Tagged: apologism

Infantilizing complex issues for pageviews – Rebecca Kamm feat. the Good Men Project

Another week, another unthreatening-yet-just-threatening-enough-to-stir-up-plenty-of-pageviews column about “ladies’ issues” (sexism doesn’t count if it’s ironic) from Rebecca Kamm in the Herald.

This week, that most troubling of questions, the issue which all other feminist work should be put aside so we can properly focus on it:  can men be feminists?

The comments … I can’t even, but Megapope on Twitter provided all the commentary necessary on that front.

Thing is, it’s just another Rebecca Kamm column.  Very little original content, lots of hip links to other sites (which, you know, I should probably be thankful for, given how the Armstrong types still like to pretend that they’re working only in print) …

And then she goes and quotes the founder of the “Good Men Project”.

Tom Matlack, founder of the The Good Men project, is also unconvinced [that men can be feminists]. But not because men don’t “get it”, or because – like Celie’s Revenge – he suspects falsity. He strays from the term because he’s experienced firsthand the furore it sparks:

“I am a feminist of the kind my mum was, and is,” he tells me via email: “She raised me in the 1970s with the idea that the Equal Rights Amendment to our constitution was just a crucial as the Civil Rights Act.”

Yet, “modern cyber feminists”, as Matlack puts it, “tell me, through heated and personal attacks, that I have no right to discuss gender because I don’t understand what it’s like to be a women who is oppressed.

Gee, Rebecca, sounds like Tom’s had a rough time!

Or maybe he’s received a lot of flack because he helped create a “project” which is so antifeminist that Hugo fucking Schwyzer resigned from it, saying “It was not ethically possible for me to remain silent while the site with which I am now best associated took an increasingly anti-feminist stance.”  (You can google the original post if you like, I ain’t linking to that creepfest.)

A project which delights in publishing pieces justifying rape if the rapist is enough of an OK dude or if it ~highlights~ the ~struggles~ of being a man in the modern world surrounded by slutty bitches.

Maybe Tom Matlack has no right to discuss gender because he’s a fucking misogynist pig.

But that conversation might be a liiiiiiiiiittle bit too radical for the readers of the Herald.

It is just so damn difficult not to rape drunk people

[Trigger warning: rape, rape apologism]

Via Hoyden About Town, Skepchick Rebecca Watson has once again used terrible woman-powers to infuse otherwise innocent words with TERRIBLE MAN-HATING MEANING.

Last time it was “Hey guys, don’t do that.”  Or in FeministSpeak, “you are all rapists and you are never allowed to find true love by following women into elevators at 3am after they’ve expressly stated they’re going to bed.  Alone.”

This time it’s the slightly more complex “If you fucked someone who couldn’t consent, it was rape.

In FeministSpeak, that’s … well, “If you fucked someone who couldn’t consent, it was rape.”

Difficult concept, I know.

But of course Rebecca was instantly flooded with the wailings and gnashings of teeth of men who insisted that it couldn’t be rape because then how could they ever fuck incapacitated drunk chicks ever again?

Dudes:  it’s these priorities that make feminists super sceptical about putting trust in your entire gender.

If getting your end away is just that important to you – more important than taking half a second to consider the state of the person you’re getting your end away on – then yes, sorry, you’re a fucking rapist.

Let it sink in, feel the bad feelings, and then consider that if you’ve got a history of doing this – and some guys, as you can see on Rebecca’s post, brag about doing this – sure, you feel awful for having fucked up, but there’s another person – or multiple people – out there who were raped by you.

No magical fairy godfeminist is going to appear to reverse time and make that all go away if you @-reply her enough.  So I suggest the best thing you could do – if you’re actually a sincere nice guy who made a mistake – is never fucking do it again.

But you know what, actual Good Dudes out there?  I get the feeling you’re not actually the ones making the fuss.  You’re not the ones crying out at the injustice of having to get someone’s consent before fucking them.  Because you’re not so invested in rape culture, so desperate to propagate ideas which make all those rapes you haven’t committed continue to go unpunished.

What you can do?  Is call this shit out.  Because sadly, it’s going to have a lot more impact coming from a guy.

That’s patriarchy for you.

On falsifying rape charges to take down An Hero

Not even mentioning the name, you all know who I’m talking about.

