Unsurprisingly, people are confusing my indictment of the criminal justice system, feminism, and sex panic as an endorsement of drugging and raping a teenage girl. Forgive me for assuming that my position against the all too controversial subject of rape was self-evident. However, this isn’t the issue, at least not from where I’m standing. What was the issue and remains the issue is that Roman Polanski is being chucked to the wolves to defend Swiss bank profits. And unfortunately, feminism and the liberal left are all too happy to cheer the Justice Department on, using rhetoric strikingly similar to the right-wing.
Before I get into anything, I would like to address a claim made by a friend of mine. He suggested that were Roman Polanski a Klansman I wouldn’t be as concerned with his fate. Indeed, I have long defended the Weaver family against the police state attack on their rights from the Clinton Administration. I may not make any friends by saying this, but I find fascism to be far more disgusting and dangerous than what Roman Polanski did. But all of this is besides the point. The point- as far as I see it- is that I don’t have to approve of someone’s politics or endorse their behavior to call bullshit on the capitalist state’s attempt to erode civil liberties. Indeed, I think that the capitalist state is frequently very shrewd in choosing targets.
I would urge all readers of Black Sun Gazette to read this article about The New York Times recent call for blood. The most interesting points to me are the fact that the Swiss government seems to be attempting to derail an investigation into UBS bank by throwing the Justice Department a bone. Or that they harbored fugitives far more destructive and dangerous than Polanski, for a longer period of time. Namely the swindler Marc Rich. By the way, he got a pardon by President Clinton, recommended by current Attorney General Eric Holder after making sizable contributions to the Clintons and the Democratic Party. The New York Times also thinks that Bush-era torture is ancient history we need to forget, but enforcing an obvious case of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct from 30 years ago is justice. But that’s all trivia, right? That has zero to do with this case, right? It doesn’t lay bare how entirely hypocritical the campaign against Roman Polanski is or anything of the sort.
And I have a bridge in Wasilla, Alaska for sale… real cheap.
Nor is it apparently relevant that the feminist press is using much the same rhetoric as the right-wing Fox News against Polanski (summarized: “blah blah blah he’s a rich Hollywood director so we don’t give a shit about justice, we just want him publicly flogged”). PROTIP: “Hollywood left” is a code word for Jews.
I have also been criticized for attacking “feminism.” Well, I have always opposed feminism. But guess what? Anti-feminism isn’t synonymous with misogyny any more than anti-Zionism is synonymous with anti-Semitism. One of the reasons that I consistently oppose feminism is because it is a trans-class ideology with a very bad track record. Most relevant and damning in this case is the way in which Ms. Magazine jumped on the Satanic Ritual Abuse bandwagon in the 70s and 80s. This is hardly an abstract question. Many working class people were railroaded into prison on bizarre charges that would have been easily dismissed were the liberal left (among others) not fanning the flames of sex panic.
But let’s bring it back to Roman Polanski. Once again, I find the sarcastic, hysterical tone of literally everything I have read by feminists on the subject disgusting. It lays bare the limitations of feminism. All one has to do is shriek the correct series of words and ranks are closed, justice and rights be damned. Think I’m wrong? Start asking your feminist friends how they feel about chemical castration of sex offenders (and then you can tell the ones who support it that- as if this were the point- shit doesn’t stop people from offending again anyway). Or just check out the sarcastic, shrill tone of this article which, among other things, says that Polanski belongs in hell. It’s rather amusing to me that feminists are now getting involved in theology as well as politics. But what’s not amusing is when they begin attacking Whoopi Goldberg for having a daughter who got pregnant at 15 because they don’t like what she has to say about Roman Polanski.
Disgusting. And I’m the misogynist because I’m calling bullshit on the whole operation? Give me a break.
So go ahead and make the same arguments as Fox News if you like. Go ahead and pretend that what’s going on with Roman Polanski right now is totally unrelated to sex cops pulling pictures of Brooke Shields from art exhibits, Michelle Bachmann’s rants about “sex clinics”, or Fox News’s latest smear campaign against an Obama aide for being a homosexual. Go ahead and pretend that the U.S. Justice Department which formerly tortured innocent men, currently protects said torturers, and allows prisons that violate international and Constitutional law (including leaving prisoners to drown during Hurricane Katrina) has some kind of fucking moral authority or interest in protecting children.
