What hath #MeToo wrought?
During the recent accusations by Christine Blasey Ford against Kavanaugh, we heard a lot—even from the right—about how “we have to hear her story” whether there is evidence to back it up or not.
But you know what? I don’t want to “hear her story” (or his, if it’s a male accuser) except in one or all of these forums: a therapist’s office, a work of fiction without the use of real names, and/or a courtroom. Those are the only forums in which it would be appropriate to hear them, and most such accusations would never get to the latter forum—the courtroom—because of the lack of evidence other than the accuser’s unadorned say-so.
However, feminism and the #MeToo movement has enshrined the idea of listening to women and believing them all. That’s garbage, because that is not the way to determine whether a story is true and to protect the accused. But #MeToo cares not about the accused.
It occurs to me—and certainly not for the first time—that the Weinstein hit that originally got the #MeToo ball really rolling was a calculated move to get to Trump. It hasn’t worked in that particular regard (at least so far), but it did weaponize (purposely) the use of sexual allegations as a political tool. That had already been done many times, particularly against the right (as Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain could tell you), but #MeToo has gone even further in the direction of automatic belief in an accuser showing the right combination of pain and/or anger.
What is needed is belief on the part of the public and our elected officials that the unsupported word of a person is not enough to convince us of its truth. That must be a deeply-held conviction on the part of the vast majority of people in this country and elected officials and judges of both parties. Emotions must not rule in these cases, and not just in the courtroom. A person’s reputation should not be able to be destroyed by an unsupported story. Period.
But we as a society have lost that conviction. It didn’t just start with #MeToo, by any means. It’s been going on for a long time. The foundations of this country depend on it, but they also depend on a very aware public, educated in the background of why those protections were put in place. We have lost that, too, as a result of many years of leftist control of education and media. It is not an accident. And it is not just the loss of religion, although that factors into it as well.
Any accuser’s affect, while of interest, is mostly irrelevant to whether she or he is telling the truth. All affect can tell you is whether the person is good at acting or whether the person deeply believes that he or she is telling the truth. It can be either one, and a person can therefore be emotionally convincing without actually being a truthteller.
That’s the problem with this entire charade. In a courtroom, a witness’s affect (be it accuser, defender, or witness in another role) is part of the way to evaluate truth or falsehood. But in a trial it’s a much smaller part than in a situation such as the Kavanaugh hearing or the accusations against other public personalities and/or politicians, because of the need for corroborating evidence and the availability of cross-examination and all the rest of the process and rules of a trial.
People often mock that process or distrust it or point out that it can be unfair, and trials certainly don’t always end up with the right verdict IMHO. But the process involved is the best we can figure out, and it is a thousand times better than a trial in the court of public opinion and the MSM.
Yes! The question ought always to be, is it true? What evidence supports it?
I regret to say I know several women who were emotionally taken in by Blasey Ford’s testimony.
Christine Blasey Ford
Who was that again?
NEO: What is needed is belief on the part of the public and our elected officials that the unsupported word of a person is not enough to convince us of its truth.
Ha ha, this makes me laugh so hard… because you’re saying the exact opposite of what the womens movement said in the 80s and 90s to change it to what it is now… you know, that Kathrine Mckinnon and other things I put up…
Except that YOU and this side has no soviets, no Chinese, no comitern, GRU, KGB, no youth organizations, no publishing houses, movie houses, operatives, agit prop, money, the unions, schools, and a whole lot more…
[edited for length by n]
I never read comments that long, not even on my own site.
I wonder if things are that different now? We speak as if this is new, but that is because this is a group that internalised the rights of the accused before the law over the years. When we look back and think “Oh, we respected those rights when I was growing up,” we may be remembering our own history (and that of our friends and relatives), not America’s history. To Kill A Mockingbird about race as much as rights, but the whole reason the book was significant was because those rights weren’t universally respected, and it was felt to be an important lesson for us all.
I can’t recall what adults thought about believing accusations in the 60’s. I know what Americans say we believe, but I don’t know if they were any better at honoring that than popular opinion is now. I do believe that not much changes in human nature, so I lean to the idea that in 1918 or 1818 we might have seen just as much jumping to conclusion as we do now. Ethnicity and class may have influenced us more then, as sex does now.
I never read comments that long, not even on my own site.
Especially when they’re stream of consciousness.
I think the term ‘motivated reasoning’ applies here.
As for feminist discourse, it’s a series of rhetorical games. If it has ever been anything else, it was > 50 years ago.
A recent film that addressed consequences of false accusations (believe all women) is Atonement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_(film)
It doesn’t fit the #metoo mania.
You speak for me, Neo. What you said times 1000.
What seems like accepted common sense to me (us) has been slowly hijacked out of our culture.
Neo, I *really* appreciate your speaking up for these principles. I frequently find myself these days, listening to various progressives, especially those who are real-life friends and relatives, thinking “One of us is crazy,” and beginning to wonder if it is, after all, me. The fact that you are a woman trained in both law and psychotherapy gives your views added weight. That is, it counters the notion, which I’ve had thrown at me several times, that to (for instance) doubt Christine Ford is evidence that I’m a misogynist.
You (and others here) probably haven’t forgotten the Alexis Grennel NYT piece raking “white women” over the coals for supporting Trump and/or Kavanaugh. Someone described that to me today as “reasonable,” someone who’s otherwise not crazy or stupid.
Well, at least not very crazy.
Let me add to the chorus of praise for Neo’s posting. A beautiful job, Neo, on all your points.
It is perfectly true that this stuff has been going on in thrall to one excuse or another for a long, long time. In fact probably the tendency to judge based on sympathy with a perceived sufferer is as old as Man. It seems to me there is survival value in this, survival for the individual and for his group. But, as I like to say, Everything Has a Downside™. The opposing tendency, to judge on the basis of what is known and of knowing that there may be pertinent facts that one does not know, and to apply logic as best one can to known fact, is also a feature of basic human nature. Here too, “It seems to me there is survival value in this, survival for the individual and for his group”; and, as Everything Has a Downside™, so does this.
The two tendencies intersect in “knowing that there may be pertinent facts that one does not know.” This intersection allows for judgment-from-sympathy as well as judgment-from-Reason.
Or so it seems to me.
NBC clearly believed this woman, and so they didn’t want us to know about her.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/26/nbc-story-michael-avenatti-julie-swetnick/
“NBC News waited three weeks to publish evidence that discredited Michael Avenatti and his client Julie Swetnick’s allegations against Brett Kavanaugh.
NBC published a report Thursday [that’s yesterday] that a woman who Avenatti claimed supported Swetnick’s allegations had retracted her statements. The woman accused Avenatti of distorting her words.
NBC News had the information in early October but only reported it after Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley referred Avenatti and Swetnick for investigation. [after the confirmation vote]
…
While Kavanuagh called Swetnick’s allegations a “farce,” she and Avenatti claimed to have several witnesses who could back up her story. And ahead of an interview with NBC, Avenatti put the network in touch with a second woman who claimed to vouch for Swetnick.
But during that interview, the woman undercut Swetnick’s claims.
“I didn’t ever think it was Brett,” she said when asked if she saw Kavanaugh drug drinks at parties. She also said “No” when asked if she witnessed Kavanaugh behaving inappropriately with girls.
Snow interviewed Swetnick the following day. In her report, she challenged Swetnick and noted several discrepancies in her story. But Snow also withheld other information, including that Avenatti provided access to a witness who ended up not supporting Swetnick’s allegations.”
* * *
I thought when I read that today: “this is old news” — but in reviewing David French’s story from early October, we learned then only that WSJ couldn’t find anyone to corroborate, and NBC noted that fact and high-lighted the contradictions in her story, BUT not that they had found a witness who categorically denied the accusations.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-gang-rape-claim-falls-apart/
NOTE to NEO: I didn’t get an edit button, or I would have fixed that bolding to end sooner. Sorry about “shouting” !
Artfldgr:
I have no idea what person you’re addressing here, but it’s not me.
I find many of the assumptions you make about me to be puzzling. You often assume I’ve not read a certain source that I have read, for example. You often assume I hold positions I don’t hold. There are many other assumptions you express about me that don’t fit my history—such as, for example, how long I’ve been speaking out against this sort of thing. The answer is at least three decades, which is when I first learned about it.
Mac on October 26, 2018 at 6:59 pm at 6:59 pm said:
Neo, I *really* appreciate your speaking up for these principles. I frequently find myself these days, listening to various progressives, especially those who are real-life friends and relatives, thinking “One of us is crazy,” and beginning to wonder if it is, after all, me.
* * *
Old joke: Everyone is crazy here but me and you, and I’m not too sure about you.
Julie: believing what you want to hear is very, very old. Review the story of Daniel the Prophet about his encounter with Susanna and the Elders. A classic case of exposing false accusations, back when the meme really was “believe all men.”
And note the moral of the story is: don’t believe anyone uncritically, believe the evidence.
I agree that this is a great essay, and needs to get wider coverage.
Who’s got an in with Instapundit?
“Who’s got an in with Instapundit?”
Sarah Hoyt, who works the graveyard shift at Insty’s a couple nights per week, often links to Neo.
The terrified, squeaky little girl voice and intentionally smeared glasses lens – after a full week of prep – was too much for me, I snapped it off after 10 minutes.
Follow-up to my previous comment: Sarah Hoyt did indeed link to this post at 3:25 a.m. (EDT)
“Believe all women. They never lie.”
Hahahahaha
Did these idiots not go to middle school? Or high school? Or know any of the tens of millions of guys who have had GFs/fiancées/wives cheat on them?
What an absurd joke.
PA Cat on October 27, 2018 at 3:29 am at 3:29 am said:
Follow-up to my previous comment: Sarah Hoyt did indeed link to this post at 3:25 a.m. (EDT)
* * *
Thanks!
Lots of other good things overnight as well.
Insomnia has its benefits.
PA Cat: Excellent. Thanks for telling us.
Codes of Conduct*: support #MeToo unless it makes people laugh at you.
Or: only fire the people who can’t fire back.
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/311507/
BUT THEY FIRED JAMES DAMORE FOR MAKING TRUTHFUL GENERAL OBSERVATIONS: Google reportedly paid Android creator millions after sex misconduct claim. “Google is about to pay Andy Rubin, the creator of Android, the last installment of his $90 million exit package — a golden parachute he received despite his being credibly accused of coercing a female employee into performing oral sex, it was revealed on Thursday.”
Don’t be evil. Unless, you know, it pays.
66 Posted at 10:51 pm by Glenn Reynolds
More from the NYP story:
“Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai, in a Thursday memo to employees, said the Times story was “hard to read.” He didn’t deny any of what was reported, and further admitted to startling harassment stats at the company.
“In the last two years, 48 people have been terminated for sexual harassment, including 13 who were senior managers and above,” Pichai said in the memo, obtained by CNBC, which was also signed by Eileen Naughton, vice president of people operations. “None of these individuals received an exit package.”
A Google spokeswoman said in a statement that the company takes harassment seriously.
Over the past decade, two other senior execs were protected from public scandal and other repercussions — and in one instance paid a multimillion-dollar exit package — after being accused of sexual misconduct, the paper said, without naming the execs.
The generous goodbyes allowed Google to avoid costly, potentially embarrassing legal battles, the paper noted.
In the third instance, the exec was allowed to remain in a highly compensated position at Google despite sexual harassment allegations, the paper said, citing corporate and court documents plus interviews with anonymous company sources.”
* * *
*Remember how the Left ran Bendan Eich out of his position as founder of Mozilla, over a miniscule contribution to the proposition in CA against same-sex marriage (which passed, and was over-ruled by the courts over there)?
