If Joe Biden actually retains sufficient marbles to acquire the democratic nomination for President, a proposition appearing increasingly dicey, we can be sure that the #MeToo movement, feminists and the refrain “believe all women” will pass through even more hypocrisy than the self-righteous trio has already, which is, when you think about it, astounding. One would have thought that the longest-running of the alliance, the feminists, had already, as Will Parker sang in “Oklahoma!,” “gone about as fer as they can go” when they continued to cheer Bill Clinton after (and during) Monica Madness, and go on to anoint his enabler, Hillary Clinton, as the Coming Thing.
As I tried to point out on NPR in 2018, getting me blackballed for daring to explain a real phenomenon that could be used to benefit a President my hostess hates, whether or not sexual harassment or sexual assault is “unwelcome” and whether a particular woman should be believed often—let’s make that too often—depends on whether the man being accused is someone the Left doesn’t like or not. Unfortunately, this pervasive hypocrisy has undermined the credibility of such accusations, allowing the real predators who #Me Too should be squeezing out from under their rocks into the daylight to benefit from public cynicism.
This brings us back to Joe Biden, and his outspoken and none-too bright fan girl feminist, Alyssa Milano. She’s the washed-up TV star on the left above, not letting men regard her as a sex object.
Next to her, ironically enough, is outcast Harvey Weinstein rape victim (I believe her), Rose McGowan, who has become the most relentless #MeToo Fury on Hollywood Twitter, frequently calling out the phonies in her former profession. This week McGowan unloaded on Milano for joining Hollywood and the mainstream news media in pulling their metaphorical wagons around Biden after a former staffer accused him of aggravated sexual assault involving Joe’s finger, executed many years ago when Joe was considerably more spry, and still knew his fingers from his toes. As you probably have noticed, the news media’s coverage of this story, save for Fox News, has been less than thorough.
Gee, I wonder why that would be? I’m pretty sure it isn’t because Biden’s accuser’s name sounds like that of one of the stars of “Sharknado.”
“You are a fraud,” McGowan, 46, tweeted to Milano “This is about holding the media accountable. You go after Trump & Kavanaugh saying Believe Victims, you are a lie. You have always been a lie. The corrupt DNC is in on the smear job of Tara Reade, so are you. SHAME.”
Milano ducked the attack, but she really does deserve to be the poster-woman/child for #MeToo dishonesty.
Tara Reade, who worked at Biden’s Senate Office in 1993, accused Biden earlier this month of inappropriately touching her without consent multiple times. “He just had me up against the wall,” Reade alleged in an emotional interview with Katie Halper. “His hands were on me and underneath my clothes, and then he went down my skirt, but up inside it.” Ew.
This was an interesting test for Joe, who in the course of his pandering to whatever groups he thought he needed to finally get a Presidential nomination had said that all women who make such accusations should be believed. It was an especially interesting test since women who make such accusations against serial harassers like Biden, whose apparent belief that all women exist for him to kiss, hug, sniff and fondle without their consent is a matter of photographic record, make such accusations a bit more than just “she said/he said.”
Joe, as we all knew he would, flunked that test. Biden’s Deputy Campaign Manager and Communications Director, Kate Bedingfield, delivered the official response to Reade’s allegations, saying, “Women have the right to tell their story, and reporters have an obligation to rigorously vet those claims. We encourage them to do so, because these accusations are false.” This reduced “believe all women” to “investigate the claims of all women,” a much fairer and more reasonable policy (ethical, even) that feminists and #MeToo-ers—like Alyssa Milano! Hillary Clinton! Joe Biden!—had previously rejected.
Milano, for example, had instantly “believed” Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s late-hit accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, because all women should be believed, but mostly because he was a conservative jurist nominated to the Supreme Court by a President that her party, her community, and her mob detested.
The same September day in 2018 when Ford revealed in The Washington Post that she had suddenly recalled an unsuccessful sexual assault by a still-juvenile Kavanaugh at a prep school party that nobody, including her, could place in time or space, Milano tweeted, “I stand in solidarity with Christine Blasey Ford. #MeToo.” Ten days later, she wore a “Believe Women” sash at a D.C. protest.
Ah, but you see this woman–and a weaker and more suspicious accusation it would be difficult to imagine—was attacking someone Milano opposed politically as well as chromosomally. Joe Biden, however, whom she has endorsed as the best chance to remove the human contagion from the White House, warranted a more nuanced approach, or as Ralph Kramden used to say when trapped, “Huminahuminahumina..”
“I did my work and I spoke to Times Up and I just don’t feel comfortable throwing away a decent man that I have known for 15 years in this time of complete chaos without there being a thorough investigation. I am sure that mainstream media would be jumping all over this as well if they found more evidence. I sent the MeToo tweet over two years ago and I never thought it would be something that was going to destroy innocent men. We don’t want that to happen either. So we have to find this balanced in the Believe Women movement and also giving men their due process and realizing we are destroying lives if we publicly don’t go through the right steps in order to find out if an accusation is credible or not.”
A few final comments:
- “Believe all women” is, and always has been, anti-male bigotry and anti-due process crap. “Believe all women when they accuse Republicans and conservatives,” also known as “The Anita Hill Variation,” is worse.
- “I am sure that mainstream media would be jumping all over this as well if they found more evidence.” Right. I’m sure, Alyssa.
- Reade’s accusation is suspicious for many of the same reasons Blasy-Ford’s were, though her story is a lot more credible (and Joe wasn’t a teenager, when the alleged assault occurred). However, Biden ought to be judged by the standard he was willing to impose on others.
- There is no reason under the stars why Milano’s opinion about anything should matter or be any more persuasive than the rants of random beauty parlor patron, but such is the brain-melting distortion wrought by celebrity and social media.
- No movement that looks to the likes of this actress for wisdom and leadership deserves to be taken seriously.
Ethics Alarms 
-Abigail Williams, Salem, 1692.
Bingo. And again, “Suuuure.”
I haven’t chimed in much about the whole #MeToo business, mostly because I haven’t disagreed with anything written here regarding the ethical dilemmas in a movement that, while trying to defend women against sexual assault and sexual harassment, has jettisoned due process and fairness, and often reeks of weaponizing against political adversaries.
That being said, take in isolation, Milano’s statement is what we should desire, especially in her statement, “So we have to find this balanced in the Believe Women movement and also giving men their due process and realizing we are destroying lives if we publicly don’t go through the right steps in order to find out if an accusation is credible or not.” Now, I do not for a second believe she is truly contrite and has had an honest change of heart, but she is now on record having reversed the stance she took on Kavanaugh. If she flips again when there is another unsubstantiated accusation against a prominent Republican (which I have no doubt she would), that continues to build the case of hypocrisy. Of course, that only means anything if people had the memory and the attention span to notice…
However, one item grabbed my attention. “However, Biden ought to be judged by the standard he was willing to impose on others.” I want to agree with this, but I find myself hesitating to do so, even in light of what someone, somewhere said, “For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.” Or perhaps my dilemma is precisely because of this. Biden will be judged (at least in the hereafter) based on the measure he gave, and so there is condign justice in dealing with his own #MeToo nightmare. But dare I judge Biden on that scale? Dare society judge Biden on that scale?
I would rather put forward that we have a rule of law that includes fairness and due process, the measure I want to give is that standard of law. The “Believe All Women” standard is not ethical, and not one I would want to become our standard. Even if there is evidence, there should be a trial and conviction before we jettison the “innocent until proven guilty” that has been a bedrock of our system. And this is the same standard I would want applied to Biden. Yes, there is a mountain of evidence that shows that he’s creepy, that he touches and invades personal space, but those are not crimes. The accusation leveled against him, and once again suspiciously timed to derail his political ambitions, are of an actual crime. Yes, the creepiness makes the accusation all the more credible, even makes it more likely that it truly did happen, but I would not want to rest justice on probabilities. I would want to rest justice on “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Great commentary Ryan. I am willing to allow her to change her mind provided she makes a full mea culpa regarding those she used her celebrity to smear. Perhaps, with her new found sense of fairness she can channel he energies into helping young women AVOID the likes of Weinstein and others in the trade instead of allowing it to occur and then using it as a weapon.
Well and truly said. It may not be “fair” that Biden receive the benefit of due process after refusing to support it for ideological opponents, but that isn’t a reason for us to reciprocate in kind.
As Gandalf Stormcrow sagely observed; “Do not be eager to deal out death in judgment, for even the very wise cannot see all ends.” Mandating a man suffer judgment by his own standard may be “fair,” but only in a Karmic or vengeful way. It is not the standard for which we should advocate.
It’s too easy, especially these days in the height of partisan discord, to wish upon others that which they wish upon you. It is, however, manifestly unethical, even if deliciously satisfying to our sense of vengeance. It is a rejection of the Golden Rule, and one to which, however it appears to balance the cosmic scales, even the very wise cannot see all ends.
But we needn’t see it, do we? We know it’s wrong. I nominate a COTD for Ryan.
Your position is EXACTLY mine regarding both Milano and Biden. But by “However, Biden ought to be judged by the standard he was willing to impose on others.” I thought I was clear—I guess I was not.
My point is that he is obligated to accept her accusation and take the reputational consequences, or he should recant what he said before completely, and admit he was pandering. He doesn’t face any legal proceedings or consequences. Nobody, including me, will have a chance to judge the facts. But I can judge HIM a pandering, flip-flopping, lying asshole if he suddenly says that the only women who shouldn’t be automatically believed are the ones he either assaulted or those who say he did.
Neither Bill Cosby nor Harvey Weinstein ever said, “Believe all women.”
I think I misunderstood this also. Well said.
My fault.
Jack, thanks for the clarification! For a clarification of my own, my comment was as much a monologue on my interior struggle on the topic as a disagreement with what I thought your point was. What I thought your point was resonated with me and made me do some interior evaluation about what I really wanted to see.
My problem with the Milano statement you quoted is the use of the weasel word “credible.” They get to define credibility, so Kavanagh’s accusers are “credible” and Biden’s are not. This allows them to look more fair and nuanced when their opinions haven’t changed at all.
Oh, this is so right, and under-remarked.
“They” are so sure “they” are right, no disagreement can be allowed. “They” have pure motives, and their opponents, evil. “They” should get to say what right and wrong is, and the rest of us proles must accept their revealed wisdom. “They,” by their own definition, cannot be wrong, mistaken, or deceptive.
“We,” on the other hand…
I meant to write something about this a long time ago but I lost the source post and forgot about it: The phrase is “Believe Women” not the “Believe All Women” which has been misused and misquoted. The latter is particularly popular in quotes from Joe Biden.
Were we meant to believe that ALL women was intended by “Believe Women” in the first place? Damn right. It’s a nasty trick, and it worked. The word “ALL” isn’t used by those who invented it, who are self-elected to speak for it. Simply leaving out “all” results in a powerful two-word rallying cry that conveniently accommodates wiggle room for the insertion of the word “SOME” and that, of course, is how it is excused and turned on their enemies of choice.
Ethically, it seems to me, I can continue to use the phrase, emphasizing the A-word as those who believe it do, as if it came from holy scripture. It’s the ultimate argument against “Believe Women” after … all.
Oh, no, the “all”/”general category” bait and switch again! Both phrases have almost 2 billion results on Google. Since it is clear, and has been, that what is meant is “Believe any accusation from a women against a man, whether or not she has any corroboration, and the man should be presumed guilty,” I’m not about to accept the “Oh no, all we were saying that women shouldn’t be automatically DISbelieved” lie. That has NOT been what we have been told, and that is not what we have seen. (“I believe Anita Hill’) Ironically enough, it’s Clintonian deceit.
