Headlines

Instapundit

War on women: Woman raped at Occupy New Haven

UPDATE: I suppose that this should come as no surprise considering the signals that have come from the very top of the Democratic establishment:

At the exact moment Jon Favreau is receiving high praise in pre-inaugural media puff pieces, the 27-year-old chief speechwriter for President-elect Barack Obama (not Jon Favreau, the Hollywood actor/ director) finds himself in a minor mess over a photo from a recent private party showing him groping the breast of a cardboard cutout of Hillary Rodham Clinton as an unnamed pal wearing an “Obama staff” T-shirt kisses and feeds her beer.

If you haven’t seen it, imagine the early stages of the barroom rape scene of “The Accused” with Jodie Foster. Or think prosecutor Mike Nifong’s graphic (though false) descriptions of the Duke lacrosse party. Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson danced to a similar tune at the 2004 Super Bowl.

Fraternities have been closed for less.

Read the Article

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Again, pot meet kettle.

derecho on March 14, 2012 at 5:30 PM

But they claim the right has a “war on women”.

Hypocrits unite! Obama is your Pimp in Chief.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Demorats doing tons of fundraising on “war on women”.

Why don’t they include this now?

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2012 at 5:32 PM

If we all paid for the OCCUPY movements Birth Control, there would be no rape.

This is our fault.

portlandon on March 14, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Again, pot meet kettle.

derecho on March 14, 2012 at 5:30 PM

The Dems don’t even qualify under pot meet kettle.

They’re more like the kettle saying it’s a plate and the plate’s a kettle.

INC on March 14, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Isn’t that the left-wing philosophy?

From each according to her abilities, to each according to his “needs”.

malclave on March 14, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Some Republican must have snuck in.

Axeman on March 14, 2012 at 5:36 PM

The Dems don’t even qualify under pot meet kettle.

They’re more like the kettle saying it’s a plate and the plate’s a kettle.

INC on March 14, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Sometimes I say it’s like the pot calling the sink black.

Axeman on March 14, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Axeman on March 14, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Agreed

derecho on March 14, 2012 at 5:38 PM

War on women: Woman raped at Occupy New Haven

It wasn’t a rape rape ….the dude was making love
:P donchano

burrata on March 14, 2012 at 5:41 PM

To Occupy Group W Bench: Stop raping people! Stop raping people!

forest on March 14, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Members of the Occupy movement said neither Gamble nor the victim are members of the movement. They said both are homeless and set up a tent nearby.

If they have joined your protest, which they did by setting up a tent to “occupy” the area, then they are part of your “movement.”

visions on March 14, 2012 at 5:44 PM

As BigAndrew would say, “BEHAVE YOURSELVES! YOU’RE FREAKS AND ANIMALS! STOP RAPING PEOPLE!”

Christien on March 14, 2012 at 5:44 PM

“It’s cool. They called Libya rules on the way over.”
 
- (D)s

rogerb on March 14, 2012 at 5:45 PM

put some ice on that thing, would ya???

ted c on March 14, 2012 at 5:47 PM

surely this had something to do with the failure of this congress to pass a law giving law students all the protection they need to complete their studies.

ted c on March 14, 2012 at 5:48 PM

New name for OWS: “Rapestock”.

whatcat on March 14, 2012 at 5:50 PM

New name for OWS: “Rapestock”.

whatcat on March 14, 2012 at 5:50 PM

“Lewdstock”

burrata on March 14, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Members of the Occupy movement said neither Gamble nor the victim are members of the movement. They said both are homeless and set up a tent nearby.

If they have joined your protest, which they did by setting up a tent to “occupy” the area, then they are part of your “movement.”

visions on March 14, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Maybe they think the homeless are part of the 1%.

malclave on March 14, 2012 at 5:59 PM

I don’t understand this line of attack against Occupy from the right. For one thiing, the Left certainly did not start out as a feminist movement. The feminist movement of the 1970s (by no means the first example of organized female protest) was borne out of the fact that 1960s Marxists were uninterested in the way the American capitalist system particularly impacted women. Feminists pointed out that the same logics of commodification (that caused individuals to desire material objects so highly that they stopped caring if the labor was exploited) also applied to the commodification and objectification of women. Women, feminists argued, were understood as a form of property and their work (cooking, cleaning, raising children, caregiving and a host of other tasks that went into homemaking) was not recognized as “real work” by the Left.

Feminism has *always* criticized the Left’s disinterest in women’s issues, that’s why feminism even exists. Sexual assault and sexual exploitation of women within the Left is something that feminists have *always* argued against and always advocated against. So its a little bit silly to see the Right showing up in 2012 and talking about sexual assault as if they were there at Take Back the Night rallies, as if they didn’t cheer on Bill O’Reilly when he said this, as if they didn’t call Anita Hill every bad name they now call Sandra Fluke and so on and so forth. The Left’s hypocrisy on feminism isn’t anything new, and the Right has no better standing either. So get off your high horses and stop pretending you care about women’s rights issues. You don’t, you’re using this as a cheap political ploy. Its transparent as heck.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Sexual assault and sexual exploitation of women within the Left is something that feminists have *always* argued against and always advocated against.

I don’t think you know what the word “always” means.

malclave on March 14, 2012 at 6:15 PM

The Left’s hypocrisy on feminism isn’t anything new, and the Right has no better standing either.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2012 at 6:13 PM

The Right didn’t make pornographic movies about their female Democrat Party political opponents.

Your side did.

Del Dolemonte on March 14, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Well so much for the sex strike.

Ted Torgerson on March 14, 2012 at 6:19 PM

I don’t think you know what the word “always” means.

malclave on March 14, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Fine, its something feminists raised first, most often and loudest.

The Right didn’t make pornographic movies about their female Democrat Party political opponents.

Your side did.

Del Dolemonte on March 14, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Democrats = “The Left” as much as Republicans = “The Right.” I would suggest that once you enter formal politics it is extremely difficult for anyone to hold onto their ideological roots and retain power. Hence the marginalized careers of Kucinich and Paul. I would say in the 1970s there was a brief moment when genuine leftists could win elections, Shirley Chisolm, young versions of Clyburn etc. But those that remained in the Democratic party for long enough eventually eschewed those principles. Same for the GOP. I don’t know why you *INSIST* on this conflation between political party and ideology, but it seems to make you feel better. So continue.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Sexual assault and sexual exploitation of women within the Left is something that feminists have *always* argued against and always advocated against.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2012 at 6:13 PM

What color is the sky in your world? Feminists will *always* back lefty politicians as long as they are pro-abort.If she had had her dress drycleaned, Monica Lewinski would still be portrayed by all the NOW gals as a delusional.

Ted Torgerson on March 14, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Sexual assault and sexual exploitation of women within the Left is something that feminists have *always* argued against and always advocated against.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2012 at 6:13 PM

That would explain NOW giving a Democrat pResident a total pass for engaging in an adulterous relationship with a female workplace subordinate-in the workplace.

Or a Leftist nationally-known female “reporter” actually volunteering, in print no less, to give that same pResident Oral Sex, just as long as he kept abortion legal.

You really need to get out of the basement more. Either that, or you are only 14 years old, which means you were born in the same year both of those things Went Down (sorry, I couldn’t resist).

Del Dolemonte on March 14, 2012 at 6:28 PM

I don’t know why you *INSIST* on this conflation between political party and ideology, but it seems to make you feel better. So continue.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Translated: “I’m losing the debate.”

Let’s flash back to 1998, when “reporter” Nina Burleigh, who was actually assigned to the White House Press Pool as a supposedly “objective” news person, fawningly wrote this, which is still proudly posted at her own website:

http://www.ninaburleigh.com/journalism/king-of-hearts.html

For several years, I was tethered to Bill Clinton on pool duty, in which reporters from national magazines and newspapers take turns traveling with the president. I had done it so often, Air Force One almost bored me, with all that windy waiting on the tarmac, Clinton’s practiced wave on the steps, the Secret Service men shoving and glaring at us through their mirrored lenses.

-snip-

On one of these trips last year, I found myself in the plane’s front cabin with only senior White House advisor Bruce Lindsey and a deck of cards between me and the President. On that flight from Chicago to Jasper, Arkansas, where the President was stopping for a funeral, they needed a fourth for hearts. I volunteered. Before we were at cruising altitude, I was sitting across from Clinton, trying to concentrate on the cards, watching his hands shuffling the deck. His white shirt cuffs were starch stiff, his cufflinks glinted gold. He kept score-with a gold pen on a white notepad with an embossed golden-eagle Presidential seal.

I knew all about the President’s alleged attractiveness. His “zipper problem” had provided hours of dinner-party amusement for my friends and me. Although I was one of the people in Washington who didn’t believe Hillary Clinton stayed married for the power alone, I had always seen the President’s charms only in a theoretical way. I had interviewed some of the women who were accusing him of sexual misbehavior. I talked to Gennifer Flowers in 1992. Later, I met with Paula Jones at a Capitol Hill townhouse. Both women were believable-although in Jones’s case, I suspect she had been more willing than she was willing to let on.

Sex was not on my mind when I sat down across from the President. I was more worried that I had forgotten how to play hearts. He looked older in the flesh than from afar or on TV. He had crow’s-feet and creepy skin. He seemed lonely, as if the adulation of crowds and aides had given him a craving for more of the same. I felt perversely sorry for the most powerful man in the world. Maybe that explains his allure: We women love a lonely man.

-snip-

Of course, nothing happened. The President’s foot lightly, and presumably accidentally, brushed mine once under the table. His hand touched my wrist while he was dealing the cards. When I got up and shook his hand at the end of the game, his eyes wandered over my bike-wrecked, naked legs. And slowly it dawned on me as I walked away: He found me attractive.

