- The Julian Assange case has been getting a lot of air time, and giving more hot air to rape apologists and mouthpieces incapable of separating the intersections of the issue. There are a lot of great posts from the blogosphere.
First off, Kate Harding at Salon with "The rush to smear Assange's rape accuser".
Jill at Feminist has two great posts: "Some thoughts on 'sex by surprise'", followed by a callout to feminist doyenne Naomi Wolf in "Naomi Wolf: Assange captured by the 'dating police'"
In fact, it is totally possible to support the WikiLeaks project and to think that the international response to Assange and the project is thoroughly fucked up and to think we should withhold judgment on whether or not Assange is actually a rapist and also to think that we should withhold judgment on whether the women are lying, and to not discredit the women involved, and to not create a hostile climate for rape survivors, and to not play into every tired old stereotype about women and rape. Seriously, we can chew gum and walk at the same time.Jessica Valenti was another to be disappointed in Wolf's stance with "Naomi Wolf really needs to read the internet"
Maia at The Hand Mirror wrote "Rape myths and Julian Assange"
- Still on the topic of rape, while not directly about Assange, revisiting the topic in public forums has caused Elizabeth at Spilt Milk to ask people to be careful with their flippant comments in "Who hears you, when you speak about rape?"
From a few weeks back, but certainly always relevant, Holly at The Pervocracy talks about "The people you meet when you write about rape"
- Over at Geek Feminism Blog, Mary writes a response to "helpful" comments about conference anti-harassment policy in "Why don't you just hit him?", how violence is really not a helpful response from a victim at all.
Melissa at Shakesville followed it up with another great point in "The apologists trap":
The assertion that violence is an appropriate response to harassment is made by people (usually men) who make it explicitly because they are auditing the responses of people who are harassed (usually women) and find them lacking.
- I wish I could point every troll and bully in existence to this one: Julie Zhuo at The New York Times writes "Online, anonymity breeds contempt".
This kind of social pressure works because, at the end of the day, most trolls wouldn’t have the gall to say to another person’s face half the things they anonymously post on the Internet.
- Tracy Clark-Flory at Salon's Broadsheet writes about gender essentialism in the workplace and how this relates to relationships in "The terror of successful women"
trend pieces like the Times article so often rely on the account of the group of people -- most often women -- who are loveless-and-looking. Needless to say, we aren't always accurate in our own evaluations of why others aren't interested in us.
- And a great one from Jennifer Kesler over at The Hathor Legacy "It's just a show. Really?" talks about how sexists and apologists dismiss feminist deconstruction of popular culture, then turn around and use said pop culture as the measuring stick of female behaviour and thinking!