Naomi Wolf challenges the right to anonymity of rape accusers
January 10, 2011 6:07 PM   Subscribe

Feminist author Naomi Wolf has provoked debate with her recent opinion piece arguing that those who allege rape shouldn't be subject to anonymity, claiming doing so is a "Victorian Relic."

Her piece comes in light of the sexual assault recent allegations against Julian Assange, in which Wolf has defended Assange.

Katha Pollitt at the Nation accuses Wolf of taking the position only because of Assange.

On Friday the BBC gave Ms. Wolf a medium to defend herself in light over backlash over her Guardian column.

Does Wolf have a point, or is she just trolling?
posted by banal evil (10 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: There's been a lot of discussion of Wolf's opinions and responses to same in some of the previous Wikileaks/Assange threads and I'm not sure we need another post just to dig into the sub-subject even further. -- cortex



 
I think Naomi is begging the question. Her argument is valid only if you accept her premise, which I don't.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 6:13 PM on January 10, 2011


Interesting post. Bad form to end an FPP with a question. That's for blogs.
posted by hippybear at 6:16 PM on January 10, 2011


Criminal prosecutions should be a matter of public record in every possible respect.

Shield kids. Release everything else.
posted by eugenen at 6:18 PM on January 10, 2011


When accusers are identified, it becomes clear that rape can happen to anyone.

It's not up to victims of rape to be a goddamned object lesson.
posted by monster truck weekend at 6:19 PM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]


Well, I can say that at least I think Naomi Wolf is being honest when she says she doesn't believe in anonymity. Her motivation here, however, seems to be to dispel her own.
posted by koeselitz at 6:19 PM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]


It's not up to victims of rape to be a goddamned object lesson.

But it is for shooting victims?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:20 PM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]


Separate from the Assange dog-and-pony show I pretty much agree: accusers of any crime shouldn't be anonymous without good reason. Judges already exist to make this decision for other crimes (i.e. crimes against minors or when there is a strong likelihood of retribution), treating rape victims any differently smacks of patriarchy.
posted by 2bucksplus at 6:20 PM on January 10, 2011 [3 favorites]


But it is for shooting victims?

Contempt and shaming for victims of shooting does not come in the same form as it does for victims of rape, though of course blame-the-victim exists everywhere. Naomi's argument that women-shielding sucks is true; however, get rid of the disease inherent in society first, not the symptom.
posted by monster truck weekend at 6:23 PM on January 10, 2011


Contempt and shaming for victims of shooting does not come in the same form as it does for victims of rape

Not in the same form, no, although it definitely happens. Every time there's a shooting in Oakland and I look at the comments on sfgate (why do I do this?) it is at least as bad as what I see said to rape victims.
posted by wildcrdj at 6:24 PM on January 10, 2011


Contempt and shaming for victims of shooting does not come in the same form as it does for victims of rape, though of course blame-the-victim exists everywhere.

Someone on metafilter actually blamed Giffords for being shot for having poor security. She was asking for it, I guess.
posted by empath at 6:28 PM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]


« Older Ain't No Mountain High Enough   |   Single, Female, Mormon, Alone Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments