December 10, 2017

"The huntresses’ war cry — 'believe all women' — has felt like a bracing corrective to a historic injustice."

"It has felt like a justifiable response to a system in which the crimes perpetrated against women — so intimate, so humiliating and so unlike any other — are so very difficult to prove. But I also can’t shake the feeling that this mantra creates terrible new problems in addition to solving old ones. In less than two months we’ve moved from uncovering accusations of criminal behavior (Harvey Weinstein) to criminalizing behavior that we previously regarded as presumptuous and boorish (Glenn Thrush). In a climate in which sexual mores are transforming so rapidly, many men are asking: If I were wrongly accused, who would believe me? I know the answer that many women would give — are giving — is: Good. Be scared. We have been scared for forever. It’s your turn for some sleepless nights.... I believe that the 'believe all women' vision of feminism unintentionally fetishizes women. Women are no longer human and flawed. They are Truth personified. They are above reproach. I believe that it’s condescending to think that women and their claims can’t stand up to interrogation and can’t handle skepticism. I believe that facts serve feminists far better than faith. That due process is better than mob rule."

This is an excellent NYT op-ed — "The Limits of 'Believe All Women'" by Bari Weiss, and I'm sorry I didn't catch it when it was first published, on November 28th. Why am I reading it this morning? Because I did a search of the NYT archive for the name "Glenn Thrush." (See it in there: "behavior that we previously regarded as presumptuous and boorish (Glenn Thrush).")

Why was I searching for the name "Glenn Thrush"? Because I remembered that the NYT reacted to the allegations about him by suspending him. (Here's the NYT announcement of that on November 20th.) Yet I see his name on  a big NYT article about Trump that went up last night "INSIDE TRUMP’S HOUR-BY-HOUR BATTLE FOR SELF-PRESERVATION/With Twitter as his Excalibur, the president takes on his doubters, powered by long spells of cable news and a dozen Diet Cokes. But if Mr. Trump has yet to bend the presidency to his will, he is at least wrestling it to a draw."

I am going to blog about that article in the next post, so please don't comment on the details of what's inside that article in this comment thread. Please pay attention to Bari Weiss's excellent op-ed, which is similar to some of what I said in my December 8th post "How the Franken & Franks resignations will, I'm afraid, end up hurting women."

The Weiss line I most wish I'd written is: "I believe that the 'believe all women' vision of feminism unintentionally fetishizes women."

And feel free to talk about how Glenn Thrush got unflushed.

ADDED: Now, I see the note at the bottom of the long article: "Glenn Thrush contributed to this article before he was suspended pending the result of an investigation into allegations of inappropriate behavior." So, he's still in exile.

86 comments:

Darrell said...

[The]'believe all women' vision of feminism unintentionally fetishizes women."

What if it's not unintentional?

traditionalguy said...

Is there a difference between fetishizing a women and objectifying a women? The shells are moving around too fast to find the pea these days. Does it have something to do with raising the age of consent...maybe to 65?

Big Mike said...

Long before I reached my 70th birthday I realized that most women are sneaky, devious, manipulative liars. My wife is s rare exception.

Matt Sablan said...

If Obama's administration were held to the scrutiny of Trump's, I honestly don't think he'd have survived in office after we learned he illegally wiretapped journalists. For almost any other politician, that would have ended their term.

rhhardin said...

Women's problem has escalated from not being believed to not giving a shit, to the extent it differs.

rhhardin said...

The whole effect is in the MSM and its woman audience. The guys dropped out long ago.

It's grazy ex-girlfriends gone global.

rhhardin said...

One on one, you can put up with a woman's shit if she's nice. With strangers intruding into your space, via the media, it doesn't work. There's no reason to care about it. It's all downside and no upside. Geez, women.

It's why stuff works out individually that can't work out globally.

It's never about taking women seriously. They're always women and it's always that dynamic.

rhhardin said...

Glenn thrush is a euphemism for yeast infection.

rhhardin said...

Take a great romcom like You've Got Mail (1998). It's Hanks deciding to put up with her shit and persuading her he's the guy to do it.

Humperdink said...

From the article: " An older conservative friend told me that he was considering reaching out to a girl he went on a date with in high school to apologize for kissing her in the car. She didn’t say no, and she kissed him back."

Oh puulease! This is what we've come to? These people are crazy. Certifiably ca-razy.

Darrell said...

