also owned by the Bonnier family, by way of Expressen.]
November/2010 Par Nuder, former co-cabinet member with Thomas Bodstrom, and former adviser at one time to Bodstrom, is hired as a director at Madeleine Albright’s international lobbyist firm, Albright Stonebridge Group. (Certainly one might suspect Madam Albright having worries about possible leaked State Department cables and how they could reflect upon her.)
November/2010 Thomas Bodstrom travels to USA.
December/2010 Within moments after the announcement that Assange will be granted bail, we hear from the USA Attorney General, Eric Holder (with a background defending corporate assassins and mercenaries), that the American Justice Department will be taking legal action against BP and other companies.
[Now we know from those Wikileaked cables (and other past sources, of course), that the US government, British government, and others, have been pressured by the oil companies in their diplomatic activities. We also know that the US government has acted to compromise foreign legal systems. Could this be a situation were the US government is either acting to pressure the UK to allow the Swedish extradition of Assange?
Or the Americans are actually acting on behalf of BP, to appear to be pressuring the UK?]
In the same Olof Palme Centre which houses the offices of the Social Democrat Party, one also finds nearby the offices of the National Endowment for Democracy. (The N.E.D. just happens to be funded by the US government, and was set up by President Reagan in 1983 as a civilian extension to covert activities overseas.)
Closing remarks: Given the above information, together with previous statements by attorneys and bloggers of the erased tweets from Anna Ardin’s twitter account (which had only been found as they were mirrored on her blogspot file, which had been downloaded prior to her also erasing that, on “advice of counsel” – clearly against the law to destroy any and all evidence), as well as the backgrounds of the two partners of Borgstrom and Bodstrom, it might appear that law firm was acting more than just politically; in fact, more like an asset of a foreign intelligence service?
More...
August/2010 A warrant for Assange is issued by the Swedish Prosecution Authority.
August/2010 The law firm of Borgstrom and Bodstrom quickly volunteer to represent the two accusers, Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen.
Thomas Bodstrom, former Justice Minister, has an interesting background: he came under investigation four times by Sweden's constitutional committee while Justice Minister after arresting members of the Pirate Bay file-sharing operation. He was also instrumental in pushing through the EU’s data retention directive.
And here’s an interesting quote on the attorney Bodstrom:
“Thomas Bodström will be remembered as the minister of justice who flushed the Swedes' civil rights down the head. He wants to eavesdrop on people who aren't even suspected of criminal activity, he wants to monitor all computer traffic, he wants to read all your email, he wants to store your telephone calls, and he wants to remove the prohibition against using the military against civilians.”
- Anna Sjödin January 2006
(sgt.d: It’s important to understand that Bodstrom was also responsible for pushing through a harsh warrantless-wiretapping-type legislation in Sweden, extremely similar to what the Bush administration had pushed through in the States. Also, Bodstrom once remarked, while Justice Minister, that he had the right to bug any and every newspaper in the country without first obtaining a court order or warrant.)
[Anna Ardin is, or was, the political secretary and press officer for the Swedish Brotherhood Movement. Also a member: Thomas Bodstrom.
It was the Social Democrat Party that invited Assange to speak on its behalf at an event in Stockholm that month. Ardin had arranged Assange's travel for the event.
At the very beginning of the Assange investigation, and during it, details were illegally leaked to the tabloid, Expressen, owned by the Bonnier family. Attorney Claes Borgström’s two sisters, Annette Kullenberg and Kerstin Vinterhed, both work for Bonnier family newspapers, and Anna Ardin happened to intern at the publication, GT, also owned by the Bonnier family, by way of Expressen.]
November/2010 Par Nuder, former co-cabinet member with Thomas Bodstrom, and former adviser at one time to Bodstrom, is hired as a director at Madeleine Albright’s international lobbyist firm, Albright Stonebridge Group. (Certainly one might suspect Madam Albright having worries about possible leaked State Department cables and how they could reflect upon her.)
November/2010 Thomas Bodstrom travels to USA.
December/2010 Within moments after the announcement that Assange will be granted bail, we hear from the USA Attorney General, Eric Holder (with a background defending corporate assassins and mercenaries), that the American Justice Department will be taking legal action against BP and other companies.
[Now we know from those Wikileaked cables (and other past sources, of course), that the US government, British government, and others, have been pressured by the oil companies in their diplomatic activities. We also know that the US government has acted to compromise foreign legal systems. Could this be a situation were the US government is either acting to pressure the UK to allow the Swedish extradition of Assange?
Or the Americans are actually acting on behalf of BP, to appear to be pressuring the UK?]
In the same Olof Palme Centre which houses the offices of the Social Democrat Party, one also finds nearby the offices of the National Endowment for Democracy. (The N.E.D. just happens to be funded by the US government, and was set up by President Reagan in 1983 as a civilian extension to covert activities overseas.)
Closing remarks: Given the above information, together with previous statements by attorneys and bloggers of the erased tweets from Anna Ardin’s twitter account (which had only been found as they were mirrored on her blogspot file, which had been downloaded prior to her also erasing that, on “advice of counsel” – clearly against the law to destroy any and all evidence), as well as the backgrounds of the two partners of Borgstrom and Bodstrom, it might appear that law firm was acting more than just politically; in fact, more like an asset of a foreign intelligence service?
34
Being objective and reasonable is always a virtue, no matter what "side" you're on. So let's strive for that.
35
#9, and that idiot David who calls himself fnarf, there is NO JAIL SENTENCE for the crime they plan on pursuing Assange on.
I repeat, there is no jail sentence involved. There appears to an incredible amount of misinformation in the Yankee press about this --- normal, as usual.
I repeat, there is no jail sentence involved. There appears to an incredible amount of misinformation in the Yankee press about this --- normal, as usual.
36
@ 30, I think you're confusing some very distinct concepts.
People on the internet talking about the probability that Assange is guilty without all the evidence =/= the justice system convicting him without all the evidence.
People on the internet saying "innocent till proven guilty" =/= people on the internet sharing a bunch of anecdata about false rape claims, make totally unsubstantiated and false claims that fake rape accusations are common, or trying to discredit the claims of specific women who've filed rape charges without a fraction of the necessary information.
People on the internet talking about the probability that Assange is guilty without all the evidence =/= the justice system convicting him without all the evidence.
People on the internet saying "innocent till proven guilty" =/= people on the internet sharing a bunch of anecdata about false rape claims, make totally unsubstantiated and false claims that fake rape accusations are common, or trying to discredit the claims of specific women who've filed rape charges without a fraction of the necessary information.
37
People are asking why rape is treated differently vis a vis accusations. Here's my take:
When you're accused of stealing $10,000 from a bank, or of being the person who shot someone, or whatever...if you're found not guilty, under most circumstances people tend to accept the verdict as not only legally binding, but most likely factual - which is to say, they assume he really didn't steal the money or pull the trigger.
When you're accused of rape, though, especially in cases where the sex definitely occurred, people start treating you differently. Regardless of any "innocent until proven guilty" assumptions, women start to fear you - would he rape me too? Who else has he raped? - and even if you aren't convicted, there's always a considerable chorus who'll say "She wouldn't have said it if it wasn't true, so he just got away with it".
And often, in fact, that probably is true - rape can be hard to prove, particularly if it's not a stranger rape. But it's NOT inconceivable that women can lie about it; it's not inconceivable that a woman could consent at the time, regret it, focus on any misgivings she might have had beforehand, and convince herself that he "should have known". For that matter, it's possible for a woman to not really want it, but to fail to articulate that with any clarity, for the man to assume he's got full consent, and to end up with a rape charge.
But in any event, the result's the same. Unless there's some majorly clear vindication - which is hard to produce - the assumption will always be "he got away with it".
When you're accused of stealing $10,000 from a bank, or of being the person who shot someone, or whatever...if you're found not guilty, under most circumstances people tend to accept the verdict as not only legally binding, but most likely factual - which is to say, they assume he really didn't steal the money or pull the trigger.
When you're accused of rape, though, especially in cases where the sex definitely occurred, people start treating you differently. Regardless of any "innocent until proven guilty" assumptions, women start to fear you - would he rape me too? Who else has he raped? - and even if you aren't convicted, there's always a considerable chorus who'll say "She wouldn't have said it if it wasn't true, so he just got away with it".
And often, in fact, that probably is true - rape can be hard to prove, particularly if it's not a stranger rape. But it's NOT inconceivable that women can lie about it; it's not inconceivable that a woman could consent at the time, regret it, focus on any misgivings she might have had beforehand, and convince herself that he "should have known". For that matter, it's possible for a woman to not really want it, but to fail to articulate that with any clarity, for the man to assume he's got full consent, and to end up with a rape charge.
But in any event, the result's the same. Unless there's some majorly clear vindication - which is hard to produce - the assumption will always be "he got away with it".
38
Here are three true things:
1) Rape is wrong.
2) Many people who come forward with a rape story are not believed or even stigmatized.
3) Many people who are raped don't come forward because of this.
Here is an untrue thing, that does not logically follow from the first three true things:
1) Anyone ever accused of rape is certainly a rapist.
So many people get this wrong.
1) Rape is wrong.
2) Many people who come forward with a rape story are not believed or even stigmatized.
3) Many people who are raped don't come forward because of this.
Here is an untrue thing, that does not logically follow from the first three true things:
1) Anyone ever accused of rape is certainly a rapist.
So many people get this wrong.
40
@36, I agree, that's true. I guess holding people on the internet to the same standards we hold our court system to is unrealistic.
I just want to point out that it's completely reasonable to be suspicious of this particular rape accusation. And note that voicing that suspicion is nowhere close to 'blaming the victim' or 'perpetuating rape myths' or whatever the hell people seem to be suggesting in this thread. Nobody here takes rape lightly, I can pretty much guarantee that. So whenever I read people flipping out about people 'not caring' about one of (if not THE) most reviled crimes in the book, I can't help but roll my eyes.
The anecdotal evidence that nobody cares about rape is equally as feeble as the anecdotal evidence that 'many' rape allegations are false. In either case, being on the wrong side of the equation is fucking tragic, and It'd be nice to hear the people ripping into Assange acknowledge that fact.
Oh, yeah, and 250k leaked documents....
I just want to point out that it's completely reasonable to be suspicious of this particular rape accusation. And note that voicing that suspicion is nowhere close to 'blaming the victim' or 'perpetuating rape myths' or whatever the hell people seem to be suggesting in this thread. Nobody here takes rape lightly, I can pretty much guarantee that. So whenever I read people flipping out about people 'not caring' about one of (if not THE) most reviled crimes in the book, I can't help but roll my eyes.
The anecdotal evidence that nobody cares about rape is equally as feeble as the anecdotal evidence that 'many' rape allegations are false. In either case, being on the wrong side of the equation is fucking tragic, and It'd be nice to hear the people ripping into Assange acknowledge that fact.
Oh, yeah, and 250k leaked documents....
41
@35, my name is Steve, not David. And you are a kook. That's a very impressive kook conspiracy chart you've drawn there, but you've left out 9/11 truth, the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission.
Please provide a citation for your claim that there's no jail time given for a rape conviction in Sweden.
Please provide a citation for your claim that there's no jail time given for a rape conviction in Sweden.
42
I agree that supporting the victim and taking allegations seriously is not the same thing as taking the allegations at face value.
In practice though, it is just hard to be fair to the accused. By not taking an accusation at face value, people are effectively saying "I think you might be lying" to the accuser. I don't see how to not take accusations at face value without implying in some way that the victim is either lying or at fault.
In practice though, it is just hard to be fair to the accused. By not taking an accusation at face value, people are effectively saying "I think you might be lying" to the accuser. I don't see how to not take accusations at face value without implying in some way that the victim is either lying or at fault.
43
I definitely think the timing is suspicious. But I also think it was fortuitous. Without the international political pressure that rose from the latest round of leaks on WikiLeaks, Assange probably wouldn't have been pursued for questioning on the assault charges, and, facts are, he needed to be. So, sure, politics are at major play here -- and thank god for that. We don't get to decide who is innocent and who is lying here -- that's not our job, and for fuck's sake, it'd be nice if everybody stopped trying to do it. What matter is that charges have been brought against a man for sexual assault by two separate women. That man needs to be taken in for questioning. If it turns out there's enough evidence to charge and prosecute, then he needs to be charged and prosecuted. If not, then not.
And honestly, this crap about false allegations really gets under my skin -- there are far FAR more sexual assaults that are never ever reported than there are false reports made. Why don't you worry about THAT for a change? You want to talk ruined lives? Think about those ruined lives.
And honestly, this crap about false allegations really gets under my skin -- there are far FAR more sexual assaults that are never ever reported than there are false reports made. Why don't you worry about THAT for a change? You want to talk ruined lives? Think about those ruined lives.
