(Note: The original version of this post was too discursive. I've cut some flab.) I didn't want to start the post-Christmas season with a discussion of Julian freaking Assange, but infuriating stories like this one in The Nation are mushrooming (toadstooling?) all across liberal-land, and they must be countered.
And everyone who believes and promotes the "information" that "Miss A" is a CIA "honeytrap" is an anti-Semite and a Holocaust denier. Because the original source for that story is one Israel Shamir, writing in Counterpunch and vigorously defended by Counterpunch editor and Nation columnist Alexander Cockburn...
In other words, Hitler was a vegetarian and therefore everyone who promotes vegetarianism must be a Nazi.
Screw that. This Cannonfire post gave the lowdown on Shamir -- and gave it well before The Nation saw fit to mention the guy, thank you very much. Yet I still believe that the "spookier" theories deserve a respectful hearing, as do a lot of other people, including some Swedes who wrote long before Shamir published in Counterpunch. (Please note that I said "a respectful hearing" -- not "blind acceptance.")
Incidentally, this blog has never had a kind word for Cockburn, who remains best-known for his work in (a-hem!) The Nation. In fact, Cockburn and Hitchens are the reasons why some folks stopped buying that rag.
A false dichotomy has taken hold across blogland: If you cast a suspicious eye toward the rape allegations, people will presume you to be an uncritical admirer of Assange. We saw a similar false dichotomy in 2008, when everyone who argued against Obama's liberal credentials was considered a mesmerized Hillary cultist and a racist.
Well, this post should immunize me against charges of being a blinkered Assange fan. Nothing I've read about this clown has made him seem lovable. So, like, neener.
In our political culture, these false dichotomies crop up every year or so, and they always serve the useful purpose of separating the second-rate minds from the first-raters. The dullards, unable to conceive of any alternative, will dutifully line up in front of door #1 or door #2, as long as those are the only doors recognized by the big opinion-shapers. Meanwhile, the independent thinkers will grab a jackhammer and carve out a door #3, and maybe doors 4 through 44. Why? Because we're ornery sunzabitches, and that's what ornery sunzabitches do.
Such is our purpose here.
In a previous post, we addressed the popular feminist meme that anyone who questions a rape accusation must be a rape enabler. In a perfect example of the fallacy of petitio principii, feminists refer to the accusers as "victims," as though accusation equals proof.
Let me clue you in to two facts. First: One out of ten human beings is flat-out loony. Second: Women are human beings.
If you've ever taken introductory logic, you know where this syllogism is going. Invite ten randomly chosen females into your bedroom, and chances are good that at least one of 'em will suffer from serious mental health issues. (If you think that females are inherently saner than males, please link to the scientific studies that prove your point.)
As noted previously, a respected study found that DNA evidence indicated the innocence of about a quarter of the American males who have been convicted of rape. Obviously, there are a lot of disturbed women out there -- Heidi Jones, for instance -- who cannot distinguish fantasy from reality.
Does this mean that we must sweep aside all rape accusations unsupported by physical evidence? Of course not. However -- and contrary to feminist mythology -- it is not only fair but mandatory to scrutinize the character and history of the accuser, and to judge each case on an individualized basis. We must exercise caution when considering any and all accusations, even when one ten-year-old boy accuses another ten-year-old boy of bicycle theft.
In the present case, you can't expect to get the whole story from this or any other single blog post, so read widely and skeptically. (If you don't read me skeptically, I'm ashamed to have you as a reader.) All we can do here is to present some aspects of this widely-discussed case which remain little-known to the dullards who have queued up in front of doors 1 and 2.
We'll start with this August 31 post by a Swedish investigator whose English is spotty but comprehensible:
Rumors online tell names of the two women who made the accusations. They are claimed to be Anna A (social democrats, SKS) and Amelia A (the pirate party). Both are active in politics and thus objects of public interest. Early on it is revealed Anna A is a well known radical feminist which partly validates our theory what the case really is about: The Sexual politics of radical feminism.
Anna A is Anna Ardin. The identity of the second woman was a matter of some confusion in the Swedish press for a while; the name is now known to be Sofia Wilén. I see no problem in using both names since they have been widely published in Sweden. Besides, as we shall see, neither woman made an actual claim of rape.