I wonder, as the universe itself twists into shapes which seem consciously designed to spotlight the establishment’s hypocrisy, whether to consider this a divine political chastisement or the natural result of making dirty politics the primary mode of operation, the ships associated with each and every one of their individual hypocrisies coming in seemingly all at once in sort of chain-reaction. It would seem “God or nature’s God”, as they say on the internet, has it in for the party of issuing bad intellectual checks. Somehow it reminds me of those scenes in Ghost when the screaming shadow spirits come for the souls of the unjust. Maybe I should pity them, but I think I’ve been waiting for this my entire life.
But then, they aren’t exactly experiencing comeuppance, right? It’s more as though the phenomenon is a grand universal warning. It has more prophetic sense than chastisement – more tornado siren than tornado.
Not that the DNC is the whore of Babylon, of course (obviously that’s Europa, from Greek myth, consorting with the Pagan god Zeus in the form of a beast), I’m just being poetic. Regardless, Biblical prophecy or not, the bad actors are flagrantly shown to be bad actors, and their support still pours in from masses drunk on their indulgent lies (which by now we can be sure they know are lies, and they know that we know that they know). Nobody is being deceived. As certain as I am that the sun will rise tomorrow, this can only continue to get worse, and it’s just so much fun to watch.
“Reade alleged in an emotional interview with Katie Halper. “His hands were on me and underneath my clothes, and then he went down my skirt, but up inside it.” Ew.”
Wait wait wait wait wait…. Hold on. Just a second. I have a second question; Did Joe Biden just get accused of pussy grabbing? Does that mean he has to beat the hell out of himself?
If I remember correctly, she did claim that she reported it at the time.
Though not to the police, which is what she should have done, and what any woman should do if any man sticks his finger in an orifice unasked. And this again raises the situation I described on NPR that got me blackballed. The victim at thte time is conflicted, she likes an admires the man and decides to let it go out of loyalty, or maybe because she is secretly flattered. Then, decades later, when her opinions of the man have changed, she reframes how she felt about the assault THEN.
All women should be heard. If Tara Reade is credible, then sure, Joe Biden should drop out. If he doesn’t, and is elected anyway, I believe your test is that the election has cleansed him of this sin and any others involving groping, sniffing, creepy uncle comments, etc.
As for the picture above, that is from Charmed, a popular show about three witches taken about 20 years ago. There is a zero percent chance that the actresses had a say in their costumes. Now, if you’re saying that Hollywood is shameless in promoting women as sexual objects, then I agree with you.
1. All women should be heard is unquestionably correct, and about a million miles from “All women should be believed;” when Blasey Ford was heard, she should have been told, “Fine, come back when you have details and a witness.”
2. If voters know a fact about a candidate and he’s elected anyway, absolutely. The slate is wiped, and all that matters is what happens going forward.
3. Of course it’s from Charmed…Milano has two TV series as credits, plus a supporting role in a Reese Witherspoon movie and one of the three made for TV Amy Fisher movies. Yes, actresses who make their fame and living portraying women as sex symbols, are estopped from grandstanding about the cultural attitudes they help create. I also don’t care to hear actors who shoot 50 people in their action movies talk about gun control. I don’t blame actors for taking the work they’re offered, but their choices have consequences.
Re No. 1 – I don’t agree with you. Sometimes (frequently), the only witness is the alleged victim. That person should be heard and judged whether he/she is credible.
Re No. 3, that’s ridiculous. Should the same test apply to attorneys? If you’re a highly paid criminal defense lawyer, and you have successfully defended some of the worst people in history, should you be judged for that?
1, I didn’t say I would say that to all accusers, just suspiciously timed partisans who have waited 30 years and can’t even say when or where the party is—Blasey Ford’s accusation wasn’t like a Cosby accuser, no witnesses, but plenty of corroborating detail..
3. Well, let’s get the analogy straight. If a defense attorney uses stunts, media manipulation and race-baiting to gain fame by defending an obviously guilty client successfully, say, Johnny Cochran with OJ., no, I don’t care to hear him preaching about how TV has made high profile case defenses like a circus to the detriment of justice and public trust. If that’s the analogy, damn right it applies to lawyers.