Tagged: feminists

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.

Tired old misogyny in the House

Forever and ever, until the ozone layer disappears and the oceans evaporate and the mountains crumble into dust, the following shall be recorded in the history of New Zealand’s Parliament:

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have been fortunate in the last hour to have been in my office with the Miss Universe New Zealand contestants. They are in the gallery, and I think this House would like to acknowledge them being here today

Oh ho ho, how droll.  But it gets puke-inciting when you see how the Speaker of the House, the dude charged with keeping order and seriousness and dignity among our elected representatives, responds:

I am not sure how that is a point of order, but either way it seems a very pleasant visitation for the House to have. I think I recognise the Wellington representative among them—a good surf lifesaver.

Naughty Maurice, says Lockwood.  Stop playing up in class!  Still, totes jealous, amirite?

Green MP Jan Logie, a frontrunner for an eternal place in my heart as a bolshy badass, decided that what was good for the sexist gander must be good for the goose:

I have been fortunate in the last hour to be in my office with the feminists of the year contestants. They are in the gallery, and I think this House would like the opportunity today to acknowledge them.

Lockwood was clearly in less of a good mood for this one:

Could I perhaps suggest to the House that, rather than see this practice continue indefinitely, where members do wish to acknowledge visitors in the gallery, perhaps the appropriate way to do it would be to seek the leave of the House. All members know they are not meant to refer to visitors in the gallery. …

Right, let’s break that one down:  it was OK, nay funny, for one person to do it [when hot chicks were involved], but when two people have done it [and the hot chicks have left] suddenly it’s “going on indefinitely”.

And all members know that they shouldn’t do this, but Jan Logie, first-term MP who might be a little shaky on the procedural side of things, gets the scolding – and Maurice Williamson, in Parliament since Adam and Eve 1987* gets no such reminder – instead the Speaker just expresses “confusion” as to “whether” Williamson’s blatant “look at me, I’m the manly man” showboating counts as a point of order (I’m guessing not, but I’m not the one in fancy robes here).

I want to be sympathetic to Lockwood, here.  Obviously you don’t want this kind of thing getting out of hand.  Maybe he’s even embarrassed that he acted like such a pathetic, desperate juvenile, making a sly little comment about “pleasant visitations”, and now someone – damn us stroppy feminists – has dared to call him on that shit.

It’s like being the teacher who doesn’t want to be constantly telling the kids off all the time.  You let a little thing through – and in this case, it’s one of your own cohort doing the pranking and all the social narratives are lining up to say it’s cool – and then suddenly the classroom is rioting, and you know it’s kind of your fault, and you end up sending the smart kid who was rightfully pointing out your mistake to detention.  While the original kid just gets to keep going through life saying “Yeah, I hung out with hot chicks and even Mr Smith totally said I was cool.”

But Lockwood isn’t a spring chicken either.  He’s the Speaker of the House.  He brought it into disrepute and he opened the door to Jan Logie’s counteraction by being a sexist wanker.  Sad, man.

~

A sidenote:  this isn’t about the inherent sexism of Miss Universe and it isn’t an attack on the contestants.  The fact is, treating those contestants like pieces of meat to bolster Williamson’s ego, and Smith going along with it to prove he’s One Of The Blokes, is shitty, cheapening to our Parliament, and misogynist.

~

*People born nine years after he was first elected can vote next election.  Just saying.

Recommended reading: Pregnant While Feminist

Wundergeek, formerly of Go Make Me A Sandwich (the archives of which I recommend for some fantastic geek-misogyny sporking) is blogging her pregnancy, and how it affects or is affected by her feminism.

Last week I finally announced to all my friends that I was pregnant at a large party. A male friend congratulated me, then observed that I’d now get to deal with people judging me about every decision I make through the rest of my pregnancy and beyond.

