Naomi Wolf vs. Jaclyn Friedman: Feminists Debate on the Sexual Allegations Against Julian Assange

[democracy1st]

Run time: 12:48 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nvcIbvEt3w   Posted on YouTube: December 20, 2010 By YouTube Member: mediagrrl9 Views on YouTube: 3301   Posted on DU: December 23, 2010 By DU Member: democracy1st Views on DU: 1180

 
Naomi Wolf vs. Jaclyn Friedman: Feminists Debate the Sexual Allegations Against Julian Assange

As more details emerge about the sex crimes allegations against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, we host a debate between two feminists: Jaclyn Friedman argues the sexual assault allegations shouldn’t be dismissed just because they’re politically motivated, while Naomi Wolf says by going after Assange, the state is not embracing feminism, it’s "pimping" it.


http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/20/naomi_wolf_vs_jaclyn_friedman_a



Part II...Feminists Debate Sexual Allegations Against Julian Assange (1 of 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sdFlewbEfY

Part II...Feminists Debate Sexual Allegations Against Julian Assange (2 of 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwNK6LfLpU0

[reorg]

1. that's several lies in a row

by that woman in orange within the first minute she speaks. The Guardian did NOT report the allegations within the first weeks. Nowhere was it reported that "he held her down". That's a new detail which was only reported very recently and in the context of getting the condom, not for sex. Finally she is making it up as she goes along, developing wild fantasies about how the women were in fear - totally untrue, both women have stated that this was never the case.

Uninformed viewers might take what she says for real, so she knowingly and deliberately is spreading the lie and the smear. What a disgusting fake of a "feminist". Trying to sell a book, the bottom-feeder.

[EFerrari]

4. Projecting all over the place. n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

2. I could listen to Wolf all day long.

One of those amazing intellects you can just bask in, like warm sunshine.

[EFerrari]

3. This is the very first debate on Amy's show I almost turned off.

Friedman is not a good debater. But more than that, she seems so personally fragile, her boundaries are so bad, she's painful to watch. I couldn't help thinking, she probably shouldn't be doing something like this.

[Swagman]

5. for God's sake there is no allegation of RAPE !

language can be very damaging and people use powerful words to damage. Jaclyn-you are a dill. Assange is a victim too

[Swagman]

6. Ms Friedman-what the hell does the state of law in respect of rape

have to do with Julian Assange ?

[Swagman]

7. I'm too angry to watch this idiot Friedman..

how dare she take the word of one side because they are women as gospel and ignore Assange's words.

how dare she imply that Assange should somehow be sacrificed on a pyre to assuage all of Sweden's rape victims. What the hell is she on about ??

[EFerrari]

8. She brought baggage to the debate.

Her constant attacks on Wolf were ugly, too.

[truth2power]

10. You've nailed it...about the baggage. She seems angry and shrill...

I was really put off by her tone. Naomi Wolf, by contrast, seemed fact-based and objective.

Naomi Wolf asserted something that I've been saying for many years: She said we need to "treat women as moral adults", and "you're not respecting women by casting them as unable to assert what they want and willing to speak about what they wish." Absolutely.

Later on, in Part II, she says something about men and women collaborating around the parameters of a sexual relationship. I agree. (I don't have time to go back and review that right now.)

I think that Wolf's stance is crucial in what needs to be discussed in terms of adult sexual relationships.

Friedman, in contrast, is actually infanitilizing women by casting them as too weak and terrified to make their wishes known. I think that's very dysfunctional. We shouldn't be promoting perpetual victimhood. Women (and men) are better than that.


Ferrari....are you a therapist? Just wondering, because you seemed to get right to the subtext in that debate.

[EFerrari]

11. No. But I was trained in textual analysis

and somewhat in British psychoanalysis.

[howard112211]

9. These geniuses should have made their case when the incident happened instead

of waiting for precicely the moment when the accused became an internationally hated man, if they had any interest in sounding credible.

"Threw a party for him afterwards." WTF?