On Assange, Naomi Wolf, and progressive rape apologism

So to say that I’ve been obsessed with the accusations of rape against Julian Assange and all of the rape apologism/slut shaming/blaming-the-victims which have been born out of it would be a drastic understatement. I’m pretty sure that my break has been split 50-50 between laying in bed sniffling and coughing (I simultaneously have a sinus infection and bronchitis, whoop-de-do) and howling in outrage at my poor dog who luckily has no idea who Keith Olbermann, Julian Assange, and Michael Moore are. (If you’re wondering about what I’m referring to, you should read Sady Doyle of Tigerbeatdown’s awesome display of internet activism here. That isn’t the only link, I suggest you read all of her posts on the matter).

What has really upset me is the rape apologism being spouted off left and right. Naomi Wolf, “feminist” author of The Beauty Myth touts herself as a voice for women, and for rape victims. She has also come to the forefront of Assange defenders. For a little background on Wolf’s involvement in this case, the video of her debate with Jaclyn Friedman is the perfect place to start.

It’s her most recent article that has spurred this post, because I just couldn’t take her bullshit anymore. There are about a million and one things wrong with Naomi Wolf’s article “Julian Assange’s sex-crime accusers deserve to be named.” And I’m going to begin with the title. They “deserve” to be named. I am SO FUCKING GLAD that Naomi Wolf is the arbiter of who deserves “to be named” in a rape case. Thank fuck for her. What they deserve is privacy and respect. They deserve to be named if they desire to be named. As at least one of the women is in hiding due to death threats she has received for accusing Assange of rape, I can’t imagine that they would want to have their names thrown around by the media. Various blogs, pundits, and commentators have already dragged them through the mud, regardless of whether or not their names have been used. Get a fucking clue, Wolf, I don’t think they want to be named.

A few paragraphs into her rape apologist tripe, she declares that it’s apparently a TRAVESTY that accusers in the military are anonymous. However, I, and any other sane, thinking, feminist person, would argue that regarding assault, in the military you’re automatically at a disadvantage because of the ratio of men to women. Furthermore, a major tenant of the military, a staple, is the notion of fraternity. Those you fight next to are your “brothers” (I am intentionally leaving out sisters, because that appears to be the military’s M.O.) and you protect each other at all costs. You support each other, defend each other. When a woman in the military, then, brings rape charges against a man in the military she becomes a traitor. No ifs, ands, or buts. And do you know how traitors are treated in the military? Traitors who accused a “brother” of raping them? Reporting rape is terrifying as is. You already fear that you will not be believed. And to have this added pressure in the military of what your colleagues could and would do to you if you accused one of them of rape? Yes, absolutely out the victim. Great fucking plan, Naomi Wolf. If women in the military know that their names will be public when accusing a rapist, they will NEVER do it. Never. I guarantee you.

Wolf goes on to say that “When accusers are identified, it becomes clear that rape can happen to anyone.” Yet, this is not necessarily true. Perhaps those who are identified have privileges (money, class, etc). that others may not. Please do not misunderstand me, I do not mean that what happened to them is cushioned by potential wealth, simply that certain circumstances may make some accusers more able to deal with being identified than others. Furthermore, since statistics tell us that, in the United States, for example, one in four women are raped, it takes little imagination to realize that survivors are not a monolithic group. Clearly this statistic encompasses an amalgam women. Not every one woman in four is the same. And with such a large statistic, it is also already clear that “rape can happen to anyone.”

Her argument about a “profound moral issue” is to me, one of the most mind-boggling. Here she decries the fact that there is no room for impartiality when Assange is so widely known, and as such, his accusers should be identified. Yes, it is a valid point that Assange is famous and controversial. No, he should not be treated differently because of this. However, just because he is a public figure does not mean that there is any reason to publish their identities. I don’t even understand how that is an argument. He is famous and notorious of his own doing, but they are not, and they have a right to remain anonymous if they desire. He has consented to fame, they have not. Will their desires, their consent ever be taken into consideration? If they were raped, then they were stripped of consent. Why subject them to a further invasion of agency?

And finally, the comparison of the Assange case to that of Oscar Wilde is absurd. Simply absurd. Wilde, yes, was held for sex crimes. The crime, however, was homosexuality (which, incidentally, is not actually a crime at all). Assange? Yeah, he’s being held for RAPE. Last time I checked, rape and homosexuality are NOT the same. This is seriously the most disingenuous argument I have ever heard, and it’s clearly a poorly veiled attempt to martyr Assange. I mean, what else could that be? I’m flummoxed. Just to reiterate, because some people may have been confused, homosexuality and rape are two completely different things. But thanks for playing, Naomi.

I’m tired of hearing that just because Assange is progressive, and doing something good, he can’t be a rapist. The two are not mutually exclusive. I am not saying, here, that Assange necessarily did it. What I am saying, what I want people to understand, is that just because he is progressive, or because yes, the incredibly intense scrutiny of Assange is suspicious and politically motivated, doesn’t mean these women are lying. No one is saying that there are not MAJOR political motivations for his arrest, that this is not hugely atypical for rape cases. But that does not make the charges, the experiences of these women, and their deserved anonymity any less real or important. Women who are assaulted deserve justice, regardless of who the alleged rapist is. The accusations levied against Assange have afforded the opportunity to discuss these issues and bring rape culture, which is propped up by articles like the one written by Wolf, to the discussion table. And, distressingly, it has also illustrated that supposed allies for women’s rights, supposed feminists, are, in fact, not as progressive or women-friendly as they care to think they are.