Now they are after anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the Code of Conduct Mandated by the SJW Inquisition.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/tech-community-outraged-after-sqlite-founder-adopts-christian-code-of-conduct/
BY PAULA BOLYARD OCTOBER 24, 2018
The founder of the world’s most widely used database engine ignited a firestorm in the tech community after it was revealed that he had posted a code of conduct for users based on the teachings of the Bible and an ancient order of monks founded by Benedict of Nursia.
Codes of conduct (CoC) have been all the rage in online communities in recent years. The gaming and tech communities, in particular, have grappled with behavior standards for online users in forums where bad behavior sometimes proliferates. While a CoC for users of a forum or email list sounds like a good idea in theory, increasingly they’ve been used to push social justice talking points and left-wing ideologies.
…
In response to pressure from clients who were demanding a CoC before they would do business with him, Richard Hipp, the founder of the widely used SQLite database engine, adopted the Rule of St. Benedict as the guiding principles for his community. The move angered many in the tech community — but was applauded by others who are fed up with the distractions CoCs have caused in recent years. The rules encourage users to love God and their neighbors and to forsake overeating, laziness, and grumbling, among other things.
Chances are you’ve never heard of Hipp or SQLite unless you work in the tech industry, but it’s quite likely that you’ve benefitted from his embeddable database engine — it’s found in every mobile phone, Mac, and Windows PC, among other places. “There are billions of instances of SQLite running as we speak, and over a trillion active SQLite databases,” Hipp told PJM.
…
The rules, created by Benedict of Nursia, have been in use by Benedictine monks for 15 centuries and include a whole host of biblical truths and commands designed to help the monks live peacefully with one another and within the larger community.
“Apparently Benedict had some behavior problems with his monks, which prompted him to write his rule in the first place, so I don’t think bad behavior is anything new,” said Hipp.
Considering that the Benedictine monks are still in existence, one could argue that the rules have been wildly successful.
..
Many in the tech community, accustomed to CoCs focused on sexual diversity, an obsession with gender, and safe spaces, were startled by Hipp’s move to adopt the overtly religious Code of Benedict.
“After the SQLite CoC went viral, I began seeing lots of comments on Twitter rebuking me for doing the CoC wrong,” said Hipp. Critics said that his CoC lacked a means of enforcement and insisted that a CoC must make people feel safe and welcomed.
That was news to Hipp. “Who decided this?” he asked. “Did I miss a memo? All this time, I was thinking a CoC was what it says — a set of guidelines (a ‘code’) on how to behave (‘conduct’). Who knew that there were all these other requirements?”
“I’m now beginning to understand that, unbeknownst to me, an entire subculture of codes of conduct has sprung up, with lots of specifications on what a good code of conduct should and should not do,” he lamented, noting that the Rule of St. Benedict does not meet those specifications.”
* * *
Living peacefully is just the cover-story, not the agenda.
I think the “memo” reaction is sarcasm, but it’s hard to tell with geeky nerds.
He adopted an additional Code that meets the SJW mandates, but there are still threats to boycott the major operating software that suffuses the entire programming world, because, feelz.
These people are insane.
When is somebody with clout going to step up and fight back?
It works when it’s tried – because they are bullies and cowards.
But you have to have a platform and some big bucks to do it, which is why they win most of the skirmishes and even the big battles (universities are full of Fifth Column professors and administrators, of course, so they just give in because they want to).
There aren’t many people like this one.
http://victorygirlsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Winston-Churchill-Victory.jpg
It’s a slippery slope from punishing victims of the #METOO’s “believe the sex accuser” movement to being punished for fake political crimes. . Communists have employed this tactic to destroy the opposition throughout the ages.
Hand the left the power to be the accuser, judge and jury and we’ll all hang.
As Ben Franklin said, either we hang together or we’ll hang separately.