44
It's dangerous to speak in generalities about this stuff, but know that both scenarios of victimization are equally possible.
How would you defend yourself against such a charge?
How would you defend yourself against such a charge?
46
It's possible that Assange is both guilty of rape and a right-to-know hero willing to risk his life to get the truth out. In fact, both activities involve a combination of risk-taking, disregard for consequences and potential harm to others, and narcissism.
I'm actually on the fence as to whether he is either a rapist or a hero, both, or neither. Time, and the truth, will eventually tell.
I'm actually on the fence as to whether he is either a rapist or a hero, both, or neither. Time, and the truth, will eventually tell.
48
@ 40, it's really not reasonable to be suspicious of it, though. Because if anyone in the general public knows a single thing about this situation, it should be that they know practically nothing. And being suspicious of it actually does contribute to "perpetuating rape myths" since two of the more dominant and harmful rape myths is that a lot of rape claims are false and that rape victims who don't act in a specific expected way are suspect.
49
@47 - despite rallying against it, I was speaking in generalities.
There's a lot of comments here that seem to think Lifetime television movies accurately depict what to expect from our judicial system.
There's a lot of comments here that seem to think Lifetime television movies accurately depict what to expect from our judicial system.
50
Congratulations Dan, you've always been so good at stirring things up.
P.S. Who wants to bet this post hits 100 comments before 3:00 PM?
P.S. Who wants to bet this post hits 100 comments before 3:00 PM?
51
@37 you said a few things that I don't think are at all true.
First, people do not associate a 'not guilty' with innocence. In fact, we rarely do that. We use our common sense about what we know. Larry Craig wasn't convicted of anything, but everyone here knows what he did (or trying to do). If you get arrested by the cops, and have been arrested before, try telling them 'I was never convicted of anything' and see how far that gets you. Having been arrested, having been charged, carries meaning that does not dissipate.
Also, the idea that 'it's not inconceivable' that something happened is basically meaningless, but it is drug out and championed for sexual assault. It's not inconceivable that some mysterious killer framed O.J. Simpson. But we know what is likely.
The thing that bothers me is that you just don't see these same arguments when celebrities face other charges. It's not inconceivable for breathalyzers to malfunction, it's not inconceivable that Larry Craig was trying to get toilet paper, it's not inconceivable that someone would hire an escort to carry their luggage.
But it is pretty damn unlikely.
First, people do not associate a 'not guilty' with innocence. In fact, we rarely do that. We use our common sense about what we know. Larry Craig wasn't convicted of anything, but everyone here knows what he did (or trying to do). If you get arrested by the cops, and have been arrested before, try telling them 'I was never convicted of anything' and see how far that gets you. Having been arrested, having been charged, carries meaning that does not dissipate.
Also, the idea that 'it's not inconceivable' that something happened is basically meaningless, but it is drug out and championed for sexual assault. It's not inconceivable that some mysterious killer framed O.J. Simpson. But we know what is likely.
The thing that bothers me is that you just don't see these same arguments when celebrities face other charges. It's not inconceivable for breathalyzers to malfunction, it's not inconceivable that Larry Craig was trying to get toilet paper, it's not inconceivable that someone would hire an escort to carry their luggage.
But it is pretty damn unlikely.
52
Every time someone publishes anything about this rape case, they should also include the context. This case can not be discussed without understanding where it fits in the international crackdown on wikileaks. This case is ALL ABOUT wikileaks. The way this case has been portrayed in the media and used by governments and corporations is ALL ABOUT wikileaks.
And it has worked- now if you support Assange or wikileaks you are some sort of rape apologist. If you question the timing and use of these charges- and let me be clear, if it were ANY OTHER accusation this would be questioned- you are a rape apologist.
It is not my job, or my place, to decide whether or not these women are telling the truth. It is my job as a citizen to be cognizant of how this case is being used to shut down an organization that threatens global power structures and hasn't (to my knowledge) committed any crimes in doing so.
And it has worked- now if you support Assange or wikileaks you are some sort of rape apologist. If you question the timing and use of these charges- and let me be clear, if it were ANY OTHER accusation this would be questioned- you are a rape apologist.
It is not my job, or my place, to decide whether or not these women are telling the truth. It is my job as a citizen to be cognizant of how this case is being used to shut down an organization that threatens global power structures and hasn't (to my knowledge) committed any crimes in doing so.
53
Look! Up there! An erroneous conclusion! Jump! Jump!
And I know all about this issue, because I know someone who was raped once.
Because Dan mentioned rape, I am now allowed to pontificate about violence against women and how awful men are.
I don't believe a thing any of the commenters say unless it's proven for me. I'm too busy to check it myself, but not too busy to scold others for writing it.
Finally, even though my eyes passed over Dan's words, I didn't bother trying to understand them, nor did I click on the link. That gives me the perfect right to criticize him for what it is I thought he wrote. Bad Dan Savage! Bad Dan Savage!
I love Slog Commenters! Merry Christmas everybody!!!
And I know all about this issue, because I know someone who was raped once.
Because Dan mentioned rape, I am now allowed to pontificate about violence against women and how awful men are.
I don't believe a thing any of the commenters say unless it's proven for me. I'm too busy to check it myself, but not too busy to scold others for writing it.
Finally, even though my eyes passed over Dan's words, I didn't bother trying to understand them, nor did I click on the link. That gives me the perfect right to criticize him for what it is I thought he wrote. Bad Dan Savage! Bad Dan Savage!
I love Slog Commenters! Merry Christmas everybody!!!
54
Really? You think people who make false accusations should be EXECUTED? You do realize that would mean that false accusers would have zero reason to recant once they realize they're over their heads?
@36,
Thank you so much for your bold, brave stance against vigilantism. Moron.
But false accusations of rape ought to be capital crimes.
Really? You think people who make false accusations should be EXECUTED? You do realize that would mean that false accusers would have zero reason to recant once they realize they're over their heads?
@36,
Thank you so much for your bold, brave stance against vigilantism. Moron.
55
@52, I support Wikileaks, and I've donated them money (got in before the ban). I understand perfectly well what's going on there, thank you very much.
I also know that the largest part by far of Assange's current public support is deliberately undertaking to minimize the severity of the charges against him. They're doing it here; yesterday on Slog someone was blathering on about how all he did was forget to wear a condom, that's not a crime, he's being persecuted while murderers walk free, etc. etc.
It's not true. Assange is receiving due process. We'll see how it works out. People who think the legal system of any country gets stuff like this settled in a few minutes are crazy.
@49, "our" judicial system is not a party to this.
I also know that the largest part by far of Assange's current public support is deliberately undertaking to minimize the severity of the charges against him. They're doing it here; yesterday on Slog someone was blathering on about how all he did was forget to wear a condom, that's not a crime, he's being persecuted while murderers walk free, etc. etc.
It's not true. Assange is receiving due process. We'll see how it works out. People who think the legal system of any country gets stuff like this settled in a few minutes are crazy.
@49, "our" judicial system is not a party to this.
57
I think there's a difference between doubting rape accusations in general and doubting this rape accusation in particular.
As someone above noted, we make judgments all the time based on the evidence available to us. Which is, granted, a subset of the evidence made available to the jury, which is in turn a subset of the evidence presented to the court [lots of stuff never gets in for all sorts of procedural reasons], which is in turn a subset of the evidence available in the world. So let's look at the evidence we have so far.
1. Dude is accused of rape by two different women. If that were everything that we know about the scenario, I would be inclined to believe the dude's a rapist. Women don't generally make up that kind of shit.
2. Dude being accused of rape is famous. Well, now I'm a little less likely to believe the women: while women in general don't make up rape accusations, the women who would disproportionately target the rich and famous. So the odds of a false rape accusation go up, though probably not enough to change my initial conclusion.
3. Dude being accused of rape made a bunch of governments look bad. Now I'm even less likely to believe the women-- again, rape trials where the accused is innocent are rare, but they are (again) disproportionately concentrated on political dissidents and other government undesirables.
4. Dude being accused of rape recently made a bunch of governments look bad, most of whom were very open about wanting to charge him with some kind of crime. OK, what the fuck? Now I'm pretty sure the whole rape trial is a function of political expediency, and a desire to discredit both the dude and WikiLeaks. I'm on the fence about whether dude is a rapist or not, which is nowhere near "beyond a reasonable doubt."
If I get more information tomorrow-- evidence that he's been charged before, or that the women received a huge cash deposit from someone-- I'll adjust my opinion accordingly. That's the difference between making a reasonable judgment based on available evidence and holding a religious belief regardless of evidence.
More...
As someone above noted, we make judgments all the time based on the evidence available to us. Which is, granted, a subset of the evidence made available to the jury, which is in turn a subset of the evidence presented to the court [lots of stuff never gets in for all sorts of procedural reasons], which is in turn a subset of the evidence available in the world. So let's look at the evidence we have so far.
1. Dude is accused of rape by two different women. If that were everything that we know about the scenario, I would be inclined to believe the dude's a rapist. Women don't generally make up that kind of shit.
2. Dude being accused of rape is famous. Well, now I'm a little less likely to believe the women: while women in general don't make up rape accusations, the women who would disproportionately target the rich and famous. So the odds of a false rape accusation go up, though probably not enough to change my initial conclusion.
3. Dude being accused of rape made a bunch of governments look bad. Now I'm even less likely to believe the women-- again, rape trials where the accused is innocent are rare, but they are (again) disproportionately concentrated on political dissidents and other government undesirables.
4. Dude being accused of rape recently made a bunch of governments look bad, most of whom were very open about wanting to charge him with some kind of crime. OK, what the fuck? Now I'm pretty sure the whole rape trial is a function of political expediency, and a desire to discredit both the dude and WikiLeaks. I'm on the fence about whether dude is a rapist or not, which is nowhere near "beyond a reasonable doubt."
If I get more information tomorrow-- evidence that he's been charged before, or that the women received a huge cash deposit from someone-- I'll adjust my opinion accordingly. That's the difference between making a reasonable judgment based on available evidence and holding a religious belief regardless of evidence.
59
Fnarf, are you drunk today?
No, really, are you? Or, do you believe that things happen all at the same time for no reason?
No, really, are you? Or, do you believe that things happen all at the same time for no reason?
60
THANK YOU FNARF.
Seriously.
Also, it's possible to be like "all rape accusations should be taken seriously, and people who step forward to accuse someone shouldn't be vilified and harassed" and "this investigation sure does have some interesting timing" at the same time. Jesus Christ.
Seriously.
Also, it's possible to be like "all rape accusations should be taken seriously, and people who step forward to accuse someone shouldn't be vilified and harassed" and "this investigation sure does have some interesting timing" at the same time. Jesus Christ.
61
@57, you have a very confused idea of what the word "information" means. And you are still trying to figure out whether he's guilty or not just by thinking about it really hard, which is frankly insane. And you are, in fact, assuming he's not guilty for reasons that have nothing to do with the facts of the case, which is exactly what I'm complaining about. Horrible, horrible reasoning.
@59, yes, that is exactly what I believe. Things happen all at the same time for no reason CONSTANTLY, EVERY SINGLE DAY. Randomness is by far the most active agent in our world.
Seriously, you people need to take a course in empirical reasoning or something. If you continue down this whispery conspiracy world you're going to be beyond insufferable very soon.
@59, yes, that is exactly what I believe. Things happen all at the same time for no reason CONSTANTLY, EVERY SINGLE DAY. Randomness is by far the most active agent in our world.
Seriously, you people need to take a course in empirical reasoning or something. If you continue down this whispery conspiracy world you're going to be beyond insufferable very soon.
62
Fnarf said it best:
Yes, the timing of the charges is fishy and the fact that they're pursuing this so aggressively is obviously because of who he is rather than the charges themselves. That doesn't negate the fact that there are charges and that they may (MAY, I say) have merit.
If he did it, that in no way changes my feelings about Wikileaks. Great people can do bad things. Just because you believe in the mission doesn't mean you have to believe in the man.
But we don't know if he did it. Without all of the evidence, without a courtroom, and just going off of poor fact checking and rumors getting repeated all over the Internet, you can't say one way or the other. That's for the law to decide.
Assange is not being crucified. He's being charged in a court of law. Whether he's guilty or not is going to be determined in that court, not on blogs. You don't know what happened, I don't know what happened, nobody knows what happened. That's what courts are for.
Yes, the timing of the charges is fishy and the fact that they're pursuing this so aggressively is obviously because of who he is rather than the charges themselves. That doesn't negate the fact that there are charges and that they may (MAY, I say) have merit.
