UPDATE: Sady has started a Twitter campaign against Michael Moore. You should join in.
One of the things stopping me from writing as much these days, I admit, is that I’ve begun to wonder I wonder if feminism will eat itself. One day last week, I awoke to the news that Naomi Wolf herself, feminist icon, writer of The Beauty Myth, thinks that Julian Assange has been targeted by nothing more than a pair of jealous women in Sweden who, in her view, “are using feminist rhetoric to assuage what appears to be personal injured feelings. That’s what our brave suffragette foremothers intended!.” You know, it’s possible I have an idiosyncratic reading of feminist principles, but it is nonetheless obvious to me that when I see some kind of media frenzy building around an allegation of sexual assault, that I should make it my business not to cast speculative, evidence-free aspersions on the women at its center. Call me biased if you like, tell me I’m gynocentric, that I am throwing the very important principle of “innocent until proven guilty” right out the window, but I simply don’t feel, as a matter of suffragette foremothers or anything else, that women are guilty of lying and jealousy and general bitchery until proven innocent. But then, I guess I have not been in this game as long as Wolf has. (Perhaps that’s a good thing, if this is what lies in wait.)
It has nonetheless not escaped my notice that Wolf’s views on the Assange kerfuffle are more or less widely shared. The motivation for the defense, so to speak, is clear enough. There is a strong, if rather incoherent, sense on the left that Assange’s work is deeply important, and thus worth defending at all costs. And yet, at this juncture, the articulations of that value are rather unclear. Like everyone, of course, I’ve enjoyed the occasional bitchy statement that Cablegate has revealed from some State department lackey. (A personal favorite is the whiny memorandum about American stereotypes on Canadian television – we’re just glad you even care what we think of you, American brethren!) But so far, the information has been widely agreed to reveal no particular smoking gun, no admission that UFOs exist or 9/11 was planned or that Bush spent much of his time in office improving on prior MarioCart scores. And even when Wikileaks reveals something truly shocking, like the video of the murder of journalists in Iraq that it circulated some months ago, little seems to actually happen.
It’s possible, of course, that that argument sees too many trees to bother taking in the forest. Noam Chomsky, for example, has suggested that the takeaway from the cables is that they reveal a “profound hatred for democracy on the part of our political leadership”, and perhaps that metanarrative will actually win out among historians. But in terms of actionable specifics, things that will galvanize targeted calls for political change in the here and now, well, there’s not a whole lot to be found there. Yet, of course. Which is the rub, and the thing we all rely on when we think about why what Wikileaks is doing might be valuable to us. If one needle comes out of the whole haystack, that is probably enough to justify the entire Wikileaks enterprise. It’s probably true in this case that the very idea of Wikileaks is worth preserving in the abstract, even if we’re not sure about how it’s played out in the real world so far. So let’s be generous and say that it is that abstract value, Wolf et al. are relying on, after all, in their largely speculative adherence to the theory that fear of Wikileaks may be so strong that some covert agency has trumped up sexual assault charges against its mastermind.
But it’s funny how often we come back to this, isn’t it? Powerful man possessed of some quality that the public admires, rightly or wrongly – and it should be said that in Assange’s case, his almost evangelical defense of freedom of information is admittedly a lot more compelling than the one we had on display in the last go-round (Polanski in defense of Really Good Movies) – becomes unquestionable, at least in the sense of any real-world accountability, in all spheres of conduct. Oh sure, people say, he’s probably a bit of a creep, it’s probably true that you don’t want to date him or, you know, leave your daughter around him – I read the New Yorker profile, I’m well-informed – but you know, you can’t arrest people for being jerks. And look at what he is doing for us! (Few people ever append here some mention of the fact that Assange’s arrest notwithstanding, Wikileaks intends to trot merrily along.)
And, after all, these people always add, women lie.
The infuriating thing about that last statement, of course, is that I can’t deny it without sounding like I have a very Pollyanna view of my gender. I could argue statistics, of course, though rarely have I met a conversation in which those solved anything. I can point out that if you are a person who has been sexually assaulted, you usually face an uphill battle in the legal system in terms of being believed – though of course we aren’t talking American law here. I can also point out that just because the Swedish laws on sexual assault don’t mirror American laws, it doesn’t mean that their position on consent is philosophically indefensible. But this will not convince most people who use the “women lie” line of anything. They will stand their ground, and throw the “innocent until proven guilty” line around, as though the choice to believe the accused over the accuser were not, at some level, epistemologically arbitrary, and certainly so for purposes of conversation outside the realm of state power. Much less are they willing to consider that in a world where men are, so often, believed to be more trustworthy than women, the reason might be sinister. And in the end, the bitter truth is that they need only find one example of one woman who lied, one time, and they consider the argument over.
