Thursday, December 23, 2010

Responses to my remarks and the subject: Part II...Feminists Debate Sexual Allegations against Julian Assange

Hi. My comment and the subject brought a dozen or more responses.
Here are four of them, a related one about today's email, and my own
response to the final comment. -ed

----- Original Message -----
From: "King, Katherine" <king@humnet.ucla.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 11:14 AM
Subject: RE: Part II...Feminists Debate Sexual Allegations against Julian
Assange

Thanks for this, Ed. I watched part I but could not watch part II, so I'm
delighted to get the transcript.
Naomi Wolf seems on target. This case is going to have a bad effect on
people's thinking about date rape.
Sweden should send prosecutors to interrogate Assange in London.
Katherine

***

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Maizlish" <goodwork@igc.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: Part II...Feminists Debate Sexual Allegations against Julian
Assange

Ed,

Thanks for taking up this story. It poses some challenges good for
activists to face.

I heard the Democ. Now segments. I get it that these experts and
activists who have worked decades on the issues feel a high stake in the
way it's understood, used, and misused.

What was missing for me in the discussion were these topics:

What in their opinions ought to be good community responses to the
behaviors Assange is alleged to have done (I note that there was
disagreement they didn't fully deal with about just what has been alleged).

How can we support the well-being and rights of the people making the
allegations (and of the person charged in the allegations) without
prejudging the correctness of the allegations?

How do we resist what is pretty transparently an attempt to use the
sexual abuse charges for political purposes (such as distraction from
the embarrassing and revealing contents of the published leaked
documents) AND respect the subject matter of the sexual abuse charges?

The leaked diplomatic documents AND the sexual behavior charges are both
about abuse, and about mistreatment of people without freely given
permission. When governments around the world are pressured to conceal
their actions and to act against the expectations of their publics, that
is abuse and overrunning people's wishes (and well-being) as surely as
the sexual abuse charged against Mr. Assange.

- Joe

***

----- Original Message -----
From: Judith Hansen
To: Ed Pearl
Cc: anita frankel ; nancy and paul berlin tepper ; peter and leni merlin ;
raymond hansen
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 9:59 AM
Subject: Feminists Debate Sexual Allegations

A puzzling thing for me is that I heard quite an "informed" discussion
on, I assume, NPR about the Assange situation soon after it happened. The
report said the women were most
angered over his refusal to take an HIV test, and that the women had
united when both realized they were open to disease of one sort or another
because of a breakdown in protected sex. That was when they went to the
police.
It made good sense.

A few days ago the NYT had one line about that issue. Here, in this
dialog, it was never mentioned.
What gives?

And then to have (Wolfe) refer to sex between folks who barely know
each other as making "love" is weird. Does she know the difference?

Cheers.

Judy

***

----- Original Message -----
From:
To: Ed Pearl
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 8:57 AM
Subject: Re: Marcy W: The Treatment of Bradley Manning, Medea B: To the Gay
Community

I really think it shows how phoney the whole gay/lesbian trip is that
they could talk about wanting to serve in the military, and never consider
how they would/will just be killers for The Empire.

Just my opinion... I used to consider myself bisexual, and had plenty
of experience to back up that opinion, but that was in the wild days of my
youth. Now, I have gotten pretty jaundiced about the claims that
homosexuality is something that is genetic, or that sort of thing. I really
think it is just a sign of immaturity.

I think a lot of military men throughout history have been
homosexuals: Alexander the Great, of course, is a famous one, but I know
there have been others. There is nothing saintly about being gay.

Just my opinion. I hope I haven't offended you. I certainly don't
think gays should be discriminated against as far as jobs and housing goes.

***

----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Pomer
To: Ed Pearl
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: Part II...Feminists Debate Sexual Allegations against Julian
Assange


Moore most likely said that about helping start the rape clinic because he
is under attack by RAINN, highest profile national group to aide rape
survivors (here's link to RAINN's vicious attack fundraising letter.)

Found this post on-line that I agree with:
"I support Wikileaks. I am grateful for what they've done.
I also think it's entirely possible that Assange is a rapist. People are
complicated.

Above all, I wish people would stop accusing the alleged rape victims of
immaturity or trying to politically damage Assange. I think it's clear that,
if anyone is trying to make political hay off these rape accusations, it's
governments--people in power. The rape charges may be being exploited by
people in power. That's not an excuse to talk shit about rape victims, blame
them, or level unfounded accusations at them."

From comments:
http://gawker.com/5714896/leaked-julian-assange-police-reports-reveal-worst-sex-ever

----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Pearl
To: Karen Pomer
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 7:28 AM
Subject: Re: Part II...Feminists Debate Sexual Allegations against Julian
Assange

I also agree with the statement. My point was Maddow's manipulation - a
regular practice, her ego, and the deliberate sanddagging of Moore, who
may quite possibly agree with the statement. My comments aimed at
drawing contrast and attention to a vastly superior style and substance,
and our friend Amy.
Ed

***

Hi. Yesterday, I tuned in to Rachel Maddow, in progress. I'd pretty much
stopped regular watching of her show because of the constant repetition
and treatment of me and her audience as children or backward. Anyway,
I'm glad I did. It was halt time at the amazing women's basketball game
where Connecticut won their 89th straight game, breaking the almost 40
year, golden ceiling of the UCLA men's team. My team. Coach Wooden's
grandson attended. Maya Moore was astounding, even for her, and the
entire team played perhaps their greatest, now historic performance.

Back to Rachel Maddow. She introduced Michael Moore with a 3-5 minute
talk about leaks providing sometimes false information, segueing into
two women testifying factually that Julian Assange sexually assaulted them.
No question, no discussion of these 'facts.' Then she introduced Moore by
noting his providing bail for Assange. Moore was on trial, sandbagged
Clearly surprised, he began trying to talk about civil rights then switched
to saying he'd helped start the first rape clinic in Seattle or Minnesota.
I went back to basketball.

Millions watched that show, including many of you. I thought it imperative
to offer balance; a genuine, serious discussion of this issue, provided by
an always democratic, great show and host. A show for adults, verbatim,
with the 'um's and interruptions of real discussions. It's pretty long so
I won't be sending an afternoon email. -Ed

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/21/part_iifeminists_debate_sexual_allegations_against

Part II...Feminists Debate Sexual Allegations against Julian Assange

Jaclyn Friedman, executive director of Women, Action & the Media a charter
member of CounterQuo and the editor of the hit anthology Yes Means Yes:
Visions of Female Sexual Power and a World Without Rape.
Naomi Wolf, feminist, social critic and author of seven books, including The
Beauty Myth and The End of America.

AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to part two of the debate over the sex crime
allegations against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Freed on bail in
London, Assange hasn't been charged, but he is wanted in Sweden for
questioning on sex crimes allegations.

Assange and his supporters have said the case is part of a wider conspiracy
to discredit him because of his work with WikiLeaks. But that argument has
been criticized by some in the feminist community who have accused WikiLeaks
supporters of minimizing violence against women.

Well, yesterday on Democracy Now!, we were joined by two guests: Jaclyn
Friedman, executive director of Women, Action, & the Media and editor of the
anthology Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and a World Without
Rape; and Naomi Wolf, a social critic, author of seven books, including The
Beauty Myth and The End of America.

Today, we go to part two of their debate. After we ended the live broadcast,
Jaclyn Friedman talked about her definition of "consent."

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: My book, Yes Means Yes, proposes a new model of consent,
and it works like this. It is the responsibility of every party to a sexual
encounter to not just make sure that someone is not lying there terrified of
them, not objecting, but to actively make sure they're consenting. And this
is a model that's being increasingly adopted, because it puts everybody in
the driver's seat. Everybody who's participating with somebody else sexually
has a responsibility to make sure that their partner is enthusiastic with
what's happening. I mean, really, in a practical sense, would you want to
have sex with someone who is not enthusiastic? None of us would, I think, if
we're not sexual predators.

And so, when we talk about consent and we talk about whether or not she
literally said the word "no," we have to talk about the context. He had
ripped her necklace. He had held her down. She was afraid. A lot of women
have been taught that they can do nothing against someone who wants to rape
them, and the best thing to do is to go along so they don't get further
hurt. And a lot of women operate with that fear. Further, if we look at the
second case, she was asleep. A woman who is asleep, a person who is
unconscious, is unable to consent. They're also unable to object. So if you
initiate sex with a sleeping person, you are sexually assaulting them, and
that is perfectly clear.