But I wanted to repeat a comment I made on The Standard:

My question, weka, is why are otherwise-intelligent people sincerely trying to argue that being charged with rape is Totally The Worst Thing Ever?

We all know that very few rapes get reported, even fewer get prosecuted, an infinitesimal number get convictions, and whenever the accused is a celebrity (reference: any rugby played accused of sexual assault EVER) there is in fact the complete oppositeof a negative societal response. Woman’s Weekly covers are practically guaranteed.

Yet we’re meant to believe that the Globalised US Hegemony can’t come up with better shit than rape accusations? At least in Blake’s 7 they had a sufficient understanding of human culture to make it child molestation.

~

Further thoughts:  it’s like people who whinge about “freedom of speech” when what they mean is “freedom from being told your speech is offensive and wrong”.  You sit there thinking, “Hello?  The moderators let through multiple, maybe dozens, of your comments before declaring it was off-topic and derailing.  If they really wanted an echo chamber they’d probably have cut you off from the word go.”

Similarly, here:  the sheer volume of people, including celebrities and mainstream media, who are jumping up to support a person accused of rape … and they don’t see how the widespread support he’s getting is kind of illustrative that rape isn’t the death-knell of celebrity, isn’t a one-way ticket to Gitmo, isn’t actually doing much to harm An Hero’s reputation?

No, clearly it’s the Feminist Hive Mind at work, so powerful we have to, um, keep Rosemary McLeod churning out shitty columns in order to obfuscate our real plans for world domination through rape complaints.

Slutwalk 2012

This weekend sees the second Wellington SlutWalk, which I am attending.

Because there’s still a lot of discussion and questions and concerns around the whole concept of SlutWalk (and probably will be until the vaginocracy perfects its hivemind technology) I want to recap why I support SlutWalk (in general).

It’s because SlutWalk is a big, flagrant middle finger to mainstream, acceptable attitudes which basically dictate all women need to stay indoors dressed in nuns’ habits because damned if we actually care to stop people committing rape.

It’s because SlutWalk is a gateway protest.  I know, far be it for me to preach breaking things to people gently, but the fact is if a group predominantly made up of “respectable” middle-class white women, most from the ever-self-centred Generation Y, stand up and say they aren’t taking some shit, people pay more attention.

What we have to absolutely make sure of is that we don’t stop there and say “oh well, white cis women are OK so let’s go do brunch”.

It’s because SlutWalk makes you feel not-alone in a world constantly invading your head with rape culture and victim blaming.  It lets you know people care.  And within its privileged framing (see below) it sends a hell of a message.

There are large numbers of people in this world who will happily state in the anonymous sewer of Stuff comments that women are like billboards, rape is just men’s way of “reacting” to Hot Chicks, that victims do indeed deserve blaming.  I’m just saying this:  if any of those sad fucks were at last year’s march, I sure didn’t see any of them having the spine to say it to our faces.

It’s because this whole thing kicked off in January 2011 when a Toronto police officer told a group of university students that to avoid being attacked, women shouldn’t “dress like sluts”.

And in May 2012, Whanganui police are saying women shouldn’t walk or jog alone in the CBD.

This shit is not okay.  It’s not actually acceptable.  And when I go to SlutWalk, I and everyone else marching will hopefully be sending a big old message:  we won’t tolerate our police force saying women should live in fear.  We won’t tolerate society excusing violence because the victims dared to live their lives, dress up, have a few drinks, or even stay at home and expect not to be attacked by their friend or partner or ex.

The issues

SlutWalk is by no means perfect.  In the first place, I want to hope that this year we won’t see repeats of that incident.  We won’t see women wearing faux burqa.  We won’t appropriate other struggles just because it’s easier than developing our own language.

Let’s be honest, someone will.  Someone who isn’t thinking about comparative privilege or intersectionality, someone who’s just focused on her own particular types of oppression (oh look, history of white Western feminism coming at ya).  In a way, that’s part of why I want to be there – because the people who are on our side for the wrong reasons need to be educated just as much as the people we’re opposing.

SlutWalk is never going to be able to tackle the totality of sex-policing in our society – not when some groups of women are considered so lowly, so unable to refuse consent, that the word “slut” isn’t really a weapon used against them.  Not when some groups of women are considered unrapeable, and any assault – even murder – committed against them isn’t really seen as a crime.