Frustratingly, in any event, the fact is that Assange’s guilt or innocence may be beside the point. All of this is less about whether any one person ever lies, and more about the contrast between the rhetorical power of the word “rape” and the way in which we treat sexual assault in our actual, lived experience. To be called a rapist in the media is, in the general understanding, a Very Bad Thing, a Very Serious Accusation. But to have committed a rape, or at least to have done something that the other person calls a rape: well, that, it seems generally agreed, is subject to discussion and interpretation. Isn’t there something fundamentally backwards about this approach? Isn’t it wrong that the word “rape” is more troubling to us than the possibility of its having actually happened to someone?
It’s true that sometimes, for some men, the label “rapist” has consequences. (For Mike Tyson, for example, it resulted a cameo role in a hit movie and a walk-on at the Golden Globes!) And it’s true that the word has been wielded in defense of power – not only state power, as in this instance, but white power, as when the rhetoric of the apparent threat of rape to white women justified lynchings of black men. But the point is that it’s willfully obtuse to claim this as another instance of cynical women wielding the legal system (which, in this bizarre view, is entirely on their side) to bring down powerful men. The cynicism resides entirely with those who believe that the problem here is terminological.
This. This, this, this!
Whee! We’ve now come to the juncture on the fauxgressive side of things where being accused of racism is worse than, you know, actually being a racist, and being accused of rape is worse than having actually raped someone, because he’s a genius, he’s a nice guy, he wears velour shirts, whatever!
I cannot fathom the cognitive dissonance involved in this. Because it’s obvious that, on some level there is a broad but shallow understanding among progressives about how incredibly damaging rape is to the survivor, which is why being accused is Very Serious Business. But since rape is so damaging then only monsters/animals et al. commit rape! And they are always easily identifiable, and they are never ever people that we admire, whose work we may think is admirable. Because HOW WILL I FUNCTION IF THERE IS NO BRIGHT LINE SEPARATING THE MONSTERS AND MYSELF!?
So yeah, it’s always exaggeration by the victims, it’s always the irrational illogic emotional hysterical misperception of the marginalized.
Because we love celebrity, and we desperately desire the conflation of the character and the actor, the author and the text, and we are all good people, which means that we don’t ever touch the unclean products of the bad people, right?
/Bonk is the sound my head makes hitting the wall.
“hey will stand their ground, and throw the “innocent until proven guilty” line around, as though the choice to believe the accused over the accuser were not, at some level, epistemologically arbitrary, and certainly so for purposes of conversation outside the realm of state power.”
and
“To be called a rapist in the media is, in the general understanding, a Very Bad Thing, a Very Serious Accusation. But to have committed a rape, or at least to have done something that the other person calls a rape: well, that, it seems generally agreed, is subject to discussion and interpretation.”
I don’t know you. But I want to hug you. This is so very well put, particularly the first quote I pulled. I’ma put it in my pocket and pull it out in real life when I need it, if that’s ok.
The very idea that the rape charges are trumped up in some sort of back room conspiracy in order to bring down Assange (and wikileaks which as you point out is doing just fine)is so fucking ridiculous.
One needs only to look at the current response. We (society) will give an accused rapist of a certain bent (white, powerful to name a few) all sorts of benefit of a doubt when it comes to this crime.
If they really want to fell the guy they would have trumped up charges of him selling weed to high school kids or something. That’s something our society actually cares about.
Powerful man possessed of some quality that the public admires, rightly or wrongly – and it should be said that in Assange’s case, his almost evangelical defense of freedom of information is admittedly a lot more compelling than the one we had on display in the last go-round (Polanski in defense of Really Good Movies) – becomes unquestionable, at least in the sense of any real-world accountability, in all spheres of conduct.
Let the people say AMEN. This is why I’m so pissed about the knee-jerk defense of Assange.
Is his prosecution politically convenient? Perhaps. Is he a maverick advocate for free speech? Perhaps.