But don’t have a shit fit on me for calling bullshit on your illusions. And quit trying to pretend that I’m making some defense of rape. Collect your rational brain off the floor and stop allowing yourself to be manipulated by the capitalist state, the far right, and anti-sex bigots.
Posts
Elsewhere on the net I’ve tried to discuss this rationally with folks I had perviously suspected of being able to think things through, and carry on a dialog even in the face of disagreement. More the fool I.
People seem to be completely immune to the fact that a person accused of a crime, is different than a person proven guilty of that crime, and the totally ignorant of how the plea bargaining process works to boot.
| October 2, 2009 @ 9:32 pm
i have officially stopped reading anything you write. you are way off-base.
| October 3, 2009 @ 7:30 pm
Says it all really. Loser.
| October 4, 2009 @ 5:54 am
You’ll be missed…
For anyone else in love with the sound of their own moral outrage: All the smartest people I know tell me I nailed it on the Polanski case. So pardon me while I don’t give a shit what you think.
| October 4, 2009 @ 10:49 am
Yeah, how silly of people to mistake the phrase “Several charges rooted in nothing more than puritanical Christian sexual morality” as a dismissal of severity of charges against Polanski. I’ve biwildered and offended people in the past for my defense of R. Kelly (if a 15 year old black girl killed someone, we’d be trying her as adult, but if she gets pissed on by black man, she’s a child.) But there’s a world of difference between what R. Kelly allegedly did and what Polanski allegedly did.
And there’s a big difference between Polanski and Weaver – namely, Weaver committed no crime other than being an asshole.
Seriously, if it was not your intention to make light of child-anal-rape both in your original post and here, you’re failing miserably. And what’s with the feminist-conspiracy crap? You sound like Rush fucking Limbaugh.
And yes, there was prosecutorial misconduct- that of letting Polanski off with 42 days for rape, and letting him slip through their fingers for 32 years.
| October 4, 2009 @ 6:51 pm
So it’s your claim then that there ought to be laws against sodomy and perversion?
Again, I don’t think that criticism feminism is synonymous with misogyny. I have outlined what I think the shortcomings of feminism are, and I stand by what I have written about it.
Also, nowhere have I used the word “allegedly” in regards to Polanski. He was convicted, he admitted what he did. But what is going on now has zero to do with justice or protecting children. I find it particularly illustrative that so many people calling for blood in this case think Bush-era torture is ancient history. The total hypocrisy of the justice system is relevant, and none of this stuff happens in a vacuum.
| October 4, 2009 @ 6:57 pm
“So it’s your claim then that there ought to be laws against sodomy and perversion?”
I think there ought to be laws against rape, which is what Polanski did, and I think people who commit rape should go to prison. I guess that makes me a Christian puritan.
“Again, I don’t think that criticism feminism is synonymous with misogyny”
No, but alleging that there’s a global feminist conspiracy that can get Polanski arrested in Switzerland but can’t make Wal-Mart to pay equal wages is pretty silly.
| October 5, 2009 @ 9:01 am
Ok, well I’m going shopping today while I run errands, so I’ll be sure to get you some more straw for your arguments while I’m out.
Your first point has nothing to do with the quote you’ve pulled out of context. Nowhere do I say, or even imply, that I think rape shouldn’t be a crime. Learn how to read what I write. Further, I think you’ve really gone off the rails with your accusations of “global feminist conspiracy.” The Justice Department got him arrested. And feminists in the media are all too happy to cheerlead in the most grotesque and ugly way possible.
Come back when you want to actually argue against what I’ve said rather than bogeymen that live under your bed.
| October 5, 2009 @ 11:12 am
For the record, the quote is:
“Several charges rooted in nothing more than puritanical Christian sexual morality (is there anyone reading this who thinks that sodomy and “perversion” ought to be illegal? I sure hope not…)”
| October 4, 2009 @ 7:07 pm
“Learn how to read what I write.”
Learn how to write.
| October 5, 2009 @ 11:24 am
Aw, baby, now you’re just trying to hurt my feelings.
| October 5, 2009 @ 12:15 pm
Oh come on, like “learn how to read” isn’t equally insulting?* If you dish it out, be prepared to take it. Anyway, I don’t think that you don’t think I know how to read, and I’m sorry you think that I think you don’t know how to write.
