Sexual Harassment
Sex Crime Expert Asks Gore's Accuser: Why Now?
By Wendy Murphy
WeNews Commentator
Monday, June 28, 2010
A long-time advocate for crime victims is torn about Nobel Laureate Al Gore and the woman accusing him now of a sexual assault in 2006. She believes her yet asks: Why was she silent for so long and why did she go public now?
I'm as fierce an advocate as exists for crime victims, but I'm having a tough time figuring out how to feel about Al Gore being publicly accused now of committing a sexual assault in 2006.
It's not that he didn't seem the "type." After the Catholic priest scandal, I gave up thinking there was a man alive who wasn't capable, though if Jimmy Carter gets in the same trouble I will lose my lunch.
But the go-green halo around Gore's presence set him apart somehow. Not that being an environmentalist makes a guy a saint, but Gore seemed almost desperate to have us see him as more moral than the average Al.
I asked a bunch of women in my community how they felt about the Al Gore news and they said perplexing victim-blaming things such as, "She was in her 50s. Doesn't he know menopausal women aren't horny?" And, "How did she not know that a request for a three-hour massage at 10:30 p.m. is code for 'the guy wants a hooker?'" A couple of women cracked jokes: "After she rejected him, did he Tip-per?"
The greenest of the green people I talked to felt betrayed. Gore was their leader and the movement is now, um, stained. The woman even said, according to the transcript of her interview with Portland, Ore., police made public on the Internet, that her "Birkenstock Tribe" friends told her to "suck it up" and not tell anyone or the "world's going to be destroyed from global warming."
I imagine the Nobel Prize people are similarly distraught.
The Cry of Liar Has Not Rung Out
The most interesting issue for me, however, is the way nobody seems to be calling this woman a liar. Women who report sex crimes being called liars is a national sport in this country--more so when the accused is someone of substance. But Gore isn't even denying the woman's claims, much less calling her a liar. This not only helps the woman's credibility, it makes me wonder why the case itself took the odd series of twists and turns on its way to this very delayed public exposure.
Significant delay in the reporting of sexual assault typically incites claims of "false accusation." (The typical case is not reported promptly, which should make delayed reports more credible. But I digress). Hell, merely being female usually serves the same purpose. And when the claim is made against a person of wealth or influence, the motive is assumed to be money. But few are saying these things about Gore's accuser.
Maybe it's because the woman saved the pants she was wearing when she noticed a stain she believed might be Gore's DNA, suggesting a denial might make things worse, a la Bill Clinton's denial before he knew about The Blue Dress.
RELATED STORIES
NO STORIESSubmitted by MarilynJean (2 years ago)
Really? The Enquirer wrote it about the story, so you count that as credibility?
Moreover, you claiming to believe this woman, yet asking "Why now?" still falls along the spectrum of victim blaming and is extremely judgemental.
A survivor's motive for telling her story is no concern of mine as long as the perpetrator is punished for wrongdoing.
Submitted by dennymack (2 years ago)
I don't know enough about the story to know which party to believe, but the initial complaint followed by long delay seems easy to understand.
Maybe she did a bit of internet reading and found out what happens to women who threaten the careers and credibility of powerful, politically connected men in Gore's circle. Who would volunteer to be the next Paula Jone, Monica Lewinsky, or Jennifer Flowers?
This might also explain the move to civil court. In civil court, the plaintiff can stop the process if they choose. Once in the hands of a DA, the victim loses a lot of control. If she was afraid of what Gore's people might do, she might want the ability to end it. Perhaps civil court looked like a way to punish him without becoming a pawn in a political war. Anyone think Monica wanted what came her way? Hardly. In these cases, the victim is secondary to the target for many of the powers that involve themselves "on her side" while the victim is secondary to The Great Things He is Doing for those who defend him. (This includes too many people who claim to be advocates for women, if the man is judged to be a friend of the cause. Makes one wonder what the cause is, yes?)
Of course, this is only one possible motive.
Submitted by forthwrite (2 years ago)
Thanks for going through this step-by-step. I had confused and contradictory feelings. At least now I know why.
Submitted by WomenOnGuard (2 years ago)
Wow, I had my doubt about her story, but after reading more here, I think that she is telling the truth. It could possibly be why they are getting a divorce. Not because of that particular incident but because it looks like Al Gore and Tipper where probably having issues back then and that's why he might have done it... if he did indeed do this!
| REPRINT FAQS | Copyright © 2013 Women's eNews Inc. All rights reserved. |
Submitted by vita (2 years ago)
According to the "masseuse" Mr. Gore was making sounds of pleasure at receiving a massage and asked her to "go lower".
Obviously no one reading this has ever had a massage. I have made sounds of pleasure at receiving a massage: that's why I get a massage!! And I have asked the person giving the massage to work on different places that I know to need attention and if I say "go lower" that's what I mean, not "I want to be sexually stimulated."
I think that it is interesting that no one has made this simple connection of facts to the media nonsense that is getting everyone talking about a scandal.
Also, asking someone to "go lower" is not sexual assault.