Do any of these things mean he can’t be a rapist?
Absolutely not.
I am so sick of the hearing “Well, he’s a good/important/brilliant man, so he wouldn’t have done that and anyone who says he did is a liar.” It’s bullshit. It’s been proven bullshit over and over for centuries.
See also: Roman Catholic Church.
Thanks for this, which sums up how I feel. I can’t believe that people seem incapable of accepting that it’s perfectly possible for Julian Assange to be both a crusader for freedom of speech and a rapist. The two things are not incompatible.
Yes it makes it nice if it’s all a fit up and the women are lying but life isn’t always that simple and plenty of people are capable of both good and bad.
I would however point out that while Mike Tyson did indeed get a film cameo and Golden Globes he was convicted and did actually serve time in jail for rape as opposed to the likes of Polanski. And while he might not be the most pleasant person I do tend to think that the whole point of doing your time is that you are actually allowed a shot at redemption afterwards.
I actually have less issue with Tyson’s later life then for example with the endless ignoring of Sean Penn’s record of domestic battery and assault or, obviously, the whole Polanski case.
emilyanne:
Melissa at Shakesville wrote a really interesting post about Mike Tyson: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2010/03/rehabilitation-of-mike-tyson.html
The whole thing is worth reading, but here’s a quote: “I’m all for giving people another chance. And being let out of prison is a second chance, which is why we don’t impose a life sentence on everyone convicted of any crime. Tyson faced as many as 60 years in prison, actually got sentenced to 10, and only served 3. That’s second chance enough, in my opinion.
I don’t believe that people who have “paid their debts” are necessarily owed the same opportunities they had before. Giving Tyson a second chance doesn’t axiomatically mean he deserves to be made rich and famous again—although that’s certainly what our culture appears to believe.
If you’re rich and famous, it appears you can be wicked enough to be sent to prison, but not so wicked as to be sent to the working class. I have a problem with that.”
Seeing how much rape apologism surrounds this case, and how it permeates society in general, has practically convinced me to take up a strict guilty-until-proven-innocent credo when it comes to rape cases. I hate that it makes me into a stereotype, and it troubles my conscience immensely, but I can’t help it…
I had a whole long rant typed out, because I’ve been talking about this case a lot with people, but instead I’m just going to say how I find it immensely frustrating that people can’t separate their moral estimations of WikiLeaks and Assange himself. It’s possible to think that WikiLeaks does good things and Assange himself is a jagoff. It’s also possible to think that WikiLeaks is detrimental to global society but that Assange’s adherence to his principles makes him a hero. It’s the same sort of simple thinking that leads to people trying to apply American jurisprudence to a case that involves literally no Americans, or to argue it was ever SOP for a criminal justice system to accept “over Skype” as a means of interviewing a criminal suspect or to set bail for a man who gives a PO box in a different continent. There’s no common sense about anything connected with Assange, so far as I can see, and these women are bearing the brunt of it.
I have serious problems with the idea of “innocent until proven guilty” when directed at citizens outside the courtroom because I think it panders to exactly this sort of simplistic thinking. It seems that people simply cannot reserve judgment in the face of ignorance — if we must assume “innocent until guilty” then it follows as a fact, apparently, that these women are purposefully and maliciously lying. If people could, as a default, assume that all parties are accurately and in good faith reporting their subjective experience and that the court, full of trained professionals in exactly this (not that they’re infallible, but at least they’re knowledgeable), will determine what action the state should take, if any — maybe then it wouldn’t be so bad. But as things are, it’s a joke.
@Cat: I’m starting to feel the same way, and trying to figure out whether to embrace it or drag myself back to a more moderate position.
Cat I am getting there as well. It’s a really complicated feeling for me and until now I haven’t even voiced it out loud. But just based on my experiences, my knowledge, and the patterns I have observed in these cases, I am definitely to the point where I lean towards “he did it”. It’s even stronger if the man is powerful.
I’ve studied a lot about lynching, Jim Crow, and the practice of using the virtue of white women to justify racist aggression against black men. I feel pretty comfortable looking at those cases and first assuming the man DIDN’T do it, based on the pattern and reality of the time.
It is that same inclination based on systemic inequality (this time gender-based as opposed to race-based) that leads me to first believe the woman in these cases today. I just can’t shake it and I’m starting to wonder why I am obligated to do so. I guess I don’t want to be a hypocrite, condemning most people for automatically believing the man and then I’m going to automatically believe the woman.