To be more fair, less insulting, and hopefully more constructive: I don’t think that misinterpretation of your article is due to sloppy writing, but writing that was intentionally designed to provoke outrage instead of understanding. You weren’t trying to convince people of your position, you were trying to insult people who held a contrary opinion. You ask to be read for the merit of your argument – that Polanski got screwed by the justice system – but refuse to offer the same courtesy to others, such as Kate Harding. Did YOU read her column? You’re attacking her for attacking those who are literally pretending that Polanski did nothing wrong? And then getting upset that someone might misinterpret your position?
To get back to that sentence I quoted – amongst the charges dropped was “rape by use of drugs.” You don’t mention this, instead you just keep going on about how people who are against Polanski are falling prey to “moral outrage.” It’s pretty easy to misinterpret your position on drugging 13 year old girls and having sex with them, IMHO.
Throwing around straw-man arguments like “feminists think homeless men oppress the king of England” is a disingenuous and a juvenile argument (and yes, I know it came from Robert Anton Wilson but it might as well have come from right-wing radio host). Some feminists are wrong about certain things (ex: the chemical castration thing you mentioned). Sometimes they are right (I think they are in this case). And I still think that claiming that a few obscure feminists have more influence over public opinion than Hollywood celebrities is conspiratorial.
In other words: Your posts on this subject read more like ring-wing radio flame fanning than like reasoned critique. That’s fine if that’s what you want, but you cede the right to civilized debate when you start the debate in an uncivilized manner.
*And don’t tell me you were just saying I need to learn how to read what you write, not learn to read in general, as if there’s a difference. (Not saying you were gonna say that, just preemptively accounting for it.)
| October 5, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
Oh come on, like “learn how to read” isn’t equally insulting?* If you dish it out, be prepared to take it. Anyway, I don’t think that you don’t think I know how to read, and I’m sorry you think that I think you don’t know how to write.
Yes. I should have been more constructive about that. I am, however, a bit irritated at people reading into what I write, instead of reading the words that I write. More on this later.
but writing that was intentionally designed to provoke outrage instead of understanding. You weren’t trying to convince people of your position, you were trying to insult people who held a contrary opinion.
You know, I admit to having a hole to dig myself out of on this one based on past behavior, but: I no longer write to provoke a response. I write what I am thinking and feeling at the time, and if anything, I think the writing suffered from not having an audience in mind. I’m not sure that I’ll write with an audience in mind in the future. But suffice it to say, the troll is gone and what’s left is just me writing what I actually think. I suspect that someone in particular thinks this article was written “at” them. It wasn’t. It was written to respond to a host of comments and objections here, on Facebook, at Disinfo, and privately.
To get back to that sentence I quoted – amongst the charges dropped was “rape by use of drugs.” You don’t mention this, instead you just keep going on about how people who are against Polanski are falling prey to “moral outrage.”
I thought this over, and I think that “rape by use of drugs” is another moralistic crime. Isn’t there a law already on the books against rape? Would it have been better if he had held a gun to her head or handcuffed her? The point to me is that a law against “rape by use of drugs” is a bit like hate crimes. How can such a law be construed as anything other than a puritanical judgment of drug use when a law against rape already exists?
Throwing around straw-man arguments like “feminists think homeless men oppress the king of England” is a disingenuous and a juvenile argument (and yes, I know it came from Robert Anton Wilson but it might as well have come from right-wing radio host).
Fair enough. It’s straw.
What seems material to me, however, is that the limitations of feminism are laid bare in how quickly organizations like NOW and NARAL (as good a representative of feminism as any other, unless we’re insisting on ideological purity) became absorbed into the system as little more than the women’s auxiliary of the Democratic Party. While I can’t cite source on this, I recall lots of nasty comments coming out of NOW around the time of the Clinton impeachment about Monica Lewinsky being fat and Paula Jones having bad hair and makeup. I also remember how feminists attempted to ignore the very real racism in the OJ Simpson trial in their attempt to see a “bad man” hang. It lays bare the limitations of feminism. I would make similar critiques of Black nationalism if I thought they were at issue, or any other identity politics for that matter.
a few obscure feminists have more influence over public opinion than Hollywood celebrities is conspiratorial
Again, not my claim either directly or by implication. Once again: I am merely pointing out my disgust at feminists in the media who are using this case as an example to cheerlead- alongside the far right- for the U.S. Justice Department, with little to no regard for due process, or the interests of the victim. There is a long history of feminists throwing gasoline on the fire of sex panic, and I think that is both relevant to this case and important in a more abstract sense. Particularly when women are generally the real victims of such panic, which do little more than buttress archaic and prejudicial ideas about “protecting” women and demonizing sexuality.