Anna A was already known to us as she had earlier tried to ban juvenile lyrics in student-songs at Uppsala University. The claim she was behind the accusation was strengthened by the fact that she just closed her blogs while Google-cache revealed the radical feminist content. One post said “Rape is a part of men power” “It is time to end the male ideal” which proves she in fact is heavy into the radical feminist viewpoint where the dominant opinion is rape is not about sex but about power.
Now our suspicions were confirmed. It was neither a serial rapist nor a conspiracy by the CIA. It was two young women with warped view of men, unrealistic idea of sex-life and last but not least, a feminist prosecutor on-call with unrealistic picture of what rape means according to the law.
Anna A is also has worked with women's issues at Uppsala University, specially with sexual harassment cases. She is working with encouraging women to report just about anything they don’t like from guys. The more we read about her the more extreme her opinions on the issue seem. On UU a text regarding sexual harassment goes: “With sexual harassment we mean any unwelcome behavior based on gender or/and sexual nature”. Basically she is outlawing for guys to hit on girls at all without the girls more or less wearing a sign telling it s ok.
We also discussed how he first had sex with Ardin, and then with a younger woman. It is logical to point out the accusation was not even made until the women talked to each other. Thus Anna Ardin found out Assange had sex with a younger woman 3 days after her.
It is very common women become really angry over their partner having a new younger woman.
Please, please, please -- just try to convince me that the previous statement isn't true. I need a good laugh.
The point here is simple: When an older woman not accuse the guy until hearing he had sex with a younger woman, we know she was not as angry until she heard he replaced her.
Even then, they spoke of molestation, which, in Sweden, is a much less serious offense than rape.
The POLICE STATION makes it a matter of rape. Also I personally suspect the police station are responsible for leaking the information to the Expressen reporter on the same evening.
Rape, it seems, has a new definition:
...some women we speak to claim Assange did not act like a “gentleman” and they also claimed to have heard he did not show proper respect to women in general, and young women specifically.
Here's a lovely point missed by every single American who has commented on this case:
AFTONBLADET SUNDAY: They write the rape-charge was about a condom being ripped. I just read this and the first thought from me is: If a guy ripping a condom commits rape, then a woman lying about being on the pill is also committing rape. The interpretation is crazy, clearly political. When the law was written there is no chance they intended this use.
Let me add another point about this condom business: It makes no sense.
If a guy hates the idea of wearing a rubber, he won't intentionally poke a hole in it (which is what Ardin claims Assange did) -- he will simply refuse to wear it.
C'mon. Think about it: The problem with a condom is that it reduces tactile sensation and intimacy. A condom with a hole in it has all of the "not really there" reduction of sensation and none of the protection. So what would be the goddamned point?
Of course, if you are the sort of feminist whose ideology has segued into psychosis, you will argue that Assange did such a nonsensical thing for the purpose of intentionally humiliating his victim. If you think that any male thinks that way, get a straitjacket: You are Woman #10.
I've met a lot of dudes in the #10 category, including some who were very aggressive and very weird and very scary. They were capable of violence -- even murder. But, in my personal assessment, none would have considered doing that.
Think about your own sexual history. Think of everything you've ever read. Think back to all the third-hand accounts you've heard. Have you ever before encountered a report of a guy who got so pissed off when his one-weekend-stand asked him to plasticize that he intentionally poked a hole in his condom? Does that scenario seem even slightly likely to you?
Ask yourself:What kind of "player" would want a short-term fling to end in pregnancy? Not even the nuttiest of the nutty is that nutty. Not even in Utah.
Finally: Important to remember is that the driving force behind these accusations of rape was the police at Klara närpolisstation in central Stockholm, not the two women involved. Borgström asked in Aftonbladet replies: They are not law-trained.
Basically the radical feminist agenda is declaring women raped when they don’t even see themselves as raped.
This post is in Swedish. I've managed to translate the language with acceptable accuracy on a previous occasion, using internet resources. You should understand that the afore-linked story appeared before the Assange case made the news, and that the person called X is Anna Ardin.
She is a "gender equity officer" at Uppsala university. Men working for that university are forced to listen to her give lengthy harangues on the "five great domination techniques" used by men to repress women.
During one such lecture, one of the males in attendance committed the sin of looking at his notes, not at her. She made sure that he was officially censured for committing three out of the five "domination techniques"! (All words within brackets are mine.)