Right now, The Reckoning is not subject to centralized control. Any woman can Tweet at #metoo and be heard--for better or worse. The Left is trying to position itself to take over after regular woman move to something else. Then they can fully weaponize the movement for their own asquisition of power.

Unknown said...

There are no longer sex misdemeanors, only felonies.

Jaywalkers are car thieves and car thieves are rapists.

- james james

Darrell said...

If we're going to fetishize women, I'm thinking black stockings (not pantyhose), three-inch heels and no knickers. This is helpful, right?

Unknown said...

The tragedy of the commons comes to sexual harassment.

Plan your game theory accordingly.

- james james

Humperdink said...

From the reading the article, my take is the author is concerned that once an accusation is proven false, the whole "believe all women" movement will come crashing down.

Never happen.

sykes.1 said...

When I was teaching in college, I had a strict "No Touching" rule for both men and women. Only a brief handshake when first introduced was permitted. Nowadays I would adopt the Pence Rule, too, and never be alone with any woman. I would add to it that I would not accept a woman as a graduate student advisee, nor would I mentor or hire a woman.

My wife teaches at what once was a selective undergraduate college, but what is now a mediocre girl's finishing school with a hive mind. The Borgs there prate on about the Patriarchy, when it is obvious to everyone that we live in a Matriarchy. The utter dishonesty about literally everything in our society is an indictment of the American people. If only Yahweh knew!

Darrell said...

I was listening to that reporter with a Trump story on Friday--about meeting Trump to get a soundbite on camera, then being invited to join him for an early lunch because he missed breakfast. After returning to the lobby of the Trump Tower, he told her that he asked his driver to drop her wherever she wants to go and then he said goodbye and gave her a peck on the cheek. She thought nothing about it at the time and had good thoughts about the whole encounter--until 12 years later when she was listening to #metoo stories and she she started to think maybe he had kissed her on the lips, rather than her cheek--or maybe it started on her cheek and slid to her lips.Then she thought that it was wholly inappropriate and totally unprofessional--and started to get sad, upset, and finally angry.

See? If you try hard enough, you can turn all your fond memories into shit.

Meade said...

traditionalguy said...
"Does it have something to do with raising the age of consent...maybe to 65?"

Works for me. Lovely wife is 66. Barely legal. Whew!

Humperdink said...

"Nowadays I would adopt the Pence Rule, too, and never be alone with any woman."

As a follow on, my rule is never be alone with a child not related to you.

Expat(ish) said...

@Meade - that is Roy Moore country!

-XC

Peter said...

I predict an unemployment crisis for young attractive women.

Nurse Rooke said...

Bari Weiss was a terrific behind-the-scenes editor on the culture pages at the Wall Street Journal; at the Times I believe she is also a commissioning editor. I love seeing her intellectually forceful self emerge in its propria persona. You might want to look up other columns she has written in the last 9 months or so.

FIDO said...

The internet ripped off the veil between the genders.

Women were able to read about some of the kinks that men had sexually, that before they kept strictly to themselves. Sure, they enjoyed and valued their vanilla sex with their wives, but once in a while they went out for a burrito with special sauce.

Men, meanwhile, got to read on Jezebel how contemptuous and frankly uncaring women viewed men. That 'secret' bit of talk that women shared over the back fence that no men in their right mind would try to overhear is now splashed all over the internet.

Which alas, is also a bit of a lie. A guy may be turned on by Nikki Sexx taking on 5 black guys with a bukkake ending but would be appalled at even THINKING of his wife in that role. He loves her and values her as his partner.

Meanwhile, the whole 'fence bitch session' that women share is frequently hyperbolic and over exaggerated.

But now both sides view the other with deep suspicion, with Feminists and MGTOW throwing gas on the fire.

Alas, considering the rampant destruction that the women are engaging in with (as it appears from the outside) almost NO consideration for what is happening to men, I like the Pence rule and I will probably give little benefit of the doubt to any non-familial woman.

Because that is part of the problem: the women don't seem to be wanting to walk back on this so much. Yes, this article is there. Will it actually do anything?

I doubt it.

Ann Althouse said...

"Fetishize" means "make a fetish of; to pay undue respect to, to overvalue" (OED).

1961 I. L. Horowitz Philos., Sci. & Sociol. of Knowl. v. 57 Present metaphysical attitudes fetishize private intuition.
1973 Screen Spring 198 The only way to avoid fetishising cinematic specificity is to examine it, as Metz has done, in a systematic and relative way.
1986 S. Orbach Hunger Strike i. 23 The preoccupation with food is linked with a fetishizing of the female form.

rhhardin said...