I do find it ironic, as someone who is so often hardline and unwilling to compromise, that despite all these things I still support the concept of SlutWalk.  But it does feel good to do something, and I do believe it has the potential to start off change which we can spread to other, less-”obvious” (to the privileged) forms of sexual oppression.

More reading:  a 2011 SlutWalk post roundup; my 2011 post on why I attended SlutWalk

On “hurting the movement”

This post comes to your courtesy of thoughts provoked by this post at Shakesville [trigger warning for sexual assault].  But really, I’m surprised it hasn’t occurred to me previously given, well, the reaction to almost every guest post I’ve ever made at The Standard.

Stop being so angry.  You’re hurting the movement.

Stop talking about leftwing men committing sexual harassment/assault.  You’re hurting the movement.

Stop criticising Labour, you’re hurting the movement.

Let’s think about that phrase, hurting the movement.  What do [usually white straight middle-class cis men who happen to be leftwing] mean by “hurting the movement”?

Making the movement look bad?  Scaring people away from the movement?

To refer back to Melissa’s post at Shakesville, I would’ve thought that tolerating, excusing, and ignoring sexual assault hurts the movement in precisely those ways.  It certainly makes the movement look bad.  It certainly scares some people away from the movement.

Oh, wait.  I think I see the problem.

When people talk about making the movement look bad, or scaring people away from the movement, they don’t mean just any old people.

They mean other usually-white middle class hetero cis men who currently aren’t hip to the movement.  They mean outsiders who are just like them, so are people they presume will get on board when they realise how awesomely cool that board is.

They don’t, i.e., mean women.  They extra specifically don’t mean feminists.

And this is where another of my favourite issues comes up: the entitlement complex of the left.

Because the only way this makes sense to me is if those people who are telling feminists to shut up about fucking sexual assault are assuming that they’re safe in doing so.  It’s not like we can stand up and say “well screw you and your thinly-veiled sexism, I’m voting for a party that’s openly misogynist!  Haha!”  It’s not like we’re all going to flip them the bird and refuse to vote at all in their inherently patriarchal set-up-for-men’s-interests system, right?*

So they feel safe saying “shut up about your silly women’s issues”.  Because we have to be on their side.  And gods know that they do have a tiny point in that openness about any issues in the Occupy movement will be instantly leapt upon by the media machine as proof that these protesters are just silly/stupid/ignorant/evil/selfish/dysfunctional/doomed to failure.

But it coincidentally also allows them to go on pretending to be amazing revolutionaries sticking it to The Man without questioning their privilege or deep-seated impulse to defend rape culture.

Myself, I’m a fan of professional wrestling (and True Blood, and the occasional trashy romance novel, and South Park) and a ranty feminist blogger.  I can cope with the notion of actively critiquing the things I hold dear and admitting they’re not perfect. Dare you to give it a go, dudes.

~

*Some radfems probably will/do, but I assume the dudebros don’t tend to read their blogs.

Several interesting things

1.  Jordan Carter and Scott Yorke both post about Trevor Mallard’s historic “Tinkerbell” comments, targeting Stephen Wittington, ACT candidate, and David Farrar, National pollster, for raising said comments following the announcement of Labour’s policy on same-sex adoption.

2. Apparently neither Jordan nor Scott read No Right Turn, which is a shame.  Or it might have just got in the way of the “this is a nasty rightwing plot against us” meme.

3.  Jordan thinks the big issue is that we must be very clear that Trevor Mallard isn’t a homophobe.  He just says homophobic things, which is … better, and also completely different.

4.  Scott thinks the big issue is that National are full of homophobes anyway so stop paying attention to Labour’s.  I am possibly coincidentally reminded of when a few of the secondary school teachers in my family pondered voting National in the early 00s, on the basis that “at least we expect to get fucked over under National”.

Moral of the story?  Firstly, as I said on Jordan’s blog, in a country with NZ’s suicide rate amongst queer youth, I have no time for “but just saying a homophobic thing doesn’t make a person A Homophobe” hair-splitting.

Secondly, when an outspoken, openly gay MP like Grant Robertson is reduced to saying of a senior MP, and of a homophobic attack against one of his colleagues, “It’s a silly statement“, when you’ve already had another MP’s homophobia defended because Oh Well Those West Coast Rednecks Will Like It, when it takes two fucking years for someone to admit calling a gay man “Tinkerbell” was “probably unfortunate” but oh, oh, he’s totally not homophobic?  I feel quite happy assuming Labour has a serious problem with homophobia.

