Another year, another celebrity allegation...Wood/Manson this time.

[happyninja42]

Should women be required to name their perpetrators to achieve those goals? Or should it be simply enough for women to say "I'm a victim too, the problem goes way deeper and further than anyone admits"? Or, is that requirement yet another in a laundry list of social and legal barriers building yet another bulwark in open and transparent communication about sexual predation in contemporary society?

Ok so let me clarify something. You said, in your first post, that you didn't understand why, prior to her naming someone, why people (namely the media I assumed) weren't taking action. Why didn't they just "piece it together" through contextual clues, and just act on what THEY think is the correct criminal in this. To quote you directly.

Are we to believe allegations are only attention-worthy if a perpetrator is named, and what does that say of even the line of "believe women" when the people saying it pay it no mind unless a target is identified?

Yes! It should only be attention worthy (whatever you actually mean by that.) when someone is named, because prior to that, it's just a broad, vague statement that leads nowhere. I mean she went before congress, that is on record, and has openly spoken about it in articles that you cite. So what MORE attention should she be getting, by just vaguely stating "I've survived sexual assault" ? She has a public platform, and has been using it repeatedly to make her, until recently broad, vague, unspecific case about sexual assault. Ok, fine, well, then you will get my broad, vague, unspecific attention about it. But if you think we should instantly start full fledge investigations at every vague, ambiguous mention of sexual assault, without any actual evidence and/or person of interest, which is the impression I get from your post about "why wasn't she getting attention before?" (which she was, as I've stated) then HOW would we do that? We, meaning the public, shouldn't be running around just trying to piece shit together with tidbits from social media and op ed pieces from entertainment magazines, and then engaging in mob behavior against individuals, without at LEAST the victim indicating WHO it is.

I'm all for victims being public and open about their trauma, and I wish they would report the shit right away, without any fear of stigma, so there could be actual evidence that could lead to convictions against people. But as someone who has both been sexually harrassed/assaulted, AND had a drunk girl falsely accuse me of raping her, which she declared loudly in the middle of a party (a party I was only at because she fucking ASKED me to babysit her and make sure she didn't do anything stupid, because "she get's crazy when she's drunk, tee hee") I take issue with the "we'll take life crippling action again someone JUST because someone said they did something." And I'm even less a fan of taking action on someone when that someone hasn't even been named. Because if that event in my past had happened in today's world, instead of back in the 90s, and if my friends hadn't been well aware that I hadn't done anything to her, I would probably have my life ruined, because of the auto-assumption of guilt. And that girl, never actually apologized for what she did I might add.

Now, do I think Manson did it? I don't know. It wouldn't surprise me, as I recall a round table dinner thing he did a while ago, where Andy Dick mentioned a story in his book, where some fangirl showed up at his house and asked to be used as his sub, so he just tied her to the wall for a while, until she was crying and wanting to go home. That's some pretty fucked up shit, so no, I wouldn't be shocked to learn that Manson harmed his past lovers. But that is separate from whether I think it's a good idea to just declare people villains, without any actual evidence.

 

[Eacaraxe]

I'm not sure I understand. What exactly were people/the media supposed to do, and how much attention was this situation supposed to get?

I pointed it out up thread.

The problem of sexual predation runs deep, and extends well into nearly every aspect of life. All the way from unwanted catcalling to violent sexual assault, from private spaces with family to the workplace. No, in line with past statements on the older forums I don't particularly believe post-third wave, predominantly white and bourgeois, radfems are any genuine ally to the cause of women's agency and safety, but on the other hand I still recognize the scope and depth of the issues of sexual predation. And likewise, apologia for sexual predation runs powerfully through both formal and informal institutions, and societal norms.

The original intent behind the #MeToo business was to illustrate the depth and scope of the problem, and how powerful apologia for it truly is. There's a fundamental disconnect between that goal, and the presumption victims should or must identify their aggressors in order to be heard or to draw attention to the issue. It is true that all things being equal, women should be able to name perpetrators freely, and achieve criminal or civil justice for acts committed against them; however, all things are not equal. "Believe women" shouldn't come with disclaimers; one either does, or they do not.

She got an article in Rolling Stone and testified before Congress, I'd hardly call that "paying it no mind."

Here's the difference, as far as I see it: the RS piece in which she outed herself as a SA/IPV victim was a puff piece for Westworld. I'm on record, several times over, as being no fan of the interconnectivity between allegations and publicity; how that applies here, is simply how profit motive impacts, undermines, and ultimately corrupts the cause of women's safety from sexual predation, and professional and personal agency.

Wood outs herself as a SA/IPV victim? good, we can employ that in the context of marketing for a television show, but not really pay much attention to forthcoming advocacy or engage in any real introspection. But without naming her perpetrator? well there's just not much of a "story" there.

Oh, four years later she did and it's a famous musician? Oh, hold the presses! We can run that on front pages and really draw in that advertising revenue!

Wood's still being instrumentalized and objectified, the only genuine difference between now and then is by whom.

 

[stroopwafel]

Way of Manson to play into the stereotype people have of him. Atleast he's getting more attractive with age.