One on one women put up with men's shit too.

One on one seems to solve everything. A line is drawn that is good for both, or one leaves.

That's where country songs come from.

Not thinking of "If I'd killed you when I wanted to I'd be out by now."

Daniel Jackson said...

Big Mike sez: "Long before I reached my 70th birthday I realized that most women are sneaky, devious, manipulative liars. My wife is s rare exception."

Well, I'm two days from 68 and I learned this lesson many years ago from the Master: BB King

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1KOcM2aT9U

"Ain't nobody love me but my Mother; and she could be jivin', too"

So, if it holds for yo' momma; it most CERTAINLY holds for yo' missus.

rhhardin said...

Fetishize means sexual kinks in context.

Nibble on they tiny feet. Kliban

Meade said...

Expat(ish) said...
"@Meade - that is Roy Moore country!"

I hear you, X. In fact it's got me thinking — depending on which way the Alabama election goes come Tuesday, I just might move north across the Mississippi and launch my next brilliant career as U.S. senator from Minnesota.

rhhardin said...

If you want to center the war between men and women, a slogan like "Put up with each other's shit" would help.

It ought to color what serious means.

Ain't her mind.

Michael K said...

We probably got Obama as the result of one of those lying child custody accounts by the "aggrieved wife."

Jeri Ryan gave us the world of Trump, indirectly of course.

Expat(ish) said...

@Meade - Is MN the Alabama of cheese country?

-XC

PS - Really, we do need good people running for office. I am currently supporting a good friend who is running for congress. Not because I wouldn't be appalled if his agenda was enacted, but because he's honest and smart.

rhhardin said...

Feminism: why should we have to put up with men's shit.

Fritz said...

Humperdink said...
"Nowadays I would adopt the Pence Rule, too, and never be alone with any woman."

As a follow on, my rule is never be alone with a child not related to you.


Probably not good enough. Seriously.

Darrell said...

Probably not good enough. Seriously.

Sure. Go for full body cams, front and back--uploaded to the Cloud daily, and a chip implanted in your foreskin to detect erections, synchronized to the video.

rhhardin said...

Legend rewrites: Prince Charming decides to put up with Cinderella's shit.

It would fix the Cinderella complex that feminists are disillusioned about.

Saint Croix said...

Imagine a world where I was shouting, "Believe all men!"

I can't even say it, it's too ridiculous.

But when you cry, "Believe all women!"

I think that's my subconscious response.

Sexism causes sexism.

Racism causes racism.

Remember that the next time you think your sexism or racism is innocent. It's not. It's evil and wrong.

"Believe all women" is a stupid thing to shout, to believe, to say.

Daniel Jackson said...

Let's face it, the war between the sexes has been about forever. It's like that. We dream of a day it will end; but, probably never.

But, the current discourse, with the Always Believe (White) Women as the mantra, ignores important voices crying to be heard.

Again, listen the Master, BB King: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWLAAzOBoBI

Look at the reaction of the audience; and what an audience it is

Glen Filthie said...

LOL.

It’s always the same with proggie loons. They vow to end racism - and racism proliferates. They insist on civility and act like animals. So it goes: I’ve become something of a chauvinist because of it. Funny how it’s seldom the warm, attractive and loving women that get raped or molested, isn’t it?

It’s usually the HR fatties, the lonely old cat ladies, and angry crotch warriors and rage heads. Like someone else said, most women are devious skanks or clueless cunned stunts. With the exception of my wife I keep them as far away as possible.

Doug said...

I predict an unemployment crisis for young attractive women. Which will clear the field for unattractive women to corner the market on specious accusations with which to bring down the patriarchy.

Fernandinande said...

The huntresses’ war cry

LOL. These creatures are beyond parody.

NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...

Claire Berlinski wrote a better piece.

"Women, I’m begging you: Think this through. We are fostering a climate in which men legitimately fear us, where their entire professional and personal lives can be casually destroyed by “secret lists” compiled by accusers they cannot confront, by rumors on the internet, by thrilled, breathless reporting denouncing one after another of them as a pig, often based only on the allegation that they did something all-too-human and none-too-criminal like making a lewd joke. Why would we even want men to be subject to such strenuous, arduous taboos against the display of their sexuality? These taboos, note carefully, resemble in non-trivial ways those that have long oppressed women. In a world with such arduous taboos about male purity and chastity, surely, it is rational for men to have as little to do with women as possible. What’s in this for us?"