If he did it, that in no way changes my feelings about Wikileaks. Great people can do bad things. Just because you believe in the mission doesn't mean you have to believe in the man.
But we don't know if he did it. Without all of the evidence, without a courtroom, and just going off of poor fact checking and rumors getting repeated all over the Internet, you can't say one way or the other. That's for the law to decide.
64
@61: I'm using "information" in the formal sense. I don't know what definition you're using, but you may want to look into belief networks and Bayesian analysis before you pontificate on my confusion.
To use a simple example: suppose we're discussing a rape trial in the South in the 50s, that the accuser was a white woman, and that the accused was a black man. None of those facts have any bearing on what did or did not occur between the two, but you would be a fool to ignore them in making a preliminary judgment as to how to apportion your investigative efforts (today).
To use a simple example: suppose we're discussing a rape trial in the South in the 50s, that the accuser was a white woman, and that the accused was a black man. None of those facts have any bearing on what did or did not occur between the two, but you would be a fool to ignore them in making a preliminary judgment as to how to apportion your investigative efforts (today).
65
My ex-wife was raped by her cousin as a child, she was molested by a college professor, forced to engage in lurid sex acts by her previous ex-husband in order to enhance his career, and was gang raped by three "ghetto dudes" just before we began dating. Her victimization was, to say the least, extreme and caused me to have great empathy and sadness for her misfortunes.
Once we were married, her numerous sexual assualts seemed to have changing facts and scenarios. It wasn't long before I figured out that she was bat-shit fucking crazy and cared not for who she accused or how rediculously absurd her allegations were. There was always a new listener to provide sympathy and pity for her manufactured sexual abuse.
This by no means proves that all allegations of sexual abuse are false, but it does prove that all allegations of sexual abuse are NOT true. Saying something does not a fact or reality make!
People who sexually assualt others are sick, and people who falsely accuse others of sexual abuse are equally as sick. Investigate all allegations and prosecute extensively the ones that are true. The false allegers should be equally and as vigorously prosecuted. A person who is falsely accused suffers as much or more trauma in life as that of a person actually abused.
Once we were married, her numerous sexual assualts seemed to have changing facts and scenarios. It wasn't long before I figured out that she was bat-shit fucking crazy and cared not for who she accused or how rediculously absurd her allegations were. There was always a new listener to provide sympathy and pity for her manufactured sexual abuse.
This by no means proves that all allegations of sexual abuse are false, but it does prove that all allegations of sexual abuse are NOT true. Saying something does not a fact or reality make!
People who sexually assualt others are sick, and people who falsely accuse others of sexual abuse are equally as sick. Investigate all allegations and prosecute extensively the ones that are true. The false allegers should be equally and as vigorously prosecuted. A person who is falsely accused suffers as much or more trauma in life as that of a person actually abused.
66
To be clear: "on the fence" doesn't mean I don't think the investigation and the trial should proceed. It does mean that I am suspicious, however. And depending on what we learn from the investigation, I may ultimately conclude that the women are liars and that the trial shouldn't proceed. Or I may conclude that Assange is a piece of shit rapist. Or that some tragic mis-communication somehow occurred on both nights (seems unlikely). I don't have enough information to reach a strong conclusion yet.
67
@ 64, an investigator wouldn't be a "fool" to not let initial racial information color their work on a rape case, they'd be doing their damn job.
68
Why do people keep talking about false rape accusations as if it is common? It's not. You know what is common? Rape.
70
Rape is traumatic, and we have to take all claims of rape seriously. Very seriously. But taking claims of rape seriously and taking them at face value are two different things.
Taking claims that someone committed any violent at face value are wrong, and that's why, under our system of justice, people are innocent until proven guilty.
I remember discussing rape with a feminist on another internet forum years ago. She was outraged that women were doubted, proclaiming "women never lie about rape." In a perfect word, that would be true. Unfortunately, some women do lie about rape.
Taking claims that someone committed any violent at face value are wrong, and that's why, under our system of justice, people are innocent until proven guilty.
I remember discussing rape with a feminist on another internet forum years ago. She was outraged that women were doubted, proclaiming "women never lie about rape." In a perfect word, that would be true. Unfortunately, some women do lie about rape.
71
@ 48 re: "...it's really not reasonable to be suspicious of it... being suspicious of it actually does contribute to "perpetuating rape myths" since two of the more dominant and harmful rape myths is that a lot of rape claims are false..."
If we are talking about rape claims in general, fair enough. But most accused rapists are not being actively pursued for having pissed off the most powerful government in the world *at the same time*. Hence, I'm inclined to tip the benefit of the doubt in the general direction of the accused, here, or at least more so than I usually would.
If we are talking about rape claims in general, fair enough. But most accused rapists are not being actively pursued for having pissed off the most powerful government in the world *at the same time*. Hence, I'm inclined to tip the benefit of the doubt in the general direction of the accused, here, or at least more so than I usually would.
72
@64, bullshit. You don't HAVE any information. You only have prejudices. Your example is a prejudice, because you're not talking about a specific case, you're borrowing a stereotype. Which has nothing at all to do with Assange.
And your comments above are totally ridiculous, from "Dude being accused of rape is famous. Well, now I'm a little less likely to believe the women" to "Now I'm pretty sure the whole rape trial is a function of political expediency".
That's crazy and discreditable. That's not how you make decisions in rape cases or anything else.
Why don't you and all the other conspiracy kooks shut the hell up and wait and see what happens in the Swedish court?
And your comments above are totally ridiculous, from "Dude being accused of rape is famous. Well, now I'm a little less likely to believe the women" to "Now I'm pretty sure the whole rape trial is a function of political expediency".
That's crazy and discreditable. That's not how you make decisions in rape cases or anything else.
Why don't you and all the other conspiracy kooks shut the hell up and wait and see what happens in the Swedish court?
73
68/kersy: Why do people keep talking about false rape accusations as if it is common? It's not. You know what is common? Rape.
Of all the rape accusations made, the majority are likely true. But even if false accusations are only .01%, a rape accusation can't be assumed true simply because the vast majority are.
Of all the rape accusations made, the majority are likely true. But even if false accusations are only .01%, a rape accusation can't be assumed true simply because the vast majority are.
74
@ 71, that's pretty similar rationale to that used to discredit women who accuse famous and/or wealthy men of rape. Or women who had tumultuous relationships with their rapists. Or women whose rapists are known gang members or criminals that the police can't nail on other charges. Almost all rape victims can be assigned an ulterior motive, frankly. That's a totally fucked up reason to "tip the benefit of the doubt" to the accused rapist, though, because none of those situations make a man less likely to be a rapist.
Do I think that his Wikilinks activity is going to impact Asange's case on a lot of levels? Without a doubt. That's a valid discussion. It's not a valid reason to cast public doubt on an alleged rape victim.
Do I think that his Wikilinks activity is going to impact Asange's case on a lot of levels? Without a doubt. That's a valid discussion. It's not a valid reason to cast public doubt on an alleged rape victim.
75
@70 Sure, innocent until proven guilty. But the accuser must also be considered innocent. In rape culture, the victim is considered guilty first and must prove his or her innocence first before he/she is given a rape test, the police write up a report, an investigation is followed, and then (maybe) taken to court. There on the stand the victim must prove his/her innocence again as the defendant questions the dress, sobriety, and sexual activities of the victim.
In no other criminal trial is this done.
@73 Yes, they can. Hey, someone broke into my house a couple months ago and stole all my video games and my tv. Do you doubt me? My friends didn't. The police didn't. The insurance company didn't. They assumed it was true and investigated it fully because insurance fraud is rare and break ins are common.
In no other criminal trial is this done.
@73 Yes, they can. Hey, someone broke into my house a couple months ago and stole all my video games and my tv. Do you doubt me? My friends didn't. The police didn't. The insurance company didn't. They assumed it was true and investigated it fully because insurance fraud is rare and break ins are common.
76
@72 Oh for fuck's sake, it's pretty clear you have no clue what I'm talking about. Get back to me when you're taken a basic statistics course or at least learned high-school level probability.
77
kersy, if false accusations of rape are so rare (which I would agree with you they likely are) would you prefer a special guilty-until-proven-innocent standard just for people accused of rape?
78
@57
Ok, then I will provide you with specific information regarding this specific case.
Assange has exhibited some of the telltale signs of a sexual predator. Not the rare predator who hides in bushes and attacks people, but the one who pushes himself on women and doesn't respect sexual boundaries to the point of disregarding consent in individual acts. like wearing a condom.
http://gawker.com/5714043/
I hope that helps us all realize that the odds that Assange did this are actually pretty solid. Lets just imagine that he's a high ranking Republican capital hill staffer. This evidence would certainly be sufficient to crucify him here and elsewhere.
Ok, then I will provide you with specific information regarding this specific case.
Assange has exhibited some of the telltale signs of a sexual predator. Not the rare predator who hides in bushes and attacks people, but the one who pushes himself on women and doesn't respect sexual boundaries to the point of disregarding consent in individual acts. like wearing a condom.
http://gawker.com/5714043/
I hope that helps us all realize that the odds that Assange did this are actually pretty solid. Lets just imagine that he's a high ranking Republican capital hill staffer. This evidence would certainly be sufficient to crucify him here and elsewhere.
80
Here's my point: the question of false rape accusations has been neglected by feminism (because so many rapes go unreported, and so many people still blame the victim, yadda-yadda-yadda...). As a result of that, it has been appropriated by antifems, who can now use feminism's lack of interest in the issue to claim that feminism (without specifying which feminism, which feminists exactly, etc.) doesn't care about truth and justice, just about getting privileges for women.
Of course that's not right. But that's what will be said, as soon as the number of false rape accusation cases increases.
As someone mentioned, the number of reported rapes is increasing. Good. But that means the number of false rape accusations is also rising. Bad.
If feminism doesn't strongly condemn false rape accusations; if it doesn't say what we should do to deal with these cases, how we should tell them apart (by e.g. supporting -- or not supporting and proposing an alternative -- the current judicial/police methods); then feminism will be handing a powerful weapon over to its enemies.
And that would be a pity.
Of course that's not right. But that's what will be said, as soon as the number of false rape accusation cases increases.
As someone mentioned, the number of reported rapes is increasing. Good. But that means the number of false rape accusations is also rising. Bad.
If feminism doesn't strongly condemn false rape accusations; if it doesn't say what we should do to deal with these cases, how we should tell them apart (by e.g. supporting -- or not supporting and proposing an alternative -- the current judicial/police methods); then feminism will be handing a powerful weapon over to its enemies.
And that would be a pity.
81
@77 Did you read anything I wrote? Or the article I linked? You can be innocent until proven guilty and still have a thorough legal system that takes victims seriously. Sexual assault is very common and yet we fixate on victim blaming. Why?
82
@80 What exactly are you asking "feminists" (as it's not one unified body) to do exactly?
Also, provide source for increase in false accusations. The percentage has remained constant at 7% - the same percentage for all other false crime reporting.
Also, provide source for increase in false accusations. The percentage has remained constant at 7% - the same percentage for all other false crime reporting.
83
@75 (kersy), I acknowledge the cultural propensities you describe (though 'rape culture' is a misnomer, for various reasons). But here's the thing: if false rape accusations are not dealt with, in their individual cases, with as much urgency and seriousness as real rape accusations, then antifems will get a weapon. A good, wonderful propaganda weapon, among whose ultimate consequences will be that even FEWER true rape accusations will be believed, and that the tendency to blame the victim will be strengthened.
Surely we don't want that?
Note also that, as you reported, the theft in your house is being investigated. My experience with insurance companies tells me they will be very careful with it, and if there's any chance that you did indeed hide your stuff and made a false claim of burglary just to get insurance money, they'll prosecute you. And that's the way it should be. Also with rape.
Surely we don't want that?
Note also that, as you reported, the theft in your house is being investigated. My experience with insurance companies tells me they will be very careful with it, and if there's any chance that you did indeed hide your stuff and made a false claim of burglary just to get insurance money, they'll prosecute you. And that's the way it should be. Also with rape.
84
@78. So now I'm not on the fence and more on the side of him being guilty. Stalking a 19-year-old? [shivers]
Actually, he strikes me as one of those rapists who is absolutely and honestly convinced that he didn't rape anyone. I imagine that's depressingly common.
Actually, he strikes me as one of those rapists who is absolutely and honestly convinced that he didn't rape anyone. I imagine that's depressingly common.
85
@76, it's pretty clear that YOU have no idea what you're talking about. "Get back to me when you're taken a basic statistics course or at least learned high-school level probability" isn't even English. And I'm well-versed in probability, thanks, probably better than you. You can shove your Bayesian analysis up your ass. I certainly understand it well enough to know that your understanding of how it works is COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT.
