antifeminism evil women misogyny MRA rape Uncategorized

>When you assume about Assange, you make an ass of you and me


The rape charges against Julian Assange have inspired a massive flareup of pure bushittery on the net, amongst Men’s Rights troglodytes and liberal bloggers alike, vilifying the accusers and dismissing their charges as politically motivated revenge schemes. The gist of it all: the charges are false, and it wasn’t even real rape, and the women charging him are evil feminist harpies and might be working for the CIA.

And, as Kate Harding points out in a Salon piece that is the best thing anyone has written about any of this so far, all this speculation is based on … a whole lot of nothing. We don’t know the specifics of the accusations, and much of what little we do know of the case comes second-hand from tabloids and other unreliable sources. One thing is clear: the few new details released today indicate that he’s being charged with real rape all right, so let’s move on from all the indignant and uninformed talk about “sex by surprise.” (Feministe has the only really intelligent discussion of the “surprise” issue I’ve seen.)

Harding sums it up:

The fact is, we just don’t know anything right now. Assange may be a rapist, or he may not. His accuser may be a spy or a liar or the heir to Valerie Solanas, or she might be a sexual assault victim who now also gets to enjoy having her name dragged through the mud, or all of the above. The charges against Assange may be retaliation for Cablegate or (cough) they may not.

Public evidence, as The Times noted, is scarce. So, it’s heartening to see that in the absence of same, my fellow liberal bloggers are so eager to abandon any pretense of healthy skepticism and rush to discredit an alleged rape victim based on some tabloid articles and a feverish post by someone who is perhaps not the most trustworthy source. Well done, friends! What a fantastic show of research, critical thinking and, as always, respect for women.

So let me make a radical proposal: Until we actually know shit about what really happened, let’s suspend our judgment about Assange’s guilt or innocence. Liberals want to support Assange because, you know, he’s fighting the power and shit. (Even Naomi Wolf has joined the pro-Assange chorus.) But the fact is, sometimes politically admirable people do bad shit to women. Men’s Rightsers want to vilify the accusers because the primary accuser is a feminist. But the fact that someone is a feminist doesn’t mean that she can’t get raped.

The low point of the Men’s Rights discussion of the case so far is probably this blog post by ScareCrow, who took a few moments from posting comments here to write up the strangest attack on the accusers yet. ScareCrow first demands that everyone assume that Assange is “innocent until proven guilty,” conveniently forgetting that those of us not actually serving on juries are entitled to come to whatever conclusions we want on criminal cases, for whatever reasons we want. (Heck, we’re allowed to disagree with jury verdicts: I have no problem calling OJ a murderer, even though he wasn’t convicted as one.)

Still, in this case, given that we have no real evidence to weigh, there’s no good reason to assume either guilt or innocence at this point.

It’s what ScareCrow does next that’s telling: after indignantly telling us not to assume Assange’s guilt, he spits forth an extended series of vicious “speculations” about the accusers, based on … what they look like in a couple of photos he’s seen of them. Of one accuser, he writes:

This woman reminds me of those women – to whom – everything is a simple “chess game”. Move and counter-move – guile and deceit. This type is what I like to call the “quiet” and “not so brainy” type. Smart when she was young perhaps, but upon hitting puberty, blamed her supposed “lack of attraction” on the fact that she was “no so brainy”. This lead to a contempt of men. I can see that in her face. A certain bitter frustration that her encounters with men did not proceed according to the “tea parties” she used to imagine as a small child – is what I see written on her face. 

And of the other: 

Ah yes. The look on this woman’s face is painful for me. Why? Simple – she looks like many women I have met – who consider themselves to be excessively attractive. Since they believe they are so attractive, they use that “feature” to hurt men. This type of woman was basically the “parasite” I encountered many times in my youth – at clubs, in college, and various other places where young men and women are supposed to “hook-up”. When being approached by a man, such women would usually respond with extreme callousness and uncalled for hostility and rudeness. Looking at her face, all I see is malice and hatred of men.