And it was true! So true! Within about twenty minutes of telling my co-workers (previous to the party), one of them scolded me quite harshly when I confessed that I’m not sure I want to be pregnant again after this pregnancy, since it’s been a rough first trimester. “DON’T YOU DARE,” she told me, and then proceeded to lecture me about how awful it is to be an only child. Even at the party, people made comments casually assuming what decisions I would be making regarding the baby like “but you’ll be breast-feeding by then” or “you’ll still be home with the baby at that point”.

What is it about being pregnant that strips away your autonomy to make decisions about your baby’s future? Seriously, people. I almost wanted to start a blog right there and then so I could write about how messed up that is.

Check out more of her stuff at Pregnant While Feminist.

I’d thank the Academy except they are overly politicised and keep giving awards to boring films

I may be a bit of a monster truck, and I may be a shrieking harpy, and I may be an utter, utter bitch.  But I have some fucking wonderful folk in my bloglife and I’d like to just give them a shout-out or two.

Thank you to Octavia and Megan and Boganette and Steph and Robot Pie and – whoever obvious I probably missed out – for being a rocking coven of feministy awesomeness and the best drinking buddies a TOFO dress can buy.

Thank you to Lew, for occasionally doing this brilliant thing where he leverages being a Serious Man Blogger into an Anti-Tone-Argument Shield* in my defence.

Thank you to McFlock, whom I don’t know from a bar of soap but would happily buy a DB, or a real drink if that’s what floated McFlock’s boat.  (Aaaand now I have “how many boats could a McFlock float if a McFlock could float boats” stuck in my head.  Hopefully y’all do, too.)

A late 8am contender:  thank you, thank you, thank you to Idiot/Savant, for having a memory like a steel trap and like Lew using his Serious Male Voice to support the cause.

Thank you all, peeps.  From the bottom of my loud ranty fuck-saying heart.

~

+4 AC bonus, -10 comment check penalty, 50% chance of misogynist derail failure

Behold, OCTAVIA

On a more chipper note, I must highly commend a most excellent addition to the Kiwifemiblogosphere, my good meatspace friend Octavia, whose delightful missives may be acquired for a modest sum of time and bandwidth at Octavia’s Spitfire Emporium.

This charming blog makes an elegant addition to any boudoir blogroll, especially those sadly lacking in items sporting a fine “John Key is an arsehole” tag.

In honour of this most momentous event I present a brief glimpse through the veils of time into the far future, when the pair of us have become fucking amazing old biddies.

This is what this feminist looks like

[Author’s note: this post was originally drafted two days ago.  Since then similar topics have been explored by Deborah and Maia has posted further on her thoughts on this issue.]

You know, I think Maia had one tiny point in amongst the letting us all know that blogging about cupcakes is Diluting The Great Feminist Message.

Posting something frivolous to a feminist group or blog does imply/assume that thing is feminist or should be treated as a feminist issue.

Where we disagree* is that she thinks that means we have to explain why that thing is explicitly feminist or refrain from posting it.  And I think the very fact of a thing being discussed on a feminist blog puts it in a feminist or wider progressive context.

So just what is a feminist issue?

Are silly boutique clothing stores which cut clothes to fit bigger-busted women a feminist issue?

Of course they fucking are because we live in a patriarchy that demands conformity to an incredibly narrow set of standards of beauty.  The fit and fashionableness of clothes have implications for women’s lives from the ability to meet professional or corporate wardrobe standards to being able to feel comfortable in their bodies to presenting a challenge to those beauty standards by the merest fact of being a non-standard body shape wearing edgy, new, well-fitting or fashionable clothes in public.

Are “aesthetics” a feminist issue?

An alternative title for this post was “Because wearing lipstick can be a feminist act”.  I just said it a paragraph above:  beauty standards.  Daring to be visible in public.  Add to that gender performativity and people’s choice to challenge norms or desire to blend in to make their lives that little bit easier if they need/want to.  Add to that the entire area of human attraction and romance and celebrity crushes or appreciation of the physical form and our ability to challenge those things without scrapping the notion of finding other human beings fucking hot.

Are cupcakes and knitting feminist issues?

