“If it requires lynching to protect woman’s dearest possession from ravening, drunken human beasts, then I say lynch a thousand negroes a week.”
—Rebecca Felton, Georgia feminist and first female US Senator, 1897.
“I’m actually not at all concerned about innocent men losing their jobs over false sexual assault/harassment allegations.”
—Emily Lindin, feminist writer and director, in a Tweet sent 11/21/17 14:45
I value human rights and believe men and women are equal. I also believe in basic fairness. “Believe the women!” the mantra of #MeToo advocates and Judge Kavanaugh’s opponents, stands for the opposite of those things. It is part of a toxic archetype pattern that must be embedded deep in the collective female id (they all seem to know the script). It says women are “special,” not equal, yet manages to be misogynistic in its infantilization and emotional manipulation of women. It is also deeply misandrist, manipulating men into depriving other men of their rights or lives. It is worth noting at the outset that “Believe the Women!” operates on many levels in our society, not just in relation to Kavanaugh or #MeToo.
It is no accident that the Kavanaugh confirmation circus is part of the broader #MeToo witch hunt. Something like it was inevitable. Let us hope it is the crest of the #MeToo wave.
It is also no accident that “Believe the women!” is a direct echo of “Believe the children!” from the 1980s satanic cult preschool child molestation witch hunt. Ultimately, the phrase infantilizes women. It says they are not capable of being functional, equal adults, agents who determine their lives and who can deal with adversity, follow rules, rationally evaluate evidence or back up their accusations. They are simply helpless victims. They are children who must be constantly protected, coddled and indulged in the adult world of men. This infantilization applies both to the woman accuser and the women who evaluate her claims. “Believe the women” is real misogyny.
Continue reading “Unpacking “Believe Women!””
Anyone who thinks they know what happened 36 years ago after yesterday’s circus is delusional. Both sides are saying “The people who tell the story I wish were true are all telling the truth. The people who contradict that story are evil liars.” Both sides do this and are convinced only the other side does it.
Memory degrades and is malleable, and all people are capable of, and prone to, misremembering and deceit as well as truth-telling. Anyone who thinks they can tell the difference based on genitalia or demeanor is delusional.
I believe Dr. Ford was assaulted at a party 36 years ago. I believe Kavanaugh was a drunken douchebag kid 36 years ago. I do not believe Dr. Ford or anyone else has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence, let alone reasonable doubt, that it was Kavanaugh who assaulted her.
Assumptions of Democrats in the Kavanaugh hearing, I have a hard time swallowing:
- Women and men are unequal: Women are weak, pathetic victims who must be treated like fragile children, yet we must always call them “brave,” and men are always adult predators.
Ex. Both Kavanaugh and Ford were minors at the time. Only Ford is given the benefit of the doubt of being a minor. Senators and media folks only speak of victims of sexual assault as women and perpetrators as men.
- Basic rules of conduct in society do not apply to women: their supposed victimhood entitles women to make any demands (e.g. to an FBI investigation of a non-federal crime) and they must be obeyed even 26 years after the statute of limitations expires.
- Men’s basic human rights, like presumption of innocence, do not matter as a result of #2.
Continue reading “Kavanaugh Lessons”
I do not know what happened 36 years ago. I found Dr Ford’s testimony yesterday to be credible, in that she seemed honest, genuine and sympathetic, but ultimately less than convincing. Here are my red flags:
- The people she listed as being at the party in question, including the guy in the very room, say it didn’t happen. Every one of them. That should give all rational people pause right there. Yet she is 100% certain…
- She took a polygraph, which means nothing. As a psychologist, she should have known it was just window dressing. Why such an emphasis there?
- Body language: her fake-emotional voice while reading her statement and her neotonous childlike pose with head down, eyes looking up and fidgeting in her chair while answering questions. Also, she looked at her notes for answers she should have memory of, and at times looked at Feinstein as if she was going to give her the answer.
- She said she couldn’t testify last week because she feared to fly and wanted to drive. Turns out she flew after all, and actually flies fairly often for business and pleasure.
- Recovered memories are problematic. She may believe it happened as she said, but all or part could have been “suggested.”
- She doesn’t remember key things like how she got to the party, where the party was, when the party was, or how she got home.
- Some of the things she does remember seem odd. Being pushed into the room by someone unseen seems odd. Why did she go upstairs in the first place? Swimsuit under clothes seems odd, too. Presumably it was wet because she was swimming at the country club. Odd.
- Her testimony had discrepancies from her therapist’s notes. They do not corroborate an initial identification of Kavanaugh, just an incident with unidentified people.
- She doesn’t remember key recent facts like who chose the polygrapher and who paid him, or the committee’s offer to come to her for an initial interview.
- The apparent level of her trauma (great) seems out of proportion to the actual alleged assault (pretty minor as “sexual assault” goes).
Memories degrade over time and are malleable. Two people can remember the same event completely differently. But she had the burden of proof for her version, not Judge Kavanaugh. In my opinion, she failed to meet a preponderance of evidence standard let alone proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If I was on a jury, I would be forced to vote to acquit.