Yep, that’s right: she’s a dirty man-hating liar because … she reminds ScareCrow of women who turned him down turned down other dudes (who definitely weren’t him) when he was in college. Absurd, to be sure, but not, in the end, all that different from liberal bloggers and Men’s Rightsers who, in the absence of evidence, have projected their own issues onto the case.

Go read the Harding piece.

More on the case from Jezebel and Amanda Marcotte.

EDIT: A new piece on Feministe critiquing Naomi Wolf’s idiotic blog post on the case.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
12 years ago

>LexieDi said… It wasn't too complicated for me to understand, you just word things extremely badly. Seriously, take some English lessons I am not sure, if this is addressed to me. There are many MRAs worldwide, who are not native English speakers.

12 years ago

>LexieDi said… Yohan:I get that you're worried about false accusations happening and people going to jail for them. However, rape and sexual harassment still happens too and you and MRAs don't seem worried about that at all. There are 100s or maybe even 1000s of various feminist international and national organizations, which take care solely of the needs of women. Many of these organizations receive millions of USD out of the tax-payer's money.The MRM consists merely of rather small interest groups or advocacy groups, which take care of males.Compared to the large feminist movement, the MRM is tiny and has to pay all its expenses out of the own wallet.I often ask myself, why feminists are so afraid of the MRM.About rape and sexual harassment, we show feminists, that male victims of malicious females do exist. Who cares about male victims, often minors, of sex crimes? There are female paedophiles, there are malicious women accusing innocent men for sex-crimes which never took place…Without the MRM, such issues would be brushed under the carpet as they are not politically correct.There are very few publications about FEMALE sex offenders.

12 years ago

>DarkSideCat: The low conviction rate alone shows nothing in either case, because failure to get a conviction alone is not good evidence that the person was not actually a victim of a crime.This is a very general statement and this can be said about almost any crime.Most crimes are not reported anyway, for example theft.To be a victim of a crime is one side, however to identify and to convict the perpetrator is a totally different story.A failure to get a conviction is not good evidence either that the accused person was getting away unpunished. More likely he really did not do that crime.

12 years ago

>@Yohan "This is a very general statement and this can be said about almost any crime." YES!!! That was my point. "A failure to get a conviction is not good evidence either that the accused person was getting away unpunished." Actually, it is pretty darned good evidence of that, we don't impose criminal sentences when defendents are found not guilty. I think what you mean is that it is not good evidence in and of itself that the accused truly committed the crime. I agree with that (modified) statement, however, I do not agree with this one "More likely he really did not do that crime." For the reason you claim to understand at the beginning of your comment, but cleary do not.

Matt Cornell
12 years ago

>Well said. But I'm disappointed to see you linking to Marcotte's piece, which is problematic in its characterization of Assange and Wikileaks. Here's a piece I wrote addressing her post.

12 years ago

>Yohan:I don't know if you've noticed, but I've never gendered the victim or the accused rapist in my statements. I do that for a reason- because I am aware that men and women are raped and men and women can rape.Feminism is a very established movement that, at it's core (though there are some radicals, just like in any movement) wants equality and betterment of society. All I've seen of MRAs is sexism, racism, homophobia and violence. This may not be true for individuals, but that has been my experience with them. Also, men have never been a group that has been hated on very much. There is some, and that's what you should be fighting against, in my opinion. Men are not idiots, men are equally good at parenting, et cetera. Perhaps with a goal of broadening the view of what being a man is and some time, men's rights can be established.

12 years ago

>Gee David, it's interesting that you would use Amanda Marcotte as a reference for not jumping to conclusions about criminal charges. Did you forget that Amanda Marcotte herself assumed that the Duke Lacrosse players were guilty from the outset rather than waiting for the trial? Not only that, but rather than defend her position when attention was called to it, she simply deleted it and then made up some bullshit story about it disappearing due to computer issues.

12 years ago

>Er, minor error on my part, she said that AFTER the charges were thrown out, i.e. AFTER the legal process had already declared them to not be rapists. That makes what she said even vile. If you're not a total hypocrite you will add Amanda Marcotte to your enemies list.

%d bloggers like this: