You should read Allah's post on this at Hot Air in its entirety because he knocks it out of the park regarding the media double standard in reporting on the tea party and OWS. Women were discouraged from reporting sexual attacks because the OWS organizers feared it wouldn't look good. But now, with sexual assaults apparently endemic in the encampment, they have reluctantly placed a woman only tent up, patrolled by women.
New York Post:
The safety measure comes amid a terrifying spree of sexual assaults -- including an alleged rape -- in the Zuccotti Park camp.
Kitchen worker Tonye Iketubosin, 26, was arrested Wednesday for allegedly groping an 18-year-old woman after offering to help set up her tent. He is also a suspect in a rape at the park.
The grope victims include Kara Demetropoulos, who told The Post she was fondled in a tent last Saturday night after accepting a man's offer of a place to sleep.
Most protesters have not been reporting all the incidents to police -- instead preferring to settle things on their own.
The tent and its all-female security detail is the latest crime-fighting measure, and it is already garnering much interest.
Of Allah's commentary, I found this especially on the mark:
It's not just that most press outlets (like the protesters themselves) look the other way at depravity happening inside Obamaville, it's that for years they treated the tea-party movement as some sort of feral mob that was forever on the brink of rampaging through the streets - like, say, Occupy Oakland just did. If you missed it when I posted it last week, go watch the ad the DNC ran in August 2009 when tea partiers first started showing up to town halls on ObamaCare. That set the tone. We began the year with tea-party pols being smeared as killers over a shooting they had nothing to do with and we end it with actual rapes being shrugged off by the press because they're bad PR for a movement they support. Disgrace.
Needless to say, the press is also playing down the radical anarcho-communist messages being spouted by the Occupy crowd. I wrote about the Occupy Oakland riot and noted that the radicals are using the idealists to advance their agenda:
As witnessed during the riot, the whole point of the marches and demonstrations is to provoke a strong police response where people will be injured (not them), and perhaps even killed. They have made a martyr out of a young Iraq War vet who was accidentally hit in head by a tear gas canister, suffering a serious head injury. The incident has become a rallying point not only in Oakland, but at Occupy protests around the country. Despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that police actually aimed a tear gas gun at the young man, the cry has gone up around the country that his injuries were the result of "police brutality."
Those who claim to eschew violence do precious little to prevent incitement in their own encampment where signage promotes revolution, and death to authorities. And - perhaps unwittingly, perhaps not - the publicity that the anarchists and violent revolutionaries bring to the movement as a result of riots and violent confrontations with police, serves the Occupy movement in its efforts to grow and attract a larger following.
When protestors use violent rhetoric, why should it surprise us that violence has erupted in their encampments? Or emerged during their marches?