NAOMI WOLF: I, too, worry about the fact that rape is so rarely taken
seriously and that victims of very cut-and-dry crimes have very little
chance of any kind of legal hearing around the world, including in the West,
including in Scandinavia. But I would say that it's exactly this kind of
treatment of this kind of situation that undermines the seriousness with
which rape victims are likely to get a response. If you look-again, Jaclyn,
I urge you to look at this report from the police. Again and again and
again-

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: I fully have.

NAOMI WOLF: Can I just finish? Thank you.

Again and again and again, Assange did what Jaclyn and everyone who cares
about rape and I say you should do: he consulted with the women. Now, if
you're
going to say that, you know, anyone who takes someone's clothes off, you
know, in an assertive way is engaging in a sex crime, then a lot of people
who are having consensual sex are going to be criminalized. But the point
is, he stopped when the women said, "Let's talk about the condom." He
discussed it. They reached an agreement, and they went ahead. He didn't have
sex with that woman when she was asleep. I agree that you need to be awake
and conscious and not drunk to consent. We agree about that.

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: He did have-that's the allegation, is that he started
when she was asleep.

NAOMI WOLF: Can you just bear with me?

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: That is the allegation.

NAOMI WOLF: Well, you know, he started to have sex with her when she was
asleep, correct. And she said in her-

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: And that's rape.

NAOMI WOLF: Just bear with me-that she was half asleep. Then she woke up.
Then they discussed how they would have sex, under what conditions, which
is, to me, negotiating consent. Your model is not a new one, with all due
respect. I agree that people need to be clear about consent, be clear about
the circumstances. Then they had a negotiation in which they both agreed not
to use a condom. And then he went ahead, and they made love. And what I'm
trying to say-

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: She negotiated-they did not make love.

NAOMI WOLF: Well, I guess you-neither you nor I were there. And it seems
to me that when you say, "OK, you better not have HIV," he said, "Of course
not." Quote, "She couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she
had been going on about the condom all night." To me, that-I mean, if I was
making love with a woman, if I was-you know, if I was a lesbian making love
with a woman and we had that conversation, I would keep making love with
her, because we had had a discussion about it and reached a conclusion.

All I'm saying is I think that this-again, never in 23 years of supporting
rape victims-rape victims, people who had no ambiguity, who didn't throw
parties for their rapist four days later, who didn't continue to host-I
mean, women who have been raped, in my experience, don't want to be around
their rapist. They don't host them in their home. They can barely go home if
there's been an assault in their home.

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: I find it surprising, then, that you've been around many
women who have been raped, because the women I talk to who have been
raped-70 to 80 percent of all sexual assaults are committed by people who
know their assailant.

NAOMI WOLF: Of course that's true.

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: That creates a lot of-OK, I'm talking now. That creates a
lot of difficulty in terms of complex feelings afterwards, the ability for
the rapist to emotionally manipulate them, and people-like you are
doing-minimizing their experiences.

NAOMI WOLF: I am not minimizing the experience of rape. I'm asking women
to behave as-

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: I went to-Naomi, I am speaking now.

NAOMI WOLF:-and men, as moral adults and take responsibility for their
actions.

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: I went to-I go to a lot of Take Back the Night talks on
college campuses, because I'm invited to speak there. And I hear the same
story over and over again. I hear the story from women who were sexually
assaulted by someone they knew, sometimes continued to date them, sometimes
continued to live with them, because they didn't know that they had rights.
They didn't know that what was being done to them was something that was not
OK and that they could speak up about. They were afraid. They were confused.
And they don't tell anybody. And then they get up at these talks, and they
say, "I didn't tell anybody for three years. I let this keep going on,
because I didn't know that I had any better choices. And it's been making me
suffer in silence for three years, because I haven't had access to any
services or support." And that's the story I hear from trauma victims over
and over again.

NAOMI WOLF: Yeah, so that is the story, Jaclyn.