Alternatively, I suppose one could argue that it’s just a context-free political ploy to unsettle Finlayson, they would’ve called him Four-Eyes if he weren’t gay … but if you’re seriously happy with your political party playing off other people’s homophobia and a culture of queer-bashing for their own gain and still want to defend them, hey, you go right ahead, I’ll be over here with the people who have basic ethics.

And yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees, Scott, National are probably 1,367 times as homophobic as Labour so why am I trying to destroy the Left again???????  But you know what, when it comes to the left, I expect more.

Not that difficult, really

Been in a bit of a slump recently.  In the meantime, enjoy these simple Tips for Elevator Use from Hoyden About Town – just in case “have some basic awareness of the rape-excusing culture you live in and the fact that the women around you have to live in constant awareness of Schroedinger’s Rapist” is too difficult.

Now, you are on the elevator together. Just the two of you. So, you stand there and watch the numbers together. The elevator stops, and one or both of you gets out, someone else gets in, or it’s one of those annoying stops where nobody is there and no one has hit the button for that floor. You may share a ‘huh, elevators what you going to do’ glance with each other. You may not. If you try this and she doesn’t respond, don’t be concerned. Maybe she’s not in the mood, maybe she’s thinking about the meeting she has to go to. Maybe she’s wondering if she should try the new sandwich place for lunch. Maybe she is tired and looking forward to getting some sleep. Maybe she doesn’t want to talk to strangers in the elevator. Maybe it has nothing to do with you at all.

A wee note from me to the dudes who are having a bit of a whinge about having to constantly bear in mind that they might be making someone else feel nervous or unsafe:  welcome the fuck to our world, guys. Kinda sucks, don’t it (and you don’t even have to worry that the consequences of dropping your guard are getting raped)?  How ’bout you start doing something about it instead of complaining that finally you have to face the consequences of the rape culture you seem so desperate to defend?

More on Elevatorgate from tigtog here and here, and a good analogy from Greg Laden here if you seek either understanding or an excuse to derail into how-dare-you-call-men-dogs trollery. (One must merely note that no one seems to object when the men/dogs comparison is being used to let members of your gender get away with rape.)

~

Statement of obvious:  not all victims of sexual assault are women; not all sexual attackers are men.  But ain’t it bizarre how the vast majority of people saying “Word” to Rebecca Watson are women, and the vast, vast majority of people saying “STFU cray-cray feminists, y do u h8 tru luv???” are men?  Gosh, you don’t think there could be some kind of, um, shared-experience-vs-deliberate-ignorance-of-privilege thing going on here, do you?

I read so you don’t have to: SlutWalk comments on Stuff

Deborah has an article in the DomPost about SlutWalk.

But what is wrong with enjoying sex, and sexuality, and with seeking out opportunities to have sex? A man who enjoys sex and signals his interest in having sex is called a stud. He’s a player, but she’s a tramp. He’s a Don Juan, but she’s a loose woman. It’s an old double standard, and it’s time we got rid of it. Women shouldn’t be shamed for enjoying sex and sexuality. Like “stud”, the word “slut” should be said with pride.

As Julie commented at The Hand Mirror,

DON’T READ THE COMMENTS

Which are words well deserving of their capitals.  But if you want the edited highlights, I have invoked the protection of a few beers and thus present the following Wisdom from Stuff Commenters, or, How I Learnt to Stop Worrying And Love Reactionary Douchebaggery Which Makes No Sense.

To wit:

[trigger warnings in place for rape apologism and mansplaining]

  • women are billboards, and “if you put a billboard up you expect folk to look at it” (and we all know men are genetically hardwired to rape billboards)
  • it’s not going to achieve anything and you should do real work against rape, you know, not something so meaningless as loudly and publicly declaring en masse that victim blaming is wrong
  • women encourage rape by posting sexy pictures on their Facebook and friending their cousins
  • by writing about SlutWalk and her own relationship, Deborah is actually just saying “haha, sucks to be you, rape victims” [no, seriously, that's their argument]
  • awesome new euphemism for sex work: “the unwanted profession”
  • if we end rape then no man will find us attractive again because we’re trying to stop them “reacting” to us
  • inevitable car theft metaphor
  • inevitable “vagina is like waving around a wallet full of cash” metaphor
  • blaming the victim is wrong but sometimes it’s their fault

Dear readers, truly I have learnt a valuable lesson this day.  Unfortunately I just can’t let my bitchingly awesome signs go to waste so see y’all at SlutWalk Wellington!

