Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Feminists Against Rape Survivors

I didn't really know who Naomi Wolf was until this entire Assange rape accusation case stormed through the media and the woman, as many other women and men, went out and dismissed the sexual assault and rape accusations made against Assange. She wrote about it in the Huffington Post in an article entitled "Julian Assange Captured by World's Dating Police", arguing that because there was such a big ruckus about this entire case, it must be false and the accusations being made solely to further a political agenda, and this thus being a slap in the face to all rape survivors around the world. Why this post was entirely ridiculous and itself a slap in the face to all survivors of sexual assault can be read on Jessica Valenti's blog.

As if that was not enough, the woman went out a couple of days later, completely ignoring all the criticism people had given her and wrote that this time Interpol, Sweden, Britain and USA accuse rape victims world wide. In this article she invokes her knowledge about rape survivors and describes the entire thing as a "theatre." There is no doubt to a lot of feminists and other people that the hard crackdown on Julian Assange allegedly as a consequence of these accusations are politically motivated. That is not, however, because we automatically assume them to be false, as a lot of other people seem to do, but rather because a lot of us are aware that rape survivors and sexual assault victims rarely get due consideration and any form of sexual assault accusation is unlikely to lead to a verdict against the perpetrator. Instead, the survivor/victim often finds him/herself in the role of defending oneself from all type of accusations: why was (s)he walking there at that time of night, what was (s)he wearing, didn't (s)he know better than that!? There is a justification needed for every step of the way why this should be called sexual assault or rape, rather than something one just brought upon themselves. The survivor/victim thus finds him/herself in the role of the perpetrator; a nasty "bitch" who wants to bring down a man's reputation and resorts to falsely accusing men of rape as a tactical choice. The irony in the entire thing lies in the fact that because conviction rates are so appallingly low in most countries, it is a very ineffective way to "take someone down."

But I digress. Wolf points out, rightly, that rape accusations are seldom taken seriously nationally and internationally and it is a slap in the face to other survivors that one should have to accuse someone famous in order to get an accusation taken seriously. This does not, however, mean that we should bring these accusations against Assange to the level of other accusations, it means that authorities need to take all rape accusations seriously. This goes for everyday people as well, who because of different states' willingness to use these accusations to fit into their political agenda, automatically assume that these accusations are invalidated. Just because these accusations fit neatly into the US political agenda does not mean that they are orchestrated by the US government, CIA or any other US organ. It could be possible that the US is capitalising on events already happened without holding the strings. It should be possible to hold two thoughts in a brain at the same time, something which seems that a lot of people are completely incapable of, including Michael Moore and Naomi Wolf.

So today when Naomi Wold wrote another article bashing the Swedish legal system called "Sweden's Serial Negligence in Prosecuting Rape Further Highlights the Politics Behind Julian Assange's Arrest" I started wondering if she was just plainly ignorant. Wolf points out some pretty important criticism against the Swedish legal systems, the prosecutors in particular, saying that they are quite terrible at properly prosecuting rape accusations. There is an appallingly low number of cases that ever reach a verdict, and rape survivors in Sweden has to go through the usual amount of victim blaming and rape apologia from prosecutors and authorities that happens in every culture. So a lot of the criticism Wolf dishes out is very valid and something I hope that Swedish prosecutors, authorities and other people otherwise involved in rape cases take to heart. But then she goes on...