No doubt the President’s lawyers and spin doctors would say I wishfully imagined that long, appreciative look, just as all those other women have fantasized their more explicitly sexual encounters with Clinton. But we all know when we’re being ogled. The weird thing was that I didn’t mind. There was a time when the hormones of indignant feminism raged in my veins. An open gaze like that, at least from a man of lesser stature, would have annoyed me. But that evening, I had the opposite reaction. I felt incandescent. It was riveting to know that the President had appreciated my legs, scarred as they were. If he had asked me to continue the game of hearts back in his room at the Jasper Holiday Inn, I would have been happy to go there and see what happened. At the time, it seemed quite possible. It took several hours and a few drinks in the steaming and now somehow romantic Arkansas night to shake the intoxicated state in which I had been quite willing to let myself be ravished by the President, should he have but asked. I probably wore the mesmerized look I have seen again and again in women after they have met him. The same silly hypnotized gleam was displayed on the cover of Time magazine in Monica Lewinsky’s eyes.

Del Dolemonte on March 14, 2012 at 6:38 PM

I don’t know why you *INSIST* on this conflation between political party and ideology, but it seems to make you feel better. So continue.
 
libfreeordie on March 14, 2012 at 6:22 PM

 
Yet:
 

So can we leave that hyperbole behind? There are many governments, the UK, France, Germany, Scandinavian countries etc. etc. who have instituted marxist-informed governments since the end of World War II. Did it lead to central control and fascism?… You all don’t make it hard when you chicken little that pushing this nation to the left = tyranny and destruction.
 
libfreeordie on February 26, 2012 at 10:59 AM

 
BTW- Welcome back, libfreeordie.

rogerb on March 14, 2012 at 6:53 PM

So get off your high horses and stop pretending you care about women’s rights issues. You don’t, you’re using this as a cheap political ploy. Its transparent as heck.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Here’s the point:

rape, assault, theft, rioting, vandalism, pimping underage girls, drug use, public masturbation, cyberattacks and attacking the police are all behavior we’ve seen several times over at Occupy rallies. All are examples of a sense of entitlement run amok. Occupy protests may not support all that, but they sure do breed it.

Chuck Schick on March 14, 2012 at 7:32 PM

The notion of “women’s rights” drives me nuts!

There are no “women’s rights” here people!

Before that gets quoted around, perhaps a moment to explain? By insisting that there are “women’s rights”, “men’s rights”, “black rights”, “gay rights” or any variation…you are claiming that a special class of people exist in this country. They don’t! Any attempt to create one would be a textbook case of discrimination.

Women have the exact same rights as men. They have the same rights given to them by god (or whatever creator you believe in) that cannot be taken by a mortal government.

Here is a challenge to our liberal friends, please post one single “right” that women do not have that men do. Here’s a hint, if you cannot point to an area of the constitution (state or federal), or the bill of rights, then your example is false.

What we have here is a movement that believes they have the right to tell a specific industry (insurance) or a sector of society (religion) how they will conduct themselves. This movement has no more right to do that than I do to come into your bedroom and tell you when it is and isn’t appropriate to have sex.

What people (read: women AND men) do have a right to is opportunity. Women have the same opportunity to purchase insurance from the same company as men do. Women have the same opportunity to work the same jobs as men, to own property, to vote, or whatever other rights that men have. All people are created equal and are given equal opportunity. Anything beyond that is not guaranteed by our Constitution.

Flashwing on March 14, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Meanwhile:

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 6-2 Monday to endorse a controversial bill that would allow Arizona employers the right to deny health insurance coverage for contraceptives based on religious objections.

Arizona House Bill 2625, authored by Majority Whip Debbie Lesko, R-Glendale, would permit employers to ask their employees for proof of medical prescription if they seek contraceptives for non-reproductive purposes, such as hormone control or acne treatment.

Awesome. Arizona women, now you have to prove to your employers that you’re not sluts if you would like to receive birth control on an employer plan. Because that is their business. I was already never going to Arizona and this just confirms it.

http://www.statepress.com/2012/03/12/senate-judiciary-committee-endorses-controversial-contraceptive-bill/

libfreeordie on March 14, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Awesome. Arizona women, now you have to prove to your employers that you’re not sluts if you would like to receive birth control on an employer plan. Because that is their business.

You have absolutely got no game when it comes to rational discussion. Explain why you think that the federal government has any business dictating to private companies and more importantly religious organizations what they must pay to cover with their private funds. You know that is the subject of discussion, not seeking permission from employers regarding private behavior. But then you know that.

I was already never going to Arizona and this just confirms it.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Thank-you for that. We already have enough brainless liberals, after all, the idiots in Pima County keep re-electing Raul Grijalva, we sure don’t need one more.

AZfederalist on March 14, 2012 at 9:59 PM