Funny, she doesn’t LOOK like Chairman Mao…
“If some innocent men’s reputations have to take a hit in the process of undoing the patriarchy, that is a price I am absolutely willing to pay.”
—Feminist writer Emily Linden, in the most unethical portion of an unethical twitter screed. After it was roundly attacked as the despicable, sexist, Left- facist, “by any means necessary” mind poison that it is, she hid her Twitter account. But of course.
Here is her whole yuck-pooie! rant:
“Here’s an unpopular opinion: I’m actually not at all concerned about innocent men losing their jobs over false sexual assault/harassment allegations…false allegations VERY rarely happen, so even bringing it up borders on a derailment tactic. It’s a microscopic risk in comparison to the issue at hand (worldwide, systemic oppression of half the population)…The benefit of all of us getting to finally tell the truth + the impact on victims FAR outweigh the loss of any one man’s reputation..If some innocent men’s reputations have to take a hit in the process of undoing the patriarchy, that is a price I am absolutely willing to pay.”
Yes, Emily is absolutely willing to pay a price that involves devastating harm to someone else. This woman is allegedly a writer, and yet delivered a rhetorical punch to he own jaw like that. Wow.
It is really, really important for the American public to know just how unpopular this opinion is, how many progressives, feminists and Democrats reason this way—you know, like totalitarians and fascists—what their names are, and what candidates they support.
Linden’s logic rejects the Rule of Law and the justice system. It isn’t that “It is better 100 guilty persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer,” but that it is better to ensure the punishment of the guilty than to ensure due process and fairness for the innocent. Linden’s argument follows Colin Kaepernick’s theory that if an unarmed black man is shot by the police, it is best that we send the right message by presuming he is guilty, and a racist as well. Hers was the “logic” behind the Obama administration “Dear Colleague letter” that made every college date a potential life-altering risk. It is the idea behind the arguments of zealots who want to cripple the First Amendment, the Second, the Fourth, and the Fifth. Linden has articulated a full endorsement of the ends justifies the means as a governing principle.
I want to know exactly who agrees with her, and then I want to make sure whatever groups that are controlled by such people are as far from power and influence in this country as possible.
Ethics Alarms 
These opinions are contagious – makes my wife sick too:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/what-do-women-want-parity/article37066346/
“We want to be fair. We support due process; alleged is not convicted. We don’t trust due process; it’s never favoured us. So if some guy on this list is punished more than he deserves, well, sometimes two wrongs do make a right. Things have always been unfair. They’re just unfair to different people now.”
Maybe I should have used that one. It’s about as ethics-clueless as a statement can be.
If you read the whole article, which is not easy to do, there is a mind numbing statement that says “we want some conservative abusers outed, too; it can’t just be the liberals.”
The title is “What women want” and is labelled an opinion piece. While it is not an editorial opinion of the paper it Makes me seriously question the cancelling of my subscription to Canada’s national newspaper.
“If some innocent men’s reputations have to take a hit in the process of undoing the patriarchy, that is a price I am absolutely willing to pay.”
You are, Ms. Linden? If I might ask: what, exactly, are willing to pay for? Does this mean that if innocent men are ruined in the course of undoing the patriarchy, you’re willing to feed, house, provide for medical care, transportation etc. for them and their families? Because that’s what your statement means if we’re to think you actually mean it: get screwed in the witch hunts, and Emily Linden will take care of you.
To what address should invoices be sent?
OK, just don’t complain if I say that it’s just fine if a few blacks’ reputations get scuffed up because they have higher levels of criminal activity, or a few more Hispanics get the door slammed in their face because they shouldn’t be trusted, or a few more gay people get fired because they are emo, or a few more Muzzies get branded with the T-word.
Reminds me of this similarly fanatical notion:
Walter Duranty associated with Stalin in the New York Times.
“But – to put it brutally – you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs, and the Bolshevist leaders are just as indifferent to the casualties that may be involved in their drive toward socialization as any General during the World War who ordered a costly attack in order to show his superiors that he and his division possessed the proper soldierly spirit. In fact, the Bolsheviki are more indifferent because they are animated by fanatical conviction.”
Walter Duranty, Special Cable to The New York Times, The New York Times, New York, March 31, 1933, page 13.
Anyone deluded enough to believe that women are systematically oppressed “worldwide” in the first place has already forfeited their place at the adults’ table. It’s no surprise that she can’t bear to see criticism of her ideas. That’s how she got to where she is.
If women were systematically oppressed worldwide, this would mean they are inferior to men. Since we know this is not the case, we must conclude that women are not systematically oppressed worldwide.
If women were systematically oppressed worldwide, this would mean they are inferior to men. Since we know this is not the case, we must conclude that women are not systematically oppressed worldwide.
Explain this. Does this mean that any other group that was systemically oppressed worldwide was inferior to the dominant group at the time? During the height of the Transatlantic Slave Trade, when blacks were systemically oppressed worldwide, were they inferior to whites?
The oppression was not worldwide.
During the height of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade? Yes, it was.
“false allegations VERY rarely happen…” The more I see this statement in the news, the more I get ill. All I have to remember where I saw unfounded accusations, from an early convenience store job to professional to mystifying social scenes. Am I the only one to experience these? People misremember people and times and settings,let alone the more malign lies. I don’t think witch hubts should be the only negative example, but also the violent hysteria of lynch mobs. Those were much more recent in more living memory. How much greater is a hanging than the ruins of an innocent man’s life? The mob is so far gone into this madness that I think even suicide would be taken as guilt, but living might be worse than death for the innocent, let alone the regretful. The leaders of this have more my ire than some of the guilty. Have their lives been that perfectly ethical that no stone could threaten their glass houses? No one has led that perfect a life.
She’s disgusting.
Dear Emily,
I get it that you and your crew are angry. And you blame me – men – the patriarchy etc. You are committed to a great crusade – “undoing the patriarchy” – and winning involves taking casualties – or “collateral damage” as the military puts it.
I do hope you are conscious of history. Reflecting on the excesses of McCarthyism, or the scapegoating of the Jews, or the motivation of suicide bombers, or the very real sacrifices made by the followers of Jesus ….. or Pol Pot, or the historic Crusades, or the Internal Brigade fighting Franco, or the mushroom cloud over Hiroshima, might all be instructive.
I suggest you are wrong to target “undoing the patriarchy”. In the West your predecessors have largely achieved that. (In obvious contrast to the situation in much of the third world.) You are struggling with the backwash from that massive change.
Of course, being old and male, I can’t pretend to understand your evident pain and anger. Most revolutionaries end up disappointed and disorientated even when they’ve won. The cookie jar of male privilege has been smashed open, so why aren’t you celebrating?
Might you possibly glimpse now that particularly in the workplace, we all – male and female – get talked over, bullied, patronised, excluded, exploited and harassed?
And we are all regularly misunderstood.
I am not your enemy Emily. Good luck with your Crusade.
Another thing, Emily, it’s easy to establish an enemy and declare that enemy must be smashed. The PLO wants to drive the Jews into the sea, the IRA wanted to drive the English out of Ireland, and so forth. Israel is still standing, and Northern Ireland is still very much a part of the UK, and a lot of people have fallen in these unsuccessful causes. Just because you hate the enemy doesn’t make him helpless or powerless, and it doesn’t mean he isn’t going to fight back.
Well I guess Eva Braun is alive and well (or at least her great granddaughter. I’m waiting for the latest “Downfall” parody featuring her.
Salem, here we come..