A gender expert -- let's call her X [Ardin] -- working at the university leadership's Office, was invited to one of the university institutions to present a seminar on gender, domination and sexual harassment of staff. During a seminar on sexual harassment, a male member of the audience, whom we will call Y, was inattentive. It was later revealed that someone heard him comment on the gender expert's clothing in the hallway. (Ridicule and objectification). X then wrote a letter to the university, even though she gave no formal notification [to the offending male, presumably]. The university nonetheless chose to launch an investigation into the matter since, according to the Equal Opportunities Act (1991:433) § 22, an employer who learns that an employee considers herself to have been subjected to harassment based on sex is required to investigate the circumstances and, if necessary, to take action.
After Y [the offending male] had been informed of this investigation and prompted by a colleague, Z, he called up X [Ardin] to explain why he had discussed X's dress, with his colleagues. He thus became guilty of an additional rule violation, the third in row, because X considered the call to be (quoting from the decision), "another example of a suppression technique, namely guilt and shame, which means that she has been subjected to victimization..."
Dig it: Ardin is so fucking touchy that she even considered herself "victimized" when the guy made an attempt to call her up and smooth things over.
If we are going to start criminalizing sotto voce behind-the-back commentary about clothing, my ladyfriend would be doing hard time by now, and so would at least a quarter of the gay guys in America. I wouldn't feel offended or "objectified" if any woman (or man) made a snarky remark about the way I dress. Of course, my idea of sartorial elegance is wearing a shirt that doesn't advertise what I had for lunch.
Am I guilty of "domination" when I don't pay close attention to what a woman says? But there are also plenty of occasions when I don't pay attention to what a man says. Especially if the guy is, say, a Jehovah's Witness. Or a Rush Limbaugh fan. I probably filter out a large chunk of everything that everyone tries to tell me. Is that a crime?
As for "guilt and shame" -- well, in the first place, that guy's apologetic phone call had nothing to do with the infliction of guilt or shame. Ardin was foolish to take it that way.
In the second place, guilt and shame are part of the human experience, and I have had it up to freakin' here with New Age ninnies seeking to banish those useful emotions. If Ardin thinks that she can use feminist ideology to force everyone to avoid saying anything that might possibly be construed as injurious to her precious widdle self-esteem, she should move to another planet. And she should be damned glad that she does not live in the United States, where we still have the First Amendment.
It was reported that Anna Ardin planned a party at her place after the so called attack took place, she sent tweets from her phone and texted on her phone that she was in the company of “the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing!” After she became aware of how these could prove him as innocent she tried to destroyed them, but she couldn’t and and in what seems like a lame revenge technique, she released an article about how to get back at cheating boyfriends.
“Sometimes It Is Difficult To Go On Without Some Kind of payback. As a Human Being You Should Be Able to Understand that. In this case I was very upset with a forms fiancé WHO betrayed me for a longtime.
You read that right. On her blog, she discusses no less than seven methods for getting revenge on lovers!
Ask yourself: How would you feel about a male who had compiled such a list?
Ask yourself: Is this or is this not a woman with a persecution complex, a woman defined by her pathological resentments, a woman fueled by inchoate rage and an incessant need for vengeance, a woman so pathetically insecure that she uses feminist dogma not as a means to achieve equality but as a weapon to bludgeon everyone she encounters into absolute submission and compliance?
For a final bit of humor, let's look at another passage from Ardin's own blog. Basically, she alleges -- in all seriousness -- that a famous Swedish manufacturer of orange juice intentionally laced its product with urine.
Those bastards. Those awful penis-wielding bastards.
There's more, but the foregoing should suffice. Based on the above, I feel justified in suspecting that Anna Ardin may well be the Tenth Woman.
Do I scry the hand of the CIA in her strange behavior? Of course not. She is not the bait in a honeytrap -- although she may be what the spooks call a "useful idiot."
As we have seen, the "rape" charge was pushed by the Swedish government, not by the "molested" women. An inane Swedish law allows for situations in which a man can be accused of rape even when the putative victim insists otherwise.
The deeper question is this: Did any covert force within the Swedish or American governments attempt to affect the course of jurisprudence in Sweden? That possibility deserves further investigation.