Further, attacking Whoopi Goldberg is a great example of how feminists frequently respond to women who don’t toe the party line. See also: Camille Paglia.
Some feminists are wrong about certain things (ex: the chemical castration thing you mentioned)
Again, this is an excellent example of the limitations of feminism. As I have said, all that needs to be done is to pass on certain information, in the appropriately shrill tone, and feminist writers generally close rank, supporting all manner of witch hunt, legal lynching, and erosion of due process. The long, mostly negative history of feminism is absolutely relevant in this case. It is also cited in the article.
In other words: Your posts on this subject read more like ring-wing radio flame fanning than like reasoned critique.
Then why, pray tell, have a number of women I am friends with- who make no bones about being disgusted with Mr. Polanski’s actions- supported my writing on the subject? Why have highly intelligent, not right wing people that I have mentioned to you personally supported my writing? Why don’t I know a single European who doesn’t share the broader thrust of my view? Why are you the first person to raise this critique? I suspect that it’s because you have had your buttons pushed by the article, and in your anger have ignored content in favor of style. It’s certainly your prerogative to do so, and I don’t expect that we shall have any agreement on the subject. But I’d much rather have you disagreeing with what I said, rather than what you are projecting onto what I’ve said.
| October 5, 2009 @ 4:14 pm
Oh, and a tangential note re: feminism. I have yet to have a single non-feminist attempt to diminish my opinion on the subject using my genitals or a lack of children as a means to side step my arguments. Just sayin’…
| October 5, 2009 @ 4:16 pm
And yes, a non sequitur, straw-man rant about feminism provoked by feminists having the audacity to call for a rapist to go to prison is pretty conspiratorial.
| October 5, 2009 @ 11:34 am
Did you even read the copious links provided? Or was that just a bunch of noise drowned out by moral outrage? The feminist press has a long history of throwing gasoline on sex panic.
| October 5, 2009 @ 12:14 pm
Really? Anti-Rape = Sex Panic? It is “moral” outrage? Dude, a 44 year old man brutally raped a 13 year old girl. This isn’t about feminism, ye who obviously gets no trim. This is about a horrific crime and a criminal who ran from the law & is now getting his comeuppins.
If you’re so mad about Swiss bank fraud – by all means, wax on about it. But don’t blame the people who think raping a 13 year old is a heinous crime for “attacks on civil liberties” and clouding the issues. You are mixing up issues.
You may have a degree from Google University, Nick P, and have a bunch of “smart” friends who totally back you up on all your conspiracy theories, but you lack one thing : wisdom.
You know not what rape does, or why it is intolerable. You seem not to realize that women aren’t the only victims of rape. You know not of the importance of protecting children from predators or all the therapists, halfway houses, and rehabs that have to deal with the victims of sex abuse.
Some things sound cool on paper: like, your implication that fascism is way worse than some little girl being raped. Well, genocide is way worse than someone getting beaten to death and dragged by the bumper of a car for the color of their skin – does that mean we shouldn’t prosecute the people who perpetrated the crime? “Meh. whatever… it’s just one person. It’s not like Rwanda, or anything. Pfft… it’s Racism-Panic.” NO YOU DOLT IT IS MURDER.
This isn’t sex panic. It is justice for a child rapist. Channel your hatred correctly, douche.
| October 9, 2009 @ 11:01 am
*yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn*
I love all the (totally incorrect) assumptions that you make about me like I’m not REALLY CLOSE to a rape victim and I didn’t wake up next to a gorgeous woman I love who rocks my dick regularly.
Thirty years ago you and the rest of the feminists would have been embarrassed to be making friends with Fox News. Now you think it’s awesome. Hooray for identity politics. The FIRST refuge of the intellectual scoundrel.
BTW- trained professional criminal psychologists observed him and recommended probation. By what credentials do you recommend otherwise, other than your obvious and copious foot stomping moral outrage? Just curious.
| October 9, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
I bet you have a best friend who is black, too. And maybe a homosexual.
Thirty years ago I was one.