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: And what I'm trying to do-and these are real rape
victims, too, right? Like, real rape doesn't necessarily involve-

NAOMI WOLF: But Jaclyn, do you agree that-

JACLYN FRIEDMAN:-getting punched in the face, getting drugged.

NAOMI WOLF: Can I respond to you, please? Do you agree-

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: Please.

NAOMI WOLF: And I think this is so important. For feminism to be
successful, it is not about giving women a home court advantage; it's about
justice. It is so important that the rule of law operates impartially. So
just bear with me. Do you agree that men, or anyone who's the sexual
initiator-because, of course, men can get raped, women can engage in
unwelcome or nonconsensual advances-do you agree that-

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: Absolutely.

NAOMI WOLF:-men deserve to know when something is not consensual? I mean,
I, too, have heard stories that alarm me of young women-and God bless them,
my heart goes out to them, right?- but this is not the end result of
feminism. This is not us evolving to the place we need to get. They say,
"Well, you know, halfway through, I was having sex with this guy, and I felt
raped." And I said, "Well, did you say anything?" "No." "Did you indicate
anything?" "No, I just felt-I felt it." So, I would agree that that's a
failure of society, of-

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: That is not what happened in this case.

NAOMI WOLF: In this case-you're right-Assange negotiated-

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: He held the woman down. He raped another while she was
sleeping. If someone asks me 20 times, do I want to have sex with them, or
do I want to have sex without a condom, or whatever sexual act we're
negotiating, and I say "no" 20 times, and the 21st time I say "yes" because
I am worn down and because I am being pressured and coerced and I'm afraid,
and because I woke up to him already raping me and I'm freaked out, that is
not real consent. That is not a chance to have actual consent.

NAOMI WOLF: Well, I guess, you know, you and I will have to-

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: That's not legitimate consent.

NAOMI WOLF: You and I will have to part ways, because I would like to see
a world in which women and men are both treated as moral adults and a world
in which, if someone is going to be accused of something as serious as rape,
which is the most serious crime, short of murder, you know, or violent,
violent physical abuse, that both parties take it very, very seriously. And
in this particular situation, where he stops and consults with these women
again and again and again, and they consent verbally and directly again and
again and again-

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: He wasn't consulting. He was coercing.

NAOMI WOLF: Well, you and I have to agree to disagree about that-

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: He was coercing.

NAOMI WOLF:-because I would like to see a world in which-

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: In a moral-in my moral universe, where everyone is an
adult moral actor-

NAOMI WOLF: Mm-hmm?

JACLYN FRIEDMAN:-people are only having sex with people who are
enthusiastic about what they're doing at all times and enthusiastic about
the circumstances. If you are pressuring your lover into something-

NAOMI WOLF: Right.

JACLYN FRIEDMAN:-if you are coercing them, if you are having sex with them
without consent when they are asleep, that is not a moral actor.

NAOMI WOLF: So, I just-Jaclyn-

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: That is morally unjustifiable.

NAOMI WOLF: I mean, in a way-in a way, Amy, I have to say, I find this
conversation extremely frustrating and wrong, because really-and this is why
I was reluctant to have this particular debate. You know, here we are
debating, oh, you know, nuances of what is to me, working 23 years with rape
victims, a highly ambiguous situation compared to the cut-and-dry, clear
assaults and violence and, you know, date rapes that do not get a legal
hearing every day, including in Sweden, whereas really the issue is a man
who has, you know, released information showing wrongdoing at the highest
levels being dragged out of the line of justice, out of any kind of ordinary
treatment of ordinary assault-and by the way, these women did not make
charges against him. They went to the police to see if they could get him to
take an STD test. The police, the state brought charges.

AMY GOODMAN: Wait, now, stop for a second. Explain that. We have talked
about that, but-

NAOMI WOLF: OK, it is a very important distinction. And, you know, when I
worked with rape survivors in the United Kingdom in the '80s, there was a
same situation where it was the state and not the women who pursued the
case. And this very much marginalized what the women wanted. So, let us
remember, the women didn't go to the police and say, "This guy assaulted
me," or "This guy violated me," or "This guy molested me." That's not what
happened. They went to the police, much subsequent, and said, "Can we get
him to take an STD test?" And the police walked them through what had
happened, and the police said, "That's against the law."

