>No, that's not what Yoshie's doing at all. She's trying to put child
>sexual abuse into some perspective. If its incidence is really
>declining, then all the anxiety around it is overblown - or, was
>never fully rational in the first place.
Or, if it's declining there may be some reason it's doing so, but that doesn't mean that it's not a problem for those who've experienced it, nor that it isn't widespread. I have friends for whom child sexual abuse was a painful experience and others for whom it totally, completely messed up their lives.
Never fully rational in the first place? In the first place there were child brides, an age of consent of 11, or 13, or in the Bible, what? 3? So it used to be the law.
>I don't get why it's so important that Herbert Apthetker may or may
>not have abused his daughter. If it is a real social problem to the
>degree some claim, then theirs is just one case among many.
That's my position. What's surprising to me is all the shocked demurrals t hat Bettina could possibly be telling the truth.
>Is the real cause for concern an effort to dredge up some dirt about a dead
>Stalinist?
Neither of them should be smeared. If you think child sexual abuse is a one-in-a-million monstrosity rather than a particularly damning feature of male supremacy then you'll think there's something specially monstrous about the charge and that it's powerfully condemning of everything about the perpetrator. While I think Bettina's likely to be telling the truth, I think it's a stretch to say it has anything to do with Herbert Aptheker's politics. That's because I don't think child sexual abuse is (1) rare or (2) done by evil subhuman monsters. And I would never characterize Herbert Aptheker's life and important work by describing him as "a dead Stalinist." I hope you wouldn't, either.
Jenny Brown