What’s in a naming? When it comes to rape allegations, a lot of pain and public debate.
Case in point: writer Naomi Wolf’s controversial take on the Julian Assange rape accusations. Her pieces for the Huffington Post and the Guardian and her debate on Democracy Now! have been pulling feathers out by the root in the feminist community.
Her argument? That rape victims should not be allowed to remain anonymous, claiming that the practice has allowed the state to “pimp out feminism,” feeding political motivations. Many, many disagree.
Here are her basic arguments:
- Anonymity is archaic. A “relic of the Victorian era, when rape and other sex crimes were being codified in what descended to us as modern law.”
- Women are not children. As she put in a BBC interview, “feminism shouldn’t mean special treatment for either gender; it should mean absolute fairness and equity in the rule of law.”
Seemingly pretty points. But—as Ms. magazine (and others) have pointed out—hopelessly inaccurate.
Firstly, the shame of rape is still very much alive. As Kathy Pollitt of The Nation puts it:
[T]he Victorian code that shamed rape victims is with us today … it’s just that to the stereotypes of the sullied virgin and chaste wife have been added the crazy lying slut, the cocktease, and the repressed frump who secretly “wants it.”
It’s a pattern of stigma documented at home and abroad, and for someone who repeatedly claims to have worked in support of rape victims for “23 years,” it seems like an alarmingly ignorant claim.
Secondly, the “equity” that Wolf refers to isn’t equity at all; it’s “equality” described in its least pragmatic strictest form.
Here’s Ms. magazine:
Equity—as distinguished from equality—is not about infantilizing a group of people and patting them on their heads: Equity is for grownups, based on the idea that in order to achieve a fair and just society, you have to account for the fact that some groups of people are oppressed, disadvantaged, and do not have the same access to, say, bodily integrity, justice, or safety that other groups of people have.
What Wolf is suggesting is a gender-blind policy which treats rape the same as any other crimes. But as we know from current research, color-blind ideology only perpetuates racial oppression by ignoring differences, it doesn’t end the oppression.
And that’s just talking about this in its most ambiguous form. Bring in the Pandora’s box of Julian Assange and Wikileaks, and no wonder the Internet is burning with spitfire.
This post isn’t meant to incriminate Assange, nor does it even pretend to cover all the complex nuances of this debate. But the question is an important one—and who better to ask than Good Men Project readers?
What’s your take?
—Image porabb/Photobucket
What I’m hearing is a debate about press coverage or public release of accusers’ names. Fair enough arguments on both sides. I hope no one is suggesting that the alleged victims of a crime can be anonymous inside the courtroom itself. If someone is accused of a crime, that person has the right to confront the accuser in a court of law. Presumably, under a presumption of innocence, the prosecution would have to prove both that a rape occurred and that the defendant is the one guilty of it, beyond a reasonable doubt. (I don’t know the details of the… Read more »
http://www.thelocal.se/32268/20110225/
The Local, Swedish newspaper in English
Assange case difficult to prove
Even considering the Swedish feminist-friendly laws, the Swedish press considers the rape accusations against Assange ‘difficult to prove’….
As for the Assange allegations: Rape, real rape, is a very serious offense. However the so called “rape” allegations against Assange as reported through the filter of recent prosecutor’s office material leaked to the UK Guardian do not remotely constitute serious offenses. Or any offenses at all. Though Sweden’s got extremely tilted against innocent men date rape laws and a legal and public climate. It’s very unclear if men accused of date rape in Sweden can get a fair trial. One woman’s wanting sex with Assange but only with a condom, doesn’t become rape because the condom accidentally broke. The… Read more »
First of all before a trial it’s an alleged rape victim. Calling them a rape victim conveys the message that the accused is guilty before trial. I think the best thing would be to shield the names of both the alleged victim and the alleged rapist unless and until there’s been a conviction or plea bargain. Allegations of rape usually do tremendous damage to a man’s career or job and reputation generally, even when they’re dropped or even eventually admitted or shown to be false, not just unprovable. In fact I think often those accused of rape suffer a lot… Read more »
I find it amazing the extent to which some people have been able to sacrifice their convictions at the altar of Assange. The rabid anti-Assange folks on the Right are calling for torture and assassination, while on the Left his supporters have put aside belief in the importance of diplomacy — which cannot function if our diplomats can’t write home to say that Putin and Medvedev are a kleptocratic Batman and Robin without the entire world knowing– and the rights of rape victims (“alleged” or no, you can’t take rights away from false accusers without taking them away from victims).… Read more »
Both women had one night stands with Assange and they didn’t consider it to be rape until they met each other 2 weeks later and found out he was banging both of them.
Trust Swedish officials? The basic premise of democracy is that, it is the citizens that hold public officials accountable.
No, to do this strikes at the basis of our legal system. One’s accusers must be public. To call out sex crimes as a special category reifies women (or raped men) as victims, and caters to victorianism. Also, it’s time to de-energize sex as a special category of behavior– which contributed to the stigma.
Here’s the ultimate point. Women can’t push for equality, and also claim victorian protections. It’s one or the other.
