Jezebel is a megablog that runs a combination of trashy celebrity stories and mid-brow feminism. I find the combination weird, but that’s probably because I’m a guy: they’re both things that contemporary women like to read about. I don’t subscribe to Jezebel because I can’t stand the gossip, but I appreciate it when one of my lady-friends tells me about a good feminist post. Especially because Jezebel’s feminism posts tend to have unintentionally hilarious comments.
My friend Caitlin recently pointed to a pair of posts on the rape charges against Wikileaks’ Talking Head, Julian Assange:
- The media says the victims are the kind of women “who make up rape claims, basically”
- “A consent-based framework for evaluating sexual assault is not yet widely accepted”
The second one is particularly interesting. I haven’t bothered to read the comments – let me know if you see anything funny.
The bottom line as I see it: Assange certainly appears to be an asshole, so I suspect there’s something behind the charges. Western governments are applying an awful lot of pressure to apprehend this particular rapist, so it is persecution in a way. Regardless, Wikileaks would probably be better off today if they didn’t have a Talking Head (maybe they can pass teh cables over to Anonymous?)
Assange’s camp claims the charges are about protection, mostly — I think the reading is that Assange didn’t use any (could be incorrect).
Reading and commenting on the rest later, just attending to some online chores ATM.
Should note also for the record — now that Assange has been arrested and denied bail, and is awaiting extradition to the US at the whim of prosecutors there, that he’s assumed innocent of the charges until proven otherwise.
Generally, on rape: somewhere along the line (I think in CAPP @ Oak Bay?) I was taught a consent-based framework for sex, including the supposedly “weird” part about withdrawal of consent meaning rape if the sex keeps going — hooray, sex ed!
This whole post is great, but the first sentence is classic (though perhaps I’m reading it with more derision than you intended.)
I liked Jezebel alot more before I began reading the comments.
Oh and P.S. It isn’t just things ladies like to read about, fashion and celebrity gossip demand feminist commentary, even if I don’t always like Jezebel’s particular angle on it.
Fashion has semiotic content. Actually, I think you pointed that out to me Jared.
And, as part of my new program of studies, I am required to follow Hollywood news closely… Especially self-destructing lolebrities who might work cheap on student films, like Mel Gibson. Just kidding, mostly I read Variety.
Oh, and as a quick Feminism Update ™: a lady got the Brasil job.
(Added post to “feminism” cloud.)
@Brynn: I don’t disagree with you that fashion & celebrity gossip are good topics of feminist discussion, but Jezebel doesn’t post discussion of fashion & celebrities: it posts fashion & celebrities and it posts feminist discussion, and they’re next to each other but a lot of the fashion & celebrities goes through unanalyzed. Many of the posts are just links to other blogs (on the front page right now are links to photos of the British Fashion Awards, Justin Bieber and Christina Aguilera naked).
It’s like how Playboy has good articles, but they’re not printed on the skin of the naked women.
Oh, right, I was going to say: Wikileaks does need a figurehead. They tried without one and it created problems. The figurehead/lightning-rod will draw flak and potentially spurious accusations. Indeed, you can see the charges in that light — they came down because “Rapists are Not Good Spokespeople”.
Jemima Khan talks here about why she supported him. European “red notices” sound, well, Red — arrest and potential extradition on the basis of no evidence and no charge.
But, anyway, I agree that it’s probably a holding charge to get Assange into the power of the authorities while they find — or write — a law with which to convict him.