Naomi Wolf: Anonymity for rape accusers gives impunity to prosecutors

The Vagina author's odd comments on Newsnight.

Last night's Newsnight tackled the topic of rape, and featured Naomi Wolf, whose new book Vagina: A New Biography went on sale yesterday.

It was odd discussion, to say the least.

First, we heard that Wolf had previously argued that Julian Assange's accusers should be denied anonymity. In the very next sentence, however, Jeremy Paxman's voiceover segued into asking "Are there times when No doesn't really mean No?" (I can't see the link myself.)

At 2.30 minutes in, Paxman interviewed Wolf. She said:

I'm not saying that those women should be - quote unquote - unmasked. I'm saying that it serves rapists to have rape cases prosecuted under the cover of anonymity altogether, because it gives impunity to prosecutors.

Paxman points out that the law was changed here to give anonymity.

Wolf says:

It had wonderful motivations, but the upshot here is that in Britain, only 6 per cent of reported rapes, which is a small fraction of all rapes, get convicted. . . I do think, like many feminists, that rape shouldn't be stigmatised unlike any other kind of assault. . . It stigmatises women, and it allows impunity.

... The reason I know there's something very corrupt about the prosecution of the Assange case - I'm not talking about the women right now, we just don't know enough - is that it is so profoundly different from... the way rape is prosecuted for any other victim in Sweden.  

This is all very odd. Wolf has consistently expressed the opinion that because other rape complainants are poorly treated, these ones should be too. 

She went on to explain that what is alleged in the Assange case was generally dismissed by Swedish police and prosecutors, because the women "weren't innocent enough".

Hmm. Could this be the same woman who wrote this Huffington Post piece?

In that piece, Wolf does EXACTLY what she suggests the Swedish prosecutors have done to others - she dismisses the allegations because there was a previous relationship between Assange and his accusers.

(There's a rare example of an incorrect correction at the bottom of that piece, too:) 

Update and correction: The Guardian has, since I wrote this original post based on the Daily Mail, reported that the two women's complaints to Swedish police centered on the alleged misuse of or failure to use condoms, which can be illegal in Sweden.

I'll leave you to enjoy the rest of the interview, in which Wolf talks about the "brain-vagina connection", by yourselves.

Naomi Wolf on Newsnight.

Helen Lewis is deputy editor of the New Statesman. She has presented BBC Radio 4’s Week in Westminster and is a regular panellist on BBC1’s Sunday Politics.

Getty
Show Hide image

In your 30s? You missed out on £26,000 and you're not even protesting

The 1980s kids seem resigned to their fate - for now. 

Imagine you’re in your thirties, and you’re renting in a shared house, on roughly the same pay you earned five years ago. Now imagine you have a friend, also in their thirties. This friend owns their own home, gets pay rises every year and has a more generous pension to beat. In fact, they are twice as rich as you. 

When you try to talk about how worried you are about your financial situation, the friend shrugs and says: “I was in that situation too.”

Un-friend, right? But this is, in fact, reality. A study from the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that Brits in their early thirties have a median wealth of £27,000. But ten years ago, a thirty something had £53,000. In other words, that unbearable friend is just someone exactly the same as you, who is now in their forties. 

Not only do Brits born in the early 1980s have half the wealth they would have had if they were born in the 1970s, but they are the first generation to be in this position since World War II.  According to the IFS study, each cohort has got progressively richer. But then, just as the 1980s kids were reaching adulthood, a couple of things happened at once.

House prices raced ahead of wages. Employers made pensions less generous. And, at the crucial point that the 1980s kids were finding their feet in the jobs market, the recession struck. The 1980s kids didn’t manage to buy homes in time to take advantage of low mortgage rates. Instead, they are stuck paying increasing amounts of rent. 

If the wealth distribution between someone in their 30s and someone in their 40s is stark, this is only the starting point in intergenerational inequality. The IFS expects pensioners’ incomes to race ahead of workers in the coming decade. 

So why, given this unprecedented reversal in fortunes, are Brits in their early thirties not marching in the streets? Why are they not burning tyres outside the Treasury while shouting: “Give us out £26k back?” 

The obvious fact that no one is going to be protesting their granny’s good fortune aside, it seems one reason for the 1980s kids’ resignation is they are still in denial. One thirty something wrote to The Staggers that the idea of being able to buy a house had become too abstract to worry about. Instead:

“You just try and get through this month and then worry about next month, which is probably self-defeating, but I think it's quite tough to get in the mindset that you're going to put something by so maybe in 10 years you can buy a shoebox a two-hour train ride from where you actually want to be.”

Another reflected that “people keep saying ‘something will turn up’”.

The Staggers turned to our resident thirty something, Yo Zushi, for his thoughts. He agreed with the IFS analysis that the recession mattered:

"We were spoiled by an artificially inflated balloon of cheap credit and growing up was something you did… later. Then the crash came in 2007-2008, and it became something we couldn’t afford to do. 

I would have got round to becoming comfortably off, I tell myself, had I been given another ten years of amoral capitalist boom to do so. Many of those who were born in the early 1970s drifted along, took a nap and woke up in possession of a house, all mod cons and a decent-paying job. But we slightly younger Gen X-ers followed in their slipstream and somehow fell off the edge. Oh well. "

Will the inertia of the1980s kids last? Perhaps – but Zushi sees in the support for Jeremy Corbyn, a swell of feeling at last. “Our lack of access to the life we were promised in our teens has woken many of us up to why things suck. That’s a good thing. 

“And now we have Corbyn to help sort it all out. That’s not meant sarcastically – I really think he’ll do it.”