Naomi Wolf responds: Case against Assange is “an insult to rape victims worldwide”

Last week, Lori did a nice roundup of responses to the rape accusations against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange—including feminist Naomi Wolf’s “pretty embarrassing defense” of Assange from prosecution by the Interpol “dating police.”

Today Assange was granted bail and released to “mansion arrest.” And yesterday Wolf wrote a second piece accusing Sweden, Britain, and Interpol of insulting rape victims worldwide by pursuing the case against him.

“In other words: never in twenty-three years of reporting on and supporting victims of sexual assault around the world have I ever heard of a case of a man sought by two nations, and held in solitary confinement without bail in advance of being questioned — for any alleged rape, even the most brutal or easily proven. In terms of a case involving the kinds of ambiguities and complexities of the alleged victims’ complaints — sex that began consensually that allegedly became non-consensual when dispute arose around a condom — please find me, anywhere in the world, another man in prison today without bail on charges of anything comparable.

Of course ‘No means No’, even after consent has been given, whether you are male or female; and of course condoms should always be used if agreed upon. As my fifteen-year-old would say: Duh.

But for all the tens of thousands of women who have been kidnapped and raped, raped at gunpoint, gang-raped, raped with sharp objects, beaten and raped, raped as children, raped by acquaintances — who are still awaiting the least whisper of justice — the highly unusual reaction of Sweden and Britain to this situation is a slap in the face.”

Since it’s unclear that Wolf actually reads the internet, perhaps this follow-up isn’t a response to all the feminist flak she got for her original piece. But if it is, she completely missed the point. There is very little disagreement that Interpol’s aggressive pursuit of Assange is politically motivated. Even a casual observer—without Wolf’s 23 years of experience—can see that.

And yet it’s entirely possible to believe that and still avoid acting like an anti-feminist asshole! It’s possible to point out that rape accusations are rarely taken seriously when the accused isn’t an internationally wanted man, without automatically dismissing the charges as “personal injured feelings.” It’s possible to lament the lack of justice for the many other victims of sexual assault, without assuming that the accusers in this case are lying. As Jill at Feministe said, “we can chew gum and walk at the same time.”

I understand Wolf’s frustration, I do. Women are raped all over the world every single day and no one gives a damn. As another prominent Naomi tweeted about the case: “Rape is being used in the Assange prosecution in the same way that women’s freedom was used to invade Afghanistan.” And that cynical use of feminism does totally suck for actual feminists who cared about Afghan women’s rights before it became a convenient excuse to go to war—or feminists who have spent years fighting for justice for all victims of sexual violence. We should certainly point out—and condemn—the fact that women’s rights are too often only valued when it’s politically expedient.

But it’s just embarrassing that a woman who spent much of the follow-up article touting her feminist credentials—her decades of work with rape victims, her years of experience reporting on sexual assault cases—could write that original piece and not check herself when she started to sound like a victim-blaming, rape-apologist cliché. And it’s frankly astounding that she could fail to recognize that maybe—just maybe—there’s a connection between articles like that and the worldwide disregard for rape victims she so forcefully condemns in her follow-up.

Apparently, she didn’t get the memo that how we talk about rape in the media actually, you know, matters.

and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

7 Comments

  1. Posted December 14, 2010 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    I think she is letting her political sympathies get in the way here. Assange has become a liberal cause célèbre. It is unfortunate that women’s rights get thrown out the window without a second thought and that is certainly the case here, but I think if the crime itself was perceived of as similarly slight, people would be rushing to his defense all the same.

  2. Posted December 14, 2010 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

    I think she makes a valid point.

    There are women for whom have suffered clear, provable sexual assaults and rapes for which the authorities don’t even care or do anything about. Think of all the untested rape kits and victims who see nothing but a cover-up.

    She is RIGHTLY saying that how come the world seems to normally not care about these victims, but all of a sudden in this case he is criminal #1.

    A very valid point on Naomi’s part.

  3. Posted December 14, 2010 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

    I agree. Assange’s arrest may be politically motivated, but that does not negate the charges, nor does that make the accusers liars. It is frustrating that feminism is only used when convenient; it really is. But it’s possible to voice that frustration without demonizing the accusers and blaming the victims.

  4. Posted December 14, 2010 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

    Wouldnt by that logic the definition of rape in that set of laws be an insult to rape victims world wide? What is the charge, that the condom broke and therefore consensual sex turned into rape?

    Also Assange is a man who allegedly has been on the run and moves freely. I am sure if authorites fear that an alleged rapist will have a good chance to flee the country they will take approrpiate steps.

    • Posted December 15, 2010 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

      No! The charge is that the woman consented, and then withdrew consent by telling him to stop, and that he kept going, despite her protests. Consent was -allegedly- given, then withdrawn. What part of that scenario doesn’t seem like rape to you?

  5. Posted December 14, 2010 at 10:46 pm | Permalink

    “of course condoms should always be used if agreed upon. As my fifteen-year-old would say: Duh.”

    No, Naomi, I actually don’t think you get it.

    • Posted December 15, 2010 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

      What’s wrong with her statement? Do you disagree with some aspect of it?

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

180 queries. 1.050 seconds