Prejudice does not equal probability. Your statements are ridiculous on their face. "Now I'm pretty sure the whole rape trial is a function of political expediency" is sheer nuttery.
Just going on prior expectations based on the nature of the charges it is much, much more probable that he's guilty. But I won't say that he is, because in a court case probability doesn't come into it. I'm going to say "wait and fucking see". I regard ALL "probabilities" to be EQUALLY IRRELEVANT. You on the other hand think your basic statistics course gives you carte blanche to just make shit up.
And you want it both ways; you're "on the fence" but you're also "pretty sure" he's guilty. You're prejudging. That is the DEFINITION of prejudging. You admit you have no facts but you have a decision already made.
@79, feel free to point out where the irony is. I don't think you'll have much luck with that; you appear to be a little thick. But go on, have a go.
Prejudice does not equal probability. Your statements are ridiculous on their face. "Now I'm pretty sure the whole rape trial is a function of political expediency" is sheer nuttery.
Just going on prior expectations based on the nature of the charges it is much, much more probable that he's guilty. But I won't say that he is, because in a court case probability doesn't come into it. I'm going to say "wait and fucking see". I regard ALL "probabilities" to be EQUALLY IRRELEVANT. You on the other hand think your basic statistics course gives you carte blanche to just make shit up.
And you want it both ways; you're "on the fence" but you're also "pretty sure" he's guilty. You're prejudging. That is the DEFINITION of prejudging. You admit you have no facts but you have a decision already made.
@79, feel free to point out where the irony is. I don't think you'll have much luck with that; you appear to be a little thick. But go on, have a go.
86
@ ankylosaur, it's not the job of feminists (or pro-woman people who don't identify as feminists) to prevent every possible opportunity misogynists might have to say something ignorant. For one thing, bigots' ignorant, hateful behavior isn't the responsibility of the people to whom it's directed, and for another, it won't ever work. Bigots will always come up with justifications for their bigotry.
And the idea the false rape claims are rising as rape reporting increases is a complete fallacy.
And the idea the false rape claims are rising as rape reporting increases is a complete fallacy.
87
@82 (kersy): what I'm asking "feminists" (indeed there's a lot of uncertainty about the meaning of the term) to do?
(a) To acknowledge, publicly and strongly that false rape accusations happen;
(b) that they should not be tolerated;
(c) that they hurt and destroy lives;
(d) that they make life more difficult for real rape victims, who (among other things) become more reluctant to report rapes and are more often blamed
Also, I would like "feminists" to generate a discussion on how to avoid that. What should the standards be for concluding that a rape claim is false? The same as any other crime? Maybe; but also maybe not, since real rape victims are often reluctant to report (and the blame-the-victim mentality does also exist and exerts an influence here). But if not, then what standards?
Also: I would like "feminists" to ask for more research. The claim that false rape accusations are only a small fraction (3% I think is the often-cited number) has been challenged several times (as much as 35% has been claimed in one case), but the studies were not conclusive. Obviously we need more, preferrably unbiased, research. "Feminists" should be among those who demand that more empirical research be done. They should also participate in the discussion of the methods used in this research, which involves many serious problems, ethical and otherwise.
(a) To acknowledge, publicly and strongly that false rape accusations happen;
(b) that they should not be tolerated;
(c) that they hurt and destroy lives;
(d) that they make life more difficult for real rape victims, who (among other things) become more reluctant to report rapes and are more often blamed
Also, I would like "feminists" to generate a discussion on how to avoid that. What should the standards be for concluding that a rape claim is false? The same as any other crime? Maybe; but also maybe not, since real rape victims are often reluctant to report (and the blame-the-victim mentality does also exist and exerts an influence here). But if not, then what standards?
Also: I would like "feminists" to ask for more research. The claim that false rape accusations are only a small fraction (3% I think is the often-cited number) has been challenged several times (as much as 35% has been claimed in one case), but the studies were not conclusive. Obviously we need more, preferrably unbiased, research. "Feminists" should be among those who demand that more empirical research be done. They should also participate in the discussion of the methods used in this research, which involves many serious problems, ethical and otherwise.
88
@amazonvera, but it is the job of feminists to make sure their cause succeeds. If you think that handing an important weapon to those who will fight you in the court system, in politics, etc., is a good idea, then you are not thinking strategically.
Sooner or later, some bigot or other (say, Fox News?) will make hey out of false rape accusations. Then feminists will be forced to react to it; and then, they will look like politicians who were caught cheating on their wives. Looking at the level of the political debate in America, do you think this is really going to be good for feminism, and for the ultimate goals you pursue?
Don't let them "own" the question of false rape accusations. Please, please, "own" it too. Make it yours, too. Don't let them run away with it. It's enough to see Republicans running away with "patriotism" -- as if loving America could only be a Republican thing.
Sooner or later, some bigot or other (say, Fox News?) will make hey out of false rape accusations. Then feminists will be forced to react to it; and then, they will look like politicians who were caught cheating on their wives. Looking at the level of the political debate in America, do you think this is really going to be good for feminism, and for the ultimate goals you pursue?
Don't let them "own" the question of false rape accusations. Please, please, "own" it too. Make it yours, too. Don't let them run away with it. It's enough to see Republicans running away with "patriotism" -- as if loving America could only be a Republican thing.
89
People already make hay out of it, even though it's not true. There's no stopping them except to call them on it and not act like women are somehow responsible for their bullshit. Creating a culture that serves rape victims badly to try to stop something that's not going to be stopped and isn't our responsibility anyway is a pretty poor "strategic" trade-off, but thanks for totally patronizing me personally and feminists in general.
90
@ 82 (kersy), by the way, you asked for sources. Very good: this is indeed what everybody should do: ask for sources, studies, numbers, stats. If we could all agree on doing that -- on checking the empirical evidence first!
Start with the article "False accusations of rape" from Wikipedia, and the sources cited there. Claims have varied from 2% (less than your 7%) to 41% (Eugene Kanin's 1994 study based on a case study: a police agency in a metropolitan city n the Midwest). 41% is probably an exaggeration, but so is 2% (or maybe even 7%). Also the famous FBI 1996 UCR (which mentions 8%) has been criticized for failing to take into account the cases in which the charges are dropped, or in which the accusers failed to cooperate with the investigation -- which presumably would include a higher percentage of false rape accusers.
A good article to google, in my non-expert opinion (please feel free to criticize) is Taylor's "Rape and women's credibility: Problems of recantation and false accusations echoed in the case of false accusations echoed in the case of Cathleen Crowell Webb and Gary Dotson" (from the Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, cited in the Wikipedia article), in which many of the fears I mentioned in my other comment are also mentioned, and a few solutions and proposals are made.
Again, note I'm not saying that false rape accusations are a huge problem, that their numbers are super-high. I'm saying we need more data. It may even be that they aren't such a big problem -- but that's not clear yet.
Start with the article "False accusations of rape" from Wikipedia, and the sources cited there. Claims have varied from 2% (less than your 7%) to 41% (Eugene Kanin's 1994 study based on a case study: a police agency in a metropolitan city n the Midwest). 41% is probably an exaggeration, but so is 2% (or maybe even 7%). Also the famous FBI 1996 UCR (which mentions 8%) has been criticized for failing to take into account the cases in which the charges are dropped, or in which the accusers failed to cooperate with the investigation -- which presumably would include a higher percentage of false rape accusers.
A good article to google, in my non-expert opinion (please feel free to criticize) is Taylor's "Rape and women's credibility: Problems of recantation and false accusations echoed in the case of false accusations echoed in the case of Cathleen Crowell Webb and Gary Dotson" (from the Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, cited in the Wikipedia article), in which many of the fears I mentioned in my other comment are also mentioned, and a few solutions and proposals are made.
Again, note I'm not saying that false rape accusations are a huge problem, that their numbers are super-high. I'm saying we need more data. It may even be that they aren't such a big problem -- but that's not clear yet.
91
@85 Saying that things happen at random all the time...while talking about a guy who released cables which concretely put together a lot of the random dots. It's cute.
92
@85: Leading off with criticizing a typo? Really? And ascribing conclusions to me that I explicitly renounced? I'm not sure if you're intentionally setting up a straw man or if you just lack reading comprehension.
What I am sure about is that there is no point in discussing any subject with a zealot. Good day.
What I am sure about is that there is no point in discussing any subject with a zealot. Good day.
93
They will make more and more hey out of it, till hey is all that's left -- I mean, look at Fox News, and how they can turn things upside down. Do you think they won't do it in this case -- as soon as there are a few more tasty cases to dissect?
As I said above, tackling false rape accusations doesn't "create a culture that serves rape victims badly": it creates a culture in which rape is taken seriously, period. It is a move in the right direction.
To claim that the topic of false rape accusations is not important to feminists and rape activists is again the kind of thing antifems will be thankful for. It's like the Republicans claiming they're against "Big Government" while happily regulating the private lives of citizens: it sounds hypocritical.
It's not as if there were only two choices: either be anti-rape (and ignore false rape accusations) or be anti-feminism (and then ignore rape). You can be both against rape and against false rape accusations, and strongly so. Why not? What bad consequences would this have?
I'm not trying to be patronizing; I just feel strongly about this issue. Don't equate passion with patronizing. I think feminism is shooting itself on the foot here (as in the anti-pornography and anti-prostitution cruisades). Since I believe in gender equality, it pains me to see this happen. That's all.
As I said above, tackling false rape accusations doesn't "create a culture that serves rape victims badly": it creates a culture in which rape is taken seriously, period. It is a move in the right direction.
To claim that the topic of false rape accusations is not important to feminists and rape activists is again the kind of thing antifems will be thankful for. It's like the Republicans claiming they're against "Big Government" while happily regulating the private lives of citizens: it sounds hypocritical.
It's not as if there were only two choices: either be anti-rape (and ignore false rape accusations) or be anti-feminism (and then ignore rape). You can be both against rape and against false rape accusations, and strongly so. Why not? What bad consequences would this have?
I'm not trying to be patronizing; I just feel strongly about this issue. Don't equate passion with patronizing. I think feminism is shooting itself on the foot here (as in the anti-pornography and anti-prostitution cruisades). Since I believe in gender equality, it pains me to see this happen. That's all.
94
rape is uniquely difficult to prove or disprove in many cases.
I do have a problem with assuming anyone accused of rape is a rapist though. I had a guy friend (145 pounds) who was accused of rape by a 300 pound woman. She had a crush on his roommate, and she figured she had a better chance with him if my friend was out of the picture. She accused him of rape, he got tossed out of his dorm with no refund, he flunked out of uni, and had to pay THOUSANDS for a lawyer. She fucked up his whole life, and it wasn't even physically possible for him to restrain her in the way she said he did, during the time that she did...oh also she would have CRUSHED HIM TO DEATH. People who falsely accuse rape are just as bad as rapists themselves.
I do have a problem with assuming anyone accused of rape is a rapist though. I had a guy friend (145 pounds) who was accused of rape by a 300 pound woman. She had a crush on his roommate, and she figured she had a better chance with him if my friend was out of the picture. She accused him of rape, he got tossed out of his dorm with no refund, he flunked out of uni, and had to pay THOUSANDS for a lawyer. She fucked up his whole life, and it wasn't even physically possible for him to restrain her in the way she said he did, during the time that she did...oh also she would have CRUSHED HIM TO DEATH. People who falsely accuse rape are just as bad as rapists themselves.
95
@93Thank you for your broad generalization of "feminists," who may not pay as much attention to false rape accusations, sorry if they focus on the women that were raped and aren't getting the justice they deserve. I agree that a false rape accusation deserves prosecution, but suddenly focusing on them is not going help anybody. You know why? Because some stupid girl will still undoubtly scream rape because of her parents or out of embarassment or out of revenge, regardless of the feminists yelling at them to stop. The women that are getting belittled and emotionally destroyed by people not believing them (which happens a lot, I know of two girls personally, and that's just me) are the ones that need help. I'm not saying we should ignore false accusations, if I found out someone I know that did that, I would berate them and turn them in. I know either way it destroys lives, it just happens a lot more to the women who nobody believes. If you want to start up a cause for men falsely accused of rape, go ahead. It's not feminist's jobs to worry as much about men, you know, because they are women and feminists. Just like your a man defending men.
96
"As someone mentioned, the number of reported rapes is increasing. Good. But that means the number of false rape accusations is also rising. Bad."
????
I have yet to meet a feminist that denies there are false rape accusations in the world. I have read up on the Assange case on different, mainstream, large feminist-oriented blogs and I have yet to see any of them call Assange a rapist. Most of them criticise the media narrative around it.