The plot thickens, with growing evidence Assange was set up on the sexual charges (the point Moore, Wolf and Pilger were trying to make to begin with), especially given the CIA connections (not of the women themselves but of the LAW FIRM representing the women – see OpEdNews article at http://tinyurl.com/4fo977u). In addition the Swedish press is reporting that Karl Rove was involved. I’m sure people remember Karl Rove and all his dirty tricks against Bush’s opponents. I also strongly recommend people read the article translated from the Swedish in OpEdNews at http://www.opednews.com/articles/Rove-Suspected-In-Swedish-by-Andrew-Kreig-101219-292.html In fact, the whole Wikileaks/feminist controversy is… Read more »
It’s only a sexist rule if we assume rapists are always men and victims are always women. Men rape men, women rape women, women rape men, priests rape alter boys, and that’s only the combinations of men and women before we get into other genders. Anyone can become a rape victim under the right circumstances.
While not explicit, it does sound ike a blanket release of names of the alleged rape victims is contemplated. In this delicate matter, where a he-said/she-said competition arises, it makes better sense to let she (since it is the she to whom the crime occurs, and who suffers the violation) be the one to choose release of identity.
FYI, I strongly disagree with `Evil Pundit’ regarding the anti-male attitude claimed. Nothing of the sort, my man. It’s asking for comment on someone else’s controversial stand, not an attack on your junk. Man up, buddy.
Oh, nice shaming tactics there.
I note that you automatically assume that accusers are victims, and female. How sexist of you.
What a misandrist article.
As others have pointed out, it’s “accusers” or “alleged victims”, not “victims”. Right from the start you assume any man accused of rape is guilty.
That you simply ignore the question of anonymity for the accused, who suffers vastly more from being named, shows your contempt for the rights of men.
We need a Good Women Project to educate people like you.
The names of the accused should also be protected.
False accusers should be punished severely but currently get off completely without even their names mentioned in the media. This is complete failure of the Rule of Law.
Any person convicted for a false rape allegation should be named in the news.
There is no reason to grant such a person anonymity for life.
Victims of rape? Or those making allegations of rape?
There’s a difference. First get the terms straight. Then you’ll be ready to have this debate.
@Ashley Ford;
Which is exactly why the accused should remain anonymous until they have been convicted of a crime.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Absolutely not. Arrests are public records and if you start closing off public records that is a real problem. Censorship is not a good answer.
In that case, to be consistent, the names of accusers should be made public as well.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you. But police reports and court documents almost always redact the names of victims or pull the paperwork entirely, so you have to use back channels to find out which aren’t always the most reliable.
Perhaps arrests should NOT be public records.
What about the anonymity of the accused? Everyone seems to forget that it’s innocent until proven guilty, when it comes to rape accusations. Plenty seem to think it’s just desserts for the accused to have their face plastered on the news for being accused of rape. And what about those that are found innocent? There’s still the damning stigma of “they were accused of rape, they must be a rapist” that will follow them the rest of their lives. I support the anonymity of both the possible victim and the possible perpetrator, but that’s never anything that discussed. Why is… Read more »
IMO, until the conviction, there should be anonymity on both sides in a court of law because of stigma, irresponsible journalists, and for the sake of both until proven guilty. For wrongfully accused, the accuser needs to be fully prosecuted for the act itself. I can’t imagine someone actually being so evil to falsely accuse, in fact, I’d like to hit the accusers who lie with a couple of baseball bats myself since I’ve lived the horror of rape! For those proven guilty of rape, the sentences vary way too far and wide. There need to be across the board… Read more »
Tough one. As a newspaper reporter I don’t print the names of any victims unless they speak out themselves. But at the same time, I’ve seen several instances of a woman alleging rape, the man getting arrested and then the charges being dropped for various reasons. The question at that point is do we print her name? She’s no longer a victim. There’s no crime to speak of. Isn’t it fair to print the name of the accuser who has already dragged a confirmed innocent man’s name through the mud? I don’t know the answer. But I’m grateful the discussion… Read more »
As a newspaper reporter, you should be able to recognize that the dropping of charges doesn’t prove that no crime occurred or that the person is confirmed innocent. It means that the charges were dropped.
If it’s your opinion that the allegation was baseless, you can report that, if you report your opinions. You’d be the one taking the risk that you were printing the name of a possible rape victim who didn’t have a day in court.
keebo: That’s why I was careful to say “for a variety of reasons.” Sure there have been times when charges were dropped because the alleged victim chose not to go through the torment of a trial. I realize that doesn’t necessarily make him innocent. But at the same time, there have been instances when the charges were dropped because of a lack of evidence and the guy didn’t really do it. But you’re right, we don’t report opinions. And I don’t report things I hear off the record, which is how the majority of these cases end up. That means… Read more »
Instead of changing the law to allow the names of rape victims to be published, why don’t we change the law to afford the same privacy to the accused until they are convicted. That would meet the burden of equity that Ms. Wolfe speaks of while still protecting the victims from public scrutiny. It would also correct the problem of innocent men who’s names are dragged through the mud…
I can’t agree with Naomi Wolf. The more well-liked a man is, the more likely it is that his victim will be harassed, shamed, and ultimately recant their statements if only to protect their sanity. Changing the policy will not force society to change. It will just mean fewer men being convicted of rape because they’ve accrued enough “good man” points prior to the assault.
Men who are falsely accused of rape are open to the same sort of public shaming. By your logic, the accused should be anonymous as well.
I actually think they should.
Time to reopen this discussion in in light of the Dominique Strauss-Kahn fiasco.
I be awfully concerned about about the result of keeping the accused’s name hidden. The result of hiding both parties identity would be secret trials and an uninformed public. We just can’t go there.
The status quo – leaving the option of anonymity up to the accuser, but not to the accused is inherently inequitable. And on a broader scale “special” rights for the victims of some crimes but not others is contrary to the “equal justice under the law”