To be sure no one really knows except Dominique Strauss-Kahn and the woman who has accused him of rape what actually happened one night at the Sofitel hotel. That said, that hasn’t stopped various media entities, the NY Post and the Dailymail from beginning to portray the accuser and purported victim as a flagrant lier who is not worth our attention and now an actual prostitute as well as a metaphorical one who turned tricks at the hotel where she worked. The assumption being that she is certainly to be damned (aren’t all hookers?) and further relegated down the gender stairwell that she had hoped to aspire- cause this is a man’s world. Or to be precise, a very rich man’s world:
nypost: The Sofitel housekeeper who claims the former IMF boss sexually assaulted her in his room was doing double duty as a prostitute, collecting cash on the side from male guests, The Post has learned
“There is information . . . of her getting extraordinary tips, if you know what I mean. And it’s not for bringing extra f–king towels,” a source close to the defense investigation said yesterday.
Is that to imply that if there was sexual services performed (and physical evidence to date indicates there was) are we to now assume that because the unnamed maid doubled as a hooker (as far as one can tell these are just prairie fiction stories off the back of yesterday’s revelations that the maid had been less than forthright about certain instances of her life- and it may turn out to be for legitimate reasons, not that one should necessarily congratulate this type of behavior) that she is the more complicit in the fiasco?
Because as we have been taught, rich white men can always buy a woman outright, but should a woman find herself on the wrong end of the receiving stick of the bargain she is either a hooker or had just asked for it all along? This after all is the concocted implication of the heretical NY Post that over the years has excelled in such crass verbiage.
Which brings us to the Dailymail.co.uk who is also no stranger to extranneous hyperbole and hazing missions:
dailymail.co.uk: ‘She’s a con artist,’ said one source, who added she could not be put on the stand because ‘she’d be a flawed witness’.
He also said Strauss-Kahn’s legal team, who has hired private investigators to ferret out every detail of the alleged victim’s past, had unearthed photographs of her drinking and partying, despite her professed Muslim faith.
Senior prosecutors met Strauss-Kahn’s legal team on Thursday to discuss whether to dismiss the criminal charges.
According to officials, the woman told investigators her asylum application included a previous rape but it was not found on the application itself.
She also told them she had been subjected to genital mutilation, but her story was different to what she wrote on her application.
A con artist and could not be put on the stand because she is a flawed witness? Has it occurred to some readers that the media is trying to vilify this woman, despite the actual physical evidence that shows that indeed there was violent sex acts (hospital photos of a bruised vagina don’t fit into well to the idea of concensual sex) between herself and Strauss-Kahn?
But at least there are some media outlets that are at least juxtaposing such absurd arguments with some thoughtful appraisal of what has now become an absurd lynching of the accuser:
altnet: Attacks on the credibility of women who bring charges of sexual assault is something we should greet first with skepticism. Such attacks often carry an implicit assumption that a woman — especially if she is poor, associates with unsavory characters, lives in a dodgy neighborhood, etc. — may have deserved what she got and is not entitled to our sympathy or to legal protection. Important questions about class, gender and economic status raised in such cases demand our attention. In this instance, the fact that a poor, immigrant woman living in the Bronx knows a drug dealer or fudged the facts in order to gain asylum seems to me neither surprising nor indicative that she is not entitled to basic human rights.
For the time being it seems as if Dominique Strauss-Kahn will be allowed to have the benefit of the doubt, but who it seems will never be allowed to have the benefit of the doubt are poor working class women who are now being relegated to demonic dispositions- because once a ho, always a ho. Right?