Commentary on the article ‘Some Sexual Offences are Worse than Others‘ by Lionel Shriver in ‘The Spectator‘ (Australia) 13 October 2018. Lionel Shriver is an American author who wrote ‘We need to Talk About Kevin’.
Commenting on Christine Blasey Ford’s Senate Testimony about being sexually assaulted by the US Supreme Court nominee when he was 17, Shriver belittles her. At age 15, Ford was pushed into a bedroom at a teenage gathering by two boys. One laid on top of her and began ‘running his hands’ over her body and ‘grinding’ into her. She yelled, and he put a hand over her mouth. The other boy sat down on the mattress twice. She escaped to a bathroom. The boys locked the bedroom door, but on the inside. Shriver comments that ‘if she escaped from two older boys, they weren’t trying very hard to detain her’. In Shriver’s terms ‘it was in the medium’ range and she minimizes any damage to Blasey.
She further states ‘Droves of Democrats have hailed Ford as a hero for her courage as a ‘survivor’. But I fear the deferent visibly fragile academic with a high, mousy voice makes a lousy role model for young women today, who are too often feeling the message that weakness is their greatest strength’.
Lionel Shriver has shrunk to the level of personal attack to promote her cause. It’s pathetic. One wonders why she is fixated on strength. The answer lies later in the article when she says ‘Hey I have my own sexual abuse story, and its way worse than Christine Ford’s.’ Shriver is a case for an expert in psychoanalysis. She minimizes others experience of sexual abuse because she minimizes her own. She is a repressive case. Never mind ‘We need to talk about Kevin’ ; I think it’s time we talked about Shriver’s shadow and the rage she expresses toward any women who admits sexual violation.
Shriver claims she has standing. Well, she’s just lost it! How lucky she is that ‘my sexual abuse did not result in a host of ineradicable neuroses! She suggests we all move on and start celebrating resilience.
I suggest Shriver has multiple psychological problems that really need addressing and perhaps she should relate all the above to those women victims of sexual abuse who are at present working in the pornography or prostitution industries or who are in fact dead as a result of degradation and violence.
In the course of the article Shriver states ‘from the 1980’s onwards we’ve been singularly obsessed with sexual abuse particularly of children’. She refers to ‘the draconian restrictions levied on sexual offenders who’ve served their time, the deluge of incest memoirs, the plethora of fictional villains who’ve been sexual predators and/or paedophiles’. The rant goes on and lays Shriver bare as a person totally lacking in empathy and compassion. Her own rage transferred on to the victims.
Such an individual is incapable of ever winning the Nobel Prize for Literature!
I suggest she find a quiet corner and lay down and die because she is never going to address what is at the heart of her own issues. I know what a case she is but I’m not going to tell her!