Culture Club: "Karma Chameleon"
Assange's Curious Defense
[Trigger warning for sexual violence, rape apologia, and victim-blaming.]
Hey, remember when the rape allegations against Julian Assange were first made public, and Very Important Men (and Women) were falling all over each other to mendaciously misrepresent the charges and discredit the complainants and peddle conspiracy theories and defend Assange on the basis that he does Important Work and, more importantly, he doesn't SEEM like a rapist to them, right, Daniel Ellsberg?
Sex charges against Assange are grave, but having heard his account personally, I believe they're false and slanderous.Whoooooooooooops! They are—SURPRISE!—in fact not false and slanderous. Angus Johnston has the latest from a London court, where Assange is contesting an extradition order:
[Assange lawyer Ben Emmerson provided] accounts of the two encounters in question which granted — at least for the purposes of today's hearing — the validity of Assange's accusers' central claims. He described Assange as penetrating one woman while she slept without a condom, in defiance of her previously expressed wishes, before arguing that because she subsequently "consented to … continuation" of the act of intercourse, the incident as a whole must be taken as consensual.I don't guess I need to point out that retroactive consent does not magically make a sexual encounter not rape.
In the other incident, in which Assange is alleged to have held a woman down against her will during a sexual encounter, Emmerson offered this summary: "[The complainant] was lying on her back and Assange was on top of her … [she] felt that Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina directly, which she did not want since he was not wearing a condom … she therefore tried to turn her hips and squeeze her legs together in order to avoid a penetration … [she] tried several times to reach for a condom, which Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without using a condom. [She] says that she felt about to cry since she was held down and could not reach a condom and felt this could end badly."
As in the case of the first incident, Emmerson argues that subsequent consent renders the entire encounter consensual, and legal.
I will, as an aside, note that, contrary to pervasive narratives about women who "feel guilty" after a consensual act inventing rape charges, the reality is that women who feel shame, or fear, or regret after an actual rape frequently re-imagine the encounter as consensual, because admitting rape even to themselves is so difficult. Rapists are exponentially more likely to indirectly benefit from women "consenting" after the fact as a survival strategy than are innocent men likely to be victimized by false rape charges.
Supposing Assange's victims did actually "consent" to the continuation of acts of rape, about which I am profoundly dubious, Assange's own attorney now effectively concedes that was, at best, what happened here: His victims gave "subsequent consent" to sexual activity for which explicit consent was neither sought nor given, after having been assumed, for months, to have invented the act of rape out of revenge or because they were government operatives or whatthefuckever.
I think I may have pointed out once or twice or three million times in this space that the people who benefit from rape apologia and victim-blaming, of the precise sort that we've seen with regard to the accusations against Julian Assange, are rapists.
Which is a pretty strong incentive not to engage in it, if you don't like rape or rapists.
But somehow it's never strong enough to deter the invocation of the same old tired rape culture narratives when it comes to defending an Important Man Doing Important Work.
Whoops. You defended a rapist.
I'm sure some of Assange's defenders, whether they publicly admit it or not, are furious that Assange made them look stupid. Well, don't worry your Important Heads about it, Very Important Rape Apologists: I can assure you that you looked stupid already.
This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day.
Actual Headline: Doctors dispute Megan Fox no-Botox photos.
Actual Opening Paragraphs:
Cosmetic doctors dispute the claim by actress Megan Fox that photos she published last week are proof that she is not using Botox.Actual Title of Accompanying Slideshow: Megan Fox: Pretty, Then Sexy, Now 'Done.'
Some doctors said the photos show a face in which the effects of Botox injections are slowly wearing off. Many others said one photo (top left) displays such unnatural wrinkle patterns that the image apparently has been digitally altered.
"Looks like Megan is just as talented with Photoshop as she is in entertainment," said plastic surgeon and blogger Dr. Nicholas Vendemia of New York.
In case it's not self-evident, let me be perfectly clear: The point of this post is not to invite speculation about whether Megan Fox uses Botox, nor to invite judgment on her appearance (or talent, or choices, or anything else).
The point of this post is to highlight what a ridiculously fucked-up culture we live in, where a woman is put under enormous pressure to alter ("improve") her appearance and simultaneously put under enormous pressure to pretend she puts absolutely no effort into her appearance at all.
And if a famous woman gets chemical or surgical procedures, she is a vain harpy. And if she does not, she is a grody wrinkled hag. And if she says she hasn't had such procedures, whether she has or hasn't, her image will be publicly scrutinized for "proof" that she is a liar by doctors whose livelihoods are predicated on women's insecurities about their looks.
This is a sick, sick game that women are asked to play, and if there is a better incentive for not playing it than even Megan Fox isn't beautiful enough, I can't conceive of it.