But none of the media outlets hyperventilating now about how this global-manhunt/Bourne-identity-chase-scene-level treatment of a sex crime allegation originating in Sweden must be 'normative' has bothered to do any actual reporting of how rape -- let alone the far more ambiguous charges of Assange's accusers, which are not charges of rape but of a category called 'sex by surprise,' which has no analog elsewhere -- is actually prosecuted in Sweden.
Wolf obviously has not done her home work. There still isn't such a thing as 'sex by surprise', and this is still not what Assange is wanted for or accused of! It's still a phrase used to trivialise rape, and has now been spread and reinforced by a self-proclaimed high profile feminist. What is more, Wolf blatantly ignores parts of the reports by BRÅ that she herself cites in the article. In their reports, BRÅ have acknowledged that Sweden has very high accusations of sexual crimes, and they have also asked why, something Wolf completely fails to do. The conclusions were that because of new legislation on sexual crimes clubbed through in the late nineties and onward, the definition for sex crimes, among them rape, have been broadened and now Sweden has a broader definition of some sexual crimes than other countries do. They also said that it cannot be concluded that sexual crimes are not on the uprising in Sweden, but it is hard to determine because of the widening of sex crime legislation. (Sift trough BRÅ's publications here, specific report here, they're generally in Swedish but some (most?) have summaries in English). By picking and choosing in the information and leaving out crucial parts, Wolf has made herself guilty of the same fault as a friend of mine accused Michael Moore for - one-sided arguments. As a journalist Wolf should be able to do better, and as a feminist, especially in this case.

It is a shame that high profile feminists are not doing their home work, not investigating this issue good enough and, as a consequence, start feeding into rape myths and rape apologia. I think that what Wolf is doing might ultimately harm rape survivors across the world more than the slap in the face they are receiving from governments for taking this case especially seriously to promote their own political agenda. Hopefully something can be learned from that - that sex crime accusations all deserve to be treated with seriousness, because they are serious accusations. What Naomi Wolf is teaching is that it is fine to disbelieve and dismiss rape and sexual assault accusers, as long as you strongly believe that the person accused has done something good. This is one of the oldest rape myths in the book - that a person that is well-known and well-liked cannot commit a crime, and Wolf is not even capable to see through it.


9 comments:

  1. Another very interesting post. Your analysis of this issue is certainly a cut above much of the writing out there at the moment. But I'd like to defend what I think Naomi Wolf is trying to say by her remarks.

    First, her original Huff Post article was almost certainly written before the charges were made public in a London court. So she was working from press reports speculating about the charges. For that reason, Jessica Valenti's reponse is not entirely fair. But it also misses the point, because Wolf clearly thinks that the accusations against Assange (as she understood them) were trivial - more about hurt feelings than about any actual crime. Specifically, she took the accusations to be:

    - having consensual sex with two women,
    - using a condom that broke, and
    - texting and tweeting in the taxi, reading about himself online.

    Surely there isn't a serious feminist anywhere in the world who thinks this kind of behaviour actually constitutes a crime. And that was just Wolf's point.

    As for the second article she wrote, perhaps she is saying that by broadening the notion of what constitutes a sex crime to the extent Sweden has done so actually undermines the effectiveness of the judiciary in dealing with such cases. Now, I know even less than Wolf does about this subject, but I am concerned about some of the charges which were raised against Assange in court. They are, apparently:

    (a) rape: using body weight to hold down and forcibly parting legs,

    (b) sexual misconduct: unsafe sex,

    (c) sexual misconduct: pressing penis against back,

    (d) sexual assault: sex while complainant was sleeping.

    From here: http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/13/rundle-timeline-of-assanges-visit-to-sweden-and-events-that-followed/

    As allegations (and I don't even know if the women actually allege all of this or it is the prosecution bringing these charges on the basis of what they infer took place), the criminal nature of (a) and (d) are pretty obvious to me. But I can think of plenty of instances in which (b) and (c), in the context of a consensual sexual relationship of course, do not to my mind constitute sexual misconduct. I'm assuming also that the complaint is not that Assange deliberately tried to infect anyone with an STD, but then surely that would have been made explicit by the prosecution.

    What am I missing here? Is it implicit in these charges that consent was absent? Or is the legal defintion of sexual misconduct so broad in Sweden that these acts can constitute sex crimes, even with a willing sexual partner? And if the latter, surely there is scope for serious debate about the fairness of such laws?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Comment that got stuck:

    Danton has left a new comment on your post "Feminists Against Rape Survivors":

    Another very interesting post. Your analysis of this issue is certainly a cut above much of the writing out there at the moment. But I'd like to defend what I think Naomi Wolf is trying to say by her remarks.

