Mary Beard is becoming a regular target. Today's pathetic dogwhistle has brought out the filth:

I was raped when I was a student claims Mary Beard: Historian said she was sexually assaulted on a train while backpacking in Italy

First of all, this is plagiarism. Attributed to Mail hack Alasdair Glennie (whose name is misspelt in his own byline: that's how much attention the Mail is paying to this story), it's lifted from yesterday's Sunday Times, although this is unacknowledged. (The Telegraph, which has also pilfered the story, at least mentioned the source.) But the Sunday Times story was itself a rehash of an article written by Beard herself and published in the Guardian in 2000. Beard's piece is thoughtful, nuanced, and helpful — recommended reading. The Mail's ignores all of that and settles for the following structure:

1 Mary Beard was raped when she was a teenager.
2 Well, it wasn't really rape, but that's what she calls it.
3 Mary Beard is ugly and a bit weird.

What do you get if you put those three together into a narrative?

Practically every one of the 50+ comments so far is a candidate for cunt of eternity. Many of them are challenging Beard's assertion that she was raped; others wish to prevent her from talking about it. Here's how she described the attack* (Mail/Sunday Times version):


The architect took advantage of a vulnerable young woman and coerced her into having sex. Why does it matter whether it was technically sexual assault or rape? I doubt the victim would feel better either way. And Beard's concessionary "In a way" goes unnoticed:


Note that first verb. Beard is dishonourable for having been assaulted and choosing to talk about it. And it's most generous of Omni to speak on behalf of all rape victims.


Sinister. The type of self-justifying comment one hears from rapists.


Indeed it doesn't. Try: she was tired, so she gave in to the man who was intent on raping her. (Beard's own account in the Guardian explains her 'giving in' much more clearly, but with an ounce of empathy it should be possible to comprehend.)


False. (The absence of No does not mean Yes.) And cunt.

A classic of the silencing genre:


As the Guardian article makes clear, Beard does not talk about this incident in a bid for 'sympathy'. But that's how the Mail frames all stories about women who have been raped, gay people who have been bullied, etc.


What a massive, massive cunt.

* Note that the Mail's story focuses on the details of the attack (which is all that interests them). Beard's own article used it as a springboard to think about how survivors use their experience of rape to reconstruct their sexual identities and histories.

It's a bit trivial among all those vile comments, but there seems to be a belief among these commenters that she somehow embarrassed herself and caused widespread outrage with her remarks on Question Time. Did they see the same program as me?

_________________
I disagreed with the burglar’s policy, of tying me to a chair. But I did admire his convictions.

Actually, Mary Beard's original account appeared (in a longer form) in the London Review of Books back in 2000. It's great — even manages to tie in scorpionflies.

That article is awful, the comments more so.

A lot of the comments are awful and the ones Ezinra highlighted above especially so - so because it wasn't a violent assault in a dark alley it wasn't rape? The attitudes of some people just make me feel so...weary sometimes.