Keystone Legislators
One of the inevitable problems of a democracy in which the populace becomes deeply jaded about the government's efficacy and decency is that, eventually, very few people are interested in doing the job. And many of the ones who are interested are complete numpties:
Gov. Mitch Daniels has signed an order restoring Indiana's largest state agency after it was accidentally eliminated due to a mistake in a new state law.Yeesh.
Daniels signed an executive order late Thursday to maintain the Family and Social Services Administration, which manages Medicaid and other major programs for Indiana's poor, elderly and disabled, according to The Journal-Gazette of Fort Wayne.
Daniels' spokeswoman, Jane Jankowski, said an apparent clerical drafting error in the preparation of the law resulted in the agency being repealed as of June 30.
...The FSSA elimination may be an extreme example, but it's not the first time this year that flaws were found in legislation from the 2011 session.
"We have had some clerical errors that seem to be more than I can recall in the past," conceded House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis.
...Bosma said leadership in the House and Senate is "addressing the issue" of the recent mistakes with the Legislative Services Agency, the nonpartisan state agency that reviews legal and fiscal legislation.
Of course, for Republicans, who want to decrease the size of government to virtually nothing but defense, incompetency is a handy way of further diminishing the People's trust in their government, creating a more welcoming environment for anti-government rhetoric. So, this shit isn't so much a bug as a feature.
Question of the Day
Nicked from MaryAnn: What actor/director team-ups would you like to see?
Besides Rip Taylor and Darren Aronofsky (OBVIOUSLY), I would like to see the result of Meryl Streep working with Jane Campion.
In Things That Sound Like Garbage
A TV show based on John Grisham's The Firm, but set ten years after what happened in the book and the terrible film adaptation starring Tom Cruise: "After a difficult decade, which included a stay in the Federal Witness Protection program, Mitch and his family now emerge from isolation to reclaim their lives and their future—only to find that past dangers are still lurking and new threats are everywhere." Starring Josh Lucas.
Nope.
Why even call this shit The Firm? Are you seriously trying to tell me that film, which came out in '93, a year after the book was hot, still has the cachet to sell a television show which is just another Fugitive ripoff?
Because nope.
Number of the Day
Five: The number of separate sources who have independently confirmed that President Obama offered, during debt ceiling negotiations, an increase in the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 67.
At the link, Igor notes: "If the provision ends up in the final package, however, Democrats won't only cede the political debate about the efficacy of privatizing Medicare, they'll be accepting a portion of the Paul Ryan budget and effectively forcing Americans between 64 and 65 years of age to purchase coverage from private insurers in the state-based exchanges."
Additionally, Obama "repeatedly highlighted his willingness to include cuts to entitlement programs in a final agreement" in his morning press conference.
More of Obama's magical thinking: If only we "fix" Medicare and Social Security, the Republicans will stop attacking it.
Nope!
They want to see both programs destroyed. Compromising with them—on the backs of the people who need those programs, in order to subsidize the lavish tax haven that is the US for people who don't—won't sate their appetite for destruction any more than tossing chum in the water sates a fucking shark.
I'm at the doooooooooog park! / I love the doooooooooog park! So Much Cute! SO MUCH! (This is sarcasm.)
[Trigger warning for coercion, rape culture.]
OMG you guys, have you heard the TOTALLY CUTE story about how a marine made a YouTube video inviting actress Mila Kunis to go to the Marine Corps Ball on November 18th with him, and she totes said yes?! SO CUTE!!!
Especially the part about how she was put on the spot by her Friends With Benefits co-star Justin Timberlake during a promotional appearance for their garbage film, and Timberlake acted like he was her fucking pimp! CUTE!!!!!1!!!!!eleventy!
[W]hen FOX411 asked Kunis about the invitation over the weekend, her "Benefits" co-star, Justin Timberlake, assured Moore he was going to make it happen.THAT JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE IS SUCH A CUTIE PATOOTIE! It's totes adorbz how he just stepped right in to broker the deal as if Mila Kunis, Adult Woman, was his property to exchange with another man! Swoon!
"Have you seen this? Have you heard about this? You need to do it for your country," Timberlake asked Kunis excitedly, before sending out a direct message to Moore. "I'm going to work on this, man. This needs to go down."
After questioning her publicist if she knew about the invitation, the clearly flattered 27-year-old actress agreed.
"I'll go, I'll do it for you," she said, turning to Timberlake. "Are you going to come?"
"They don't want me! They want you," Timberlake responded. "You need to do it for your country."
Kunis nodded.
"I'll do it," she confirmed.
And you know how much I just loooooooooooove public romantic gestures that put women on the spot to consent to some overture in front of perfect strangers by whom they'll be judged negatively if they don't say yes! Cute cubed!