    First, her original Huff Post article was almost certainly written before the charges were made public in a London court. So she was working from press reports speculating about the charges. For that reason, Jessica Valenti's reponse is not entirely fair. But it also misses the point, because Wolf clearly thinks that the accusations against Assange (as she understood them) were trivial - more about hurt feelings than about any actual crime. Specifically, she took the accusations to be:

    - having consensual sex with two women,
    - using a condom that broke, and
    - texting and tweeting in the taxi, reading about himself online.

    Surely there isn't a serious feminist anywhere in the world who thinks this kind of behaviour actually constitutes a crime. And that was just Wolf's point.

    As for the second article she wrote, perhaps she is saying that by broadening the notion of what constitutes a sex crime to the extent Sweden has done so actually undermines the effectiveness of the judiciary in dealing with such cases. Now, I know even less than Wolf does about this subject, but I am concerned about some of the charges which were raised against Assange in court. They are, apparently:

    (a) rape: using body weight to hold down and forcibly parting legs,

    (b) sexual misconduct: unsafe sex,

    (c) sexual misconduct: pressing penis against back,

    (d) sexual assault: sex while complainant was sleeping.

    From here: http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/13/rundle-timeline-of-assanges-visit-to-sweden-and-events-that-followed/

    As allegations (and I don't even know if the women actually allege all of this or it is the prosecution bringing these charges on the basis of what they infer took place), the criminal nature of (a) and (d) are pretty obvious to me. But I can think of plenty of instances in which (b) and (c), in the context of a consensual sexual relationship of course, do not to my mind constitute sexual misconduct. I'm assuming also that the complaint is not that Assange deliberately tried to infect anyone with an STD, but then surely that would have been made explicit by the prosecution.

    What am I missing here? Is it implicit in these charges that consent was absent? Or is the legal defintion of sexual misconduct so broad in Sweden that these acts can constitute sex crimes, even with a willing sexual partner? And if the latter, surely there is scope for serious debate about the fairness of such laws?

    ReplyDelete
  3. As a feminist, Wolf should have been hesitant to take those accusations as truth. She should know how much gossip and victim blaming there is involved in such situations, and for her not to do a thorough check of the facts as a journalist is unforgivable. For her to buy into those reports as a feminist without thinking about checking the information is also unforgivable.

    I think the accusations are made on the base that these situations (b) and (c) were originally consensual situations that turned into non-consensual. In situation c, I'm not entirely sure what happened, I haven't read enough to know how it all went about and if it's as simple as a penis being pressed into her back (which can be everything from nudging to dry humping and those situations are obviously different in level of discomfort and threat).
    In situation b it is about a negotiation of sexual relations that never happened. They negotiated one thing, but that was not respected, and another happened, which means that it wasn't consensual. The consensual 'contract' that was negotiated was broken and she never consented to the terms that Assange allegedly felt he could decide without her opinion. Consent was given, but not to what happened. It is as if one would take anal sex for granted just because a woman consented to vaginal sex. That's what I have understood is the problem with that situation.

    Of course there is room for debate. If it's something that this entire event has taught us is that consent needs to be properly defined, and everybody should be educated in what constitutes sexual assault/rape lest they find themselves in a situation like this.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks Linnéa. I'm not sure if it's the length of my comments or the embedded links which are preventing them from being posted. Anyway, there's a new article in the Guardian which puts the charges against Assange in context. It's only one side of the story, but I can see why unprotected sex under the circumstances prompted the women to go the police. I can't imagine what the obsession with unprotected sex is for some men (whether or not that includes Assange). I'm still uncomfortable about at least one of the charges, however. If I take a woman back to my place for a one night stand, and then in the morning she walks around with her top off and presses up against me even though I want her to leave, does her behavior constitute sexual harrasment? And if I don't make my feelings explicit, and allow her to stay while I go off to work, would it be fair to then lay charges against her? These are some of the questions bothering me about this case.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't think it's the length, because when previous comments haven't been posted they have been of different length. It might be some words are triggers or something that blocks the comments from being posted visibly, and I can post the comments because I'm the owner of the account. That, or Blogger is just being fickle without reason! This only started happening after I wrote about sex crime accusations and people started replying to them and I can think of several words that might make the comments get stuck in a spam filter even though it's not spam.