Although most Americans think of Sweden as an ultra-liberal nation, there are extreme right-wing elements within SAPO, the Swedish security service. Moreover, there is a long history of cooperation between SAPO and the CIA.
The following should give you some idea of what is possible. As you read, keep in mind that "03" is the name of a counterintelligence section within SAPO:
In 1973 three journalists alleged the existence of such a group with the 03 department of the service, a faction which carried out dirty tricks against radical and anti-Vietnam groups, incited Palestinians living in Sweden to violence, and conducted smear campaigns on behalf of prominent members of the Social Democrat hierarchy....
Every one in ten human beings is loony Women are human beings Therefore every one in ten women is loony.
Is this where your syllogism is going? Did you pass introductory logic?
Ever hear of the fallacy of division, Joseph? Well you just committed it.
And by the way, you need to either drop the petitio principii crap or at least acknowledge that "crime accusers" are often referred to as "victims" if the claim is that they have suffered as a result of the crime. Funny how the common terminology only seems to matter to some if the alleged crime is sexual assault.
posted by Anonymous : 10:14 AM
On her blog, Anna Ardin doesn't directly accuse the manufacturer of the orange juice of putting urine into it, rather she says it was the work of oppressed workers at the plant, protesting low pay and lousy conditions. She says that she, for once, bought a low-priced make of orange juice and says the urine taste she found in the product is just punishment of her for such a selfish act (as not buying a high-priced make produced by a happy workers' cooperative). In Scandinavia, there is a strong movement for consumers to buy products made under "non-exploitative conditions".
posted by Anonymous : 11:40 AM
Joe - One quick comment now; perhaps a few more later when I'm not trying to write on a phone. You say (paraphrased) that a guy who doesn't like condoms will simply refuse to use one, not just poke a hole in one he's wearing — which seems logical. However, that's not exactly the case, at least for a certain demographic.
A while back, I owned and published an adult newspaper that depended upon escort advertising for much of its income; my girlfriend and I also ended up playing host to several working girls who were trying to leave abusive pimps and/or the business. As a result, for a few years, there,dinner-time conversation often took some pretty peculiar turns — and one topic I recall on a number of occasions was a trick having been discovered either sabotaging a condom the escort provided or trying to use one of his own that had already been prepared. Evidently, a nick or tear in the right spot can cause a rubber to split and roll back.
Now, this was a piece of information I'd never previously known (nor had any use for, my torn-condom experiences never having had much of a happy ending), but it seemed to be common condom knowledge among sex-workers. Presumably, it must also be well-known among sex customers, as well — disseminated (ahem) through posts on 'hobbyist' web sites and news groups, perhaps?
Now, I'm not making any claims about Assange's predelictions or entertainment dollar (dude does strike me as kind of a trick, though); I just wanted to point out that intentional damage to rubberwear is not necessarily the sole purloin of the near-apocryphal baby-seeking miss.
posted by Anonymous : 11:43 AM
I only want to address one point, regarding why a man might poke a hole in a condom. If the woman insists on the use of the condom before she'll permit sex to begin and the man strongly dislikes the feel of a condom, it's not entirely implausible that he might poke a hole in it. Wearing the condom permits him to start while the hole creates a weak point in it where it could tear. If the hole is on a stretched part and not the reservoir there's a reasonable chance that it would tear after sex has begun and would peel away to a large degree. He gets the sex, gets the feeling and can claim that it was just an accident.
Obviously, I'm not claiming that's what happened in the Assange case. Also, for the record, I'm not writing from personal experience beyond a genuinely accidentally torn condom. But it does suggest that the idea he could have deliberately put a hole in his condom isn't complete fruitcake territory.
posted by BillJ-MN : 11:44 AM
The first giggle going through my head is that a perpetual victim with righteous indignation found another righteously indignant victim (Assange has been victimized by his book deal, Republicans, and the Swedes), and these two egos collide.
They deserve each other.
Who can't spot a crazy girl like this one? I bet she dropped at least one hint during the run up to sex. Yeah, yeah, crazy-girl-sex, I'm sure even if he did know, he thought it would be better as a result.
As far as ripping the condom I have seen that happen. Some men are quite weird and sneaky in bed to just get that unwrapped head free. It is a bs move but one tied up in a crazy dude trying to get his way. And we can speculate that Assange's MO is an unwrapped ride which would be the whole point of a crazy dude ripping it.