But I think the CUTEST part about the whole thing is how coercing Kunis by telling her to "do it for her country" invokes the old chestnut about a solider going off to war and cajoling a girl to do it with him as a patriotic gesture, which itself was referenced in the iconic rape anthem from Grease 2, "Do It for Our Country," in which Louis tries to trick Sharon into doing it with him by luring her into a bomb shelter and pretending there's a war on.
The whole narrative of women putting out for (male) soldiers as a patriotic gesture is SO FUCKING ADORABLE I can barely stand it!
Whooooooooooooooooooooops I barfed all over this story.
Another Twitter Thread
Shaker everestmckinley, aka @sybbys, requested another Twitter thread for Shakers to share their Twitter handles, and connect Twitter handles with their Disqus handles.
So here it is!
As a reminder, Shakesville's official Twitter feed is @Shakestweetz (Shakesville was already taken).
Monday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by THE UNIVERSE.
Recommended Reading:
Digby: Eat Our Peas
BTD: Obama On "Entitlement" Programs
James: [TW for rape culture] Atheist Elevator Redux
Resistance: [TW for dehumanization] WTF Time Magazine
Dorothy: [Spoiler Warning if you haven't watched the US-Brazil World Cup match yet] Splendor in the Grass
Scott: Bachmann: A Very Serious Contender
Leave your links and recommendations in comments...
Small Things
[Trigger warning for sexual violence.]
In August of 2008, I wrote about a ghastly Page Six blind item about a male movie star who reportedly raped an ex-boyfriend and then paid him off to keep quiet about it. My interest (for lack of a better word) in the item was about the ways in which it played into and perpetuated the rape culture.
I did not realize that there was apparently a widespread internet rumor that the unidentified actor in the item was James Franco.
In a new interview with Playboy, Franco addresses being linked to the horrible item, despite the fact that the victim himself admitted not knowing him:
Gawker [picked up the rumor] and did this "Gay Rapist" story that was so fucking offensive because I have friends who have been raped. They did a very classy online reader's poll asking which actor who had a big movie out that summer had beaten up and raped his boyfriend and then paid him off so it wouldn't go to court. The poll had me, Will Smith, Christian Bale and maybe Tom Cruise or some others, and the readers voted for me. Because it was just an innocent poll, they could report this.It's a small thing that Franco does not use this opportunity to insist that he's not gay. But it's an important thing.
...My lawyer called them and said that it was completely untrue and to take it down. They said, "Well, we're just reporting what the New York Post told us. If James wants to make a comment on our blog, we're happy to report it." It was a choice. Either let this thing build and become bigger and bigger, or just let it go and let them be the petty scumbags that they are.
It is also a small thing that he does not say it's offensive because he's not a rapist, defensively centering himself, but instead says it "was so fucking offensive because I have friends who have been raped," thus allying himself with survivors and underlining that treating speculative rape allegations as fodder for entertainment is bullshit for survivors of rape.
That's an important thing, too.
What's depressing is that both of these small things are notable.
[Via Andy.]
A bit more on the Yamhill Co. situation
Last Monday I wrote about Bridget Burkholder's situation where she, an inmate with pre-trial status in Yamhill County (Oregon), needed an abortion and the county would not let her have a furlough to get it nor provide supervised transportation without a court order (but no court order was going to happen). Plus there's that county ordinance that prevents any county employee from "facilitating the performance of an abortion". In the end, Ms. Burkholder was transferred to a mental health facility where she may or may not get the abortion she needs. Anyway, back on Monday (before her transfer), I noted that the county prosecutor, Michael Videtich, had this to say about it:
"Also, this isn't a scenario where there is a medical emergency. I understand that there is a timeline, but it's not an emergency. This is an elective procedure she has a right to have. But she can post bail."At the time I pointed out to Mr. Videtich that, no, it's not "an elective procedure" as if abortion is just like eyelash tinting. Oregon District Attorney Brad Berry has now followed right along with Videtich:
[Berry] raised the question, "If we wouldn't allow her to have her breasts reduced in this state," or have a benign tumor removed, how could she be allowed to choose an abortion? [...]Seriously? No. Just no. Neither of those elective procedures are really comparable to abortion. Because what happens if you do not have the benign tumor removed? Probably nothing serious to a person's health. Not have breast reduction? There may be back issues, which can possibly be severe and debilitating. However, what happens if an abortion doesn't happen? Pregnancy--which is not just some easy process even in "textbook good" pregnancies (trust me on this one, Mr. Berry--I know of which I speak here). Labor. Delivery. What happens to the child? Will Ms. Burkholder be forced to put the child in foster care? Find some relative? What will the effects of that potentially do to her (and the child)? So no, Mr. Berry, not having an abortion is not like not having breast reduction or not removing a benign tumor.