    This article from the NY Times claims it has information on previously unknown information and it says about the sexual harassment:
    "Then, the following day, according to the statements the prosecution has made in the British courts, Mr. Assange tried to initiate sex by rubbing himself against her. The Guardian suggests that he was naked from the waist down. This, lawyers for the Swedish government have said in court, is the grounds for one of the allegations of “sexual molestation.”"
    Whether NYT really has access to the records or not, I don't know, but 'rubbing up' against someone when you're naked from the waist down is a completely different action from accidentally nudging someone while sleeping or even pressing up against someone. It shows a intended action of a sexual nature that went on for a period of time, and can very well cross boundaries if no indication of consent is given before. If this happened on the street by someone, it would definitely count as sexual harassment. Consent once given is not consent for as long as one wishes, it is consent for as long as the person who gave the consent wishes. Letting someone stay in your flat does not automatically imply consent or your wish to have a person rub up against you naked.
    If a woman, naked from the waist down started rubbing up against you if you hadn't given your consent, I would like to think it would constitute sexual harassment. It is a boundary crossed. Also, Assange was staying at Ms. A's as a guest. That they happened to have sex (which according to the report apparently wasn't entirely voluntary) does not mean that he has the right to make sexual advances as long as he stays there. Every sexual act needs consent. He doesn't have the automatic right to her body just because she consented to have sex with him once (which the report says she might not have, that the consent part was a bit unclear).

    ReplyDelete
  6. "What am I missing here?"

    You are missing the generational gap, Linnéa. I loved the article by Naomi Wolf - truly loved it. That is a generation thing; she is exactly my generation. You have not been through what we have been. You have not had our enemies. We have fought for liberty inside feminism, and in dykedom. We soldiered in the "porn wars" - and we won them. Won them for you all.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Alexa, I just want to point out that that comment I think you are replying to (1st comment) is posted by Danton. It got stuck in some filter, so I've reposted it and forgot to put the name in bold. Therefore I am going to let Danton reply to your comment.

    If you are commenting generally - as for my opinions on the article, I think they are quite clear from the above blog post. And while I really thought some of Wolf's points were great, as I've written above, there is a contradiction in some of her arguments, and also a lack of research which invalidates a lot of her argument and also serves to reproduce rape myths, which is inexcusable.

    Thank you, and all those you fought with, for taking the fight and keeping it up!

    ReplyDelete
  8. I did indeed ascribe and attribute the half-rhetorical question "What am I missing here?" to you. That was a misattribution in casu, as you have kindly made my realize, and I wish to apologize for it!
    But, you know, I think the shoe fits you. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Alexa,
    that's fine, I was just not sure what you were referring to so that's why I wanted to point it out. I also noticed that I forgot to put the name in bold, so I think the confusion was caused by me :)

    About the generational thing. As I said I'm very grateful to all who have fought before me and also to all who have fought after me. However, theories and discussions do and should evolve, theories and frameworks as well. Experience is great and it should be brought into new theories and frameworks, that's how theories and frameworks evolve for the better - we learn from our mistakes and victories. That's not to say that new theories are less valid - some are, because history has shown that they don't work, but some aren't.
    Wolf did make some really great points, but she also made some mistakes and in this particular case, I think she's handled it quite badly. I'm not sure if you're referring to a specific article, because you wrote singular, or to all three of them. The articles all vary in their strength, I think, and if I remember correctly, the majority in the second one (J'Accuse) I think, was very important, but the rhetoric she used there bothered me. The message was fine, but the rhetoric wasn't and both are very important. I think what bothers me with them is also how Wolf refused to comment on the criticism she got for the first article (Dating Police), and instead of doing research continued to imply that it was all a sham. It's fine to be wrong, or perhaps even only partly wrong, but she should have owned up to it instead of feeding into it further.

    ReplyDelete