Why do feminists hate when the facts reveal that rape claims were likely lies?
Salon's Heather Michon, who describes herself as a "[n]on-radical feminist," is so hermetically sealed in her gynocentric bubble-wrap that she refuses to conceive of even the possibility that DSK might have been the victim of a terrible crime, a crime that seems to have destroyed his career.
First, she mocks a presumptively innocent man. "Why, we should give poor ole DSK the French presidency just to make up for all his suffering." Then she calls the accusations against Nafissatou Diallo "DSK's public-relations wet dream." Anti-male derision oozes from every word.
The fact that this man she's deriding was likely the victim of a vile crime is of no import to her. She never mentions it except to ridicule those who have the audacity to suggest it.
Now tell me, dear readers, what do you call a male writer who writes with similar derision about a woman who might have been raped? Unemployed, that's what. But somehow it's just peachy for the Amanda Marcottes and the Heather Michon's to use presumptively innocent men accused of rape as their human piñatas. And outlets like Salon invite them to do it.
But wait, Michon's not finished. Next she concocts what is to feminists the discussion-closing, ironclad argument to "prove," by innuendo, speculation, and surmise that a rape occurred even where it can't possibly be proved. It's the old "just because the district attorney couldn't prove it doesn't mean she wasn't raped."
It's more accurate to say this: just because a woman who's less credible than Crystal Gain Mangum said she was raped doesn't mean that anyone should take it seriously.
Then, Michon imputes a bad motive to the D.A. -- of playing politics -- by beating the defense team to the punch with the ugly news about her. "Strauss-Kahn is not the only one with a political future to ponder," she clucks.
It's as if she's downright pissed that the truth was revealed about Nafissatou Diallo.
Picture the villain in the denouement of a "Scooby Doo" episode: ". . . and I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids!"
Then Michon blathers on about how senseless it would have been for Nafissatou Diallo to make a false rape claim. Michon obviously isn't a daily reader of this blog, because we could make the same assertion every single day of the week about our false accuser du jour. Most seem to have an infinite capacity for being flat-out stupid.
But tell me, Michon, doesn't your argument work better the other way? Isn't DSK too smart to rape a maid when he could have any prostitute, not to mention any number of other women, for a sex partner? I mean, you do see what happens to a man accused of rape, don't you? Hmm? Do you think DSK got where he did by being so careless?
Finally, trying to appear even-handed, she declares: "An actual 'victory for justice' would be establishing the truth of what happened in Suite 2806 of the Sofitel Hotel on the afternoon of May 14 and bringing any alleged crimes before a jury. Even if we take Strauss-Kahn at his word, he committed a crime that day: He solicited a prostitute."
Fine, but doesn't that mean that she's a prostitute, and isn't that a crime? More important, does Michon acknowledge the possibility that Nafissatou Diallo might have committed a terrible crime of falsely accusing a man of rape?
Somehow I doubt it. That doesn't seem to fit her preferred narrative. Sounds like the only "crimes" Michon wants to talk about are those committed with a penis.
Well, you have our most sincere sympathies, madam, because this is pretty much how all the high profile "rape" cases turn out. Rape isn't rampant, despite the self-selecting surveys that "prove" it is; it isn't one-in-four, it's more like one-in-one-thousand-eight-hundred-seventy-seven. See here.
You may have to pick a different alleged crime to get all indignant about.