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: He is alleged to have held one woman down and to have
raped a woman in her sleep. It's not at all about the condom.

NAOMI WOLF: He didn't-

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: The condom is an issue, but to make it about the
condom-the issue here is that we are minimizing the attempt for two women in
Sweden to get justice.

NAOMI WOLF: That is not correct. Jaclyn, I strongly object.

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: And what that tells victims everywhere across the world
is that they are not going to have a chance either.

NAOMI WOLF: Jaclyn, Jaclyn-

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: What we should be doing is taking this as an opportunity
to raise the bar internationally for the way we expect governments to
protect their citizens-

NAOMI WOLF: Exactly, exactly.

JACLYN FRIEDMAN:-including female victims of rape.

NAOMI WOLF: And that involves having a single standard of justice and a
single standard of justice where rape victims and those accused of rape can
be sure that the state will and the judiciary will take appropriate single
standard action-

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: And the way to be sure is to make sure your partners are
enthusiastically consenting. I have to say I am really offended by your
continuing to talk on behalf of rape victims, as a rape victim myself.

NAOMI WOLF: I am speaking on behalf of the rape victims who are emailing
me.

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: You do not speak for me.

NAOMI WOLF: I am not saying I speak for you, Jaclyn. I'm speaking-

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: And I am speaking on behalf of the rape victims that I
work with every day, and I'm speaking on behalf of myself as a rape victim
whose situation was accused to have not been cut and dry, because you know
what most women hear when they allege rape? They hear, "Oh, well, it's
ambiguous. We really can't do much about this." You know how endemic that
is, and how much that is the reason rape is not reported and prosecuted?

NAOMI WOLF: Well, I do. I do know, Jaclyn, which is why-

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: It's the exact thing you're saying right here: "Oh, it's
not a real, cut-and-dried rape."

NAOMI WOLF: Jaclyn, please do not twist what I'm saying.

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: And that is insulting to victims worldwide.

NAOMI WOLF: What I'm saying is, it's because-

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: You just said it!

NAOMI WOLF: It's because rape is so-

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: There's tape. We can watch it back.

NAOMI WOLF: Jaclyn, please.

AMY GOODMAN: Let's do one at a time.

NAOMI WOLF: This is a really important issue, and it's important for us to
have a substantive debate about it. And an ideally respectful debate. So, it
is because I take the issue of rape so seriously, and it's because so many
women-and when I say-I don't mean ambiguous like date rape or ambiguous like
she was drinking too much. I mean ambiguous like she consented and consented
and consented. That is a big difference. I, too, support women-

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: That's not what happened here!

NAOMI WOLF: OK.

AMY GOODMAN: Jaclyn and Naomi, let me interrupt for one second and say,
what would you like to see happen at this point in this case? So, you have
Julian Assange who was held for a week in jail on allegations of sexual
assault. He has been released. What do you want to see happen right now?
What do you each think would be fair? He faces an extradition hearing on
December 11th, extradition-on January 11th, extradition to Sweden. Jaclyn,
let's begin with you. What do you want to see happen now?

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: I am mostly concerned that he faces the allegations. It
does not concern me. I agree that extradition is extreme in a case like
this. It certainly is not typical. On the other hand, he agreed to come back
and volunteer for questioning in October and did not do so. But if the
British wanted to insist that the Swedes go to Britain and interview him
there and have him proceed with a prosecution there until they decide
whether or not they want to bring formal charges, I think that would be
perfectly reasonable. My concern is that these allegations are taken
seriously, not minimized, treated as real, because they represent the real
experiences of real rape victims everywhere, and that he is made to answer
to them to the satisfaction of the justice system, at the very least.

AMY GOODMAN: Naomi Wolf, what would you like to see?

NAOMI WOLF: Well, I mean, what I'm interested in is equal justice and the
rule of law. And so, I do believe that everyone who's accused of a serious
crime needs to know that they are acting without someone's consent. So I'd
like, going forward, for-you know, I think it's incumbent upon people to
express to each other if they are consenting or not. And so, to me, I agree
that there should be a hearing, obviously. But I think it should weigh very
seriously, as it does for me, reading these, as a supporter of rape victims,
as a crusader on the issue of rape-it is important that I don't see anywhere
these women expressing a lack of consent. In fact, I see them indicating
consensual willingness to engage in sex, consensual willingness to engage in
sex without a condom. I see that from the record. So, to me, an impartial
hearing would be ideal, if improbable.

