There is a widespread international consensus among objective observers -- observers who do not speak regularly on gender issues and have no axe to grind in the matter -- that the sexual assault charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn were properly dismissed. That consensus was generated not by any sympathy for Mr. Strauss-Kahn, who is not a sympathetic figure, nor by antipathy for his accuser's gender, race, or ethnicity, but because it is painfully self-evident that the charges simply are not sustainable. Many thoughtful observers, including Naomi Wolf and a host of serious commentators in the European community, viewed with alarm American law enforcement's zealousness in bringing the charges in the first place. Whatever Ms. Wolf's other views about men, she's been on the right side of some important false rape issues lately.
But the National Organization for Women has issued a statement condemning the dismissal of charges that is so extreme and discordant with fundamental values cherished by our jurisprudence, and that strays so far from the mainstream of serious and reasoned thought, that NOW has lost any rightful claim to participate in the public discourse about the serious issues relating to sexual assault.
NOW's statement said it "deplore[d]" the decision to dismiss the charges against Strauss-Kahn. The decision was, NOW asserted, a "miscarriage of justice" that "exhibits all the hallmarks of a society that tolerates sexual violence by blaming and shaming the survivors . . . ." Further, NOW "applauds Ms. Diallo for bravely coming forward to tell her story. . . . she stands as an example to all women that we can, with dignity, demand justice for ourselves -- that women who are sexually assaulted need not be perfect in order to be believed." NOW added: "This case underscores the fact that we still have a long way to go in ending violence against women, and NOW will not rest until we achieve that goal. Ms. Diallo's courage gives us inspiration to hold our heads high and keep striving." (Contact: Latoya Veal w. 202-628-8669, ext. 116, c. 301-660-3447) http://now.org/press/08-11/08-23.html
Most troubling about NOW's reaction is the absence of even passing concern for the rights of the presumptively innocent.
Beyond that, NOW does rape survivors and future rape victims no favors by tying its reputation to a sexual assault accusation that, by common consensus, was highly questionable.
The prosecution of sexual assault raises a host of complex issues that require the nuanced balancing of critical and delicate interests: we must, on the one hand, strive to punish malefactors, and on the other, insure that the innocent are not punished with the guilty. The balancing of those two imperatives is difficult enough in the rape milieu without injecting shrill politicization into the discourse. NOW has proven that its voice on these issues is not one that should be taken seriously.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
It is shameful to see a whole organization such as NOW acting in the sameway as 1930 Germany. Impowering one Charleton to seduce a whole nation into maddess. Is there nobody at NOW open to reason, or inpendent thought or will they go foward like mindless cattle in the face of Truth?
In other words, the gals at NOW are high on the narcotic of self-righteous victimhood. And there aint no amount of objective facts or evidence that are going to spoil the party.
Self-righteous victimhood groupthink is the crack cocaine of the intellect. Once you are hooked on that shit, it is mighty hard to come off it. I don't know what we can do about it. I suggest a bit of tough love, an intensive detox program.
I am being serious here, but I actually think that in the future feminism will be classed as a mental illness or personality disorder. If only we still had Freud around, to provide some treatments.
Knee jerk advocacy, by gender or otherwise, is ineffective advocacy. Take this blog in contrast to NOW and Susan Brownmiller: we made it a point to make clear throughout the DSK investigation that we don't know if a rape occurred.
Susan Brownmiller said, "I believe her." Let's call that what it is: stupid. Intelligent people don't write like that, in my experience. So the movers and shakers in the sexual grievance industry are so blinded by their zeal that they've lost any discernment.
Think how much more credible NOW would be if it commended the decision to drop the charges. It would actually look as if it were fair and objective. With this very childish declaration, NOW can't be trusted to have a reasonable basis for its advocacy. They will always side with the woman, and even relatively very few women even that's a good idea.
@Archivist: You misunderstand -- one of the core tenants of mainstream feminism is that no woman ever, *EVER* lies about being raped. So they *can't* stand by anything short of "anyone ever accused is automatically guilty and must be punished" without being hypocrits.
Hell, look at how they define a "false rape accusation" to get their 2-8% number -- by the definitions they use, you can be charged with a rape you didn't commit without it being a "false rape accusation", in fact by feminist counting methods the Tracy West case was not a false accusation and thus accordingly is a rapist who got to walk free despite committing rape.
so... wimminz "need not be perfect in order to be believed"
but if a man is in any way less than perfect that will be used to support the allegation that he is a creep who probably did it anyway...
niiiice
Right, AfOR, they take the cliche they claim is used against women and reverse it. Nice, eh?
Nick, I don't know if it's a mental disorder, but whoever is behind that policy is not too bright. It would be difficult to fathom a worse way to advocate your position than to support something so clearly unsupportable.
Looking to Occam's razor for an explanation of NOW's pronouncments, they are crazy. Their positions make little sense and diminish the likelihood of their being taken seriously about other issues.
Looking for a reason other than lunacy, one is driven into the realm of agendas and conspiracies. It works to their advantage if large numbers of women can be persuaded to claim (1) they have been raped, and (2) they did not report the crime to the police because they "knew" they wouldn't be believed.
My guess is that they think they have sufficient political leverage that they don't need to convince the general public of the correctness of their positions. This is absurd, of course, but they've been pretty successful in turning their agenda into law.
Any feminist association which is protective to criminal women is untrustworthy.
NOW.....that women who are sexually assaulted need not be perfect in order to be believed...
Ridiculous statement by NOW.
I hope this woman will be arrested and deported. She should not be in USA.
This woman is a proven liar with connection to drug-dealing criminals.
"exhibits all the hallmarks of a society that tolerates sexual violence by blaming and shaming the survivors"
Which completely ignores how society initially responded to the accusation. That response -- by the police, the prosecutors, the judiciary, the corrections officers, the press, whoever bussed in a group of hotel maids to protest, the International Monetary Fund, the electorate of France, etc. -- was the exact opposite of tolerance. No one blamed or shamed the alleged victim. Rather, most everyone shamed and blamed DSK, and did so based on nothing but the accusers word.
"NOW has proven that its voice on these issues is not one that should be taken seriously."
I completely agree, as their view has no basis in reality whatsoever. The safety of our daughters is too important to be left in the hands of crazy people.
NOW has exposed itself,again, as a misandrist,bigoted and hypocritical organization that truely deserves to be recognized as a hate group. Also, those who support(ed)/enable(ed)/empower(ed) NOW are liable and responsible for NOW's unfair, hateful and biased actions/words/deeds, etc.
Archivist said...
My guess is that they think they have sufficient political leverage that they don't need to convince the general public of the correctness of their positions. This is absurd, of course, but they've been pretty successful in turning their agenda into law.
Aug 24, 2011 12:20:00 PM
They also have the popular MSM backing them up. The MSM has fought for their(the MSM/right to report "the news") own exclusive 1st amendment rights[ to hell with anyone who cannot give them a sensational story to report/exploit upon; or spin] and they won. What a perfect tool/weapon feminists have gained/owned in their arsenal?
AfOR said...
so... wimminz "need not be perfect in order to be believed"
but if a man is in any way less than perfect that will be used to support the allegation that he is a creep who probably did it anyway...
niiiice
Aug 24, 2011 10:39:00 AM
Stop me if you have heard this one; "Well HE MUST HAVE DONE/DID SOMETHIG WRONG [TO DESERVE IT]"
NOW is a feminist supremacy organization.
To the casual reader who is just now seeing this old post: the "offensive" comment has been deleted.
You all ought to be on your hands and knees thanking us for our tireless advocacy instead of looking for crap to criticize.
Post a Comment