I had pretty much concluded that Christine Blasey Ford was contemptible based on her willingness to impugn a public servant’s integrity, derail what should be an orderly and fair political process, and manipulate the U.S. Supreme Court’s membership using a three decades old allegation that involved, at worst, teenage misconduct. She did this with full knowledge of how #MeToo has unjustly harmed other men simply by raising unprovable rumors and characterizations. In fact, it seems clear that she chose her course of action knowing that she could harm Brett Kavanaugh the same way. If the allegation was politically motivated, as I strongly suspect it was, she is unethical and despicable. If the motive was late vengeance for a teenager’s indiscretion, she is unethical and despicable.
Imagine someone you may have harmed when you were an immature teen. That individual never calls you to account, privately or officially. She never urges you to apologize, accept responsibility, or make amends, or gives you an opportunity to do so. No, she maintains the grievance in escrow, to bring it out years or decades later when the accusation will not only do the most damage, but will also be impossible to defend against. What a cruel, horrible, inhuman way to treat anyone.
First Ford attempted to harm Kavanaugh anonymously. Then, when that wasn’t going to work, she announced her accusation in the news media.
What is being ignored by all those rationalizing Ford’s actions is that that the harm to alleged wrongdoers is magnified and multiplied the longer a victim delays calling for accountability. If Kavanaugh did what he is alleged to have done, he should still have the right to deal with the consequences, accept punishment if any, and be able to get on with his life, set a straight course, and prove his character and values as an adult. Wouldn’t anyone want that opportunity? Shouldn’t any 17-year-old miscreant have that opportunity? As I have already noted, Ford’s conduct is an anti-Golden Rule monstrosity.
It also creates the equivalent of ethics toxic waste. In a just society, nobody is pronounced guilty until guilt is proven, and nobody is publicly accused unless the offense is provable. A prosecutor who knows that there isn’t evidence to convict someone of an offense is violating prosecutoral ethics to bring charges. Ethically, the principles follow. If you cannot prove an accusation, if all you have is your word and nothing else, if there is no chance that any evidence will arise that supports your version of events, you must be, at very least, absolutely certain that you are correct. Ford cannot be 100% certain. Not after more than 30 years, and especially after a long period in which she says she had forgotten about the alleged episode. There are many, many memorable episodes in my life, and I have always had a remarkable memory for events I witnessed or took part in. Such memories, however, shift and blur over time. No 30 year-old memory is 100% reliable, and because we, well, those of us who are fair and honest, know that is true, no 30-year memory should be employed as a weapon or personal destruction. Ford’s memory is both destructive and impossible to defend against exactly because it is so old.
Now, however, whatever doubts I had been erased by Ford’s “demand” that the FBI investigate her claims before she will testify before the Committee. So even the also-unethical precedent created by Anita Hill isn’t sufficient for Ford. Now she is attempting to dictate to the U.S. Senate and the President of the United States, using her own testimony, and the chance for Kavanaugh to face his accuser, to extort the Judiciary Committee. There is a rebuttable presumption that she has no intention of testifying, and that her real objective is to assist Democrats in achieving their partisan goal of delaying Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote until after the Fall elections. There is no downside for her: she is a professor at a Left-dominated institution, and will doubtlessly be lionized as a hero, much as Hill has been. Progressives don’t care whether the alleged incident really happened, or happened as she claims. What matters is stopping the judge’s confirmation.
Progressives, Democrats and women who deny this forfeit any credibility or presumptions of integrity. The FBI investigates crimes, and none is alleged. The facts of 30 year-old cases usually cannot be settled after so many years; that’s why there are statutes of limitations. It’s also why we aren’t completely certain who shot Kennedy, or who the Zodiac killer is. That’s OK though: Ford probably knows this very well. If the hearings are delayed, it’s mission accomplished for her, and probably a book deal.
Ford’s lawyers signaled their client’s game by having the gall to attack the committee for scheduling a hearing on her accusation. “While Dr. Ford’s life was being turned upside down, you and your staff scheduled a public hearing for her to testify at the same table as Judge Kavanaugh in front of two dozen U.S. senators on national television to relive this traumatic and harrowing incident,” they said a letter to Sen. Charles Grassley, the committee chairman.
Her life is being turned upside down? That was her choice.
Today competition arose for Ford in the “Most Unethical Non-Senator To Board The Brett Kavanaugh Nomination Ethics Train Wreck” pageant. Cristina Miranda King, a former classmate of Ford’s, decided to grab 15 minutes of undeserved fame by recalling that she “heard” about the incident. Then she issued this Unethical Quote of the Week:
“Christine Blasey Ford was a year or so behind me,” wrote King, who works as a performing arts curator in Mexico City. “I did not know her personally but I remember her. This incident did happen. Many of us heard a buzz about it indirectly with few specific details. However Christine’s vivid recollection should be more than enough for us to truly, deeply know that the accusation is true.”
Stuff you hear about in high school when you don’t know the participants or details is called gossip. It isn’t even hearsay. Do you remember any 30 year old gossip sufficiently vividly that you could state with certainty now that it was true? Why was King’s idiotic statement treated as news? A woman who didn’t know Ford says that she remembered hearing about the incident without details three decades ago, and the fact that Ford has a “vivid recollection”—though she can’t name the year, date or location of the party, who held it, or any party guests who can confirm her story—means that the accusation must be true.
Ah, that good ol’ fair, professional, unbiased news media!
Now 900 more unethical women, all alumnae of the Holton-Arms School, the private school for girls in Bethesda, Maryland Where Christine Met Brett, signed an open letter, voicing their support for Ford even though they don’t know her. She’s a woman, you see, and of course one who is impugning a man 30 years late, so she must be telling the truth. “Dr. Blasey Ford’s experience is all too consistent with stories we heard and lived while attending Holton,” they write. This convinces me that Holton Arms graduates a lot of bigoted idiots incapable of critical thought. These women have no valid reason to believe or disbelieve Ford with such certainty. Because they know that students have been assaulted at Holton Arms, this means that Ford must have been assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh? I dare anyone to support this “reasoning.” X must be guilty of conduct Y, because other people like X have been guilty of the same conduct.
Unethical women, as far as the eye can see…
Ethics Alarms 
Did you mean to type “shift and blur”?
I fixed that before I read this. It was only up that way for about 5 minutes—you’re QUICK.
Damn you.
Ah ha! But only 2 people know what was originally there.
Scrolling through the twitter civil war over Christine Blasey Ford and got a notification of a new article. (That explains the quick read).
Solid article.
My God! I went to a Catholic boys’ high school. There were girls’ schools in the city as well, Catholic and private. We dated girls from those schools. From the middle to late ‘sixties. Who knew it was a massive fuck fest! Man, did I ever miss. Dang.I could have been a rapist and gotten away with it for all these years. All I had to do is not try to be a Supreme! Mission accomplished!
Yes. I was thinking about it this morning and came to the conclusion that, even if Ford’s accusation were true, nothing about the way she’s made it public is evidence of “courage” or “bravery” on her part. She held onto this accusation till making it public would be least possible to defend and deal maximum damage. That seems more like motivated by a desire for revenge more than by a sense of justice.
Courage is making your accusation in a timely manner to prevent further victims, no matter the personal cost. Waiting thirty years shows zero courage. The total lack of victims she could have prevented by reporting, says this was at worst a case of seventeen year old stupid. Accusing it now is NOT to prevent harm, but cause it. Failure to report that long is cowardice, and she and her allies are cashing in on that cowardice… I find that disgusting.
You hit the nail on the head. Cannot agree with you more.
Second!
True, absolutely true. It’s time we stopped celebrating such women as courageous.
I’m old enough to remember the passion pits at the drive-ins when I was in my teens. It’s a good thing I never got into politics or had higher ambitions.
“I did not know her personally but I remember her. This incident did happen. Many of us heard a buzz about it indirectly with few specific details. However Christine’s vivid recollection should be more than enough for us to truly, deeply know that the accusation is true.”
This is EXACTLY what several of us cynical observers predicted would happen next. There is NO reason for another extreme progressive NOT to tell this exact lie.
Note the 1. Appeal to “many of us” who “heard a buzz” but the caveat that they can offer no new details. How convenient. No one can say who’s house it was? What year? What month?
She’s saying exactly what a liar would say who wants to “save” Ford’s narrative and keep the dream alive of shutting down that evil Drumpf’s plans. No incriminating details that could be proven wrong.
We already know that progressive women exist in large numbers who would gladly lie about things like this, and be rewarded and celebrated for it. They can’t capitalize on the general reusing naivety of normal people any more. Provide details or get out.
Eh. That was “trusting naievety.”
The leftist part of society demands justice (a guilty verdict) against Kavanaugh. No justice, no peace. This is civil brinksmanship.
The statement I am about to make won’t gain me a spot on The Ethics Alarms Heroes’ Hall Of Honor, but here I go. John Wayne is dead. So, you heterosexual men out there with any self-respect intact need to reign in your women and quick. They are about to bring down Western Society while wearing pink pussy hats. You’ve got the world to gain or lose. Do your duty.
They’ve already got enough men wearing pink pussy hats to bring down Western Society. Western society end not with a bang, but a whimper.
Over my cold dead body.
We outnumber the extremists (of both sides) 10 to 1. Our side needs to wake up and vote this crap out of office (again, both sides)
You left out some of the best parts of King’s message. Her (now deleted) tweet claims that not only does she know Judge and Kavenaugh, but she knew of the incident in school and he was responsible. This is amazing, because by Ford’s own testimony, she told no one.
When pressed for why it was deleted she gave the following response:
“Hi all, deleted this because it served its purpose and I am now dealing with a slew of requests for interviews from The Wash Post, CNN, CBS News. Organizing how I want to proceed. Was not ready for that, not sure I am interested in pursuing. Thanks for reading.”
Didn’t expect it? What a bunch of crock.
And now she’s begging off completely. Called it.
I am considering the suggestion that Ford’s story wasn’t manipulated for political purposes, but that it was manufactured entirely for political purposes in the first place. It has all the trappings of a Big Lie. Plant a small one, drop it in the media, feed it with new “old” details, and watch it grow into a known fact.
1. Locate professional, “respectable,” ardent feminist (or have one volunteer: she has to know she has an army at her back)
2. Testing, Testing. Toe in the water to begin with. Back-up added later. Any true accusation would have had “facts” at its fingertips from the get-go. Private citizen going up against pro politician legitimately looses all her arrows at her target to begin with. Otherwise, she was holding back “evidence” for greater opportunity. The ammunition for this attack was acquired little by little in response to the growth of support and the kind of publicity Ford was getting.
3. All-girls school (a) no boys around to support the accused (b) no boys around to know how Christine acted/reacted with males; (c) a built-in #MeToo sisterhood emerged but the chorus took a while forming, smacks of coercion; and (d) I can’t believe any of them since there is not a single #NotMe vote — I think the spouses of all the yea-sayers should be polled with the option of “too convenient; didn’t happen.”
4. Memory. Jack has covered most of this. The kind of incident described would only have remained embedded (a) if it had occurred on a higher level on the date-rape scale, or (b) if it had been a one-off, and no other boy had ever touched her. In which case, she wouldn’t have forgotten it in the first place. Can’t have it both ways.
5. Timing. As Jack pointed out, looking at the calendar, this seems more and more convenient for the anti-Kavanagh crowd, who have tried other flawed or distorted accusations already: this is the only on that looks really promising. Thus, the appeal – the demand! – to higher and higher authority. The bigger the lie … the Bigger the Lie. The closer it gets to “D”elay Day, the louder it gets. Then watch it go away.
6. Schmear. All of the above: The very un-provability of Ford’s accusation, the unreliable memory factor, is the only explanation for Ford’s incipient martyrdom. She’s a psychologist: a mistress of mental manipulation. She had to know she had nothing real to stand on, that it all depended on putting the right story to the public at the right time. Crump’s hiring — pro bono wouldn’t surprise me — was the final pin in my CBF voodoo doll. Doesn’t matter if he volunteered or not. She is not being hurt by this or any outcome of it. She wins, Kavanagh loses (maybe), whatever the end result.
Worst case scenario: Guess Who’s Running for Office?
Well, she is getting death threats — which is not a surprise. Most women know what they are in for when they accuse a powerful man of a sex crime, whether it happened 30 years or 30 minutes ago. Don’t dismiss that out of hand — her life will never be the same.
More BS. They have not produced a single instance of a death threat.
It takes time to make these things up, Sparty.
This lady will get speaking deals and book deals: she is set for life. She has EVERYTHING to gain for this despicable tactic.
EVEN if this is ALL her claims are stipulated, it was not a crime. This is ALL political hackery, unfair play by the Democrats. Both sides do NOT act this way. (Don’t talk about Garland until you deal with how the Dems blocked any Bush nominations ‘until after the election,’ either: your side set the rules, and hates it when we lower ourselves to play by them!)
All your posturing falls apart when you look at how the Clintons were protected from the SAME thing when old Slick Willy himself was president.
Pop Quiz:
1) Would you rather be a college professor living a comfortable life; or
2) Be infamous for telling a lie about a sexual encounter that happened 35 years ago and have half of the world hate you? And then go around on TV telling that lie?
Now, that doesn’t mean that she isn’t WRONG about what happened. But, only psychopaths or desperate people deliberately crave this kind of attention.
She literally gets both of those options, only with option 1, being a leftist professor at a leftist university, she’ll probably be living a much more comfortable life.
As for #2, this is why, regardless of the discomfort involved, one should report a crime one thinks has occurred, immediately after one thinks it occurred.
Regardless of the discomfort involved.
A really wise person said this:
“Courage is making your accusation in a timely manner to prevent further victims, no matter the personal cost. Waiting thirty years shows zero courage. The total lack of victims she could have prevented by reporting, says this was at worst a case of seventeen year old stupid. Accusing it now is NOT to prevent harm, but cause it. Failure to report that long is cowardice, and she and her allies are cashing in on that cowardice… I find that disgusting.”
(From *actually* credible allegations, no less)
All public figures receive death threats…hell we even have public figures like Maxine Waters encouraging entire constituencies to behave that way when they disagree with politics.
The DNC has mishandled Ford immensely, all of this is on them.
Still Spartan wrote, “Well, she is getting death threats — which is not a surprise. Most women know what they are in for when they accuse a powerful man of a sex crime, whether it happened 30 years or 30 minutes ago. Don’t dismiss that out of hand — her life will never be the same.”
Do you have any true understanding of political activism or patriotism?
Yeah, there’s no way she’s getting death threats unless she produces the actual letter/emails, which is what people do who get real death threats.
It’s well-known standard feminist procedure to lie about death threats after you’ve done something evil/stupid. It reversed the roles of victim and offender.
Which was all her doing.
Still Spartan,
You have a point. On the other hand, this is The Age of the Troll, and someone, anyone, who makes such an accusation becomes fair game for both sides. Ford had to have known that before she opened her mouth. And chosen to ignore it. After all, death threats are received by just about anyone who chooses to attack anyone else. (That’s one of the reasons people posting here, including myself, choose not to expose their identities.) Psychologically …. you have to remember that she is at the top of her profession, specializing in statistics … it is extremely rare for a murderer to announce him(or her)self.
It is possible her motivations were both pure and simple – as in simple-minded or, otherwise, single-minded, blinkered. We will most probably never know what compulsion out of the long-ago blue, or desire to go band-wagon jumping, or hypnotic suggestion by the Feminist Fairy,or bribery, or sheer boredom made her dredge up this old example of a non-provable, non-invasive (the term in its medical sense) incident in the life of a teenage girl in the 90s.
I do not trivialize the idea of continuing emotional upset in cases of true trauma .. for men or women …, but Ford is not expressing anything like trauma. More like something newly invented with a neologism to go with it: she has unearthed a “microaggression”. Things that teens must learn to deal with, and to take in stride, in order to become adults. Your daughters, Spartan, will have to go through a bit of it too, though I have a feeling they will be better prepared to identify sensitive or dangerous situations and deal with unwelcome advances.
I speculated that she knew what she was doing and will add that it would be logical for her to welcome the death threats as press fodder. Her life will change, at least temporarily; it already has — trolls are always looking for new victims under any spotlight — and the martyrdom and victimhood celebrated by following the tenets of #MeToo-ism will hold her up only as long as the publicity lasts. I stand by my speculation … it is broad enough to stand on, I think … and await the final outcome.
I’m comfortable with accepting that Ford thinks something happened to her at a party during her teenage years that has become an unpleasant memory. It may have been an unpleasant experience also.
But for all the reasons that have been thoroughly elucidated in these discussions, within the value set that governs how we handle justice in our nation, we can’t do anything about a 36 year old accusation with no details whatsoever.
I simultaneously do not think that anyone handling her coping with her memory have treated her ethically at all. I strongly suspect that much of her memory has been coached, but that’s only supposition.
I think the DNC was hoping the mere threat of this accusation would cause the GOP to back down on Kavanaugh, as the DNC has long learned the GOP backs off of it’s positions at the slightest hint of negative publicity. Only this time the GOP didn’t back down.
Now, whatever the DNC promised Ford, they can’t deliver and now Ford realizes she was conned and is in over her head.
The bitch can not even tell us the address of where this took place?
Where did it take place?
Newark, New Jersey?
Iowa?
Outer Mongolia?
A space station orbiting Betelgeuse?
“Bitch.” Nice.
This isn’t profitable for anyone in the discussion.
Heyyyyy…not so fast with the dismissal.
Michael alleges “bitch.”
By the game rules of the “bitch’s” own supporters, what Michael says must be believed.
Else – wait for it – res ipsa loquitur – MISANDRY!
Thanks, Jack, for such a clear analysis. Although I don’t post much, I am a regular reader and very much value your ethics analysis of current events. Please continue being the adult in the room.
Very kind of you, and thanks, I needed that.
I thank you, too. I am sending the link to friends privately (you don’t need the troll army here that open posting would bring).
Yep, I concur. Keep being the adult in the room.
I can’t help but pronounce your name with the intonation of the Opera “O sole mio”.
“a public hearing for her to testify at the same table as Judge Kavanaugh”
This is also misleading, perhaps it’s already been pointed out as i just skimmed the comments. However, testify at the same table, yes – testify at the same time – no. They will not sit at the same table at the same time, their individual testimonies will be at different times.
Imagine millions of white southerners signing a letter to the effect of “none of us actually saw Emmett Till grab Carolyn Bryant about the waist, but her story is all too consistent with stories we heard and lived while growing up in the South.”
Or perhaps “None of us saw the Central Park 5 attack and rape that jogger, but the accusations against them are all too consistent with the stories we heard and lived being in New York City in the late 80s.”
Those are very good analogies.
If her claims are true, I see no problem with revenge. It’s pure and simple and satisfying. If you harmed me, regardless of how much time has passed, I have no obligations to you (or anyone else) to give you the opportunity to make amends, apologize or whatever it is you seem to think should have happened. I only have an obligation to my needs and desires when I see fit to fulfill them.
I stopped reading after “I see no problem with revenge.” This is an ethics blog, not “The Godfather.”
It seems unethical to imply she has an obligation to the person who harmed her. Which seems to be what you suggest that she should or has an “ethical” responsibility to do.
And what specifically makes revenge unethical?
We all have ethical obligations to everyone, whether they have harmed us or not. Bad conduct by another doesn’t lower your ethical duties in any way. Ethics 101. Why don’t you learn something about the topic here before parading your ignorance?
But to answer your question, it’s called the Golden Rule. You may have heard of it. It means you treat others as you would want to be treated by them. Not the way they treated you, as in revenge. You might read the rationalizations list, linked on the upper left.
Unethical Analysis of the Day
Dretwann = Ethics Dunce For The Day.
I’m not sure anyone will top that garbage from Dretwann but I bet some unethical fool will try.
Jack wrote: “There is no downside for her: she is a professor at a Left-dominated institution, and will doubtlessly be lionized as a hero, much as Hill has been. Progressives don’t care whether the alleged incident really happened, or happened as she claims. What matters is stopping the judge’s confirmation.”
If one looks at this event as representative of a ‘type’, then it has general characteristics that could be seen as a manifestation of the culture, and of cultural traits. I understand that this is a political issue, and part of political struggle and of general power-struggles, but it also seems to me to be a manifestation of a psychological phenomenon which is harder to describe because it is harder to understand. (In fact, I think we all participate in it to one degree or another.)
It has to do with how power has been given to women, and for what purpose, and what women do with their power, and how groups of women (and groups of people operating in certain ways; as a ‘mob’) have been extended ‘rights’ that are abused. It is a phenomenon related to mob or democratic mob-activity but it veers out of control.
Progressives don’t care whether the alleged incident really happened, or happened as she claims. What matters is stopping the judge’s confirmation.
While this is true — it must be true — there seems to be a larger dimension. But I admit to not being clear about what it is, nor how I should see and describe its ‘ultimate purpose’. But I have a feeling it has to do with deep-seated notions about what *should be right* and what *should be true*, and a sort of retrofitting of one’s imagined and remembered *world* so that it conforms to what *should be* in the present. It has to do with how we *imagine* our world, and our memory is really a part of our imagination and can become (easily) inflected with content our imagination infuses into it.
The ultimate goal? The ascent of woman into positions of decision. But also a remaking and a remodeling of how perception should be organized. A kind of female putsch through which woman gains a great deal of ground but do so through a kind of *shaming* mechanism. This power and the use of this sort of power is like a bludgeon. It is quite simple: because men can be represented as the source of many problems, that every man must, on one level or another, be *guilty* and thus blameworthy. Women, and the men who follow them in this, sense that great things can be gained with little real cost, and so ‘agree’ to believe even what, if looked at more closely, cannot uphold belief.
Dretwann wrote: “If her claims are true, I see no problem with revenge. It’s pure and simple and satisfying. If you harmed me, regardless of how much time has passed, I have no obligations to you (or anyone else) to give you the opportunity to make amends, apologize or whatever it is you seem to think should have happened. I only have an obligation to my needs and desires when I see fit to fulfill them.”
I think that this is a relevant comment insofar as it illustrates a real psychological phenomenon. Nietzsche wrote extensively about this and used the French term ‘ressentiment’. It is not the same as ‘resentment’ and indicates a very deep-seated sense that revenge must be enacted because the wrong-doer is really and truly turning against the order of what *should* be.
The interesting aspect here — and again I refer to Brock Turner and his misfortunes — is that the mob action that determines to *see* him as guilty (when all they have is a *glimpse* that was carefully prepared for them to see; that is, it was designed, a priori, for a specific consumption) does so on very limited evidence. They channel all their hatred, fear, loathing, disgust, anger and resentment as if on cue. Who deserves to receive their ire? Why the *whole world*; or *men*; or perhaps *man*. You could say *the patriarchy* but the term *patriarchy* is really a complex and deeply psychological term for them.
No one imagines that they alone did anything or had an effect, yet a terrifying effect occurs, and no one person is responsible.
If one looks at this event as representative of a ‘type’, then it has general characteristics that could be seen as a manifestation of the culture, and of cultural traits. I understand that this is a political issue, and part of political struggle and of general power-struggles, but it also seems to me to be a manifestation of a psychological phenomenon which is harder to describe because it is harder to understand. (In fact, I think we all participate in it to one degree or another.)
It has to do with how power has been given to women, and for what purpose, and what women do with their power, and how groups of women (and groups of people operating in certain ways; as a ‘mob’) have been extended ‘rights’ that are abused. It is a phenomenon related to mob or democratic mob-activity but it veers out of control.
Progressives don’t care whether the alleged incident really happened, or happened as she claims. What matters is stopping the judge’s confirmation.
While this is true — it must be true — there seems to be a larger dimension. But I admit to not being clear about what it is, nor how I should see and describe its ‘ultimate purpose’. But I have a feeling it has to do with deep-seated notions about what *should be right* and what *should be true*, and a sort of retrofitting of one’s imagined and remembered *world* so that it conforms to what *should be* in the present. It has to do with how we *imagine* our world, and our memory is really a part of our imagination and can become (easily) inflected with content our imagination infuses into it.
The ultimate goal? The ascent of woman into positions of decision. But also a remaking and a remodeling of how perception should be organized. A kind of female putsch through which woman gains a great deal of ground but do so through a kind of *shaming* mechanism. This power and the use of this sort of power is like a bludgeon. It is quite simple: because men can be represented as the source of many problems, that every man must, on one level or another, be *guilty* and thus blameworthy. Women, and the men who follow them in this, sense that great things can be gained with little real cost, and so ‘agree’ to believe even what, if looked at more closely, cannot uphold belief.
Dretwann wrote: “If her claims are true, I see no problem with revenge. It’s pure and simple and satisfying. If you harmed me, regardless of how much time has passed, I have no obligations to you (or anyone else) to give you the opportunity to make amends, apologize or whatever it is you seem to think should have happened. I only have an obligation to my needs and desires when I see fit to fulfill them.”
I think that this is a relevant comment insofar as it illustrates a real psychological phenomenon. Nietzsche wrote extensively about this and used the French term ‘ressentiment’. It is not the same as ‘resentment’ and indicates a very deep-seated sense that revenge must be enacted because the wrong-doer is really and truly turning against the order of what *should* be.
The interesting aspect here — and again I refer to Brock Turner and his misfortunes — is that the mob action that determines to *see* him as guilty (when all they have is a *glimpse* that was carefully prepared for them to see; that is, it was designed, a priori, for a specific consumption) does so on very limited evidence. They channel all their hatred, fear, loathing, disgust, anger and resentment as if on cue. Who deserves to receive their ire? Why the *whole world*; or *men*; or perhaps *man*. You could say *the patriarchy* but the term *patriarchy* is really a complex and deeply psychological term for them.
No one imagines that they alone did anything or had an effect, yet a terrifying effect occurs, and no one person is responsible.
[For some reason the above doubled what I wished to include. This is the correct post. The above can be removed. Apologies.]
Jack wrote: “There is no downside for her: she is a professor at a Left-dominated institution, and will doubtlessly be lionized as a hero, much as Hill has been. Progressives don’t care whether the alleged incident really happened, or happened as she claims. What matters is stopping the judge’s confirmation.”
If one looks at this event as representative of a ‘type’, then it has general characteristics that could be seen as a manifestation of the culture, and of cultural traits. I understand that this is a political issue, and part of political struggle and of general power-struggles, but it also seems to me to be a manifestation of a psychological phenomenon which is harder to describe because it is harder to understand. (In fact, I think we all participate in it to one degree or another.)
It has to do with how power has been given to women, and for what purpose, and what women do with their power, and how groups of women (and groups of people operating in certain ways; as a ‘mob’) have been extended ‘rights’ that are abused. It is a phenomenon related to mob or democratic mob-activity but it veers out of control.
Progressives don’t care whether the alleged incident really happened, or happened as she claims. What matters is stopping the judge’s confirmation.
While this is true — it must be true — there seems to be a larger dimension. But I admit to not being clear about what it is, nor how I should see and describe its ‘ultimate purpose’. But I have a feeling it has to do with deep-seated notions about what *should be right* and what *should be true*, and a sort of retrofitting of one’s imagined and remembered *world* so that it conforms to what *should be* in the present. It has to do with how we *imagine* our world, and our memory is really a part of our imagination and can become (easily) inflected with content our imagination infuses into it.
The ultimate goal? The ascent of woman into positions of decision. But also a remaking and a remodeling of how perception should be organized. A kind of female putsch through which woman gains a great deal of ground but do so through a kind of *shaming* mechanism. This power and the use of this sort of power is like a bludgeon. It is quite simple: because men can be represented as the source of many problems, that every man must, on one level or another, be *guilty* and thus blameworthy. Women, and the men who follow them in this, sense that great things can be gained with little real cost, and so ‘agree’ to believe even what, if looked at more closely, cannot uphold belief.
Dretwann wrote: “If her claims are true, I see no problem with revenge. It’s pure and simple and satisfying. If you harmed me, regardless of how much time has passed, I have no obligations to you (or anyone else) to give you the opportunity to make amends, apologize or whatever it is you seem to think should have happened. I only have an obligation to my needs and desires when I see fit to fulfill them.”
I think that this is a relevant comment insofar as it illustrates a real psychological phenomenon. Nietzsche wrote extensively about this and used the French term ‘ressentiment’. It is not the same as ‘resentment’ and indicates a very deep-seated sense that revenge must be enacted because the wrong-doer is really and truly turning against the order of what *should* be.
The interesting aspect here — and again I refer to Brock Turner and his misfortunes — is that the mob action that determines to *see* him as guilty (when all they have is a *glimpse* that was carefully prepared for them to see; that is, it was designed, a priori, for a specific consumption) does so on very limited evidence. They channel all their hatred, fear, loathing, disgust, anger and resentment as if on cue. Who deserves to receive their ire? Why the *whole world*; or *men*; or perhaps *man*. You could say *the patriarchy* but the term *patriarchy* is really a complex and deeply psychological term for them.
No one imagines that they alone did anything or had an effect, yet a terrifying effect occurs, and no one person is responsible.
“Imagine someone you may have harmed.” Exactly, imagine someone YOU may have harmed. The onus is on YOU to apologize — not on her to come forward and make you apologize. And even if you think you did nothing wrong, hey just an indiscretion, she wasn’t into it — if a girl runs away you, jumps out of the car, starts crying, etc. then every single alarm bell in YOUR head should go off that maybe you did something wrong and that you need to make amends. Or, even if you think you did nothing wrong, it’s probably safe to check with her because that is what a decent human being does. And if you don’t do that out of fear that you might go to jail, get suspended, or heck — mommy and daddy might ground you for underage drinking or trying to have sex with a younger girl, then no sympathy.
If you didn’t do that, and you sat on this information and then the President of the United States says, “I want to reward you with the most prestigious appointment this country has to offer — but, before I do, I just need to make sure, any skeletons in your closet? You know, this is a tense political climate, #metoo, etc.,” and you say nothing? Then you are not an honorable man, and you just embarrassed your country and your President. No, you don’t get a lifelong appointment.
Does that mean that you don’t get to have a job? Of course not. Does it mean that you’re going to jail? Probably not — absent witnesses coming forward and no SOL applying. But you don’t have a spotless record, and it is nobody’s fault but your own — and you need to have an unblemished record to sit on that court. Every single lawyer knows this.
“Exactly, imagine someone YOU may have harmed. The onus is on YOU to apologize — not on her to come forward and make you apologize.”
The word “may” carries a great deal of weight in Jack’s statement.
“May” indicates the supposed actor has no idea he/she harmed anyone. If someone feels they’ve been harmed by another and the other is oblivious to that, then yes, the onus IS on the aggrieved to point out the trespass.
And hormone filled teenagers in the realm of sexuality and relationships are perennially aggrieving each other and not realizing it…they are perpetually mis-reading each others cues and attitudes causing much unintentional pain.
You know this.
“And even if you think you did nothing wrong, hey just an indiscretion, she wasn’t into it — if a girl runs away you, jumps out of the car, starts crying, etc. then every single alarm bell in YOUR head should go off that maybe you did something wrong and that you need to make amends. Or, even if you think you did nothing wrong, it’s probably safe to check with her because that is what a decent human being does. And if you don’t do that out of fear that you might go to jail, get suspended, or heck — mommy and daddy might ground you for underage drinking or trying to have sex with a younger girl, then no sympathy.
If you didn’t do that, and you sat on this information and then the President of the United States says, “I want to reward you with the most prestigious appointment this country has to offer — but, before I do, I just need to make sure, any skeletons in your closet? You know, this is a tense political climate, #metoo, etc.,” and you say nothing? Then you are not an honorable man, and you just embarrassed your country and your President. No, you don’t get a lifelong appointment.
Does that mean that you don’t get to have a job? Of course not. Does it mean that you’re going to jail? Probably not — absent witnesses coming forward and no SOL applying. But you don’t have a spotless record, and it is nobody’s fault but your own — and you need to have an unblemished record to sit on that court. Every single lawyer knows this.”
Or Brett Kavanaugh didn’t do it.
More sanctimonious bullshit, Spartan. The standard you raise is crazy, if you game out how this works. Notice that there is never a case where the FEMALE apologizes for wrongdoing. Only men.
“…if a girl runs away you, jumps out of the car, starts crying, etc”
“If a man ever hurt your feelings they should never aspire to high office” is what you are saying. Girls cry for a variety of reasons. Sometimes that is just to be manipulative. Please.
You are indicting every man in history without evidence. You know damn well this cannot be the standard by which such things are judged… except that they will only be judged so if the accused is not in favor with progressives at that moment. You know this. You don’t care. This is simple cold calculation on your part using an emotional argument free from rational or logical thought.
You are advocating for tyranny. You have abandoned ethics or even the Golden Rule.
Why do you even post here given those two facts?
Yeah, what’s terrifying about the only standard that can make sense of some of the rationalizations I’ve seen online is that literally anytime a man’s advances are rebuffed, an attempted rape was stopped.
Hell, any time a man is polite to a woman and she feels like it was chauvinist, she heroically stopped a rapist.
It’s going to take me a minute to digest this misogyny.
Okay, I’m back.
Women should apologize for wrongdoing too. Where have I said otherwise?
If a man hurts my feelings? Well, my feelings have been hurt a lot, by men and women, and I have no problems with them being on the Supreme Court.
I’ve even had men apologize for acting on mixed signals that I may (or may not) have sent them over the years. Not only do I not care if they get on the Supreme Court, but there were times when I have said, “No apology necessary.” I’ve also had regrets about certain sexual encounters in my life — again, no issues. I consented, so any regrets are on me. Most women are like this btw, although there are exceptions — and who knows, this accuser might be one of them.
Here’s a few tips though — and these are not always true, but they are good rules to live by.
1) If you are at a party, and there is more than one guy in the room — that girl “probably” does not want to have sex with you. (#pornisnotrealistic)
2) If you put your hand over a girl’s mouth before trying to take her clothes off, you “might” be committing sexual assault.
3) If you turn up the radio because you’re worried that the girl might scream, you “might” be committing sexual assault.
4) If the girl runs away from you after you tried to kiss her or take off her clothes, you should be very worried and investigate. And if you don’t investigate, at a minimum you’re a lousy human being.
I need to get to work, so please don’t take my silence as running away from this discussion.
Still Spartan wrote, “It’s going to take me a minute to digest this misogyny.”
Gotta love how you can sling around the use of the word misogyny without recognizing that you project misandry.
1) I won’t.
2) Who doesn’t know those rules?
3) How is calling out unethical conduct by hundreds of women in an effort to smear a man in order to accomplish a goal completely unrelated to the smear “misogyny”? That’s essentially the gender version of race-baiting tactic, isn’t it? Criticizing Black Lives Matters based on its conduct must be racism? You don’t have to stoop to that.
The “only” relevant item for me is whether or not he did it. I don’t care what Rs are saying, Ds are saying, I don’t care about the “he didn’t rape me” letter, or the “this school has a reputation for rape” letter, and I don’t care what my friends on FB are saying. I think lie detector tests are meaningless and I think an FBI investigation would yield little and cost a ton.
If I were in the Senate, I would advocate using the Senate’s subpoena power to bring the people at this party forward to testify. Because if this event happened, it might disqualify him. If people take the 5th, that’s interesting too. But, testifying under oath is key.
For the record, I think the accuser must be made to testify too. This is the most important appointment in the US, we need to know if he’s fit.
When this is all over though, what the discourse shows me is that we need to have more discussions about consent. Our sons and daughters need additional education.
1. Great conclusion at the end. Couldn’t agree more.
2. I did some things in high school that I am ashamed of today (if I remember them), and that do not reflect on my character as an adult in any way. Therefore, I do not see how a high school incident of this sort has any relevance to “fitness” at all.
3. How could a hearing without additional facts or witnesses settle anything? My guess is that Ford, unlike Hill, is not going to make a good public impression under questioning, knows it, never intended to go public, and won’t appear. Then what?
We all are ashamed of things that we have done in our past. Some of those things — even if we have changed — should keep us off of the Supreme Court. Sexual assault is one of those things — and we should have testimony as to whether an assault happened. We have no shortage of competent Judges in this country, finding one who is Conservative enough for Trump and who hasn’t tried to rape somebody shouldn’t be difficult. I’m okay with that standard. I have a long standing joke with my law school friends that I will never become a Judge because of stupid things I did at parties. Nothing terrible, just unflattering. That’s one of the tests for being a Judge Jack. We went to the same law school, I can’t imagine that you didn’t learn that as well.
If there is no testimony, my guess is that his nomination will go through and he will just be another Justice Thomas where some people vehemently defend him, others vilify him, some are ignorant of his existence, and others just wonder. But he will be on the Court. (And you can put me in the “wonder” category.)
Funny, I once felt that admitting to breaking the drug laws by smoking pot—which I never did, by the way—in college, as an adult, disqualified a judge from the Supreme Court. I was assured that this wasn’t true, even when the evidence of law-breaking was unquestioned, indeed, was the nominees own testimony.
But alleged, unproven, unprovable, denied, attempted and unsuccessful “sexual assault” while drunk and in high school proves lack of fitness 30 years later?
How can anyone honestly reach such a conclusion? Especially a lawyer: They also taught deductive reasoning when I was in law school.
One other note: I never, ever wrongly assumed that a girl would welcome aggressive romantic contact, because I spent my whole life terrified of crossing any lines at all. All my first kisses were initiated by the female until embarrassingly late in life. A couple of women in college behaved in ways that #MeToo would call sexual assault if the roles were reversed. But I know many guys, friends, room mates, who did cross those lines in lust and ignorance as teens. All are completely fine and trustworthy men today, as far as I can discern, and assuming otherwise would be outrageously unfair.
Yet you are endorsing that. I don’t get it.
I am not endorsing them losing their livelihoods — I am endorsing them not being on the most important court in the United States, and arguably the world.
We have stricter evidence standards for criminal court. Obviously Kavanaugh should not lose his LIBERTY because of this event, unless it can: 1) survive SOL; and 2) meet reasonable doubt standards. But does a credible assault story (assuming testimony to that effect) survive a character fitness test? It does not. Being on the Supreme Court is a reward, a gift, one of the greatest honors we have in this country.
If you could give away a winning lottery ticket to one of two people who had the same life and career, and the first had a spotless life and the other had credible allegations of sexual assault at the age of 17, who would you pick?
As I keep saying, this is not hard.
“If you could give away a winning lottery ticket to one of two people who had the same life and career, and the first had a spotless life and the other had credible allegations of sexual assault at the age of 17, who would you pick?”
Neither or both. I don’t hold childhood misconduct against adults unless the conduct continues into adulthood. This is why juvenile records are expunged, and should be.
But you’re dodging — we have one seat open on the Supreme Court. One person has to be chosen.
Also, 17 year-olds get tried as adults every day. If this happened to my daughter, I might push for it — depending on the circumstances.
1) It’s a horrible conclusion. It’s a great value…that we should teach our children about consent.
But to conclude from *this discussion* anything about consent if Kavanaugh DID NOT DO what he is a accused of doing (which increasingly appears to be the case), then any such *conclusion* is a complete non-sequitur.
3) After everything distills out and the only thing standing is a 36 year old faulty memory, all we’ll be left with, despite Spartan’s insistence that she’s undecided on this, is a really really nagging hunch that, indeed, she has, actually, unequivocally decided that Ford is telling the truth.
Michael West wrote, “After everything distills out and the only thing standing is a 36 year old faulty memory, all we’ll be left with, despite Spartan’s insistence that she’s undecided on this, is a really really nagging hunch that, indeed, she has, actually, unequivocally decided that Ford is telling the truth.”
A definite maybe.
Different definitions of “conclusion.” Mine was “the last part.” Not “The end result of what went before.”
Oh.
Sorry.
My fault for being unclear.
No. I’m just letting my frustration with all this cause misinterpretation.
Still Spartan wrote, “If I were in the Senate, I would advocate using the Senate’s subpoena power to bring the people at this party forward to testify.”
Isn’t here a couple of assumptions in there that you’re not acknowledging?
We don’t actually know for sure that there was such a party, Ford hasn’t been able to provide any more details about it. Plus we don’t actually know who was at the alleged party other than Ford’s claim that Kavanaugh, Judge and her were at the party, no other details have been provided by Ford.
I think your phrase should simply be rephrased to “If I were in the Senate, I would advocate using the Senate’s subpoena power to bring Kavanaugh, Judge and Ford forward to testify.” Since Kavanaugh has already stated that he is willing to testify, there doesn’t seem to be any real need to subpoena him; a subpoena is unnecessary and will just be used to unethically smear him with claims that he had to be subpoenaed and forced to testify.
Still Spartan wrote, “When this is all over though, what the discourse shows me is that we need to have more discussions about consent. Our sons and daughters need additional education.”
Why wait till it’s over, everyone should start now if they haven’t already done it.
Agreed.
Still Spartan wrote, “Agreed.”
Thanks, I knew you would. 🙂
Well, more discussions about consent will be futile without more educational discussions also about maintaining sobriety and clear boundaries in social situations.
Add “taking sex seriously and understanding the ramifications.”
The cultural message that sex is naturally easy, free and always good leads women to read bad encounters as violence from men; and men to read rejection as personal spite or disgust from women. It’s damaging to everyone.
All good points, WW.
Is consent complicated?
Is consent complicated?
It is quite complicated in the present and this is related to bizarre shifts in sexual attitudes and notions of sexual morality.
In Ovid’s Ars Amatoria he expounded on the art of seduction and the art of conquest. The idea being that there is something in seduction and conquest that has to do with insistence, with perseverance, and also with a kind of trickery. I think the idea of ‘conquest’ is a larger part of Latin notions of love [sic] and the verb ‘conquistar’ is still widely used to refer to the general process of overcoming opposition in matters of love [again ‘sic’].
To understand Spartan’s position in this is really really complex. She herself is sort of the slut-version of a late evolution of the American woman. She herself a product of the so-called sexual liberation of men and women of the post-Sixties era. And this ‘liberation’ has led to tremendous confusion and angst insofar as it tends not to help people get liberated, but rather to get mired in the consequences of choices that operate against self-esteem.
Sexuality and the liberation of it, and all the seductive imagery associated with it, has pervaded our cultures, and according to some is one of the main engines of political control. See E Michael Jones and Libido Dominandi. To understand Jones’ view one has to grasp how Thomism views the function of sex within the total human organism. The essence though is that uncontrolled and ‘liberated’ sexuality, when not directed by higher intelligence (in the best of conditions), does not and cannot ‘liberate’ but rather enslaves. And when sexual liberation becomes a tool of political control or a means by which the cultural body, and the intelligent and thoughtful person, is seduced and corrupted, the so-called ‘sexual liberation’ in the Sixties can be seen in a more critical light.
But there is, naturally! a wide difference of opinion about the function, use and purpose of sexuality. And a great deal of confusion among the ‘progressive’ and ‘Left’ wing of the political spectrum. Some feminists are completely in pro of total liberation. They mostly make reference to some ‘advantage’ to be gained by a woman from ’embracing’ her sexual freedom. You can find many titles of books that explain this position. Take ‘Jane Sexes It Up’ as one example among dozens. There is also the feminist view that women should see their sexuality, their attractiveness, as a prostitute’s tool: they should see it as a commodity to be traded for advantage. This is the ‘sex-positive’ school. And there is the sort of Madonna-school which imagines that some great thing is achieved when a woman completely gives herself over to display and to *the male gaze*. (I am not completely sure on the time-line but this Kavanaugh episode occurred during the Madonna peak-years. I mention this only to indicate a general climate and, in my own view, tremendous confusion about sex and sexuality of that time).
One the other side of the feminist conflict are those — like Andrea Dworkin — who seem to be radically terrified at what ‘sexual freedom’ does to woman. That is, a woman who is ‘sexually liberated’ for men reduces herself to being even more of a victim of man’s desires. By choosing and opting to act-out in these ways she appears to gain something — some momentary power perhaps? — but loses in the end. Dworkin is profoundly suspicious of man and as I said elsewhere her argument, it seems to me, is really one against Nature itself. Woman is given a very very specific role through their biological situation and Nature in this sense is a terrifying tyrant. Nature ropes women to reproduction and to a cycle of gestation and mother-giving which, for feminists of this sort, is literally horrifying. Perhaps as a sort of neurotic reaction they opt for lesbianism as an alternative to the ‘reproduction imperative’?
Now, one can turn the lens of examination back to Spartan as an example of an *outcome* within the American situation and the post-Sixties situation. She favors this notion of *consent* which, from a legal standpoint, makes a good deal of sense. However, she and women like her, and indeed the whole of American culture, is in frightening disarray and confusion about what role and even purpose sex should have. Spartan’s view, I think, would be countered very strongly and wittily by Camille Paglia who, when she is not a gibbering nut-case, expresses some very direct things about Puritanical Feminism. In my view she is emblematic of sexual confusion generally, but she is very much a product of the so-called Sixties sexual radicalism.
The Right — the Conservative Right — to the degree that it succeeds in defining anything stable and sensible within a radically confused cultural environment, tends to accept and to elevate, even glorify, woman’s role in reproduction and motherhood. These attitudes were borne from the attitudes toward woman that informed Christian Europe for at least 1000 years. To get a sense of that entire view see Gertrude von le Fort’s ‘The Eternal Woman’ in which Woman is examined through her symbolic essence, and what she *represents* within a certain metaphysical scheme. When woman is rudely and crudely ‘unveiled’ and exposed to, certainly, The Male Gaze, she loses completely what had been understood as her *sacred* meaning. In its most overt form woman is really & truly reduced to a commodity that is bought and sold, gained and exchanged, and in the end reduced, as it were, to a pornographic option.
These shifts in how woman is viewed — as I so painstakingly try to communicate to people who have so deviated from sound intellect as to frighten me — are the basis of power-battles and social and cultural confusion that will not abate, and will continue, until there is some sort of reckoning.
I think it is within this context that the notion of a woman’s consent is an extremely complex affair.
The *defect*, as it were, of the thrust of this Blog is that it can only focus on the passing events within a constantly shifting ethical landscape. There is no ‘moral anchor’ that is proposed because ‘morality’ cannot be seen to exist and be a real thing. What ‘morality’ would be defined? There is little philosophical underpinning (and contempt of it) expressed here. Just legalistic definitionism, if you’ll permit the turn of phrase, as with Spartan’s video.
But that is also true in the larger culture, especially in America. There is really no philosophical base. It is very strange. What there are is business and political interests that vie for power, and seek to increase their power, with very very little genuine human concern. *Business* is the mechanism of the machine which grinds people to its purposes. And business rules it seems to me.
If I can be of further assistance please don’t hesitate to let me know! 🙂
“I’ve even had men apologize for acting on mixed signals that I may (or may not) have sent them over the years. Not only do I not care if they get on the Supreme Court, but there were times when I have said, “No apology necessary.””
You don’t think that you owe all of those men apologies for sending mixed signals?
“It’s going to take me a minute to digest this misogyny.”
Call names when you have nothing substantive to say. Alinsky would be proud. Nothing I wrote is misogyny to a rational thinking person.
“Women should apologize for wrongdoing too. Where have I said otherwise?”
Strawman. Sidestepping the issue, which is plainly written in my post.
“If a man hurts my feelings? ”
This is not about you. How you handled things is irrelevant, and this is pure virtue signalling on your part.
“I’ve even had men apologize for acting on mixed signals that I may (or may not) have sent them over the years…. so any regrets are on me”
This is NOT. ABOUT. YOU. And that makes all of this irrelevant to the discussion.
All of the rest is condescending bullshit. I have NEVER personally been in any of the situations you describe, but this is not about me either. This is about rule of law, and treating others how you want to be treated.
Since you avoided the meat of my post, I will repost it here for your convenience:
“You are indicting every man in history without evidence. You know damn well this cannot be the standard by which such things are judged… except that they will only be judged so if the accused is not in favor with progressives at that moment. You know this. You don’t care. This is simple cold calculation on your part using an emotional argument free from rational or logical thought.”
Care to address the discussion? Or just want to throw emotional eyewash around and call me some more names?
You’re being an asshole and/or you can’t read. Jack’s hypothetical was to imagine yourself in that scenario. Let me redirect you to that …
“Imagine someone you may have harmed when you were an immature teen. That individual never calls you to account, privately or officially. She never urges you to apologize, accept responsibility, or make amends, or gives you an opportunity to do so. No, she maintains the grievance in escrow, to bring it out years or decades later when the accusation will not only do the most damage, but will also be impossible to defend against. What a cruel, horrible, inhuman way to treat anyone.”
Misogyny AND gaslighting is a classy combo.
More name calling, still not addressing the meat of my comment. My comments are exactly in line with the thread. you are the one spinning and diverting here.
So answer the comment, or admit you have nothing.
Until I get an apology — nope.
???
What I am apologizing for? Not being snarky, just genuinely curious. You have been calling me names and avoiding the issue. I have done nothing but call out emotional eyewash as it was asserted.
What? You want the FBI to investigate before you will address the comment?
It’s obvious you tried to rape Still Spartan….THAT’S what you need to apologize for, Mr. MAN….Never mind that the two of you are probably nowhere close to each other geographically—it’s clear from your attitude and tone, both of which are easily detected through text communication. You better do it now, otherwise I forsee trouble for you thirty years from now when a wizened but still somewhat coherent Still Spartan comes forth to deny you of your Internet KingCheese Trophy because you smashed the little birdhouse in their soul–and yes, there will be those who can back the story up because they will remember that something was said to someone,some time, on some website…
Notice she never replied…
Still Spartan,
I get a very distinct feeling from everything I’ve read from you surrounding any kind of accusations of misconduct from a man that no matter what woman accuses a man the woman is always to be believed as providing indisputable facts and the man is therefore forever guilty. Sure every once in a while you mouth the the appropriate words the imply you don’t have an inherent prejudice against men, but to be honest, I don’t even think an accused man proving his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt would change your mind about him being guilty, I think you would just clam up and say nothing while you continue to believe he’s guilty.
I recognize the subtleties of your attitudes towards men, I’ve literally been immersed in a community that project the same attitudes towards men, some were open very open about their prejudicial hate but a lot was very subtle, I’ve seen it before and I’ve written about it here. Outside your husband, it appears to me that you might be harboring some serious prejudicial issues towards men, all men, which isn’t too uncommon for someone that’s been abused by a some men.
That’s my opinion based on my observation and I truly hope you can get over it someday.
What of the boy who is ridiculed and laughed at by girls in his class for being heavy. He does not run. He does not hide. He dies inside everyday he has to go to class knowing he will have to run the gauntlet of derision from the girls and the other boys, who were once friends, but now see advantage in participating with the girls.
For all I know you could be one of those girls from high school.
I’m sorry this seems to have happened to you in high school. I think literally everyone with an ounce of self reflection can find an instance where they treated someone cruelly or disrespectfully as a team, something they would apologize for and change (I sure would). Sparty hasn’t said anything to suggest she wouldn’t apologize, and in fact has said otherwise.
That said, this seems like whataboutism. The conversation, right or wrong, is about potentially criminal behavior. Criminalizing bullying is a whole other can of worms.
We need to be clear on this: what has been alleged is not criminal. If we start prosecuting drunken teens for overly physical and aggressive courting behavior, 90% of men will begin adulthood with criminal records. There was no rape. There was no injury. The girl was frightened, but causing fright is not prosecuted as a crime. This has nothing to do with a crime, as the culture has understood it. If we want to change the rules, we can’t retroactively enforce them against 30 year old allegations.
And here’s where we disagree. If true, that is attempted rape. It probably would be pled out, but it’s still a crime.
That’s a whole different conversation and why I keep getting back to teaching consent.
It doesn’t even sound like attempted rape in her account. If the guy was a teenage rapist, then there would be a trail to follow. Drunks aren’t often charged with attempted rape, because they lack mens rea. Agreed: attempted rape would be at least investigated. But it would need more proof than she had, even at the time. “I thought he was trying to rape me” isn’t enough. “What? I was drunk, thought she was hot for me, and got carried away and was a little rough.” End of investigation. Except he apologizes later.
Nope. It might mitigate a sentence or cause a prosecutor to charge for a lesser crime, but it is not a defense. I am not going to research MD law on this, but here’s a general overview. https://www.businessinsider.com/can-you-get-convicted-of-rape-if-you-were-drunk-2013-11
The link describes rape, not attempted rape.
Oh Michael wades in, our resident “bitch be lyin'” commenter of the day.
My same answer applies. It’s not a blanket defense in sexual assault cases. I’m not saying that it’s not complicated or that a jury might find a lesser sentence, but it’s not a get out of jail free card.
You linked to an article about convictions of rape. The answer to the problem you’re looking for is right there in the article.
“That’s because rape is a general-intent crime, meaning prosecutors just have to prove a rapist was being negligent or reckless. Unlike specific-intent crimes, rape doesn’t require prosecutors to prove a rapist specifically intended to rape somebody.”
Inchoate crimes like attempt are specific intent. You’ll never be able to show that specific intent where the two parties are drunk and fooling around unless you basically show that the defendant chased her down after she resisted or intentionally drugged her. Nothing in the allegations so far come close.
Bingo. You can’t attempt something without intent. You can rape someone without intending to, but you can’t ATTEMPT to rape someone without intending what you’re attempting.
Game, Set, and Match!
I wasted time reading a MD case today that held the opposite where the defendant alleged he was drunk. There’s no game, set, and match.
Jack Marshall wrote, “We need to be clear on this: what has been alleged is not criminal.”
In reply Still Spartan wrote, “And here’s where we disagree. If true, that is attempted rape. It probably would be pled out, but it’s still a crime.”
Still Spartan,
Even if the claim is factually true, your statement about it being attempted rape and a crime is just your opinion and it may not be fact. If you think it’s fact then it’s up to you to provide the statutes from that period of time that corroborate that it’s a crime as claimed. Short of that, your claim that it’s a crime is just opinion and nothing more and you’re welcome to it. I simply don’t know what the law were in that area at that time.
Here’s your chance to prove your claim.
I said “potentially criminal.” “Hypothetically criminal” might be a stronger word choice. I was trying not to make a judgment call myself, but the fact is it’s part of the conversation. I don’t think we have remotely enough information to say what happened, if anything happened.
Unless Chris’s comment was tongue-in-cheek, it wasn’t an appropriate analogy for this situation. If it was tongue-in-cheek, then I apologize for being patronizing, but still stand by my point being valid if unecessary to make.
WW
Why did you assume it was about me. I never suggested that at all.
That was a hybrid of my recollections of behaviors of myself and others. Sure I was heavy but not nearly as large as a another boy probably 1/2 again as large as I. I watched him tear up daily at the insults.
It was an answer to SS that demanded someone to apologize for behavior when it harms another. That is all. I have stated here many times that bias is only seen by the person who feels that they have been harmed. Teens fail to ,or better put, unable to process the hurt they inflict on others. I understood it because I feared the abuse. I witnessed it as it happened. I cannot say I never participated in it because I know I did things to fit in and to avoid it from happning to me. Today, I would not be silent simply to avoid the ire of tbe crowd.
Whataboutism has nothing to do with my comment. It has everything to do with being able to do a little introspection.
I misread the intent of your comment, and I apologize. Thank you for the explanation.
You still-Spartaned Still Spartan, Chris – well done!
Still-Spartaned?!
The wheels are cranking…
Hmmmmm…….
Not trying to troll anyone. She has her biases and I have mine. We are all products of our experiences. Her experiences shape her ideas.
My only issue is when we seem to create double standards with respect to male and female interrelationships. One cannot demand that they are sexually liberated, where sexually aggressive women should not be slutshamed while simultaneously clinging to pre 1970 notions of the pure virtuous chaste daddy’s girl that requires protections from libido crazed males.
Be what you are and own it.
I don’t even follow. I think you need to watch the tea video I posted. It might help.
Exactly Chris.
Second try to post…
[in reference to (1) Chris Marschner’s Sept. 20 at 10:38 am and (2) luckyesteeyoreman’s Sept. 20 at 1:41 pm, and in reply to Chris Marschner’s Sept. 20 at 4:18 pm]
Chris, when I said you still-Spartaned Still Spartan at 1:41 pm, here is what I meant: When you closed your 10:38 am comment with, “For all I know you could be one of those girls from high school,” you put Still Spartan into the same position that she asserts Kavanaugh deserves to be in (accused, convicted, and condemned, based on belief of, and extrapolation from, an accusation alone). But you produced more credible evidence of…let’s call it a hostile environment perpetrated by some girls, than has been produced thus far to make a credible accusation against Kavanaugh.
Maybe you actually did not mean to do that. I don’t know. But that is what you did.
Kavanaugh’s accuser claims to be sure of one thing: that Kavanaugh was attempting to rape her. Being sure about the perpetrator and his intent, yet unsure about virtually all other details, is self-impeachment. In contrast, Kavanaugh claims unequivocally that he was never, at any time or place, in any situation remotely resembling what his accuser describes as the situation when she alleges she was sexually assaulted. Moreover, he claims he did not, ever, do what he is accused of doing.
For all that any of the rest of us can know, Kavanaugh and his accuser could have been at the same place at the same time, yet both too alcohol-impaired to give a credible, accurate account of who did what to whom.
Thus, all we have, and ever can have, in this case of Ford vs. Kavanaugh is a stalemated she-said, he-said conflict. Evidence is insufficient to proceed with even investigating, let alone “trying” the accused.
” Still Spartan on September 20, 2018 at 9:26 am
“Imagine someone you may have harmed.” Exactly, imagine someone YOU may have harmed. The onus is on YOU to apologize — not on her to come forward and make you apologize. And even if you think you did nothing wrong, hey just an indiscretion, she wasn’t into it — if a girl runs away you, jumps out of the car, starts crying, etc. then every single alarm bell in YOUR head should go off that maybe you did something wrong and that you need to make amends. Or, even if you think you did nothing wrong, it’s probably safe to check with her because that is what a decent human being does. And if you don’t do that out of fear that you might go to jail, get suspended, or heck — mommy and daddy might ground you for underage drinking or trying to have sex with a younger girl, then no sympathy”
In a perfect and enlightened world where everyone is self aware and able to view the world through many different lenses I could agree. But in reality I don’t think you’ll ever see this statement happening in practice. Especially with younger people who tend to not be as able to see the long term consequences of their actions.
Also we have the issue of perception. The recent fictional series 13 Reasons Why was a good example of this. The underlying premise I got from watching it, was how very different each person can perceive and be effected by a single or series of events. For the now grown Professor Ford in this scenario it may well have been a traumatic and life affecting episode. For the young man who could very well be a self centred, egotistical jackass at the time, just another night out partying and trying to have some fun. No more memorable than that. So both of these people may very well be telling their perception of the truth and how very different they remember of don’t remember the very same event.
To me at least, I think it’s not very realistic to believe everyone should seek out and try to make amends of every possible perceived offense that another might take. I can think of a few episodes from over 30 years ago. I still cringe when I replay an encounter where I mistakingly got my wires crossed and made a fool of myself with a young lady. Probably one of the most embarrassing things I can remember and it affected me all this time. To her if you searched her out and asked her about it now, I wouldn’t be surprised if she had no idea who I was or that I had been such a fool.
One last thing. There has been a lot said recently about memory and how well we should believe in it. I’ve done a lot of laymen research on the brain and how it works. There has been a lot of research on long term memory. The one thing that I’ve learned that really stuck out at me, is that all memories stored in our brains are in fact not locked in a safe. The very act of remembering a memory and playing it back in your mind does in fact change that memory in very subtle ways and in fact can and does evolve over time. I see it all the time when I’m gathered with family and invariably an old story comes up that I may have done or been involved with. Usually one that may have been told numerous times. It never ceases to amaze me that the story they tell of what happened isn’t the memory I have of the same events. The end result is that we both have our own version of the very same event. But at this point, it’s almost impossible to tell who is telling the truth.
Terrific comment, William. Comment of the Day. I am now about 5 behind…
*This* point needs to be repeated over and over and over until people get it. Though IMO we need stronger cultural examples than 13 Reasons Why.
The bitch can not even tell us where the place was.
Or the date.
Her statement would be insufficient for a civil trial.
Jeepers Michael, you’re eminently capable of expressing yourself without the pejorative.