FIDO said...

Feminism is the response of the dowdy. Young attractive women already have all the perks and privilege that they want here and now.

It is this inequality which Feminism seeks to address. But instead of actually directing their ire at the young hot women who get this stuff, the Feminists, with usual female logic, direct it at the men who want and gift these young hot women. THEIR preferences are the problem, not the young hot women. Because their mom had to pay their cousin to take them to the prom or something.

Bruce Hayden said...

“Long before I reached my 70th birthday I realized that most women are sneaky, devious, manipulative liars. My wife is s rare exception.”

I don’t know why anyone would believe that women would be more honest than men, esp when it comes to sex. As I have pointed out before, dishonesty is implicit in the beta husband/alpha male sperm cuckold strategy that is just below the surface of many of our sexual mores (plus, very possibly, our sexual dimorphism). Plus, the disparity in size and physical strength between the sexes (part of that sexual dimorphism), gives females an added incentive to lie, in order to protect themselves and their children against male violence.

I think that a lot of women, like my partner, who have raised both boys and girls will tell you that the girls tend to be much more sneaky, manipulative, and devious than the boys. The boys, when they get in trouble, will do something like get drunk or throw a party, while the girls will be shoplifting underwear. The first girls I knew who had been caught doing that lived in mansions in a very exclusive part of town. And talking about manipulative - I know one mother who still tells of one daughter (ultimately another underwear shoplifter) practicing her expressions before the mirror starting at maybe 4 or 5. Crying was one thing, but her practice shrieking may have cost her mother some months of her life from fright for her daughter. One time, and after that, shrieking w/o cause was considered a major discipline infraction. The other expressions that she was practicing before the mirror were tolerated (but laughed at by her brothers).

Jeff Brokaw said...

This "excellent" op-ed as you call it Althouse had two early flaws that made me bail out:

(1) Roy Moore "molested" a sixteen year old - Really? Is this a fact that we can use in declarative sentences, now? Nope.

(2) "predator in the White House" - Again with the presumption of facts that just aren't supported by the evidence. Stop it, you make yourself look stupid and reactionary with bullshit statements like that.

These people need to embrace the power of "alleged". Right now.

Bye.

Anonymous said...

"But I also can’t shake the feeling that this mantra creates terrible new problems in addition to solving old ones. In less than two months we’ve moved from uncovering accusations of criminal behavior (Harvey Weinstein) to criminalizing behavior that we previously regarded as presumptuous and boorish (Glenn Thrush). In a climate in which sexual mores are transforming so rapidly, many men are asking: If I were wrongly accused, who would believe me?"

"New" problems? "In less than two months we've moved on"? Ruining men's careers for boorishness (or completely false accusations, or, simply, wrongthink re women) is a new phenomenon? "Sexual mores" have only recently started "transforming so rapidly"?

Where has Weiss been for the last several decades? I'm near retirement age, and this "men being accused and railroaded by feminist harpies and quailing, complicit PC administrations/HR depts./media" has been going on since I was young. A long stretch of time when I also saw criminal harassment successfully prosecuted, so that's not particularly new, either. Is the NYT finally noticing because not just the "wrong sorts of people" are starting to choke in the poisonous atmosphere?

Gojuplyr831@gmail.com said...

Jeff Brokaw,
Not going to happen. They have their narrative and will not deviate from it no matter what the facts may be.

Sykes.1,
"...prate on..." Wow, I thank you for this usage from the bottom of my cantankerous soul.

Meade,
You might have a better shot at being elected in MN than you think. They elected both Jesse Ventura and Al Franken. Surely the good citizens of MN could see your obvious superiority to these guys. Maybe throw in a few references to bachelor Norwegian farmers.

Paco Wové said...

I admit that I am unable to understand the mass hysteria that seems to have settled on a chunk of American women, loosely defined as the set of female Hillary! and Jill Stein voters, since the 2016 election. First there was the pussy-hat thing. Women were Marching! And Angry! Angry angry angry! Because! My spouse wasn't one of the Angry Women, so no help there in understanding things. I had friends on Facebook who were Angry! but I couldn't think of a polite way to ask "what are you being so hysterical about?" so I just tuned them out for a while until they calmed down.