Fuck rugby culture

[TW domestic abuse and rugby violence apologism]

My, has it really been 3 years since I last wrote about our fucking sick misogynist boys-will-be-boys violence-excusing rugby culture?

This time it’s Shaun Metcalf, whose soulful puppy-dog eyes probably helped him get his “second chance” at being on the Warriors team after a tragic mistake, an exuberance of youth, and terrible accident …

Oh wait, no.

In 2004 Shaun Metcalf was 16 and fucking a 15-year-old girl – possibly cheating on his “long-time partner” with whom he now has six-year-old twins – and when said 15-year old girl got pregnant, he and his mates responded really poorly, by, oh what was it?

LURING HER TO A FUCKING PARK IN ORDER TO KICK HER IN THE STOMACH IN ORDER TO INDUCE A MISCARRIAGE.

Just, you know, average adolescent shit, boys-will-be-boys stuff.

But it’s okay, because let’s all forget Young Men Being Fucking Thugs Apologism 101:  “Let’s not let this terrible deliberate calculated assault mistake ruin a young man’s life!”

Cue everyone’s favourite “oh but they’re boys so they’re different” quote machine, Celia Lashlie!

‘We can all get caught up in the emotional image of young men booting a young woman in the stomach to cause her to abort her baby, but these were two young people … she got pregnant, he was way out of his depth, and he did a really cruel and dumb thing.

”He was caught in the moment, and what he did was the equivalent of a young man putting a noose around his neck because his girlfriend tossed him out. He has to be allowed to move forward and put his life together, and I think the ability of the NRL and the Warriors to take this young man in and help him do that is role modelling and something they should get credit for.”

WHERE DOES ONE FUCKING BEGIN.

“She” didn’t fucking get pregnant on her own, Celia, and it’s really awesome how your shitty sloppy language manages to buy into all kinds of tropes about evil bitches ruining men’s lives by having evil functioning uteri.

“Cruel and dumb”?  That’s one way of putting luring a woman into a situation so you and two of your mates can stomp on her stomach.

“Caught in the moment”?  Pretty long fucking moment, Celia, what with the calculated decision and the gathering of the bash-buddies and the luring of the victim and the stomping on her stomach in an assault specifically designed to induce miscarriage.

“Equivalent” of what the fuck now, Celia?  Shaun Metcalf didn’t try to commit fucking suicide, he deliberately set out to cause internal injuries to a woman he’d chosen to stick his dick into.

But hey, enough about Celia Lashlie’s blatant victim-blaming and abuse-apologism.

Because the fucking cherry on top is of course fucking rugby culture and our wonderful fucking wilful ignorance about the obvious fucking paradoxes involved.

NZRL chairman Selwyn Pearson said ”…What he did was disgusting and abhorrent but you don’t get life for murder, and I consulted a lot of experts who all said that the best thing for the boy in terms of his rehabilitation was to get back into sport.”

Point 1, Selwyn-of-the-vomitous-comments-which-I-haven’t-quoted-because-there-is-not-enough-fuck-in-the-world:  He’s not a fucking “boy”.  He’s 23.

Point 2.  Yeah, it’ll be fucking awesome for Shaun Metcalf to get “rehabilitated” by thugby culture.  He’ll apparently be surrounded by people who know that spousal abuse doesn’t have consequences for All Blacks, and rape charges are a great Women’s Day opportunity, and teaming up with your mates to violate a vulnerable woman is practically part of the job description, and will eternally be excused because “well she shouldn’t have …”

Gosh.  I can’t think why people might not be pleased to have this hero-worshipping bullshit crammed down kids’ throats

Hat tip to The Fundy Post; also covered by Sophia at In The Gateaux.

~

First antichoicer to imply it’s illogical for me to be outraged by assault against a pregnant woman because I’m prochoice is invited to suck it.  The rest of you can fuck right off.

Yes, Gordon Campbell, you’re a rape apologist

Gordon Campbell has made his third post in a row in which he treats the accusations against Julian Assange, and his own journalism!fail, so seriously they’re the second item in the column.