It also sounds a lot like the bs moves that some crazy chicks who inventively get their way through manipulation and deceit, do to men. These two egos might have been playing eachother at the same exact moment. A collision of crazy.
Anyway, all of my experiences with condoms are of the kind that probably neither of these women have issue with. But let's just say condoms can be quite painful for both the man and woman, and almost always break, if certain conditions apply.
Indeed there might have been pressure to get the charges filed and that is a worthy question. Who knows maybe another Manning will step up for Assange so he can Wikileak the cables and find out. ;)
Anonymous coward 7:14 -- the fallacy of division would apply only if you could provide evidence that men and women go mad at different rates. Which you can't. So fuck off.
I got an A in Logic, thank you very much. Although I like to think that the grade was fairly earned, I perhaps should note that, one day, during an after-class conversation in the hallway, the prof made it pretty clear that she wanted to jump my bones. Although I declined, I was flattered. Now imagine if the sexes had been reversed: What would the Anna Ardins of this world say about THAT situation?
(That professor was really into Gottlob Frege. God, I'd love to take that class again.)
Oh, about petitio principii: Double fuck off.
I have way, way, WAY too many bad memories of my days talking to SRA claimants. When you deal with those people, there's one thing you learn right away: They always refer to themselves as "victims" and they always refer to the people they accuse as "perps." If you don't use those exact terms -- if you prefer to use less biased phrasing -- they immediately accuse you of being part of the Great Satanic Conspiracy.
This manipulative bullshit is designed to force any would-be investigator into stipulating from the outset the truth of their claims -- the very point of contention.
If that ain't petitio principii, then what IS?
Anna reminds me a lot of the "Daddy-done-me-dirty" SRA "victims." They were forever claiming victim status even though they were themselves the most manipulative, guilt-tripping, attention-seeking victimizers I had ever met.
Anonymous Coward 8:40 -- Come on. Do you really think that Swedish workers are pissing in orange juice? American workers don't do that, and they work under worse conditions.
And do you think it is likely that the ONLY person in Sweden to notice this phenomenon just happened to be the same woman who felt that she was being oppressed when that guy called up to apologize?
Wake up and smell the (urine-free) coffee. We are obviously dealing with someone who might as well have the number 10 written on her forehead.
For what little its worth, I have known people who have claimed to have put a hole in a condom just to expose woman concerned to a risk of pregnancy or disease. However, the individuals concerned would not have given their real names to the women concerned.
Making this point makes me think of a wider, more serious point I would like to make. Forgive me if it is silly or ill thought out. In my youth, I was brought up in some very poor, and very rough neighbourhoods. And in these environments, and sometimes in others I have come across some truly horrible people. Men who boasted of raping women. Young men who have sexually assaulted other weaker young men. Very very violent people, who used credible threats of violence to get their own way sexually.
These people exist and as far as I can see in surprisingly large numbers. They exist in sufficient numbers that I find it difficult to focus on "problematic areas", such as men who are extremely assertive and "require" women to assertively reject their advances. Or men who wait to prey on the drunk or stoned. I am not saying these behaviours are good - I am saying it is difficult to rid society of these obnoxious practices without creating massive alternative problems. They are not obviously crimes and it is difficult to frame laws to eliminate them. Sometimes people need to protect themselves. Personally I want more resources focused on the issues of poorer people in society, and for me that would focus on protecting all of us from the violent. But thats just my perspective.
posted by Anonymous : 8:03 PM
About "and that the person called X is Anna Ardin" - no the X-person is not Ardin.
Hm, besides that X is not Ardin but another woman, I think that the translated post is not the one you refer to, anyway, it´s just to paste it in google translate: http://tanjabergkvist.wordpress.com/2009/05/11/ett-skrackexempel-pa-genusvaldet/
The 'Swedish' professor sounds like an old misogynist curmudgeon.
"It was later revealed that someone heard him comment on the gender expert's clothing in the hallway."
This is what the complaint was about, not inattentiveness during a presentation. This is a pretty common no-no in modern work places. Anything you say, if it is overheard, could cause an uncomfortable work environment. Nobody should have to work where they feel intimidated. Keep your mouth shut if you don't have something nice to say.