Now it's boiling up again, and an assortment of men are being crushed beneath the wheels of the Juggernaut du jour. But why now? Is this just the logical next step in whatever wave of Feminism we're being subjected to? Or the unfolding of plans laid in the Obama time? Or an inflammatory reaction to the mere existence of Trump?

I think the best explanation I've heard is that these women were outraged that somebody as boorish in manner towards women as they thought Trump was could be elected. Flipping things around – if somebody who was cavalier and dismissive of men, somebody, say, like Hillary, was elected – would we expect to see public protest on behalf of Outraged Men?

Crimso said...

"What’s in this for us?"

I had a list typed out, but deleted it. Who the fuck is listening?

Jeff Brokaw said...

James Smith @ 9:05am

I agree, it's not going to happen, I was just explaining my new approach to qualifying what I will read and what I will bail on, i.e., whenever I see that kind of virtue signalling bullshit in a news story or opinion piece, it causes me to immediately discount the rest of it. Disqualifying event.

I just do not have time or space in my life any more for silly people who are sloppy thinkers and writers, and who cannot differentiate between a "he said she said" allegation with zero proof behind it, and actual facts.

Roy Lofquist said...

Well, that innocent until proven guilty thing only applies to criminal law, right?

Live with it, bucko. I guess you're not too concerned about spending eternity in a warmer clime. "Thou shall't not bear false witness" is right there along side the admonitions about murder and stealing.

It may be unseemly that innocents get hurt sometimes so that we're sure we root out all of the bastards, but it is a righteous crusade!

Thus do the pillars of civilization crumble into dust. William Blackstone, endorsed by Benjamin Franklin among others, wrote "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".

The Lord said "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".

Do you pseudo human beings really believe that ruining a man's life is the proper punishment for copping a feel or telling a dirty joke?

I can just see it - chained to a stove in Hell's kitchen, doomed to burn pots of mac and cheese through all eternity.

FIDO said...

Right Wing men, for the most part, have to behave like gentlemen. Not out of an excess of morality, some higher call, or just better upraising...but simply because if they even come close to crossing the line, they will get called on it and excoriated. Trump seems to be the only example in recent years who breaks this trend.

So all this damage is happening to the Left men and if Ms. Althouse is to be believed, to Feminist women. As they are those most suspect, they will garner the most negative reactions.

So once again, why should I care about Feminists or their Quisling males? I am already held to that standard and have been for decades.

Crimso said...

Strange women lying in ponds distributing Twitter accounts is no basis for a system of government.

Crimso said...

Wrong thread. Maybe.

Darrell said...

I was just reading something yesterday--I can't remember where--but the issue of a hostile work environment came up and the kicker was that the offending item consisted of a picture of the guy's wife on his desk wearing bib overalls--nothing showing--but you could see bare flesh on the sides and the assumption was that she wasn't wearing a bra underneath. $90k settlement, sure.

MadisonMan said...

Long before I reached my 70th birthday I realized that most women are sneaky, devious, manipulative liars. My wife is s rare exception.

Alternatively, she is so good that you can't see her deviousness. Either way, brava to her.

Men do not emerge into adulthood unscathed from encounters. Should I parade what's happened to me in the past? I just accept that the World is not a nice place, and no one gets from Point A to Point B easily.

Sebastian said...

"Good. Be scared. We have been scared for forever. It’s your turn for some sleepless nights...." Right. Prog women and their MSM enablers will stick it to us, good and hard. If Bari and Althouse can make them stop, great. But it will take a few years of effective policing of lefty discursive precincts to convince me that prog women have turned reasonable and worried about unintended consequences and concerned about men.

"I believe that the 'believe all women' vision of feminism unintentionally fetishizes women. Women are no longer human and flawed. They are Truth personified." It is not unintentional. It does not involve "undue" respect of an actual fetish. Women are truth tellers. They are human but superior. Their flaws pale compared to those of men. If Bari and Althouse can protect the culture against the new prog gospel, great. But in the meantime we need to protect ourselves against the ongoing transvaluation of values.

Progs want what they want. They want power. They want to overturn bourgeois culture. They want to smite the deplorables. They want it by any means necessary. Right now, the Reckoning looks like a very effective tool. They won't change what they want due to "unintentional fetishization" or other such egghead brainfarts. But we'll see.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ken B said...

I am sorry you didn't read it before you fetishized Rose McGowan.

Anonymous said...