After explaining that his “comments policy” boils down to “I don’t have to engage with my audience, now I’ve made my declarations from on high you are permitted to talk amongst yourselves”, Campbell has a go at me.  Without being so open as to just name names, then people might actually look me up and see both sides of the story, which I understand is the most important thing in the world to him under other circumstances.

But since there’s still some apparent confusion, let me explain why Gordon Campbell is, indeed, a rape apologist.

From the most recent post:

I do not, and have not, absolved or condemned Assange’s personal conduct.

Gordon, you’re a rape apologist because you equate “accurately stating what the charges against Assange are” with “believing the charges against Assange”.  You’re a rape apologist because you are contributing to the narrative that says people who say they want Assange held to account in a court of law must actually be “assuming” he’s guilty – and therefore, obviously, are not worth listening to.

You’re also a rape apologist because you refuse to address the fact that his personal conduct involves not simply denying the charges and waiting for trial, but employing lawyers who have outright lied about the charges and allegations and continually fed into rape culture with their statements about the accusers.

In the second Wikileaks article, I repeated the gist of the accusations against Assange, and put them alongside the gist of his initial response in court to them. It was an attempt at balance, not to absolve the left’s golden boy of the hour.

You’re a rape apologist because you continue to pretend that the answer to “you have printed misinformation about the case” is “okay that bit was maybe kinda wrong but here’s their side of the story!”

You’re a rape apologist because you’re acting like accurate reporting of the accusers’ statements – not agreeing, not supporting, just stating what they have said and what the charges are – needs to be “balanced” by Assange’s [lying] lawyers’ statement.

Guess what, Gordon.  If the Herald prints that Remmers McFlorist won the Ellerslie Flower Show, and someone points out that actually, Flowers McArrangement won the Ellerslie Flower Show, it would be a bit fucking douchey if the Herald then printed, “Okay, okay, so we printed the wrong name, but here’s 500 words from Remmers McFlorist on why she SHOULD have won!”

That’s not balance, Gordon.  And Assange’s rebuttal is not actually relevant to you correcting and apologising for your misinformation – misinformation which was weeks out of date.  You’re a rape apologist because you have taken the lies of a “golden boy’s” lawyers at absolute face value over the statements of women You’re a rape apologist because you instantly believed that unprotected sex is a crime in Sweden (those silly liberals, eh?) and thus the charges must just be nothing that Real Countries would prosecute.*

From the second post:

I think Bianca Jagger’s piece in the Huffington Post explains why doubts exist about the sturdiness of the case against Assange …:

It is widely known that the complainants first approached the police because they wanted assistance in securing an STD test. Initially, there was no mention of pressing charges of rape, coercion or molestation. How did this escalate from a request for a test to an investigation of a criminal nature? Who made this decision? After considering the evidence, Eva Finne, a female Chief Prosecutor chose to dismiss the charges. The case was then taken up by a politician who was facing re-election and whose motive may be questionable. The matter was taken to a prosecutor in a different city where none of the events had taken place. Why was this done? Was any pressure brought to bear? These are the questions a truly committed investigative journalist should be asking.

Gordon, you’re a rape apologist because you uncritically post comments which criticise rape victims for not behaving the way they “should”.  You’re a rape apologist for posting comments which imply that the cases must be silly if a women lawyer dropped the charges initially.

Below that, you’re a rape apologist for posting the “gist” of the charges against Assange … a “gist” which just happens to omit that whole “tearing off somebody’s clothes”, “holding somebody down” aspect.  Funny how the charges, which you misreported, get given the “gist” treatment while the lying lawyers’ statement bullet points get the full “can I hold your coat while you take the stage, sir” rub-down.

Back to the latest post.

What I’ve said all along is that Assange’s personal conduct shouldn’t determine, one way or the other, how the revelations by Wikileaks are judged.

Gordon, you’re a rape apologist because you’re the one who keeps bringing up Wikileaks.  You’re the one who keeps waving the Wikileaks flag and you’re certainly fucking smart enough to know that waving that flag just keeps everyone conscious of the fact that Julian Assange is linked to Wikileaks, and Wikileaks is awesome, and the Powers That Be hate Wikileaks, and so we have to take accusations of rape with a grain of progressive dudebro-brand salt because HEY, WIKILEAKS!  DID I MENTION WIKILEAKS YET?