Also, considering other studies made on false rape charges, the Kanin study estimate is ridiculously high. Saying that the figure swings between 2%-41% is misleading, when in fact most studies indicate 10% of false reports or below.
????
I have yet to meet a feminist that denies there are false rape accusations in the world. I have read up on the Assange case on different, mainstream, large feminist-oriented blogs and I have yet to see any of them call Assange a rapist. Most of them criticise the media narrative around it.
Also, considering other studies made on false rape charges, the Kanin study estimate is ridiculously high. Saying that the figure swings between 2%-41% is misleading, when in fact most studies indicate 10% of false reports or below.
97
@92, renounced? You MADE THOSE STATEMENTS RIGHT HERE IN THIS THREAD.
Oh, but now you skimmed through some other crap and you've totally changed your mind. I hope you're never on a jury of mine.
I'm not a zealot, fool. I'm an anti-zealot. I'm calling out the zealots, including you. "Now I'm pretty sure the whole rape trial is a function of political expediency" is zealotry. Are you renouncing it? Good to hear.
Now let's wait for a trial, OK?
Dark mutterings like those being emitted by TheMisanthrope and yourself, suggesting that it's all a con, there's no such thing as justice in Sweden, the CIA is operating the judge remotely with little wires, whatever the hell: that's zealotry.
My argument from the beginning is this: you don't have enough information to make a judgment in this case; the case is proceeding perfectly normally according to European law and due process; Assange has excellent lawyers; the charges are serious enough on their face to be investigated in a courtroom. Full stop.
What I'm arguing against is not just the notion that because he's some sort of "freedom fighter" his accusers must be lying, or the notion that the charges are baloney and just a condom that slipped off, but the very notion that it's a good idea for a bunch of people to make prejudicial decisions on his guilt or innocence based on stuff they've heard. Which is exactly what people are doing (on both sides, I'll add, though the smelliest smears are coming from hyperventilating Assange supporters like Naomi Wolf).
Yes, well, probability suggests that -- FUCK probability. It's not fucking interesting. You're debating how many teeth the horse has without taking the obvious measure of opening his mouth and having a look inside.
My position is the exact opposite of zealotry, my friend.
More...
Oh, but now you skimmed through some other crap and you've totally changed your mind. I hope you're never on a jury of mine.
I'm not a zealot, fool. I'm an anti-zealot. I'm calling out the zealots, including you. "Now I'm pretty sure the whole rape trial is a function of political expediency" is zealotry. Are you renouncing it? Good to hear.
Now let's wait for a trial, OK?
Dark mutterings like those being emitted by TheMisanthrope and yourself, suggesting that it's all a con, there's no such thing as justice in Sweden, the CIA is operating the judge remotely with little wires, whatever the hell: that's zealotry.
My argument from the beginning is this: you don't have enough information to make a judgment in this case; the case is proceeding perfectly normally according to European law and due process; Assange has excellent lawyers; the charges are serious enough on their face to be investigated in a courtroom. Full stop.
What I'm arguing against is not just the notion that because he's some sort of "freedom fighter" his accusers must be lying, or the notion that the charges are baloney and just a condom that slipped off, but the very notion that it's a good idea for a bunch of people to make prejudicial decisions on his guilt or innocence based on stuff they've heard. Which is exactly what people are doing (on both sides, I'll add, though the smelliest smears are coming from hyperventilating Assange supporters like Naomi Wolf).
Yes, well, probability suggests that -- FUCK probability. It's not fucking interesting. You're debating how many teeth the horse has without taking the obvious measure of opening his mouth and having a look inside.
My position is the exact opposite of zealotry, my friend.
98
@ ankylosaur, if you care so much about rape, then how about YOU own it as a problem and stop making women responsible for whatever bullshit Fox News might say. If you care so much about rape, how about you take a look at how frequent rape is versus false rape accusations and explain to me why people who care about rape should be expending meaningful energy on the latter (because no one has said that it's great or doesn't happen) when such a woefully lacking amount of focus and energy is invested in the former. And then take a look at how a culture convinced that the latter is a serious problem because of how much disproportionate attention people pay to it meets rape accusations with victim blaming and suspicion and tell me about how addressing false accusation as some Major Big Deal Issue doesn't cause any harm.
And then when you're done with that, please tell me more about this thing you call "strategy" and how in your great wisdom you think women should go about carefully and politely asking to be treated with dignity and equality. From the outside, of course, because this is a problem just for feminists that we need to "own," except for your expert management.
And then when you're done with that, please tell me more about this thing you call "strategy" and how in your great wisdom you think women should go about carefully and politely asking to be treated with dignity and equality. From the outside, of course, because this is a problem just for feminists that we need to "own," except for your expert management.
99
Am I the only one who is incredibly annoyed with Furry Girl's idea that feminism isn't good to sex workers, so she doesn't call herself a feminist anymore? I daresay most modern feminist philosophy is WAY better to sex workers than standard misogynist thinking. Some feminists, sure, are kind of dicks to sex workers, but not all, not even most.
Take me, for example: I think sex work should be legal and regulated, that sex workers should have access to STD testing, and have their rape and assault accusations taken seriously. Forcing people to have sex for money? Totally reprehensible. Taking a sex worker's money in exchange for "protection" or simply not beating the shit out of her? Also totally reprehensible. Poor people feeling forced into sex work because they have no other way to make decent money? Bad thing, and there should be a better social safety net to prevent that. Sex work itself? Totally okay. And I'm definitely a feminist.
As for the topic at hand: Assange: probably a rapist. Wikileaks: definitely a good thing. I do find the timing of the allegations somewhat fishy, but the more details I hear, the more I suspect they're true. And as other people have said, Julian Assange is not Wikileaks. Just because somebody's a rapist doesn't mean everything they've ever been a part of is tainted.
Take me, for example: I think sex work should be legal and regulated, that sex workers should have access to STD testing, and have their rape and assault accusations taken seriously. Forcing people to have sex for money? Totally reprehensible. Taking a sex worker's money in exchange for "protection" or simply not beating the shit out of her? Also totally reprehensible. Poor people feeling forced into sex work because they have no other way to make decent money? Bad thing, and there should be a better social safety net to prevent that. Sex work itself? Totally okay. And I'm definitely a feminist.
As for the topic at hand: Assange: probably a rapist. Wikileaks: definitely a good thing. I do find the timing of the allegations somewhat fishy, but the more details I hear, the more I suspect they're true. And as other people have said, Julian Assange is not Wikileaks. Just because somebody's a rapist doesn't mean everything they've ever been a part of is tainted.
100
@95, you're welcome! "Feminists" do a lot of the harm themselves, by splitting into so many groups and still keeping this word as an umbrella term often with contradictory meanings.
My main point: feminists CAN concentrate on raped women who are still victim-blamed AND say they are against false rape allegations. One thing does not prevent the other. I'm not saying feminists should drop all their causes right now and think only about false rape accusations -- I'm saying: if you pay NO attention to it (which is the case thus far), you'll eventually regret it. If you let others own a cause that you could own yourselves (it's right up your alley -- false rape accusations make MORE rape victims ashamed to come out and press charges), you are shooting yourselves on the foot without no reason.
This isn't going to stop some girl from shouting rape just to cover up? You're right -- it won't. Just like laws don't make crime impossible: people still murder, steal, slander, etc. But if you do something other than simply ignoring the issue, you protect yourself against easy accusations of hypocrisy. If sufficiently many enemies can convince sufficiently many people that you don't care AT ALL about false rape accusations, they will make sure that the number of raped women who you help will be fewer. And certainly nobody wants that?
I disagree that this is a cause 'for men'; first because (a) there already are such groups as you mention, and (b) because I actually admire the historical heritage of feminism, and would be dismayed
It's not that there aren't groups out there working against false rape accusations. There are. It's that it is an issue on which feminists should also give an opinion, and a clear and loud one. Again, don't make this either-or: it's not either help the raped girl or fight false rape accusations. There is no either-or between, say, fighting rape and fighting the pay gap or fighting gender discrimination. It is possible to support all of these things equally strongly. It is possible to present them as part of a unified view on gender equality. You don't have to chose either one or the other. You don't have to chose between being pro-woman and pro-gay; it's possible to be both. Ít's possible to speak out loud for all these causes -- even if you choose to concentrate on one of them, you can still support the others.
Likewise with false rape accusations.
"It's not feminism's job to worry about the men?"... A very complicated statement, one that deserves comment (so it's like highschool? boys against girls? is that what the fight for gender equality is?...) But I'll leave it aside, and instead simply insist: false rape accusations are an issue for women, because every false rape accusation that gets publicized and made hey of by antifems makes it harder for true rape accusations to be believed. Every "screeming girl who shouts rape because of her parents" makes sure that a few more real victims of rape won't be heard.
So, there are no reasons for feminists to ignore that.
Again: there is no need to let the discourse on this topic be ENTIRELY in the hands of antifems. It's in the interest of feminism not to let this happen.
That's all.
More...
My main point: feminists CAN concentrate on raped women who are still victim-blamed AND say they are against false rape allegations. One thing does not prevent the other. I'm not saying feminists should drop all their causes right now and think only about false rape accusations -- I'm saying: if you pay NO attention to it (which is the case thus far), you'll eventually regret it. If you let others own a cause that you could own yourselves (it's right up your alley -- false rape accusations make MORE rape victims ashamed to come out and press charges), you are shooting yourselves on the foot without no reason.
This isn't going to stop some girl from shouting rape just to cover up? You're right -- it won't. Just like laws don't make crime impossible: people still murder, steal, slander, etc. But if you do something other than simply ignoring the issue, you protect yourself against easy accusations of hypocrisy. If sufficiently many enemies can convince sufficiently many people that you don't care AT ALL about false rape accusations, they will make sure that the number of raped women who you help will be fewer. And certainly nobody wants that?
I disagree that this is a cause 'for men'; first because (a) there already are such groups as you mention, and (b) because I actually admire the historical heritage of feminism, and would be dismayed
It's not that there aren't groups out there working against false rape accusations. There are. It's that it is an issue on which feminists should also give an opinion, and a clear and loud one. Again, don't make this either-or: it's not either help the raped girl or fight false rape accusations. There is no either-or between, say, fighting rape and fighting the pay gap or fighting gender discrimination. It is possible to support all of these things equally strongly. It is possible to present them as part of a unified view on gender equality. You don't have to chose either one or the other. You don't have to chose between being pro-woman and pro-gay; it's possible to be both. Ít's possible to speak out loud for all these causes -- even if you choose to concentrate on one of them, you can still support the others.
Likewise with false rape accusations.
"It's not feminism's job to worry about the men?"... A very complicated statement, one that deserves comment (so it's like highschool? boys against girls? is that what the fight for gender equality is?...) But I'll leave it aside, and instead simply insist: false rape accusations are an issue for women, because every false rape accusation that gets publicized and made hey of by antifems makes it harder for true rape accusations to be believed. Every "screeming girl who shouts rape because of her parents" makes sure that a few more real victims of rape won't be heard.
So, there are no reasons for feminists to ignore that.
Again: there is no need to let the discourse on this topic be ENTIRELY in the hands of antifems. It's in the interest of feminism not to let this happen.
That's all.
101
@98 (amazonvera), I do. When I was in grad school I worked in a rape hotline -- and believe me, I saw some cases that would make your hairs stand. I've talked to men about rape, I've mentioned the issue in my own workplace. I agree with you -- men should talk about rape.
And feminists should talk more about false rape accusations. For the same reason.
For the sake of the rape victims I helped when I was in the rape prevention group in my university -- please don't let feminism shoot itself in the foot with this issue. It's already painful to see what Republicans do with pseudo-issues like the ground zero mosque -- don't let them do it with rape activism. Remember ACORN? What if someday that happens to NOW?
And feminists should talk more about false rape accusations. For the same reason.
For the sake of the rape victims I helped when I was in the rape prevention group in my university -- please don't let feminism shoot itself in the foot with this issue. It's already painful to see what Republicans do with pseudo-issues like the ground zero mosque -- don't let them do it with rape activism. Remember ACORN? What if someday that happens to NOW?
102
@oskomena (98), I don't think there are many feminists who DENY the existance of false rape accusations -- if there are any, I haven't met them either. What there are is feminists who DOWNPLAY the issue and think that there is no harm in ignoring it. The discussion about Assange is one thing -- WikiLeaks makes this obviously not a prototypical rape accusation case; the possibility of a false accusation to harm or stop WikiLeaks is too obvious to ignore. In other cases, however...
103
@amazonvera, as I said, I've worked against rape. I've done (am doing) my part. I have a 7-year-old daughter; believe me, I'm concerned with her future.
