Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
How Can You… As a Woman?
In the wake of the Brett Kavanaugh allegations conservative women have heard a great deal of the following:
HOW CAN YOU… AS A WOMAN DARE QUESTION THE VERACITY OF THESE ALLEGATIONS?
Well, the simple, half-joking answer is: I’ve met a lot of women in my time. But here’s the real one: I’m a woman, but that doesn’t make me part of some feminist club, because the part of my value more than my womanhood is that I am the mother of sons and I am the wife of the greatest man I’ve ever known. If allegations of this nature were made against the men in my life, here is what I would expect and demand of the public: take into account their character prior to these accusations, and evaluate the credibility of the accusations and the accuser.
After the Roy Moore debacle, I set a personal standard for how I judge decades-old allegations. Do we have:
- Credible accusers
- A pattern of behavior established over multiple accusers
- A specific date and time of an incident
- Is it possible to pinpoint the two parties were together at that time and date?
- Has the story about the incident remained the same over time, or changed?
- Is there any physical evidence the two parties knew each other? A photo or a signed yearbook, for example?
- Did the victim tell anyone at the time about the alleged incident? Can the person they told verify those claims, and is that third-party credible?
- Is there any contemporaneous evidence that can be offered by the accuser? A journal entry, a letter?
According to this standard, I determined that the allegations against Roy Moore were credible enough to warrant his losing a Senate seat in Alabama to a pro-choice Democrat, and I was glad when he did.
According to these standards, I don’t find the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh to have much, if any, merit. The increased calls against conservative women who dare utter such a statement, that it is possible not to believe all “victims” is tantamount to losing your woman card.
Here’s a sampling of some of the things said to Senate Republican staffers since this sideshow began:
https://twitter.com/PhilipWegmann/status/1045070825920057344
https://twitter.com/PhilipWegmann/status/1045071416993943554
https://twitter.com/PhilipWegmann/status/1045071426183663622
Is it so much to ask that men be afforded the same courtesy as women when it comes to something similar to due process in the public arena?
Here’s the problem with believing all victims, always: Automatically believing all women means we must automatically disbelieve all men. They have no defense and shouldn’t bother making it. What a frightening precedent that removes men completely from public office, from the workplace, from existence.
That is not a reality that I, as a mother of sons or a wife, will stand for, let alone promote. If being a woman in the eyes of the Left means dooming the men in my family and in my life to a conviction before a trial, they can count me out.
Published in Culture
Oh … I don’t know … maybe because you are capable of critical thought?
Bethany, I’m afraid you’ll never be Congresswoman; you are much too sensible. You go Girl!
Amen to that, Bethany. Thanks for stating the consequences so succinctly.
I showed this to my wife She said “Because I’ve known a lot of women who are lying wenches.”
You know how Chrissy Ford, and her party of accusers would have shown true courage?
By revealing the shameful details of their own behavior, and it’s consequences 35+ years ago. That simple act of courage might have thwarted future attacks by the person who assaulted them.
The current vitriol from the left toward skeptics reinforces that there are zero facts to support the stories. All that remains is for them to forcefully bully people to submit to their will.
May we be spared more leftist derangement in our government this November.
Your list is a very decent one.
It is also important to take the person’s past history into consideration. Apparently the third accuser, Julie Swetnick, has had a restraining order put in effect because she was deranged after her lover and she parted ways.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/kavanaugh-hearing-julie-swetnick-restraining-order/
People are a lot more believable if they are not so Fatal Attraction-like.
I have a simpler answer to “How can you as a woman…?” Because #WomenArePeopleToo
And people outright lie and sometimes convince themselves of untruths for various reasons. One thing you missed in your list of reasons to believe (or disbelieve) women: Do we have evidence of a motivation for lying? Democrats have out and out told us they’ll do anything to “save” abortion. This is a political hit job.
Take the damn vote. Confirm Kavanaugh. We’ve heard enough of this nonsense.
Of course that would only be the case if this actually happened. Obviously, it didn’t.
The “as a woman” thing strikes me as profoundly sexist. I have always had confidence in the ability of women to reason. Apparently some don’t see it that way.
From National Review via Politico (emphasis mine; enjoy):
Also, I’d suggest that this wouldn’t stop with believing women. The real principle is that guilt and credibility are based on identity, and there are plenty of other ways for that to go today. Sooner or later they will contradict themselves.
Grievances to avenge and enemies to punish, and decent order and the pursuit of truth giving way to mob justice tied more or less to an ideology — we should recognize this pattern.
I’ve come to think of it as a tribe…and the “How Dare You” umbrage is tribalism at its core.
Also, too many women are gossipy, petty and vindictive.
I don’t find these women to credible. That being said, what if what they say is true. Am I not also to believe the 65 women who have known him for the last 30 years and vouched for his character. All the more reason I would want him on the court. If a man can go from being a degenerate to the person of character those women have described him to be for the last 30 years, I would artribute it to profound personal or spiritual growth. Who better to be on the court.
Here is the question. Why should Kavanaugh be given more leeway than any other man working / applying for any other job? If tomorrow I walk into my company and a womyn (much less multiple) made any of these allegations against me I would be gone. No push back, no people coming to my defense, no presumption of innocence, no real investigation, just gone. If I was interviewing for a job and a womyn came forward and made any one of these allegations I would not be hired, nor would I be told why I was not hired. So why should / does Kavanaugh warrant special treatment? Because he is government and not little people? Because he is of an elite class and has the pedigree to prove it? Because he is just a better man then the rest of us? I am having a hard time understanding his plight since he is just going through the same stuff many men go through every day and nobody cares that their livelihood, careers, lives, families are destroyed. But we are supposed to worry because some government bureaucrat gets a taste of what the rest of us deal with?