Obviously not, I mean, duh, there’s no room for reclamation of traditionally “feminine” roles and crafts.  No space for a discussion of the pressures of modern life depriving people of time to really engage with the food they eat or maintain old customs or challenge that big evil capitalist system by taking charge of the means of production even in small home-cooking cottage-industry ways.  We definitely don’t want to break down orthorexic messages about “bad foods” and we definitely shouldn’t prop up our mental health and self-esteem defences against the constant criticism of patriarchy by taking pride in creating things.

But what if we don’t spell out why these things are feminist issues?

Plenty of conversations about cupcakes or clothing stores don’t actually involve posts saying “I have baked cupcakes in accordance with my personal desire to bake uninfluenced by notions of proper women’s roles, for a bake sale at my children-who-have-my-surname’s school because my male life-partner was too tired after a hard day’s respecting my reproductive choices.”

Do we seriously fucking have to?**

I am a staunch fucking warrior for the feminist cause, people.  I will rant at the drop of a hat or the merest sighting of a Cosmo cover, I will march, I will campaign.  But sometimes I have to take a break.  Sometimes people who work even harder than me, like Sady Fucking Doyle, need to take a break, and build up our reserves of stamina and anger in order to continue the fight and not burn out.

Sometimes I just want to have a fucking glass of cider with some friends, and talk shit about baking and weddings, and it’s really fucking awesome to be able to do that in a group where I am guaranteed not to encounter casual racism or homophobia or transphobia or classism or any other gratuitous exercise of privilege.  It’s really fucking awesome to know I could post on a forum about hating fucking Valentine’s Day and not run the stellarly high risk of having someone fucking bingo me with “oh but you’ll feel different when you’re in a relationship” or “oh you just need to drop your man and find one who’ll treat you right.”***

And I can imagine someone coming across Emma’s, and thinking “who can I share this with without getting a dozen “oh I had that problem but then I tried X diet” or “tee hee I’m so lucky I can just buy straight off the rack at Glassons” or “do you ever try wearing your bra as a hat?”**** responses?”

And maybe they just fucking thought hey, this group of women who I know are all in Wellington and who I can probably assume will all have some understanding of basic feminist critiques of beauty standards and the fashion industry will totally want to know that there are other patriarchy-busting resources out there for those of them with this particular problem.

But fuck, I guess they just weren’t being real feminists.

~

*And oh my god can you BELIEVE that we might be able to disagree without me declaring Maia has lost 10 Feminist House Points?

**Statement of the fucking obvious:  some places have narrow commenting policies.  Some places explicitly spell out what qualifies as on- or off-topic.  The owners of those places get to make those calls and as always, it’s fucking rude for anyone to declare that those policies must be changed because all feminist conversation must follow a, b, c rules.  Which is why I’m a lot less cussy elsewhere and anyone trying to rehash fucking over-cooked topics is getting no linguistic mercy.

***True story.

****Also true story.

Why, what do YOU think they “should” look like?

BackgroundBackground 2.  Background 3.

Things this post is not actually about:

  • Maia’s “tone” or “the way she brought this up”
  • Cupcakes
  • Deep meaningful conversations about “what constitutes feminism”
  • Hating your freedoms

… which is not to rule out any of those things as automatically unimportant or “off the table” or taboo.

This is about:

  1. A group which calls itself “feminist” is formed
  2. A post is made to said group about a shop catering to a non-standard body type
  3. A feminist blogger says such posts should not be made because they’re unfeminist, or that such posts have to be phrased in a way she likes, or that the moderators of the page have to justify why it’s feminist because being posted to a feminist group means it must be relevant to feminism

And I think point 3 is a bit shit, for a lot of reasons, and none of them are those bog-standard derailments about “refusing to take criticism” or “taking things personally” or “misrepresenting what Maia said”.