Why should rape activists spend energy on the issue of false rape accusations? Because it matters to feminist activism to be seen as fair and ethical, not as yet another special-interest group lobbying the government.
And also because the "energy" that would be spent on this is small. You're spending energy here, writing comments in Dan Savage's blog; this same energy/time (presumably a small fraction of your daily time, right?) could be spent writing about false rape accusations.
I don't ask for more. I don't ask that feminists to drop the case of the poor raped Puerto-Rican girl in hospital who has nobody else to help her.
I ask that feminists don't ignore the issue. I ask that they make their position clear. That they write about it at least once! That they don't let the discourse on it be owned by their enemies! That they don't make it easy for their enemies to (falsely) accuse them of hypocrisy!
Is that really too much to ask?
Why should rape activists spend energy on the issue of false rape accusations? Because it matters to feminist activism to be seen as fair and ethical, not as yet another special-interest group lobbying the government.
And also because the "energy" that would be spent on this is small. You're spending energy here, writing comments in Dan Savage's blog; this same energy/time (presumably a small fraction of your daily time, right?) could be spent writing about false rape accusations.
I don't ask for more. I don't ask that feminists to drop the case of the poor raped Puerto-Rican girl in hospital who has nobody else to help her.
I ask that feminists don't ignore the issue. I ask that they make their position clear. That they write about it at least once! That they don't let the discourse on it be owned by their enemies! That they don't make it easy for their enemies to (falsely) accuse them of hypocrisy!
Is that really too much to ask?
104
@99 (thecheesegirl), I hear your voice. Indeed there are feminists, and quite a lot of feminist theory, that is not just dogmatically against sex work, that there are many like you (and I know a few other feminists who would at least partially, probably totally agree with your views on sex work).
Still, at least in terms of visibility and influence, I'm not sure most feminists think like you. The "kind of dicks" out there are apparently still many and still influential (say, Catharine MacKinnon?).
So I also hear FurryGirl's voice. She is far from being the only one sex worker who has had to deal with the "kind of dicks" that you talk about -- and many more than just a few, to hear them speak.
Maybe both of you are right. Maybe feminism is simply evolving, moving away from simplistic Marxist visions of society and culture and into a larger conceptual space. Most feminists I know would probably agree with you. Still, it would be nice if more of them came out loud in defense of sex workers. They need more voices of support.
Still, at least in terms of visibility and influence, I'm not sure most feminists think like you. The "kind of dicks" out there are apparently still many and still influential (say, Catharine MacKinnon?).
So I also hear FurryGirl's voice. She is far from being the only one sex worker who has had to deal with the "kind of dicks" that you talk about -- and many more than just a few, to hear them speak.
Maybe both of you are right. Maybe feminism is simply evolving, moving away from simplistic Marxist visions of society and culture and into a larger conceptual space. Most feminists I know would probably agree with you. Still, it would be nice if more of them came out loud in defense of sex workers. They need more voices of support.
105
@ 104, etc. You're a man who believes in equality of the sexes and actively works and speaks out against rape? --- YOU are the feminist who is calling for accountability in accusations of rape charges. I don't have to, I've got other things I'm working on.
106
@ 105 (Tizzle): yes, that's what men say about rape, too, right? I have other things to do...
I'm not saying you have to stop what you're working on. Why do people insist on this red herring?
I'm alone. There should be more people. Maybe this just makes you yawn. So be it. But then, next time you tell men they should be concerned and do something about rape... remember what you wrote now. They also have other things they're working on, you know.
I'm not saying you have to stop what you're working on. Why do people insist on this red herring?
I'm alone. There should be more people. Maybe this just makes you yawn. So be it. But then, next time you tell men they should be concerned and do something about rape... remember what you wrote now. They also have other things they're working on, you know.
108
@ ankylosaur, I think you need to take a giant step back and look at all the shit you've said in this thread. The dictating how women and feminists should behave, telling us to "own" our problem of rape, saying we're shooting ourselves in the foot for not putting ourselves into tidy little idealogical boxes with which you're comfortable, making women and feminists responsible for the misogyny of others, etc. This is getting gross.
And you know what, it's not good enough for us to say just once that false rape accusations aren't okay. Fuck, it's not even enough that none of us have said that they're okay or that they don't happen, we're still going to be treated like we need to make some bullshit disclaimer just because we're anti-rape. No, what's we're expected to do is say it emphatically enough for the liking of people like you every disproportionately frequently time it's discussed or we get accused of being responsible for rape denial (do you seriously not see how offensive that is?). And god forbid we should say something about how misinformation and ignorant attitudes about the frequency of false rape claims, or the disproportionate focus on that issue, contribute to a culture that's harmful to rape victims. Or how tired we are of having to have these same conversations over and over.
The reason I'm here expending this time and energy is because I think it's important to point out that the statements unfortunately made in Furry Girl's post and here in the comments are not okay and hurt rape victims. It's not okay to rail against people jumping to conclusions about an accused rapist without all the information while presenting a bunch of one-sided, incomplete information obviously intended to discredit and express doubt about the alleged victims (kind of the definition of hypocrisy). It's even less okay to pair that with some seriously lop-sided anecdata about victims of false rape accusations. I'm not even going to get started on the bullshit in the comments here, yours included. So yes, I'm happy to take a minute to call people out on shit that hurts rape victims and makes it harder for them to get justice. That's where every metric we have about rape says the vast majority of my concern should be concentrated
More...
And you know what, it's not good enough for us to say just once that false rape accusations aren't okay. Fuck, it's not even enough that none of us have said that they're okay or that they don't happen, we're still going to be treated like we need to make some bullshit disclaimer just because we're anti-rape. No, what's we're expected to do is say it emphatically enough for the liking of people like you every disproportionately frequently time it's discussed or we get accused of being responsible for rape denial (do you seriously not see how offensive that is?). And god forbid we should say something about how misinformation and ignorant attitudes about the frequency of false rape claims, or the disproportionate focus on that issue, contribute to a culture that's harmful to rape victims. Or how tired we are of having to have these same conversations over and over.
The reason I'm here expending this time and energy is because I think it's important to point out that the statements unfortunately made in Furry Girl's post and here in the comments are not okay and hurt rape victims. It's not okay to rail against people jumping to conclusions about an accused rapist without all the information while presenting a bunch of one-sided, incomplete information obviously intended to discredit and express doubt about the alleged victims (kind of the definition of hypocrisy). It's even less okay to pair that with some seriously lop-sided anecdata about victims of false rape accusations. I'm not even going to get started on the bullshit in the comments here, yours included. So yes, I'm happy to take a minute to call people out on shit that hurts rape victims and makes it harder for them to get justice. That's where every metric we have about rape says the vast majority of my concern should be concentrated
110
@99 thecheesegirl, I can't agree with you more. In Ontario, feminist groups and sex workers together are working on getting prostitution legalized here. Maybe she lives in a shitty area, with shitty feminists, and had enough.
111
DICKS
DICKS EVERYWHERE
In other words, I step away from this thread for five hours, and now I can't even tell what's going on anymore.
PUDDI to all of you!
DICKS EVERYWHERE
In other words, I step away from this thread for five hours, and now I can't even tell what's going on anymore.
PUDDI to all of you!
112
Am I the only one who is astonishingly confused on this thead's definition of "feminism/feminist"? To a bystander reading this, you need to be a woman to be one? I thought feminism was simply the belief that men and women are equal and not predicated on the gender of that belief's holder. I am a man and a feminist, my mother wouldn't have accepted anything less and thank god for that.
As to the topic at hand, I was falsely accused of sexual assault in highschool maliciously. Not on a criminal level, merely on a social one. This came with the loss of friends and the unspoken loss of trust with those that didn't officially walk away. The truth came out through one of my accuser's friends about a year later but for the relationships that were lost, the damage was done. People who are accused in these matters become pariahs and that bell can't be unrung. I've grown up, got over it, built new relationships, but shouldn't have had to go through that any more than someone who has legitimately experienced an assault. I wonder if cases that are only fabricated on a social level find their way into that 7% statistic everyone is throwing around?
Please don't take my comment to illustrate a will to blame victims, my official stance is that rape and not murder should be the only capital offense (the former is unjustifiable under any circumstances and the latter is not. As in "If you rape my daughter I'll take your life."), it just felt on point is all.
As to the topic at hand, I was falsely accused of sexual assault in highschool maliciously. Not on a criminal level, merely on a social one. This came with the loss of friends and the unspoken loss of trust with those that didn't officially walk away. The truth came out through one of my accuser's friends about a year later but for the relationships that were lost, the damage was done. People who are accused in these matters become pariahs and that bell can't be unrung. I've grown up, got over it, built new relationships, but shouldn't have had to go through that any more than someone who has legitimately experienced an assault. I wonder if cases that are only fabricated on a social level find their way into that 7% statistic everyone is throwing around?
Please don't take my comment to illustrate a will to blame victims, my official stance is that rape and not murder should be the only capital offense (the former is unjustifiable under any circumstances and the latter is not. As in "If you rape my daughter I'll take your life."), it just felt on point is all.
113
To fnarf:
To your comment #41, I didn't say that rape didn't carry a jail sentence, I specifically stated that what Assange was being charged with DOESN'T CARRY A FRIGGING JAIL SENTENCE, if convicted. Can't you ever get anything straight?
Also, you make far too many contradictory statements, which must confuse many unless, of course, that is your intent?
It's not true. Assange is receiving due process.
Your definition of due process, given all my, and others, previous comments on this subject is certainly ludicrous.
Anna Ardin (who has since relocated to either Israel or Gaza quite some time back, so why would they extradite Assange back to Sweden when his accuser isn't there to be faced???) was advised by her counsel to delete all incriminating tweets (we know this as they happened to be mirrored on her blog site, which others downloaded prior to her realizing, then deleting the mirrored files there); hardly the proper and legal advice of counsel.
One of the partners of that firm (Borgstrom and Bodstrom), Claes Borgstrom, has repeatedly given national (in Sverige) and international interviews soundly condemning Assange and proclaiming him guilty -- something which would get the case normally thrown out of court, and said attorney disbarred.
Throughout this investigation, confidential details about Assange have been leaked by the Swedish Prosecution Authority; hardly due process in any of the aforesaid actions.
You want to go read up on that definition of due process, sonny!
To your comment #41, I didn't say that rape didn't carry a jail sentence, I specifically stated that what Assange was being charged with DOESN'T CARRY A FRIGGING JAIL SENTENCE, if convicted. Can't you ever get anything straight?
Also, you make far too many contradictory statements, which must confuse many unless, of course, that is your intent?
It's not true. Assange is receiving due process.
Your definition of due process, given all my, and others, previous comments on this subject is certainly ludicrous.
Anna Ardin (who has since relocated to either Israel or Gaza quite some time back, so why would they extradite Assange back to Sweden when his accuser isn't there to be faced???) was advised by her counsel to delete all incriminating tweets (we know this as they happened to be mirrored on her blog site, which others downloaded prior to her realizing, then deleting the mirrored files there); hardly the proper and legal advice of counsel.
One of the partners of that firm (Borgstrom and Bodstrom), Claes Borgstrom, has repeatedly given national (in Sverige) and international interviews soundly condemning Assange and proclaiming him guilty -- something which would get the case normally thrown out of court, and said attorney disbarred.
Throughout this investigation, confidential details about Assange have been leaked by the Swedish Prosecution Authority; hardly due process in any of the aforesaid actions.
You want to go read up on that definition of due process, sonny!
114
81/kersy, "You can be innocent until proven guilty and still have a thorough legal system that takes victims seriously."
I would agree with you that people who claim they were victims of rape should be taken seriously. But "taken seriously" doesn't mean concluding that a rape actually happened just because someone alleges it did.
I would agree with you that people who claim they were victims of rape should be taken seriously. But "taken seriously" doesn't mean concluding that a rape actually happened just because someone alleges it did.
115
I am not saying or even implying that every rape/sexual assault claim must be taken at face value.
But let me be clear about something - the difference between a rape charge and a murder charge (as that IS the comparison used) is EVIDENCE.
A woman (or man) who is drugged and raped at - for the sake of argument - a party has an incredibly SMALL window for reporting the crime.
Why? Because unless there IS a struggle - and most times the victim is either incapacitated or intimidated into obedience - the only evidence that CAN be upheld by a court is the physical evidence left in/on the victim's body. Whether that's anal tearing, vaginal bruising, fluid left at the scene, trace amounts of drugs left in the victim's body, et cetera.
Most of these pieces of evidence are lost within hours, if not a few days of the crime. Most rape victims are afraid to even talk about, let alone report, the traumatic event.
ESPECIALLY since going to the police in a timely manner means subjecting a recently traumatized and emotionally unstable man or woman to skepticism and interrogation as though they themselves are a suspected criminal.