Because rape outrages me doesn’t make me a “feminist”, actually (the moniker is a joke). I believe in equality with respect for gender differences, but I am 3 dimensional, so I don’t know if you can understand that in your 2D universe. What makes me angry is that you are exonerating the man because you hate feminists and people trying to stop sex abuse of minors. (Do you have a NAMBLA card, per chance?) However feminism isn’t some one-dimensional caricature, catch-all for every angry chick at the Lilith fair with a drum to beat. And you are so obviously not anyone in any type of political “know” (no matter how many little internet articles you read). Way to be awesomely ignorant, though.
I hate fox news. Most “feminists” (especially of your stereotypical variety) do too. And while we’re on the subject of fox news… if this is the place you get your news: case closed. I mean, really – fox news is a 24 hour sensational tabloid. Come on.
BTW – that is a very vague general bs statement. (your BTW, that is) Even if you could produce the names, titles and bios of these so-called “professionals” I bet there would be a money trail right back to Polanski.
Your stance is crap. I think you know it, troll.
And the fact that you had to defend your ability to get laid… LOL!!!!
Okay, I’m out of here for good – thx for the laugh.
| October 9, 2009 @ 1:47 pm
Um. You’re the one who made how much sex I have an issue. And the rape victim isn’t my friend. It’s a relative. You’re the one who played the “knowledge” card. All I did was point out that your argument was totally groundless… not to mention straight out of amateur night. Are you like, a high school debate coach or something?
Attacking Polanski is easy. Defending him is hard. The fact that he was evaluated by professionals is common knowledge for anyone who has taken the time to acquaint themselves with the facts of the case. He was in Chino for psychiatric appraisal. The psychiatrists recommended probation. Since you seem to be research impaired, I found that article, which verifies what I already knew by Googling “Roman Polanski chino psychiatric appraisal.” Now let me sling some shit back: please provide evidence for your wildly insane claim that Polanski was bribing state workers.
On what grounds do you claim that I am ignorant? My decade plus spent on the Marxist left? The literally scores of anti-war rallies I’ve attended back when such positions were unpopular and against wars you didn’t care about at the time (see: Clinton’s assault on Yugoslavia)? How about the fact that I spent just about every (very early) Saturday morning of my high school existence outside of Planned Parenthood engaged in clinic defense? Yep. That’s the kind of misogynist right winger I am.
Once again: GET A CLUE BEFORE YOU SLING SHIT. YOUR STRAW MAN COULD NOT POSSIBLY RESEMBLE ME LESS.
Since you seem very confused about my actual position, let me break it down in terms that I person even so irritatingly simple as yourself can understand:
The media forces aligned against Polanski are highly reactionary. There is a strong undercurrent of xenophobia and anti-Semitism, and a heavy dollop of faux populism (or, what we in the Marxist game call “fascism”). The fact that The New York Times has devoted about as many column inches to defending Bush torturers and disenfranchisement of Florida voters as they do crucifying Roman Polanski is relevant. As is the fact that the opinion of everyone but the accused is enshrined as gospel. The fact that a number of feminist writers have blocked with the far right on this issue is relevant. As is the fact that the media reports “he drugged and raped a child” as if this were ever admitted by the accused or proved in a court of law. PROTIP: He pled guilty to unlawful sex with a minor. Not rape. Not drugging a child. The entire media and legal campaign against Polanski is highly reactionary and disgusting. You apparently have no qualms about signing on with it. That’s fine. Come back in five years and tell me what other reactionary bullshit the capitalist state and its toadies in the media have gotten you to sign on to. I’m sure it will be highly amusing.
Finally: On sex panic. The number of people I know who claim to be “against prisons” and have been reduced to drooling imbeciles ranting the arguments of the capitalist state speaks VOLUMES in this regard. I have never seen a bigger collection of fake left charlatans screaming for “law and order” than over the Polanski case.
| October 9, 2009 @ 2:24 pm
It doesn’t surprise me that this discussion has come down to personal arguments where you guys rail against each other’s right to have an opinion.
Here’s my opinion. I think that what Roman Polanski did was get away with a crime because he was somebody “special”. I don’t care that his wife thinks he’s a great husband, and I don’t care if this rocks her world. She never thought he would get arrested. I don’t care that the victim thinks he should not receive any more punishment. His day will come, whether in this world or the next. If he were standing in front of me, I would remove him from my sight…however I would see fit to do it. The man is a slime ball.
| January 22, 2010 @ 10:36 am