Also? That reasoning makes me wonder about Sheriff Crabtree's insistence that he couldn't do anything for her because of her pre-trial status. Sounds like if she was a "regular" inmate, she wouldn't have had the abortion anyway what with your breast reduction reasoning there.
Berry was apparently questioned about the whole idea of "if she can't make the decisions about abortion...what about being competent enough to carry a pregnancy and give birth to a child?" Berry said that:
"If she lacks the mental competence to opt one way", he said, "Then it's hard to argue she doesn't also lack the mental competence to opt the other, putting her potential [legal] guardian in a tough spot."Berry also assured that everyone in Yamhill County acted with utmost professionalism and neutrality and no one had any intention on influencing "the ultimate outcome" in regards to Ms. Burkholder's abortion.
Whether Ms. Burkholder does get the abortion or not, no one will probably know (at least not for some time) due to medical privacy laws.
Justice Denied. Again.
[Trigger warning for sexual violence.]
Jamie Leigh Jones, the Halliburton/KBR employee who reported being gang-raped by her co-workers, only to then be held hostage by her employer, and who had to fight through an absurd stipulation in her employment contract that required sexual assault allegations be addressed by private arbitration in order to take her case to court, has lost the civil rape case against Charles Boartz and KBR.
The main attacker named in the complaint defended the case by saying the sex he had with Jones, while she was unconscious, was consensual. And it was enough for a Houston jury to believe.I don't believe there's anything I can say that I haven't already said a thousand times before. This is the rape culture in action.
To beat the charges the defense did what the defense had to do: they went after Jones' character. They produced medical experts that testified that her injuries "may" have been consistent with rape. They introduced evidence that Jones had alleged rape before, that she had a book deal and that her success post-attack was inconsistent with someone who was claiming psychological injuries.
The defense was shooting for reasonable doubt. Except there is one problem here. Reasonable doubt is the standard in a criminal case and Jones' claims were civil. All the jury had to do was believe it was more likely than not that Jones was correct and then they were required to find for her. Think of it as about 51% that Jones was telling the truth.
Instead, the jury found it was more likely than not that Jones consented to sex while unconscious.
I'm so sorry, Jamie Leigh.
[H/T to Shaker InfamousQBert.]
Texting! With Liss and Deeky!
Liss: Just so you know, the universe has aligned perfectly to make sure Sandra Bullock is happy now, according to Rachael Ray.
Deeky: Whew! That's a load off! Good thing the universe has its priorities straight.
Liss: I thought so, too.
Deeky: The universe is all "Starvation shmarvation. Let's get Sandra Bullock laid!"
Liss: The universe is such a starfucker.
Deeky: LOL! I know, right?
Quote of the Day
[Trigger warning for terrorism.]
"You're looking for me. I'm here."—Dr. Mila Means, a physician trying to open an abortion clinic in Wichita, Kansas, who responded to a letter she received advising her to check under her car each morning "because maybe today is the day someone places an explosive under it" by driving a bright-yellow Mini Cooper emblazoned with lightning bolts.
[H/T to Shaker The Great Indoors.]
A Few Mathematics Exam Questions
Not much has changed since Anton Chekhov's day when it comes to math word problems, I see. Here is an excerpt from pages 183-184 of The Undiscovered Chekhov: Forty-Three New Stories, translated by Peter Constantine, with a foreword by Spalding Gray:
3. On New Year’s Eve, 200 people were thrown out of the Bolshoi Theater’s costume ball for brawling. If the brawlers numbered 200, what was the number of guests who were drunk, slightly drunk, sweating, and those trying but not managing to brawl?
4. What is the sum of the following numbers?
5. Twenty chests of tea were purchased. Each chest contained 5 poods of tea, each pood comprising 40 pounds. Two of the horses transporting the tea collapsed on the way, one of the carters fell ill, and 18 pounds of tea were spilled. One pound contains 96 zolotniks of tea. What is the difference between pickle brine and bewilderment?
6. There are 137,856,738 words in the English language, and 0.7 more in the French language. The English and French came together and united their two languages. What is the cost of the third parrot, and how much time was necessary to subjugate these nations?
Oh! I have one!
7. If it is 4 days until the 107th anniversary of the death of Anton Chekhov, How severe was the thunderstorm pummeling the greater Chicago area on the day of Chekhov's birth, how many cows stood ready to kick their lanterns 11 years later, and why are we still getting these types of questions on tests in the 21st century?
This post is dedicated to my nine-year-old nephew, folks who threw their math workbooks against the wall, people who love both math word problems and jokes about math word problems, and anyone who took the GRE analytical section before it changed from multiple-choice questions to written essays. I love math. I love Chekhov at least as much.
