Tag: George Will

NOW Calls For WaPo to Fire George Will

The president of the National Organization for Women, Terry O’Neill told Media Matters that The Washington Post needs to dump George Will for his column downplaying the prevalence of campus sexual assault and suggesting some college efforts to curb it “make victimhood a coveted status.”

The column has drawn complaints from numerous women’s rights groups and prompted National Organization for Women President Terry O’Neill to call for Will’s ouster Tuesday.

“George Will needs to take a break from his column and The Washington Post needs to take a break from his column, they need to dump him,” O’Neill told Media Matters in a phone interview Tuesday afternoon. “It is actively harmful for the victims of sexual assault when that kind of man writes a piece that says to assault victims, ‘it didn’t happen and if it did happen you deserve it.’ That re-traumatizes victims. I can’t believe that Mr. Will has had this experience if he would put out such a hateful message.”

“We want him to back off and we want The Washington Post to stop carrying his column.”

O’Neill later added, “That is absolutely the kind of further attack on victims that just does such extraordinary harm … The media blaming women for the horrific rape of violence against women and sexual assault it is really shameful.”

Since Will’s column, the newspaper published an article titled “One way to end violence against women? Stop taking lovers and get married.”

The women’s rights group UltraViolet has started a petition telling The Washington Post to fire George Will

The Washington Post actually just published an opinion piece mocking sexual assault survivors and saying that women want to be raped.

The author, conservative columnist George Will, goes so far as to write that colleges are making “victimhood a coveted status” by taking public steps to curb sexual assaults on campus.

He even implies that non-consensual sex is not rape, when in fact it’s the very definition of rape!

George Will makes his living writing columns that many people disagree with. But his latest column has gone too far. Rape is a serious crime–accusing women of making it up and arguing schools shouldn’t be addressing sexual assault puts both women and men at risk. By publishing George Will’s piece, The Washington Post is amplifying some of the most insidious lies that perpetuate rape culture. It’s not just wrong–it’s dangerous.

Tell The Washington Post:

“Rape is real. No one wants to be a victim. Fire George Will.”

Being a victim of sexual assault is a “coveted status that confers privileges”

The Washington Post columnist [George Will] thinks women are lying about sexual assault in order to get “privileges”

From Salon.com:

Washington Post columnist George Will doesn’t believe the statistic that one in five women is sexually assaulted while in college. Instead he believes that liberals, feminists and other nefarious forces have conspired to turn being a rape survivor into a “coveted status that confers privileges.” As a result of this plot, “victims proliferate,” Will wrote in a weekend editorial that ran in the Washington Post and New York Post.

Further compounding the crisis of people coming forward about sexual assault to stay de rigueur is the fact that “capacious” definitions of sexual assault include forcible sexual penetration and nonconsensual sexual touching. Which is really very outrageous, according to Will. It is really very hard to understand why having your breasts or other parts of your body touched against your will should be frowned upon.

It’s not very surprising that George Will does not think that sexual assault on campus is a big deal. It’s also not very surprising that he thinks that definitions of sexual violence are somehow overly broad because they factor in forms of sexual contact other than penetration. But what is puzzling – about this editorial and the army of nearly identical pieces of rape apologia that find a way into national newspapers with some regularity – is how much one has to ignore in order to argue these points.

 photo george_will.jpg

Will George Will’s next column highlight this?

Earlier this year, columnist George Will sparked controversy with claims that global ice levels were the same as (if not greater than) 30 years earlier. This was part of George Will’s retread truthiness and deception in his widely syndicated columns falsely asserting that global warming is not happening.

Recent news from the Arctic makes me wonder whether George will revisit the topic from a somewhat different angle.

Obama: A Cup of Nothing

‘I won’t tell you what you want to hear, I’ll tell you what you need to know.’

Gee, sounds like the worst of both worlds to me.

Not true. Tonight, when the aspiring leader of the free world declaimed: ‘I’ll tell you what you need to know’, my blood ran cold. Executive authority? Vive le roi!

Matt Yglesias purrs. Others squeal with delight. I, on the other hand, don’t like Obama; and I don’t like what he says.

And until he wins the nomination, I get to tell folks here why.

If he wins the nomination.

How do I loathe Obama? Well, actually it’s not that simple.

I’ve taken the measure of my hostility towards Obama and discovered a great deal I do like in the candidate.

I respect Obama’s intellect and his accomplishments. I respect his commitment to family and community. I respect his commitment to building a bright future for himself and for his family and community. ‘Nuff said.

How did that speech go?  “…in small towns and big cities you came together as Democrats, Republicans and Independents…”  Did I hear that right? Republicans are awarded second-place mention in Obama’s victory speech? Gee, I wasn’t aware that Republicans won anything in Iowa when Obama finished ahead of Edwards and other committed Dems.  

But Obama isn’t kidding. Obama appeals to Republicans, actively, as he did in Iowa tonight. And if you like the idea of climbing into electoral bed with the Andrew Sullivans and George Wills of the world: good news! Sullivan and Will are already there, with Tweety! Andrew informs us that NRO is chirping an Obama song, too.

Bill Bennett watched the Iowa results and shocked pundits by assuring his all Wall-Street buddies that Obama represents no threat whatsoever? Huh? I thought die-hard Republicans are supposed to paint the Dem winner in shades of red or pink. But Bennett, a career bible-thumper and gambler of long experience, looks hard at Obama…and likes what he sees. Bennett’ message is un-mistakable: upper-income voters should have no problem pulling the lever for Obama. Big Pharma doesn’t have a better friend than silly Sully. Sully’s giddy support for Obama and antipathy for universal health-care should be enough to worry folks. Clearly, many are too busy hoping.

If accountability matters to you, if you believe strongly that those who lied America into the war must be punished, if you believe corporate America is a threat to your freedoms, your income, your health and your job, you may want to think carefully before putting the forgiver-in-chief in the White House.  

Obama may win the nomination. That’s when critics like me get to STFU and commit to burning the Republican house to the ground. But if folks decide to follow a man who doesn’t scare Bill Bennett, don’t be surprised to discover some of the worst criminals are standing next to you inside the Dem tent before the match is struck.