For a lot of rape victims, the trauma of REPORTING the crime isn't worth it. Not after what they already went through.
For many rape victims, IF they DO decide to report the crime it's months or years later - once they have processed through at least SOME of the trauma of what happened to them. And UNLIKE a murder, the evidence is gone by then. What you're left with is testimony, hearsay, and contradicting stories.
It's a dilemma. Our science and our legal system hasn't found a way - yet - to effectively deal with anything but the most heinous/sadistic of sex crimes.
And perhaps, for now, it's going to be difficult to bring rapists to justice.
But that doesn't mean that we need to put the victims of their crimes under the gun - so to speak - either.
Denying loving support to people who speak up about being sexually assaulted is like denying loving support to children who claim to have been abused.
Do SOME children lie about abuse in the home, and make their parents lives a living nightmare? Yes. It happens.
Do SOME men and women lie about being raped/sexually assaulted, and ruin the reputation of innocent people in the process? Yes. It happens.
People sometimes lie, and they sometimes lie about really fucked up shit.
But when it comes to areas like rape, and about child abuse, it is better to offer support immediately and consistently and only retract it IF THERE SURFACES NEW EVIDENCE calling the purported victim's story into question or proving the alleged offender innocent.
More...
But let me be clear about something - the difference between a rape charge and a murder charge (as that IS the comparison used) is EVIDENCE.
A woman (or man) who is drugged and raped at - for the sake of argument - a party has an incredibly SMALL window for reporting the crime.
Why? Because unless there IS a struggle - and most times the victim is either incapacitated or intimidated into obedience - the only evidence that CAN be upheld by a court is the physical evidence left in/on the victim's body. Whether that's anal tearing, vaginal bruising, fluid left at the scene, trace amounts of drugs left in the victim's body, et cetera.
Most of these pieces of evidence are lost within hours, if not a few days of the crime. Most rape victims are afraid to even talk about, let alone report, the traumatic event.
ESPECIALLY since going to the police in a timely manner means subjecting a recently traumatized and emotionally unstable man or woman to skepticism and interrogation as though they themselves are a suspected criminal.
For a lot of rape victims, the trauma of REPORTING the crime isn't worth it. Not after what they already went through.
For many rape victims, IF they DO decide to report the crime it's months or years later - once they have processed through at least SOME of the trauma of what happened to them. And UNLIKE a murder, the evidence is gone by then. What you're left with is testimony, hearsay, and contradicting stories.
It's a dilemma. Our science and our legal system hasn't found a way - yet - to effectively deal with anything but the most heinous/sadistic of sex crimes.
And perhaps, for now, it's going to be difficult to bring rapists to justice.
But that doesn't mean that we need to put the victims of their crimes under the gun - so to speak - either.
Denying loving support to people who speak up about being sexually assaulted is like denying loving support to children who claim to have been abused.
Do SOME children lie about abuse in the home, and make their parents lives a living nightmare? Yes. It happens.
Do SOME men and women lie about being raped/sexually assaulted, and ruin the reputation of innocent people in the process? Yes. It happens.
People sometimes lie, and they sometimes lie about really fucked up shit.
But when it comes to areas like rape, and about child abuse, it is better to offer support immediately and consistently and only retract it IF THERE SURFACES NEW EVIDENCE calling the purported victim's story into question or proving the alleged offender innocent.
116
Also - why are so many people acting as though rape is solely a man's crime? And rape victims are solely women?
I know just as many men who have been raped as women, and some of them have been raped by women. I even know a woman who was raped by another woman.
Feminism is irrelevant to this discussion.
I know just as many men who have been raped as women, and some of them have been raped by women. I even know a woman who was raped by another woman.
Feminism is irrelevant to this discussion.
117
@116 Between 95 and 98% of rapists are male, and about 1 in 33 men are raped versus anywhere from 1 in 6 to 1 in 3 women. Male rape victims exist, as do, in far smaller numbers, female rapists. That doesn't make feminism "irrelevant to this discussion."
118
I swear... if I hear one more moron talking about how rape is a "man's crime", I'm going to start cannibalizing retarded Neo-Nazi feminists.
Rape is a crime. Both men and women have been, and will continue to be, guilty of this crime. Men occupy a higher percentage of convicted rapists. Yet occupying the majority does not mean we get t...o "round up" and make rape the ironclad dominion of masculinity. Because it's not.
Rape is a crime. Both men and women have been, and will continue to be, guilty of this crime. Men occupy a higher percentage of convicted rapists. Yet occupying the majority does not mean we get t...o "round up" and make rape the ironclad dominion of masculinity. Because it's not.
119
I feel that is necessary, especially in our country bumpkin age, to require of our students in their required pedagogy to learn at least one classical language well; presumably, this would include the big names, such as Classical Greek and Latin, but would also easily include Sanskrit, Classical Chinese, Arabic--one gets the idea. Not only does one have, then, ready access to a whole wealth of literature frequently touching upon timeless issues, but these languages are typically difficult to learn with their own idiosyncrasies and sometimes-bizarre idioms; the juxtaposition of these with one's native tongue produce a much more comprehensive and complete understanding of language, which ultimately re-writes and tightens up all the rest of one's mental processes. Writing and speaking are logical processes.
Americans typically suffer an incapacity to comprehend nuance, especially in sense. They hear of condemnations against false-rape accusation and those accusers--and immediately they make schizophrenic leaps in logic to understand that condemnation of false-rape is equivalent with the blaming of true victims. And when they receive the inexorable rebuttal, blue in the face, they write off the very same thing, words having been re-arranged, back, but with more added ad hominem attacks. Merely these sort of people treat conversation as waiting for their turn to speak; merely these sort of people seeks fights and violence, couching it as activism, having no understanding of what they might be wreaking nor desire to possess understanding.
It is by observing such behavior that I find myself, despite myself, no liberal.
Americans typically suffer an incapacity to comprehend nuance, especially in sense. They hear of condemnations against false-rape accusation and those accusers--and immediately they make schizophrenic leaps in logic to understand that condemnation of false-rape is equivalent with the blaming of true victims. And when they receive the inexorable rebuttal, blue in the face, they write off the very same thing, words having been re-arranged, back, but with more added ad hominem attacks. Merely these sort of people treat conversation as waiting for their turn to speak; merely these sort of people seeks fights and violence, couching it as activism, having no understanding of what they might be wreaking nor desire to possess understanding.
It is by observing such behavior that I find myself, despite myself, no liberal.
120
amazonvera, I've looked at all I wrote, and I don't see anything that is offensive. It's my opinion. I don't have power over you or anyone, and I can't force anyone to do anything. It is, and remains, my opinion, however, that feminists are making a mistake on this topic. And a big one: someday you'll lament it. I think you're shooting the messenger here.
I am not telling you to OWN your problems. I am telling you not to let OTHERS own a topic -- as if it had nothing to do with you. I am saying that feminists are doing a disservice to feminism by allowing their enemies to OWN a topic that they can and will use as a weapon -- a topic that relates to feminism, relates to rape, relates to women.
Let me say clearly; I am NOT saying that you're responsible for the misogyny of others. I am saying that you should not put a WEAPON in your enemies' hands. There is a big difference here. Please don't confuse these things.
Again, I say: look at ACORN. Would you like something like this to happen to your favorite feminist institution?
Look, what you're saying doesn't make sense. It sounds like the men who say: hey, we don't condemn rape, but we don't support it either. Condemning rape is the default, so men don't "have" to say anythign about it, and when feminists claim that men don't pay attention to rape, they're wrong.
Do you buy this argument? I don't. Yet it's the argument you're trying to make with respect to false accusations of rape.
You're also saying: there's always going to be somebody who will say you're bad because whatever disclaimer you do isn't "good enough". Sure. But depending on what disclaimer you actually do -- what will their credibility be? And if you do NO disclaimer: what will their credibility be?
The first time a feminst association defends some important rape case that turns out to have been a false accusation -- antifems will say: see? They don't fact-check. They never do. Let's cut their funding! And if you have no disclaimer, nothing to say other than "we don't say false rape accusations are wrong because we don't HAVE to"... I'll bet more than a few reasonable people will be swayed by the antifem's arguments.
It's all a question of credibility. If you say nothing, or if you only say something when there's a big problem on your shoulders, you will not be credible.
Frankly, what are you afraid of? We all agree that false rape accusations are wrong. What will you lose if you just say it? If a few feminists write articles condemning it, and other support it -- you know, just writing an e-mail of support? If feminist associations say they are fact-checking the rape claims they take, and if they disclose their fact-checking measures -- what do you lose?
Don't care about the crazy nutjobs -- they will be against you no matter what. But most of this country is not made of crazy nutjobs. And you don't want your enemies to succeed in making YOU look like the crazy nutjob in front of them.
More...
I am not telling you to OWN your problems. I am telling you not to let OTHERS own a topic -- as if it had nothing to do with you. I am saying that feminists are doing a disservice to feminism by allowing their enemies to OWN a topic that they can and will use as a weapon -- a topic that relates to feminism, relates to rape, relates to women.
Let me say clearly; I am NOT saying that you're responsible for the misogyny of others. I am saying that you should not put a WEAPON in your enemies' hands. There is a big difference here. Please don't confuse these things.
Again, I say: look at ACORN. Would you like something like this to happen to your favorite feminist institution?
Look, what you're saying doesn't make sense. It sounds like the men who say: hey, we don't condemn rape, but we don't support it either. Condemning rape is the default, so men don't "have" to say anythign about it, and when feminists claim that men don't pay attention to rape, they're wrong.
Do you buy this argument? I don't. Yet it's the argument you're trying to make with respect to false accusations of rape.
You're also saying: there's always going to be somebody who will say you're bad because whatever disclaimer you do isn't "good enough". Sure. But depending on what disclaimer you actually do -- what will their credibility be? And if you do NO disclaimer: what will their credibility be?
The first time a feminst association defends some important rape case that turns out to have been a false accusation -- antifems will say: see? They don't fact-check. They never do. Let's cut their funding! And if you have no disclaimer, nothing to say other than "we don't say false rape accusations are wrong because we don't HAVE to"... I'll bet more than a few reasonable people will be swayed by the antifem's arguments.
It's all a question of credibility. If you say nothing, or if you only say something when there's a big problem on your shoulders, you will not be credible.
Frankly, what are you afraid of? We all agree that false rape accusations are wrong. What will you lose if you just say it? If a few feminists write articles condemning it, and other support it -- you know, just writing an e-mail of support? If feminist associations say they are fact-checking the rape claims they take, and if they disclose their fact-checking measures -- what do you lose?
Don't care about the crazy nutjobs -- they will be against you no matter what. But most of this country is not made of crazy nutjobs. And you don't want your enemies to succeed in making YOU look like the crazy nutjob in front of them.
121
@117, these numbers are disputed. Besides, the genderedness is indeed irrelevant to the moral wrong. If women raped men more often than the other way around, it wouldn't magically become right.
Rape is wrong not because men do it more often, but because it is wrong. Period. Gender is, in this sense, irrelevant.
Rape is wrong not because men do it more often, but because it is wrong. Period. Gender is, in this sense, irrelevant.
122
@ ankylosaur, you are coming across as some stereotype of the dense-as-a-post mansplainer. I have already told you how inflating the perception of the frequency of false rape claims by inflating the focus on them hurts rape victims. You're not listening. You're continuing instead as someone who doesn't and can't experience anti-female bias or violence to dictate to women what feminism should look like. Do you not get how fucked up that is?
When just as many men are raped as women, and when just as many women rape people as men, then gender will be irrelevant when it comes to rape. And, you know, when there isn't an equally large imbalance in all type of violence against women occurring in the context of a generally sexist culture. None of that is that case now, though. No one debates that the vast majority of rape victims are women and that the tremendously vast majority of rapists, a small fraction of whom spend any time in jail, are men.
I can see that you genuinely mean well and that you genuinely believe that you're helping by "educating" the womenfolk on how we need to seek equality and about how gender is irrelevant to rape, but you're being pretty disgusting.
When just as many men are raped as women, and when just as many women rape people as men, then gender will be irrelevant when it comes to rape. And, you know, when there isn't an equally large imbalance in all type of violence against women occurring in the context of a generally sexist culture. None of that is that case now, though. No one debates that the vast majority of rape victims are women and that the tremendously vast majority of rapists, a small fraction of whom spend any time in jail, are men.
I can see that you genuinely mean well and that you genuinely believe that you're helping by "educating" the womenfolk on how we need to seek equality and about how gender is irrelevant to rape, but you're being pretty disgusting.
