Well, So Much For Brian Banks’ Vote, The “To Kill A Mockingbird” Admirers Vote, The Bill Cosby Fan Vote, The UVA Fraternity Vote, The Bill Clinton Sup…Uh, I Don’t Think Hillary Thought This Through…

In the bright side, I think Hillary has Wanetta Gibson's vote locked up!

In the bright side, I think Hillary has Wanetta Gibson’s vote locked up!

You see, even if Hillary Clinton was honest, which she isn’t, and trustworthy, which she definitely isn’t, or had a record of a accomplishment, which she doesn’t, there would still be this habit she has of making jaw-droppingly stupid, pandering and unethical statements.  There was when she suggested that Donald Trump was  responsible for the Charleston Church massacre.  There was her statement that we shouldn’t “let” people hold minority viewpoints that the majority finds upsetting. This, however, is special.

In today’s “Women for Hillary” event, bolstered by an audience that somehow believes the myth that she is a feminist,she actually said (and later tweeted)

“To every survivor of sexual assault…You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed. We’re with you.”

There is no right to be believed, although this is an oft repeated “right” pushed by anti-male, crypto-Victorians who are dedicated to making the act of consensual sex so risky for men that Caitlyn Jenner may be the gender’s most viable future. It is also the underlying position behind the un-American recommendation by Colorado Rep. Jared Polis that a 20% chance that an accusation of sexual assault  should be sufficient to kick a male student out of college. Law enforcement treating dubious rape accusations as if there is a “right to be believed” resulted in lynchings in the past and successful, life-wrecking scams by the likes of Wanetta Gibson in the present. It allowed the despicable and probably batty Emma Sulkowicz, a.k.a. “Mattress Girl,” to harass her supposed attacker on the Columbia campus even after her story had been thoroughly discredited. The sexist principle relieving women of having to provide more than an accusation alone allowed the false Rolling Stone “Jackie” story of a fraternity gang rape to slander every fraternity on the University of Virginia campus, which were punished by the school’s “right to be believed”-addled president.

Yes, women who claim to be victims of sexual assault deserve to be heard, and they deserve to have their accusation treated like every other accusation, while those they accuse are provided with the presumption of innocence, due process and a fair hearing as well. A right to be believed. however? That’s sexist, reckless, and wrong.

But Hillary doesn’t really believe this stuff. I assume she barely thinks about it. These are just “things you say to get to be President” to her.

Still, you would think Hillary would be a bit more careful; after all, her husband was accused of sexual assault or worse by Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broderick and Paula Jones. Why didn’t they have a right to be believed?

__________________

Pointer and Spark: Mediaite

 

17 thoughts on “Well, So Much For Brian Banks’ Vote, The “To Kill A Mockingbird” Admirers Vote, The Bill Cosby Fan Vote, The UVA Fraternity Vote, The Bill Clinton Sup…Uh, I Don’t Think Hillary Thought This Through…

    • Hillary is expert at parsing her words. If she said believe she meant any number of things and she’ll tell exactly what she meant at the time as soon as you give her an indication of what you believe she meant but only if you have enough money or will pledge to vote for her.

      • I’m not sure even a Clinton could parse its way out of this line Hillary has so cavalierly tossed off. I’m going to assume she’s simply employing another Clinton tactic instead: relying upon her enablers in the media to simply not call any attention to this [yet another] example of her brazen hypocrisy.

        • The art of the ambiguous statement. Yep. Her enablers will focus on all the of the statement *except* the offending assertion and focus the attention on “that’s what she really meant”.

          In the reverse however, any Republican who makes a series of assertions in which one of them is offending, the entire discourse will immediately be ignored except the offending assertion.

    • It’s funny, I was just about to write “Progressives make too much hay from the minutiae of the meaning of words not to have thought of the connotations.” But then I thought to the last couple of years, and there’s been this mad rush away from semantics in favor of sophistry. Some of the posters on here, and I’ve called them out on this are absolute posterchildren for this.

      Regardless, “believe” being code for “not outright rejecting” is just as believable as “immigrants” is for “illegal immigrant” or “rape” is for “something a man does when a woman is present.” That is, I believe they think it, but it’s cripplingly stupid to believe it.

  1. The right to be heard is far different from the right to be believed. we have moved far enough to the left in this country that it doesn’t matter. the media will elect a narcissistic psychopath once again.

  2. I would agree were it not for the fact that her comments were directed towards “survivors” and all the cases you mentioned involved women lying about being survivors. Forgetting her tendency to support false causes, the quote itself isn’t entirely unreasonable.

    No one has a “right” to be believed, but it also doesn’t mean Richard Kimble was deserving of his punishment while the one-armed man went free. Perhaps a better quote is that genuine victims of assault SHOULD be believed. After all, if they AREN’T lying, there’s been a miscarriage of justice.

    I realize, of course, that even genuine crimes can leave no actionable evidence and allow the guilty to go free, nor am I arguing against the burden of proof, only that we as a society should always endeavor to be on the side of victims, even if we can’t always bring their perpetrators to justice.

    Sincerely,
    Neil

    • Come on, Neil. You’re far too smart and have too much integrity to accept a Clintonism like this. Of course I saw this escape hatch in the statement—“Oh, no! I only meant genuine victims have a right to be believed! Fake victims have no such right!” AND HOW THE HELL ARE WE SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHICH IS WHICH??? Clinton is using “survivors” as her stand-in for all accusers, because if all accusers are believed, they ARE survivors, so..seee? This is consequentialism, hindsight bias, dishonest reasoning…the list is long and ugly.

      Richard Kimball, a.k.a. San Shepard, had the right to a fair trial and the verdict of his peers, who were not required to believe him, the prosecutor, or any witnesses. He got it. He happened to be (maybe) the victim of a miscarriage of justice, but he didn’t have a right to be believed when he said, from jail, “I didn’t do it!” That’s ridiculous. What kind of cosmic, mysterious, after the fact (and facts) right is that, one that isn’t even determinable until IT ISN’T NECESSARY??

      • “AND HOW THE HELL ARE WE SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHICH IS WHICH???”

        Exactly. The idea that only genuine victims should be believed per se requires them to prove they’re actually victims first. Which is kind of how the system operates now. I’d love to hear the real life description of any alternative.

    • The hypocrisy of the statement is also a factor. She treated survivors of her husband’s sexual assaults quite differently either by her own actions or by those she employed for the purpose. Perhaps “trailer trash” women are not considered women by feminists.

      • My grandmother, who was mostly responsible for raising me, once told me that “All women are ladies, and should be treated as such, until they demonstrate that they are not. Then you treat them as what they are.” Hillary might want to learn this and follow it. Oh, wait…she’s already demonstrated that she isn’t, hasn’t she? My bad.

  3. I brought this same subject up at home last night because I was bothered Clinton’s obvious pandering, her “right to be believed” remark, and her follow up PSA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQ7543nJngk) that I saw on Twitter. As others pointed out, the hypocrisy of that statement juxtaposed with Bill Clinton’s proclivities is off the charts.

    My husband and I then had a talk about the serious issues that will face our middle-school-aged children (one boy and one girl) when they get to college, including my advice (that will go unheeded, surely) that our son abstain completely and that our daughter never attend a party or go to a bar.

    Sexual assaults happen on campus and the perpetrators should be brought to justice (criminal, not just through an administration process). But what also happens is after-intercourse regret and embarrassment, especially (almost always) when alcohol is a factor. I’m not talking about when a guy slips drugs into a women’s drink or gives her Everclear when she thinks its wine cooler. I’m talking about when both college kids are drinking at a party and the result is a one night stand. The girl then feels taken advantage of and calls it sexual assault. In some instances, the guy starts acting like a big-time jerk to the girl (a conquest), and she feels bullied and claims she was assaulted. The guy is then suspended, pending an “investigation,” and can be expelled or vindicated; but even for the ones found “not guilty,” they will be hounded by a few women on campus and labeled a rapist. The girl then starts to believe her own BS and takes up the gauntlet for the cause. These scenarios don’t even take into account the other false accusers who lie to get out of trouble with a parent, lie for vengeance, or lie for gain (money, fame, etc.).

    What Clinton did was to give even more legitimacy to the idea that all women are victims to be believed and that accused men, obviously, are liars and devils that need to be strung up from their toes. Case closed.

    I want to see sexual assaults stamped out (everywhere, not just on campus), but there is a misconception that colleges are choked full of devious young men bent on date raping or sexually assaulting naive young women. I believe both men and women need to take responsibility for themselves, bystanders need to get involved when they witness what might be a crime, friends need to stop friends from doing stupid stuff, and parents need to talk to their children about the realities of life at a co-educational college.

    • In fairness Debbie… http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/01/11/3610327/college-men-forcible-sex-study/

      As the study points out – it’s not really “devious young men” that is the concern, it is a culture that teaches that a woman saying no is being coy or unwilling to admit her true desire, such that she wants to be coerced by a man. Or worse, that if she gets herself into a situation where she’s too drunk or high to offer consent – or if she voluntarily entered a place where she’d have little escape from an attack – that itself is a form of consent. Those are the key elements to many date rape/party rape scenarios, and as we know, a woman’s chances of being raped by someone she knows are far higher than her likelihood of being raped by a stranger.

      Clinton’s words were foolish. All women who claim to be victims of assault (sexual or otherwise), deserve to be treated with basic respect and civility, while their claims are given due weight and investigated. I think that’s what she was trying to get at – because again we live in a culture that too often treats a rape accusation as a he said/she said, and puts the victim on trial; claiming how she was dressed, her makeup, how much she had to drink or her regular sexual habits paint her as “asking for it.” But Clinton said it in a highly stupid and irrational fashion – which is just one of MANY reasons I am not supporting her candidacy.

      Though as a survivor of sexual abuse myself, I really wish she’d done a better job delivering that message, because I truly think it’s one that needs to be repeated until it sinks into our consciousness. But I am also the mother of a son, who was briefly accused of malfeasance because he was having sexual conversations online with who he thought was another 16 year old virgin like himself. In reality she was 12 and had been lying about her age, and her parents called the cops when they found the conversations. Fortunately all the police did was talk to him and tell him not to contact her again – which he was happy to agree to do. So I have something of a dual history on this. Innocent until proven guilty is an incredibly important concept in our legal system – I just wish we didn’t translate that into slut-shaming victims, until we have undeniable proof they were victimized.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.