And I have to say, I think we are being naïve. And I am kind of reluctant
to be drawn into this side of the debate, because the larger picture is, why
is the guy resisting coming back to Sweden? He's resisting coming back to
Sweden the way any journalist would, because in Sweden they will extradite
him to the United States, where he is facing, you know, prolonged isolation,
like Bradley Manning, which drives people insane, according to human rights
activists. He's facing being called an "enemy combatant" by some of our most
senior political leaders, which would mean that they could ship him to
Guantánamo, you know, where they're still torturing people, where they're
still holding people in kangaroo court conditions, where there's still-you
know, people are dying mysterious deaths in Guantánamo, even in Obama's
Guantánamo, where he's facing abuse or mistreatment of hideous kinds and the
possibility of never having due process, because we now have, you know, a
banana republic situation off the coast of Cuba, where people can get lost
in a black hole, where their innocence or guilt doesn't matter. And so, to
be talking about, you know, these discussions about these complaints-you're
right that they're not charges-without putting it in the larger picture of
he's not every guy who doesn't want to go back to where women have accused
him of sexual impropriety. He's a guy who, if he goes back, is going to lose
his freedom and his life, because he's being made a scapegoat and a martyr,
you know, on behalf of journalists everywhere by the most powerful
government on earth, that doesn't want whistleblowers shining any kind of
light on their wrongdoing, even as they continue to surveil us, wiretap us,
break the Fourth Amendment every single day. So, I think we have to keep
that larger picture in mind.

I would like justice to be done. I would like a hearing. But I would also
like my country to behave according to the rule of law and my country to
stop acting like a global bully, you know, intimidating other nations and
other judicial systems, which is clearly what happened here, into bullying
and intimidating journalists, because, believe me, Amy, if he is taken into
custody, if he is prosecuted under the Espionage Act, which closed down
dissent in this country for a decade, and he's made an example of in this
way-wrongly, because he's the New York Times, not the Daniel Ellsberg in the
case; he is just the publisher-then you and I are not going to be safe doing
our jobs as journalists any longer.

AMY GOODMAN: Jaclyn Friedman, do you find any common ground here?

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: Naomi, I couldn't agree with you more about my concerns.
Yes, I could not agree more about concerns about having him extradited to
the United States, about the Espionage Act. I agree with you about all of
that. However, I speak for myself and many, many rape victims when I say we
are so tired of having our bodies thrown under the bus for the concerns of a
powerful white guy. I totally agree, but I would like to see-and if he does
get extradited to the U.S. from Sweden, I will be on the front lines with
you protesting that. But, denying these two women justice is a denial of
justice. He needs to be made to answer these charges anyway. While, yes, I
think it is political and extraordinary the way this is being pursued, it's
an opportunity to raise the bar for the women of Sweden and the women
internationally for what we can expect from our justice systems for women
who are alleging sexual violence.

NAOMI WOLF: And I would have to say that I think you're living in a-

AMY GOODMAN: Naomi Wolf, final words.

NAOMI WOLF: I mean, I think it's a fantasy world to think that after this
case is over the bar will be raised at all. This is the last time we're ever
going to see consensual sex involving a dispute about a condom criminalized.
And it's the first time I've seen it in 23 years, and I am sure that after
they've done whatever violent, brutal thing they're planning to do to Julian
Assange, it's the last time we're going to see it. I don't think it helps
the women of Sweden in the least to trivialize the very real issue of rape
with this kind of thing.

JACLYN FRIEDMAN: Many, many of the women in Sweden think it is helping
them. And I listen to the women there.

NAOMI WOLF: OK, I listen to the women there, too, and I guess there are
many women in Sweden who have different opinions about this.

AMY GOODMAN: Naomi Wolf, social critic, author of seven books, including The
Beauty Myth, The End of America. And Jaclyn Friedman, executive director of
Women, Action, & the Media and editor of the anthology Yes Means Yes:
Visions of Female Sexual Power and a World Without Rape.

No comments:

Post a Comment