This isn’t about what did or did not happen at a party decades ago. This is about politics. Identity politics is always about the politics.
Courtesy of Stilton Jarlsberg:
This is about as good a list as one could hope for with he said-she said allegations from decades ago.
However, one key item I would add is: how does the accused react to the allegations? After all, most people have something unpleasant in their past, but we’re not electing/nominating that historical person but the person as they are today. Do they seem eager to exonerate themselves, are they willing to own up to any mistakes they did make, are they trying to stay civil even towards their accusers?
One thing that defenders of Roy Moore seem to have forgotten is how horribly he defended himself. There was a seemingly endless number of witnesses (including many staunch conservatives) who confirmed the fact that he liked to hit on teenage women and that lots of people found it sleazy. His defenders kept pointing out (correctly) that this wasn’t per se illegal. But Moore vehemently denied even dating/hitting on teenage girls as a 30-something – in other words, he repeatedly and vehemently denied actions that were both well-documented and supposedly harmless. He then also did such a horrible job denying the allegations of abusing the 13-year-old girl on Hannity that even Sean distanced himself from Moore.
Kavanaugh has been the nearly the opposite: while also completely denying the allegations, he’s literally opened his books for all to see, he’s admitted he wasn’t an angel as a teenager, and he’s been generally respectful of his accusers. That counts.
More than his past alleged indiscretions, Moore came off as a sleazeball in the present. Kavanaugh is the opposite.
So Kavanaugh should apologize for any pain he caused this womyn? Should he apologize for the pain all men cause womyn in order to be respectful?
Not at all, nor did I say that anywhere in my comment.
The proper response for an upstanding gentleman with nothing to hide is to a) not cast aspersions on the accuser (despite the incredibly deep anger he justifiably must feel), b) not try to pretend he was an angel in his past if he wasn’t, and c) be willing to answer questions and/or provide exculpatory evidence. Nowhere in there is an admission of guilt or apology to the accuser.
Kavanaugh has done all three of these things. Moore was quite lacking on all counts.
While there’s a good chance that Ford is fabricating the entire story, I think there’s actually an even better chance that she was indeed sexually assaulted as a teenager at a party by a boy whose identity she didn’t know at the time – just that the boy wasn’t Kavanaugh. And in the meantime, she’s somehow erroneously convinced herself (perhaps unwittingly but perhaps maliciously) that Kavanaugh was the perpetrator.
So there’s a decent chance that Ford actually was a victim of sexual assault as a teenager and that calling her story a total fabrication is both inaccurate and unnecessarily crude.
And that’s why Kavanaugh should just stick with his response that he wasn’t at the party in question and never met Ford, without calling her a liar or accusing her of fabricating the entire story – despite the fact that he would be well within his rights to do either.
Ladies, if you have never been falsely accused of sexual assault, please shut up.
I also measure the allegations against what we know about the accused.
As <span class="atwho-inserted" contenteditable="false" data-atwho-at-query="@maddy“>@maddy notes in Comment #13, we have 65 women who signed a letter, plus many other people who not only know Judge Kavanaugh now, but knew him decades ago, have painted for us a picture of a Judge Kavanaugh that is completely at odds with the assertions now being made. When new allegations are somewhat consistent with what I already know, I am more inclined to believe them. But, if you are bringing new allegations that are completely opposite what I have already heard, then you have a somewhat higher burden of proof to get me to discount what I have already learned and to change my mind.
Lest my view get discounted because I’m a man. This isn’t just limited to male/female interactions. If you accused a man I know of having defrauded you in a financial transaction many years ago, there are some men for which I would say, “Yeah, that may be true because that guy’s always been a little shady.” But, if it’s somebody I have known to be honest for a long time, I’m going to require more evidence from you.
Maybe the response to this statement should be, “How can you, as a citizen, automatically believe the accuser? Did you apply your standard to Juanita Broaddrick? Paula Jones? Kathleen Willey?”
Sounds like you tried to betray your assigned identity class.
In the New Order, one is defined by membership in identity groups as defined by the elite. The highest criteria is victimhood. All women are members of a victim class. All minorities are victims. It is important to understand that (a) victims may not betray their class by endorsing or even noticing facts that do not conform to the narrative of victimhood and (b) they must never look behind the curtain much less challenge those one would find there.
White males (normally the bottom rung of the New Order) will invariably be found running the New Order because of being “woke”. The “Woke” man has (through rituals of conversion) shed his unwanted identity and as a post-white individual, he is a higher being and ready to run the world for the protection and betterment of the various Identities. White women can be part of that elite if they can ritually establish their whiteness was a much greater determinant than their womanness. It is tricky but doable.
A member of a victim group cannot be “woke” because they have nothing to repent and therefore they must always await the pleasure and submit to the guidance (rule) of the post-white, post-male enlightened ones. The technical term for people who thus accept identity politics is “sucker.”
The psychic investment of the suckers and the power at stake for the elite is so great that vile, even violent behavior is to be expected if the New order is threatened by any form of reality feedback. Twitter is living proof of this.
A near perfect response to this perfidy. Thanks for showing me that not everybody is crazy.
Jury is out on that one.
Leftists are amazing. They turned Atticus Finch from hero to villain so fast I barely noticed.
Didn’t the answer to that used to involve something like a hundred-dollar bill and a trailer park?
If only she had a blue dress . . .
Procedural Question: If I used to be a woman by birth assignment but I am now a man, can I question a woman if the incident in question took place while I still identified as a woman? Is there a list of which of the 57 identities/genders can question a woman?