More on the Avenattie debacle, with some dates missing from other stories I read.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2018/10/26/democrat-media-complex-nbc-knew-that-third-kavanaugh-accusers-claim-was-trash-i-n2532207
“Apparently, NBC News knew the accusations lobbed against Trump’s Supreme Court nominee by Julie Swetnick were total trash in September but sat on it until Swetnick and her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, were referred for criminal prosecution for making false statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
…
What’s best about this is that a) the liberals lost; b) Kavanaugh is on the Court, and c) Avenatti is cooked. Finished. But this whole saga is just another confirmation that the Democratic Party and the elite media are biased and they will continue their love affair because there is no accountability until they get caught of course. And folks wonder why the media isn’t trusted. ”
* * *
Silver-lining: keeping the Swetnick allegations alive did persuade some people to reject them as being totally ridiculous (which they were), and by extension, taintied the Ford allegations in their minds.
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/10/26/nbc-time-magazine-sit-avenatti-scoops-long/
“They didn’t want to take the risk of derailing the Democrats’ last best chance to stop Kavanaugh at a decisive moment. Isn’t it as simple as that?
And if it is, an ominous question must be asked: If the Dems had managed to flip Collins and Flake and bork him, would this NBC report have ever been published? Imagine the outrage on the right if Trump’s nominee had been defeated with help from Avenatti, only to discover that a huge media organization had evidence of chicanery all along.
If it did end up being published, I’m going to guess that it wouldn’t have been published the midterms were safely behind us.
Exit question: Did Avenatti’s run of bad news lately further encourage NBC to finally reveal this? When he was just the lawyer tormenting Trump and Michael Cohen over Stormygate, he was the media’s darling. But now he’s the guy who may have screwed up the Democrats’ Kavanaugh effort, the guy who can’t manage to pay his business expenses, the guy prone to musing about how the Democrats need a white guy in 2020. God only knows what other Avenatti dirt the media has been sitting on and might be ready to publish now that his usefulness to the cause is diminishing.”
* * *
Ace of Spades draws much the same conclusion: people who are no longer useful to the DemLeft get thrown under the bus. Especially the media team bus.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/377774.php
“That’s not the only case of the media burying bad news about Michael Avennati when he was useful to the Democrats, but now revealing it now that they want to force his exit from the 2020 race.
On June 25th, Michael Avennati declared that the nominee for the Democrat Party in 2020 must be a white man. That’s a poisonous claim to make in the Racist, It’s Not Okay to be White Democrat Party.
But Michael Avennati was still considered a possibly good Democrat candidate in June, and, later, still could help tank the Kavanaugh nomination.
So now that TIME has gotten word from their Democrat masters that Avennati is no longer helpful to The Cause and should be Forcibly Exited from presidential contention, TIME reveals its long-suppressed “Only White Men Should Run for President” quote:”
Disorganized text walls are self-indulgent.
That is, it counters the notion, which I’ve had thrown at me several times, that to (for instance) doubt Christine Ford is evidence that I’m a misogynist.
People who throw around the word misogynist these days are most commonly misandrists.
TIME reveals its long-suppressed “Only White Men Should Run for President” quote”
Kind of like the way the media continually suppressed Teh One lauding a terrorist…
Someone described that to me today as “reasonable,” someone who’s otherwise not crazy or stupid…. Well, at least not very crazy.
Trust me, that is someone who is batshit crazy, they’re just like Hannibal Lechter, good at hiding it.
While Kavanuagh called Swetnick’s allegations a “farce,”
Which they were — if such events had actually happened — if it had happened even ONCE — there would have been a dozen women coming forth with “ME TOO!” claims. Not 60 women making an open claim that he was a boy scout and a breathing saint. The fact that these were advanced and tried to be treated seriously is the real BS.
The aim, with Kav, was that such behavior, when valid and truthful, eventually shows as a pattern. They were assuming that, when it was made public, that there would be a half dozen other women — perhaps truthful, perhaps not — who would come forth with minor but “Me Too! serious” accusations — possibly none of them actually significant (“He brushed up against me twice in the elevator on a couple occasions”). And that would tank his nomination. Instead they got 60 boy scout title givers and two lunatics.
And, as things fell further and further apart, the left got more and more unhinged, and became utterly stupid to the point where they quite possibly actually managed to lose themselves an election cycle.