123
@Central Scrutinizer, even though I agree with you in principle -- these distinctions are important, and it's sad that they are not made -- I can see where people like amazonvera are coming from, though.
Activists who talk like amazonvera have had a lot of bad experiences already. They've seen horrible cases of rape be dismissed or downplayed by the judicial system, by policemen, by lawyers, by relatives of the victim, sometimes even by the victim her/himself. They know what it's like to be the only source of support for a poor victim who nobody wants to believe just because this is a Christian district and the victim was doing whatever the crazies there think women shouldn't do, like wearing pants.
One would hope that this experience with being dismissed and how much it hurts would help rape activists understand when they do the same, when they dismiss and downplay others with reasonable claims. But no--this doesn't happen very often. And it's not because they're feminists -- it's because they're people. Those who suffer can understand others' suffering better, right? No. Unfortunately not. Men, women -- we're all people who need to grow.
Activists who talk like amazonvera have had a lot of bad experiences already. They've seen horrible cases of rape be dismissed or downplayed by the judicial system, by policemen, by lawyers, by relatives of the victim, sometimes even by the victim her/himself. They know what it's like to be the only source of support for a poor victim who nobody wants to believe just because this is a Christian district and the victim was doing whatever the crazies there think women shouldn't do, like wearing pants.
One would hope that this experience with being dismissed and how much it hurts would help rape activists understand when they do the same, when they dismiss and downplay others with reasonable claims. But no--this doesn't happen very often. And it's not because they're feminists -- it's because they're people. Those who suffer can understand others' suffering better, right? No. Unfortunately not. Men, women -- we're all people who need to grow.
124
@ amazonvera, I'm sorry, but why do you have to use offensive languages and stereotypes when talking to me? You call me "disgusting", you throw bigotted words like "mansplainer around" (designed to stop, not promote, discussion). Why do you talk like that? What's the point?
Here's your argument: talking about false rape explanations "inflates the perception of their frequency". That's a fallacy. It's like saying that "talking about rape inflates the pereception of its frequency". Does it? Should we stop talking about rape, so as to to "inflate perceptions of its frequency"? Antifems have often said that. Do you believe this?
No. You see a connection between condemning false rape accusations and silencing true rape victims. I see the opposite connection: the more you keep silent about false rape accusations, the more power you give to your enemies who will then make sure more and more people don't take rape claims seriously.
And you don't answer that. I've said it several times; you not even once deigned to argue against that.
Why, amazonvera?
You talk about the genderedness of rape. It is important for thinking about how to solve the problem -- just like the racial and economic composition of criminals is important when you try to solve the problem of crime in general. But it is NOT important when deciding WHY something is a crime.
Rape is not a crime because men are perpetrators more often. It is a crime because it hurts, damages, even kills. FOR THIS PURPOSE ONLY -- deciding that rape is a crime -- it doesn't matter who does it more often. Just as it doesn't matter if blacks commit theft more often than whites when deciding that theft is a crime.
That's all I'm saying. It's all common-sensical, and actually true. Maybe you're still going to say I'm disgusting, yadda-yadda-yadda. OK. I, on the other hand, will not say you're disgusting. You're just confusing me with some people who you had bad experiences with -- antifems, dismissive lawyers and policemen... I'm not one of them, and yet you attribute to me beliefs that you heard from them.
This is a pity. It's all I can say: it is a pity.
More...
Here's your argument: talking about false rape explanations "inflates the perception of their frequency". That's a fallacy. It's like saying that "talking about rape inflates the pereception of its frequency". Does it? Should we stop talking about rape, so as to to "inflate perceptions of its frequency"? Antifems have often said that. Do you believe this?
No. You see a connection between condemning false rape accusations and silencing true rape victims. I see the opposite connection: the more you keep silent about false rape accusations, the more power you give to your enemies who will then make sure more and more people don't take rape claims seriously.
And you don't answer that. I've said it several times; you not even once deigned to argue against that.
Why, amazonvera?
You talk about the genderedness of rape. It is important for thinking about how to solve the problem -- just like the racial and economic composition of criminals is important when you try to solve the problem of crime in general. But it is NOT important when deciding WHY something is a crime.
Rape is not a crime because men are perpetrators more often. It is a crime because it hurts, damages, even kills. FOR THIS PURPOSE ONLY -- deciding that rape is a crime -- it doesn't matter who does it more often. Just as it doesn't matter if blacks commit theft more often than whites when deciding that theft is a crime.
That's all I'm saying. It's all common-sensical, and actually true. Maybe you're still going to say I'm disgusting, yadda-yadda-yadda. OK. I, on the other hand, will not say you're disgusting. You're just confusing me with some people who you had bad experiences with -- antifems, dismissive lawyers and policemen... I'm not one of them, and yet you attribute to me beliefs that you heard from them.
This is a pity. It's all I can say: it is a pity.
125
@ amazonvera, why do you throw bad words at me? "Disgusting", "mansplainer" (the latter a word designed to stop debate, not to foster it...)? You don't need to do that. You can address my points without needing to resort to offenses. The only thing offenses do is, you know, reinforce old stereotypes about feminists. I haven't offended you, and I won't, because I don't see the point. Arguements talk by themselves. (You did say that you think I am genuinely try to help, which is a positive point; which I appreciate.)
And your argument is curious. You say: "talking about false rape accusations inflates the perception of the frequency of false rape calims by inflating the focus on them". That is a fallacy. Try it on rape: does "talking about rape inflate the perception of the frequency of rape by inflating the focus on it"? No. Why not? Because people actually don't talk enough about rape. Which is my point about false rape accusations too. Do you see?
In fact the two situations are so parallel, that I've been toying with the idea that maybe the reason why men often don't want to talk about rape is the same that feminists often don't want to talk about false rape accusations: both groups "fear" that "something bad will happen" if they talk about these things.
I am a firm believer in the truth, amazonvera. If something is true it shouldn't hurt to say it.
Please feel free to counterargue me if you want. I would be delighted if you could tell me something new that would make me change my opinion. But please, don't just offend me. It's so... irrelevant.
And your argument is curious. You say: "talking about false rape accusations inflates the perception of the frequency of false rape calims by inflating the focus on them". That is a fallacy. Try it on rape: does "talking about rape inflate the perception of the frequency of rape by inflating the focus on it"? No. Why not? Because people actually don't talk enough about rape. Which is my point about false rape accusations too. Do you see?
In fact the two situations are so parallel, that I've been toying with the idea that maybe the reason why men often don't want to talk about rape is the same that feminists often don't want to talk about false rape accusations: both groups "fear" that "something bad will happen" if they talk about these things.
I am a firm believer in the truth, amazonvera. If something is true it shouldn't hurt to say it.
Please feel free to counterargue me if you want. I would be delighted if you could tell me something new that would make me change my opinion. But please, don't just offend me. It's so... irrelevant.
126
@ amazonvera, sorry for basically posting the same comment twice. There's something wrong with my browser, and I'm getting too many "page not found" error messages. (If I can, I'll try to delete one of the two posts; they say basically the same.)
127
I've been trying my best to stay out of this morass, but there's a sentence in a story in today's NYT ("Leaked Police Report Details Allegations Against Assange") that I just couldn't resist posting:
Funny how that works.
However, those who have questioned the women's allegations have cited the fact, supported by the police report, that the women involved seemed willing to continue their friendships with Assange after his alleged sexual misbehavior until they discovered by talking to each other that they had both been sexually involved with him.
Funny how that works.
128
This has been pointed out before, 5280. That was basically the cause for FurryGirl's post, the one that motivated Dan's, right?
I don't know what to think about Assange in this case. I've seen a couple of contradictory things, some which make it seem like he did indeed misbehave (or even much worse), others which do the opposite. Frankly, how do we get the facts? Where are the facts here?
I don't know what to think about Assange in this case. I've seen a couple of contradictory things, some which make it seem like he did indeed misbehave (or even much worse), others which do the opposite. Frankly, how do we get the facts? Where are the facts here?
129
I'm not sure this thread is still alive... but just in case, here is the URL to a letter in The Guardian I found interesting, with respect to this 'talking about false rape accusations damages rape activism'.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec…
In this letter, Ms Axelsson -- from the Women Against Rape activist group -- points out how the case against Assange looks bad, and mentions other examples of cases in which false accusations of rape were used as an instrument to advance political goals.
Ms Axelsson is doing precisely what I would like to see more feminists doing -- she is fighting against rape (she mentions their two-year-long support for a woman who had been raped, assaulted and violated by a man previously convicted for a murder attempt but who -- unlike Assange -- was freed on bail) while at the same time pointing out that (a) false rape claims exist and (b) can be used for political goals.
Unlike amazonvera, Ms Axelsson clearly doesn't feel that mentioning false rape accusations -- like those used as pretexts to lynch black men in the South not so long ago -- is going to hurt her work at Women Against Rape, or make it any more difficult than it is now.
Which is also what I ultimately think. If you think it better to avoid telling the truth because it might hurt your activist work ('inflate perceptions of its frequency', etc.), it seems to me you're guaranteeing that it indeed will hurt your work, once it becomes known later on -- and you end up looking like you don't support it.
I wish there were more feminists like Ms Axelsson's.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec…
In this letter, Ms Axelsson -- from the Women Against Rape activist group -- points out how the case against Assange looks bad, and mentions other examples of cases in which false accusations of rape were used as an instrument to advance political goals.
Ms Axelsson is doing precisely what I would like to see more feminists doing -- she is fighting against rape (she mentions their two-year-long support for a woman who had been raped, assaulted and violated by a man previously convicted for a murder attempt but who -- unlike Assange -- was freed on bail) while at the same time pointing out that (a) false rape claims exist and (b) can be used for political goals.
Unlike amazonvera, Ms Axelsson clearly doesn't feel that mentioning false rape accusations -- like those used as pretexts to lynch black men in the South not so long ago -- is going to hurt her work at Women Against Rape, or make it any more difficult than it is now.
Which is also what I ultimately think. If you think it better to avoid telling the truth because it might hurt your activist work ('inflate perceptions of its frequency', etc.), it seems to me you're guaranteeing that it indeed will hurt your work, once it becomes known later on -- and you end up looking like you don't support it.
I wish there were more feminists like Ms Axelsson's.
130
Meg/#43: “And honestly, this crap about false allegations really gets under my skin -- there are far FAR more sexual assaults that are never ever reported than there are false reports made. Why don't you worry about THAT for a change? You want to talk ruined lives? Think about those ruined lives.”
God I hate that attitude. That is right up there with, “why help abused animals when humans are suffering the world over?” The fact is that each number in any of these statistics represents a human being. It is misandrist to think that we shouldn’t care about men falsely accused because there are much more women being raped by people other than those men. Sick.
I am a proud (lefty) feminist and I spend some thankless time each year trying to educate people about the hell that men go through once falsely accused of rape. I have taken it upon myself because I’ve had a front row seat of a false accusation from the accusation through the entire judicial process and it’s aftermath.
Feminism is about equality – we’re not supposed to be trying to turn the tables. Many many more women get raped than men get falsely accused, absolutely. If more men got raped than women falsely accused would the falsely accused still be acceptable collateral damage?
@Ankylosaur – Thank you! Also, you are not alone…just nearly.
God I hate that attitude. That is right up there with, “why help abused animals when humans are suffering the world over?” The fact is that each number in any of these statistics represents a human being. It is misandrist to think that we shouldn’t care about men falsely accused because there are much more women being raped by people other than those men. Sick.
I am a proud (lefty) feminist and I spend some thankless time each year trying to educate people about the hell that men go through once falsely accused of rape. I have taken it upon myself because I’ve had a front row seat of a false accusation from the accusation through the entire judicial process and it’s aftermath.
Feminism is about equality – we’re not supposed to be trying to turn the tables. Many many more women get raped than men get falsely accused, absolutely. If more men got raped than women falsely accused would the falsely accused still be acceptable collateral damage?
@Ankylosaur – Thank you! Also, you are not alone…just nearly.
131
There's a difference between believing a rape victim when she tells you she's been raped and ascribing guilt to any man on the street. No matter what opinion you have of this Assange case, if one of your friends -- or even a stranger on the street -- told you that they've been raped, you'd believe them and call the police. That's because it's the right thing to do, and you're not a monster. You wouldn't ask her for evidence. You wouldn't ask for a verdict. That's not how things work. You can believe that a woman has been raped without knowing who did it. The last thing anyone needs when they've been a victim of a serious crime is the third degree. And the last thing a woman wants is to relive gross details of being raped and have doctors prod her anus and vagina for 4 hours to collect evidence. People are worried about false accusations ruining lives. Wake up: Rape ruins lives. Being denied justice ruins lives. Being blamed for being raped ruins lives.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (131) RSS