“Jeepers”
You made me snort… what are you, Velma or Shaggy? 🙂
Just call me Tim Doughboy Tomashek, from Green Bay, dere…
https://www.onenewspage.us/video/20150521/2892987/Tim-Tomashek-talks-about-time-on-Letterman.htm
[reply to Paul W. Schlecht’s Sept. 20 at 2:17 pm]
But Paul: In defense of Michael, pejoratives are part of the new normal, be they express or implied. “Bitch,” in what I believe is a fair estimation, is (like I believe you are also thinking) so generalized, so potentially meaningful and meaningless all at the same time, it’s virtually irrelevant to Michael’s substantive context, for most (but not all) of us reading here. Yet, still, “bitch,” expressed explicitly, provides a crucial psychic “hook,” like the hook in a catchy song. “Bitch” expresses the writer’s judgment of the person so labeled. And, at least for those with biases similar to Michael’s, plus for additional “fence-sitters,” use of “bitch” is crucial to cementing a connection with the (receptive) reading audience. Its use is valuable for sustaining a compelling, persuasive alternative narrative – an effective counter-narrative to “lefty’s.” (It’s also a refreshingly honest admission of bias against the accuser.)
In contrast, “rapist” or “attempted rapist” need not be expressed; as long as such is sufficiently implied, it truly does not matter that it isn’t explicitly expressed. At its core, the whole spectacle we are discussing is simply a she-said, he-said conflict between Ford and Kavanaugh. The rest is just political theater. For those with biases against Kavanaugh, explicit mention of “rapist” or “attempted gang rapist” is unnecessary, because all that needs to be alleged explicitly is the vague “sexual assault.” More graphic terms only confirm Kavanaugh’s guilt in the minds of readers who are already biased against him and who will be satisfied with nothing less than his complete destruction. In the current left-friendly media environment, it’s a much easier ride for a female accuser of a male; whipping-up a narrative to destroy a male’s life is a piece of cake, heavily frosted.
Is use of “bitch” in connection with Ms. Ford misogynist? No – at least, not any more than use of “attempted rapist” in reference to Kavanaugh is misandrist. Minds are made up; for those whose minds are not made up, pejoratives serve to challenge, confront, court, and sway biases.
Each of two sides has chosen its respective “monster” to fight to the death on its behalf. “Bitch” and “attempted rapist” are terms naturally suited to this particular clash of “monsters.” Equal rights means equal opportunity to use polar opposite pejoratives in political theater. This (confirmation fight) is war – just a battle in a much bigger war, of course. Making-nice speech has no place in war; civility is for losers, the weak and weaker; civility self-defeats, admits defeat, and marks surrender. Bitches know that. “Monsters” know that. So, fuck civility.
So Michael: Keep using “bitch” as you have been using it.
Don’t fall for the speech-shaming gambit. Fighters against lefty “SJWs” are warriors, too.
As Stonewall Jackson once quipped, “There is never a reason to curse”.
I generally agree with him and will understand a person’s swearing in certain exceeding remote situations.
I’m certainly no saint in that realm and don’t think I was right to curse in probably 99% of the instances I did.
That being said, Stonewall Jackson’s absolute prohibition on tolerance of swearing is proof that he’s never kicked a bed post or the corner of his dresser in the middle of the night as he staggered to the toilet.
SPDT (Same Problem, Different Thread)
Michael, I have been trying for an hour to post a reply to your 10:13 am. No luck for Lucky today! Maybe this shorter reply will get through… Thanks for the laugh, per your last paragraph.
Your comments on this thread are needlessly malicious and do not add anything relevant or productive to the discussion as it stands.
More speech-shaming bullshit deflection.
I didn’t deflect anything: there was nothing to deflect. The referenced comments, up to that point, were either hyperbole and or added no information that hadn’t been discussed in earlier posts.
The pejorative is dehumanizing vitriol. We have plenty of that in our culture already. It’s not healthy for society, and it’s not a constructive or persuasive way to call out bad actions. That’s what I want to express here, and what I should have expressed more clearly.
I would never take away anyone’s right to express their thoughts or emotions. But I have as much right to do so myself in response to someone else’s speech, and I ask you to respect that.
WW, I am trying to reply to you, but at this time am using a computer or network that in an unpredictable way is prohibiting me from posting. I’ll have to try again later, via some other portal.
I honestly think the Justice Department should fully investigate everything surrounding the Ford letter that Senator Feinstein passed on to the FBI in the respect that it was intentionally providing false witness to the FBI, also investigate the intentional diversions, disruptions and attempts to somehow entrap Kavanaugh with the surprise appearance of Fred Guttenberg at the Kavanaugh hearings. How about assigning a special counsel to investigate perceived collusion surrounding Senator Feinstein.
Looking at this circus from the outside, it appears that Senator Feinstein has been involved up to her jowls with some really dirty stuff in relation to the Kavanaugh hearings. There might actually be some real collusion to intentionally falsely accuse and provide false witness to the FBI on this one which would also be both libel & slander for political purposes. I think everything that has happened to delay and/or disrupt the Kavanaugh hearings shows that there is some kind of active collusion going on to subvert the confirmation process, destroy Kavanaugh’s reputation, and subvert the Office of the President of the United States. I think there is ongoing active and genuine subversion, time to investigate.
Furthermore; any Supreme Court Justice or judge that is perceived as being pro constitution in general and therefore pro 2nd Amendment, not actively pro-abortion, and not actively supporting social justice warriors should be looking over their shoulder for entrapment setups from the extreme political left and social justice warriors. They should watch very carefully for anything that could possibly be twisted into a social justice warrior smears or anything that could possibly be used as a future conflict of interest and that includes innocently shaking the hand of any person on the planet. I believe their immediate families should also be very wary. The goal of the political left and social justice warriors is to disable the ability of any opposition to publicly oppose their agenda – whatever the hell that is.
There’s the conspiracy theory for the day, now discuss. 😉 😉 😉
Yes I know that’s a bit of a tangent away from Jacks blog but I couldn’t think of anything to add to his blog, he did a fabulous job with the topic.
Careful with those tangents. They can be habit-forming.
Maybe it is brave to reveal one’s historic cowardice to the entire world, knowing full-well that the ensuing shaming will be beyond conception. Maybe such newfound bravery is motivated by the realization that the dangers of silence regarding the misdeeds of one anonymous individual are vastly outweighed by the dangers of silence regarding the misdeeds of a Supreme Court Justice. I can only pray that I would be that brave.
Authentic Frontier Gibberish!
Son, you’re on your own.
Extra credit for the “Blazing Saddles” quote.
Bill wrote, “Maybe it is brave to reveal one’s historic cowardice to the entire world, knowing full-well that the ensuing shaming will be beyond conception. Maybe such newfound bravery is motivated by the realization that the dangers of silence regarding the misdeeds of one anonymous individual are vastly outweighed by the dangers of silence regarding the misdeeds of a Supreme Court Justice.”
100% of that opinion is based on the assumption that what Ford claims is irrefutable fact.
Bill wrote, “I can only pray that I would be that brave.”
You’ve already showing bravery Bill; you chosen your hero based on an assumption and then shared your foolishness with the rest of the world. You should make better choices regarding heroes and acts of heroism.
I am not asserting facts, or choosing her as a hero. I don’t know what has happened in reality or in her mind any more than the rest of you do. I am speculating about a possible positive motivation, and admiring the possibility.
wvalenti wrote, “I am not asserting facts…
And I didn’t say you were. Reread.
wvalenti wrote, “I am not… choosing her as a hero.”
I’ll take your word for it.
Shaming my ass… Ford just made herself famous with the left and therefore rich.
Gee, Bill, can you signal virtue any more transparently?
Half of the country is shaming her, half is calling her a hero. Considering only half of the consequences to an action is a mistake that keeps getting made over and over by both sides. And why would you think I am signaling my supposed virtue by posting here? Zealots of any stripe are not my crowd.
Welcome to EA, wvalenti. I don’t remember that name, so welcome if you are new. If not, welcome back!
“Half of the country is shaming her”
Can you cite that?
I have not seen anything but the Left calling her a hero.
If you can find someone daring to ‘shame’ her, it would still be a far cry from ‘half’ the country.
For what it is worth, your analysis of how both sides act is spot on. However, you won’t find zealots here at EA, at least not on the right. Most of us just want the same rules to apply to everyone.
Has anyone whispered to the Left that Roe isn’t going to be overturned?
That they are being whipped into a frenzy by the DNC because, as the DNC knows, at most, an originalist SCOTUS will only find public funding of Planned Parenthood as unconstitutional should such a case reach the Court…?
That, in the end, as several sources of laundered tax money and other extortion having been cut off by recent SCOTUS rulings, the real fear by the DNC is that another source of forced donations may be cut off?