Neo, I laud your commentary. I think it’s that we’ve gone too far. The claim that this has always been the aim from the start of feminism vs rape is, I think, unfair.
There was a time when the legal establishment was somewhat hostile to claims of rape — if the woman did not do EVERYTHING just right (which can be negatively effected by mindset following a trauma like rape must be), they were blown off. If a woman had a “history of ‘easy virtue'”, they could be blown off. THIS I think, was rational to fight against.
That, I believe, is a far end of a pendulum. And it needed to be pulled towards the center. A woman making an accusation SHOULD be taken seriously, to the point of investigation. Just because she consented to sex with a dozen men does NOT mean she consented to sex with THIS MAN.
This falls apart when you go to the opposite extreme, which is what we have now, where a woman can make an accusation that cannot possibly be proven in the least manner — not only is there no evidence to support it directly, but even associative evidence — When, where, how — things supposedly happened is unavailable of necessity
Rape, unfortunately, often comes down to a he-said-she-said argument. This is why I personally assert that, if you’re a female, force him to strike you, or do something to clearly bruise you. Once that happens, a claim of “I was forced” is far more credible. NOW it becomes his need to make a valid argument of how that happened.
And if you’re both into “rough sex”, THEN you pretty much need a pre-cursor agreement about what was happening.
As to “I was drunk and didn’t consent”, well, how is his claim of “I was drunk and didn’t realize” any less valid? Why is a man supposed to be responsible when drunk and a woman isn’t? This becomes about personal responsibility. Don’t get/be drunk with a man you don’t know and trust. If a guy gets shitfaced drunk with a woman who takes him to his home, fucks him to sleep, and then walks out in the night with his wallet an a $5000 Steuben crystal vase, well, who the hell is going to give him great solace? “That bitch!” is about all the consolation he’s going to get. The cops might take down the story, but, unless she’s done it to a lot of guys, they aren’t going to care that much.
And if he is a man who violates your longer time trust, well, your best bet is to trash his reputation back. Instead of trying to bring charges, spread the rumor that “it really, really wasn’t very good. He’s pretty small and had a difficult time keeping it hard. And he kept calling out ‘MOMMY!’ at the weirdest times…” Women can embarrass the fuck out of guys, and make it a lot harder for them to get attention from women.
OBloody.
You’re right. Except for this issue, which is not about rape but about political destruction. The left isn’t going to believe Paula, nor Juanita,nor Monahan, because it’s not politically useful to do so.
When I first listened to Ford, I figured she either had a bad cold or had been in California long enough to pick a permanent vocal fry. It was hard to take her seriously after the first paragraph.
Then there were the lies….
I don’t think the left believed her. I think they knew better but insisted the institutions act as if it were true.
Pingback:Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove
Neo, you’re doing great. I hope you ask one of your most moderate lib friends to let you record and transcribe a paragraph about the #MeToo movement, from her own words (no Identity other than “friend”). I certainly don’t know how to convince others that the silly false things they believe are not true. (Including Socialism).
Due Process is among America’s most exceptional success — those against due process are against America. Tho I’m fairly sure that the rationalization will be that they DO support due process, and just wanted a more serious investigation, failure to achieve such was politically motivated.
Richard: “insisted the institutions act as if it were true.” << this is the key Power success the Dems (not liberals) are having. By gaining the power to push out something which is false, yet make so many people believe it is true. This reminds me of Saddam making the family survivors of any murdered/tortured opponent, who becomes a killed victim; the survivors needed to say nice things about Saddam. This is the dictator doublespeak & even doublethink that is so very very dangerous.
And it shows that Trump's election WAS a "Flight 93" election, elect Trump or lose America. America can still be lost — and losing due process will be a big step towards that.
Neo continues doing the best job of judging Trump, his actions & mistakes, and the results (so far). Thanks!
I thought of The Shawshank Redemption when you mentioned affect. Andy is convicted, in part, because he seemed so cold emotionally at his trial.
Spoiler alert, he’s innocent.