Because I think point 3 sums up what she said pretty well, given that what she said was:

things which I would normally just be ‘eh’ about really agitate me when they’re done in the name of feminism

posting anything to a feed of a feminist group is to promote that post as a feminist act …

promoting any particular sized or shaped [body/clothing fitting] is problematic from a feminist perspective

the way clothes are produced in [NZ] is absolutely the opposite of everything I think feminism stands for

I object to … promoting clothes shopping (particularly at a specific shop) as something that is going to appeal to a group of women who have nothing in common other than they’re young feminists

To me a core part of that responsibility [as a contributor in a feminist space] is to never suggest that liking the things I happen to like is part of being feminist

material presented on the feed should be explicitly feminist…

I think this is a real danger … that women can feel that they can’t be a feminist because they don’t look a certain way and aren’t interested in certain things. And I think the easiest way to avoid that is to make aesthetic/lifestyle/survival choices off the table for feminist discussion. In order to create an environment where anyone feels like they can be feminist it needs to be as unacceptable to promote a particular way of say dressing as to diss a particular way of dressing…

I’m anti feminism being linked with a single aesthetic…

I think I’ve articulated in quite some detail why I think having material which isn’t explicitly feminist in feminist spaces is alienating. Particularly in feminist spaces that present themselves as generally as “The [not even 'a'] Wellington Feminist Collective.”…

I think feminists should orient themselves critically towards those businesses for the reasons I listed…

I think it’s inappropriate for Coley to post it without explicitly making clear why because she is promoting one particular, inaccessible, aesthetic/lifestyle/Survival strategy as feminist, which I think is alienating…

And while I don’t think I did make a demand of the WYFC – I don’t think there’s anything wrong with me doing so. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with making demands with institutions/organisations that you’re supposed to be allied with. In fact, I think it’s an important part of building a social movement.

As to who I am? I’m a feminist who has thought about feminism and is prepared to defend her opinions. I think that gives me a right to talk about what feminism is and isn’t. I think that’s all any of us needs. And I think talking about what feminism is and isn’t is really important…

Issue:  “promoting a single aesthetic”

As I said at THM, one post about one shop on a page covered in posts about abortion and misogynist radio contests and debunking stereotypes about Muslim feminists does not “promotion of a single aesthetic” make.  I get body issues.  I get being fat.  I get that sinking sense of disappointment when even stores which are advertised as catering to different body shapes invariably do not carry anything near my size.  And I saw the post about Emma’s on WYFC and thought “bet she doesn’t go to a size 18”.

But that hardly fucking invalidates the fact that being a fattie who can’t shop at Glassons is hardly the only form of body-policing or body-discrimination in the world and sometimes the size 12 girls with the E cups might like to know where to find dresses that fucking fit.  And those girls are going to totally get feminist critiques of fashion and narrow beauty standards.  And until every second post on the page is “oh hai here’s another resource explicitly aimed only at straight-sized busty girls” it’s fucking ludicrous to act like this one post represents the WYFC endorsing a single acceptable body shape.

Issue:  “get a Marxist analysis or go home”

I think a lot of Marxist feminist analysis is fucking awesome.  I’ve been pretty clear about that. But anyone who’s literally going to say that women can’t plug local businesses [at least without a laboured disclaimer about the evils of capitalism] because all business is capitalist and therefore evil can fuck right off.

We live in a capitalist society, we need fucking clothes, and as a fattie who herself and whose many non-standard-body-type friends have a lot of fucking difficulty finding clothes that fit I am actually not willing to self-flagellate because finally being able to buy cute dresses for only-slightly-above-“straight”-size-prices is Buying Into Corporate Doom.

Also?  When you’re having a go at something for not explicitly nailing down what “feminism” is defined as, and you’re also saying “it has to be this and this and this and phrased like this and tick all these boxes”, don’t get fucking precious when people tell you you’ve appointed yourself Lady High Mistress of Feminist Lines in The Sand, because you just really did.

Issue:  “well this affected me so your argument is invalid”

Do I have a problem with people raising issues that have affected them?  No.  Do I think there’s a big fucking difference between “this affected me and here’s why and let’s discuss that” and “this affected me so it should never ever happen against because you’re not real feminists”?  Yes.  See above.

