Funny, I've never really seen myself that way. I see myself as a humanist, not a misogynist (humanism today necessarily involves staunch opposition to the anti-human, anti-freedom ideology of feminism); as belonging to neither left nor right wing; and I'm not much of a blogger either, since all I really do is spread around information that was already out there.
Still, if it helps Ms McVeigh sleep better at night to imagine that I am an opponent she need not acknowledge beyond lightweight aspersions, Princess can go right ahead and call me whatever names she likes. I've been called names by feminists all my life, and today I'm happily exposing the names of false rape accusers to a wider audience. What makes her think that calling me more names is going to discourage me?
Anyway, here's the scoop.
Writing for the Guardian, reporter Tracy McVeigh reports on the overwhelming wave of anger over Assange’s arrest with thinly-veiled unease, revealing feminist concerns about their tenuous claim to favorable public sentiment.
In what is an obvious reference to Ferdinand Bardamu’s posts on The Spearhead and In Mala Fide, she blames “misogynist right wing bloggers” for outing Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen:
Dismissed by his supporters as a smear campaign, the case against Assange now threatens to move from a sideshow to overwhelm the main act – the work he has done in his public life as editor of WikiLeaks. In part, Assange, 39, who has become a figurehead for whistleblowers, can blame this on supporters who have pressed accolades on the man rather than the cause, and who range from left wing historians, feminists and human rights campaigners to misogynist right wing bloggers and a porn baron.
A range of deeply misogynistic blog posts have blamed “feminists”, despite insistence from people close to Assange that there is no conspiracy.
The paper is reflecting a growing discomfort among many, in both camps, at the widespread vilification – and naming – of the two alleged victims on websites and blogs, and also of the kind of language being used by people including Assange’s own lawyer Mark Stephens who referred to the allegation as a “honeytrap” .
Whatever one feels about Assange, there is something very suspicious about these rape allegations, especially the fact that Anna Ardin/Bernardin, the woman who made the decision to go to the police, has been tied to shady, CIA-funded groups in Cuba, and left Sweden days before new charges were filed, running off to the remote town of Yanoun in the Palestinian West Bank, possibly to spy on Hamas and Orthodox Jewish settlers.
McVeigh dismisses any allegations that “feminists” were behind this, but Anna Ardin/Bernardin is a self-described feminist activist who has made accusations before – against her own students – and was thrown out of Cuba for her involvement with a right wing, CIA-supported feminist group. Furthermore, there is nothing odd about feminists working with the CIA; Gloria Steinem received funds directly from the intelligence organization while employed by Ms. Magazine.
The “discomfort” at the naming of Ardin and Wilen is felt by establishment feminists like McVeigh, who want to be able to decide what should be reported and what shouldn’t — oddly similar to the dispute over Wikileaks. Yet her own publication, even as it denounces those who have exposed Assange’s accusers, claims that it upholds the principle of disclosure, writing:
The process of editing, contextualising, explanation and redaction is a painstaking one. It is part of the craft of journalism. Journalism is also about disclosure. It is at its best when it is the disclosure of matters of high public interest. Judge Assange on that score, as much as any other.
If the participation of a feminist activist who may be a spy in what looks like a frame-up of a highly controversial journalist is not a matter of “high public interest,” what is?