Shoot, I’m the only person I know who believes that the woman in the Duke rape case actually was sexually assaulted.
I don’t see the specter of false rape allegations having any significant impact on the life of the average man today. I don’t see that they are any more careful about the women they deal with, the parties they go to, the alcohol they drink. So if I’m to be a “man-hater” because I think it takes a lot for a woman to come forward with such an accusation and I take her seriously, so be it.
Isn’t the whole “innocent until proven guilty” concept an idea for the court? It’s my understanding that our society generally misapplies this concept outside of the court where it has a specific technical meaning. It’s similar to the public’s widespread misunderstanding of what “theory” and “proof” mean outside of science.
Which is a really long way of saying that if you think that rape victims as a class are more credible than those accused of rape as a class, you are not going against logic or stereotyping.
@rodriguez – Absolutely. I have seen people argue, in earnest, that what “innocent until proven guilty” means is that an accused has factually not committed any wrongdoing whatsoever until the court says so. The inability to tell the difference between reality and the state’s official version of events (upon which they base disciplinary actions) is mystifying to me when pointing out that difference is part of the mission of WikiLeaks itself.
(Oh, and amen about “the public’s widespread misunderstanding of what “theory” and “proof” mean outside of science”.)
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by michelledean, Vyckie D. Garrison. Vyckie D. Garrison said: @TPoHarpyness: Some Preliminary Thoughts on Wikileaks: One of the things stopping me from writi… http://bit.ly/gdPrRM #feminist #women [...]
[...] Michelle Dean has a typically thoughtful and interesting post on the Wikileaks phenomenon and the annoyingly predictable response from people when someone they admire is accused of rape. (My favorite irony is how people who can manage to acknowledge someone is a creepy misogynist and does things they admire cannot make the leap into suggesting that someone could be a rapist and also do things they admire. Convenient! Once again, for the people who struggle with walking and chewing gum, I’m not accusing Assange of anything. I’m just objecting to the notion that the rape accusations are beyond credibility.) The rape stuff has been rehashed here, so I won’t get into it. But I do want to answer some questions she raises about Wikileaks itself. There is a strong, if rather incoherent, sense on the left that Assange’s work is deeply important, and thus worth defending at all costs. And yet, at this juncture, the articulations of that value are rather unclear. Like everyone, of course, I’ve enjoyed the occasional bitchy statement that Cablegate has revealed from some State department lackey. (A personal favorite is the whiny memorandum about American stereotypes on Canadian television – we’re just glad you even care what we think of you, American brethren!) But so far, the information has been widely agreed to reveal no particular smoking gun, no admission that UFOs exist or 9/11 was planned or that Bush spent much of his time in office improving on prior MarioCart scores. And even when Wikileaks reveals something truly shocking, like the video of the murder of journalists in Iraq that it circulated some months ago, little seems to actually happen. [...]
I’ve studied a lot about lynching, Jim Crow, and the practice of using the virtue of white women to justify racist aggression against black men. I feel pretty comfortable looking at those cases and first assuming the man DIDN’T do it, based on the pattern and reality of the time.
The rate of false reporting of being raped to police is a couple percent. You can pretty safely guess that anyone who tells the police they were raped, was raped. You’ll be wrong a couple percent of the time, but unless you’re personally involved, it’s probably not worth worrying about. The rate at which the wrong guy is accused in rapes by strangers is actually pretty high. Pre-DNA testing, it was greater than 20%, where DNA testing was later used on the initial evidence. It’s not much of a surprise that police are often happy to throw some black guy with a low IQ in jail and call it a day.
But there’s no ambiguity in identity here, so if these women allege what the Swedish government alleges they allege, you’re pretty safe assuming it’s true. I don’t trust the Swedish government in this case, and haven’t seen any other source I’d consider trustworthy get information directly from the women involved; that’s the only sticking point that’s reasonable. At such time that one or the other (or both) make public statements, one really has to give up the ghost.
Seeing how much rape apologism surrounds this case, and how it permeates society in general, has practically convinced me to take up a strict guilty-until-proven-innocent credo when it comes to rape cases. I hate that it makes me into a stereotype, and it troubles my conscience immensely, but I can’t help it…