Issue:  “but THE!  And R18 VENUES!”

Do I have a problem with disagreement and debate?  No.  Do I think there’s a big fucking difference between “let’s look at why this post is here and what I find problematic about it” and “let’s look at this post and also I want to explicitly say I’m not a member of this group I’m critiquing and also your name is a lie and also your choice of launch venue is discriminatory*”?  Just a tiny bit.

Time for a high school analogy, because I feel pretty safe assuming we’ve all been there.

This:

“Regina, I think that thing you said was mean because you reduced Lindsay Lohan’s character down to her country of origin.”

Is “raising something you found problematic”.

This:

“Regina, I think that thing you said, while wearing those totally out-of-style trainers, was mean, and while I’m pointing that out can we also remember that you stole my trike in kindergarten you bitch?”

Is being vindictive and petty and nasty and refusing to just engage with the topic at hand … which hilariously is what Maia keeps accusing her detractors of.

Issue:  “everything posted to the Collective page MUST be explicitly feminist!”

This is a biggie for me.  For now?  Let’s look at those above points where it’s pretty obvious that “feminist” here means “MY kind of feminism which can only discuss things I am comfortable with and MUST involve analysis from THIS point of view”.

That’s not discussion, it’s not a conversation.  It’s an ultimatum from a person who doesn’t even go here,** about how a group she isn’t even involved in*** has to be operated to pass her magical test of feministness or she won’t let them call themselves feminist.

As the sweet old lady said to the Mormons, well in that case you can fuck right off.

But there’s a lot more that’s problematic with that statement and that’s going to have to wait for another post.

And finally some comments on the comments to hopefully avoid the same wank-circle that has devoured the THM post on this.

Issue:  “waaaa why can’t feminists all be cuddly hug-buddies waaaaa”

Because obviously feminists do disagree.  And that’s fine.  But as already established, this isn’t about disagreeing and discussing things, this is about one person declaring that feminism has to be done a specific way or she’ll take away our feminist badges and let everyone know we love Sarah Palin.  (No, seriously, that’s the “logical” conclusion drawn.)

Issue:  “you just hate Maia and think everything she says is wrong”

Nope.  I just think it’s fucking horrible to attack an entire group because one post is Doing Feminism Wrong and You Get To Decide That.  Like I just said.

~

*From the Facebook thread

**For some reason this issue is hitting ALL the Mean Girls buttons.

***Oh but she’s seriously excited, honest, she thinks you guys are just the best even if you are wrong and alienating and evil and kicked her dog.

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.

Aw, shucks

Never let it be said I’ll ignore a good meme (or praise, either!). I’ve been tagged by Deborah (and others) at The Hand Mirror, and darnit if that doesn’t make me go *squee* inside, because I bloody love THM.

The Rules!

1. Put the logo on your blog.
2. Add a link to the person who awarded it to you.
3. Nominate at least 7 other blogs.
4. Add links to these blogs on your blog.
5. Leave a message for your nominee on their blog.

The nominations for Blogs QoT Likes are:

feminism + fandom = attitude problem – the blog of Bene Gesserit Witch; when I hit the post Where Women Have Gone Before I knew it was true love.

Fetch me my axe – belledame222 rocks my world.

Fuck Politeness – angry Aussie feminist/political rants, and I can’t get enough of the series on the Sydney Morning Herald‘s continuing quest to constantly sexualise athletes.

Questioning Transphobia – it’s all in the name, and I do not know what I did before finding Lisa’s awesome work.

Renegade Evolution – the God Emperor of Rome, sometimes Not Safe For Work but always kickin’ ass and taking names.

And just to fulfil my requisite Geek Quota:

Girls Read Comics (And They’re Pissed) – Feminist critiquing of comics (and related fandom), written by a Kiwi! What’s not to love?

Great White Snark – Okay, I admit, I just love the cakes tag.