- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
The acts Little engages are quite repulsive to most people. But given that they appear to have been consensual, I see no grounds for prosecution. If he was sexually abusive or coercive, then that's another story, and he should be prosecuted accordingly. As Glenn states, if there was any evidence of sexual crimes, he almost certainly would (and should) have been prosecuted differently.
These sorts of cases expose one of the rifts within the feminist community - between those who truly want to allow women complete control over their bodies, and those who instead work towards forcing women to behave as they believe a liberated woman should behave. The latter group represents essentially the polar opposite of conservative women's groups, who believe that women should be submissive to men. Rather, these "feminists" believe that women should be free to do as they please, unless they choose to play roles they perceive as submissive or degrading. In that case, they should be prevented from playing those roles. Not very rational ideologically, in my opinion. It strikes me as a variant of feminism that has more in common with nationalism (nation being replaced with gender) than it does with actually protecting a woman's right to live however she chooses.