If you want the charges against Assange and the work of Wikileaks to be treated separately, maybe you could stop fucking playing the Wikileaks Is Important card every fucking time you are asked to report ethically on the charges against Assange.

You know what would be awesome and bold and courageous, Gordon?  If you had stood by your premise from the start:

Assange’s alleged sexual misconduct has managed to divert some media attention away from the content of the cables. The two things are – or should be – unconnected.

Who keeps connecting them, Gordon?  I’ll give you a clue:  it’s not the feminists who want rape charges treated seriously.  It could, you know, be Assange himself who wants to constantly remind us (when not playing the I Can’t Help It If I’m A Rocking Stud line) that there are powerful forces against him and that “CIA honeypot” is a real conspiracy-theory-tickler of a line.

But don’t think he’s done, people.

Yet at this point, Assange has to be presumed innocent until proven guilty of the charges against him.

Gordon, you’re a rape apologist because you have just busted out Rape Apologism Maxim the First.  Guess fucking what?  That’s a principle applicable to justice systems.  Is my blog a justice system?  Is media reporting a subset of the justice system?  And hang on, at what fucking point is accurate reporting of the nature of the charges tantamount to assuming guilt?  At what fucking point have I said “you have to assume he’s guilty”?  OH THAT’S RIGHT, NEVER.

We claim to want the same thing here, Gordon.  We claim to want to see these charges answered in court.  But because you’re a fucking rape apologist you aren’t waiting until the charges are answered in court, you are making statements right now that the charges are silly, the women didn’t act the way they should have, HAVE I MENTIONED WIKILEAKS IS IMPORTANT AND IMPLIED THAT THIS IS A CIA HONEYTRAP YET???

The Guardian’s actions in releasing part of the Swedish prosecutor’s file against him was – I thought – an injustice.

You’re a rape apologist, Gordon, because you think an “injustice” is having the facts of the case published AFTER Assange’s lawyers have lied about them, AFTER Assange’s lawyers have lied about the entire Swedish legal system, AFTER the accusers have been not only named but had their photos and addresses publicised and been FORCED INTO HIDING.

But sure, what the Guardian did was the “injustice” here (now you’ve gotten around to reading it).

I found it interesting that one commenter portrayed me as part of a gendered tendency to minimize women’s experience and testimony in sexual complaints, while also denigrating me for linking to Bianca Jagger

Don’t worry, Gordon, this one isn’t about you being a rape apologist.  This is about how you’re a misogynist douchebag for acting like quoting Bianca Jagger magically absolves you of your significant contributions to rape apologism.  You’re a misogynist douchebag for going on to say naming the accusers mustn’t be that bad because hey, these Famous Feminists totally did it – failing to mention that one had retracted those names until after the quote, which was even better for your argument what with it boiling down to “everyone else did it so I did it too”.  But as a bonus, you and Bianca Jagger are both rape apologists for pretending that criminal cases can never be re-opened unless Dark Forces Are At Work.

Then it’s a fine finish with a lather/rinse/repeat of “we can’t assume his guilt” [CITATION NEEDED] and a wonderfully oblivious expression of male privilege:

Personally, I do find it depressing that so much energy has been spent on Assange’s actions in bed and so relatively little on the morality exposed in the Wikileaks cable

WHY AREN’T THE WIMMINZ INTERESTED IN REEEEEEEAL ISSUES??  Oh, and Gordon?  You’re a rape apologist for spending so much time pretending to care, so much time claiming it was about balance and fairness and did you mention Wikileaks … and then you fucking write off rape allegations as “Assange’s actions in bed”.

Gordon, you’re a rape apologist because you continue to make excuses for the fact that you spread misinformation.  You’re a rape apologist because you pretend that factual reporting of charges requires a critique-free rebuttal.  You’re a rape apologist because you have continued to downplay the charges and continued to privilege Assange’s side of the story.  You’re a rape apologist because you have on multiple occasions, contributed to a culture which denigrates rape victims and treats rape as far less serious than other crimes.

You’re a rape apologist because every single thing you have said over three columns is straight out of the rape apologism playbook.

I can’t think why Polanski-defenders came to mind in light of all that.

~

*Protip, Gordon:  most countries are pretty shit at even prosecuting “real” rape cases.

Many links sourced from megpie’s excellent round-up.