Paco: Flipping things around – if somebody who was cavalier and dismissive of men, somebody, say, like Hillary, was elected – would we expect to see public protest on behalf of Outraged Men?

Would've loved to see their hats.

But why now? Is this just the logical next step in whatever wave of Feminism we're being subjected to? Or the unfolding of plans laid in the Obama time? Or an inflammatory reaction to the mere existence of Trump?

It's part of what Steve Sailer calls "the coalition of the fringes" sorting itself out -- various incompatible groups now vying for political power. All said, the old white-lady feminists are just so much deadwood that needs to be pushed out to make way for all the fresh young diversi-tay players. I don't think what's will play out will have anything to do with "the ongoing struggle for equality for women".

Trump is no more "boorish" than the men the pussy-hatters were always happy to vote for, they're just crazy and stupid and channeling their neuroses into HuffPo-approved channels. The thing is, the Dem party of the future doesn't really have any use for the white cat-lady demographic. Hillary is the icon of that demographic, and that's what makes her so pathetic. (That is, what would make her pathetic, if she were at all a sympathetic human character.)

MayBee said...

MadMan-
Men do not emerge into adulthood unscathed from encounters. Should I parade what's happened to me in the past? I just accept that the World is not a nice place, and no one gets from Point A to Point B easily.

Exactly!

We have created a moment in the culture where people are being led to believe that they have been uniquely victimized- now and historically- by either men or white men or white Christian men. And in the zeal to right any past wrongs, we are overlooking the boys we are raising into men and the message we are sending. We are sending the "victimized" people the message that boys and men have no problems, are confident and sexually assured, can get any job they want, and have nobody to tell them bad things about themselves unless we - the victims- speak up.

We are sending the boys the message that they are doing it wrong. That there is such a thing as girl power, that masculinity is toxic, that their problems don't matter because other people's are more important, that they are approaching sex all wrong, that they are rapists.

Do we really want the people these messages are going to create? Isn't there something about just dealing with your problems and assuming most people are doing the best they can right now, that all people have problems and insecurities, that all people can be hurt, that we should try to do less to bring others down. All people. Not just my group.

William said...

In the 18th and early 19th centuries duels were allowed. Despite that, some men went through long, contentious public careers without ever being called out for a duel. Then there were men like Jackson and Hamilton who found numerous occasions for dueling. I'm not saying that they were in the wrong in those duels, but it says something significant about those men that they were involved in such duels.......I think there are more women who are raped than there are men who are unjustly accused of rape. When men like Weinstein and Cosby gets accused by dozens of women, I believe the women. I'm not quite sure what to believe in the case of Woody Allen. He has only one accuser. I tend to believe her, but I wouldn't send the man to prison on just her word. I'd also be hesitant to terminate his career.....These things are not so easy to resolve. Prejudices, self interest, cultural norms that vary with the times--these are all part of an equation that has neve, ever balanced.

MayBee said...

I mean, in general, *why* do we women need to be told we are so wonderful and empowered all the time? Why do we women so crave a life built around the Althouse Rule?

(ps. Conflicting edits)

FIDO said...

I am thinking about how to un-ring the bell, how to get that horse back into the barn, how to re-virginize society...and very little is coming up because it is based on societal trust.

Principle means that occasionally one needs to eat one's own. Bill Clinton, despite being sexy and charismatic and 'the lone voice protecting abortion' (what rot!), needed to be sacrificed.

He wasn't.

So what is necessary now? The wider Left needs to strongly and stringently denounce Feminism. They need to make people believe that they are for nuclear families and are 'like us' in almost all ways except a few social movements.

I am not saying this is possible but that is what is necessary. Otherwise it comes down to blatantly discrediting one or the other side.

Anyone else come up with any other ideas? Cause I have no idea how you walk back from this? The very rare 'lone voice in the wilderness' ala Althouse or Bari isn't going to cut it.

Gahrie said...

I believe that the 'believe all women' vision of feminism unintentionally fetishizes women."

fetishizes: have an excessive and irrational commitment to or obsession with (something):

What makes you think there is anything unintentional about it? Everything about modern feminism is excessive and irrational.

Martha said...

sykes.1 said:
My wife teaches at what once was a selective undergraduate college, but what is now a mediocre girl's finishing school with a hive mind. The Borgs there prate on about the Patriarchy, when it is obvious to everyone that we live in a Matriarchy.

This is what Wellesley has become. Once a top selective undergraduate college for bright serious women, it has gone full Hillary!
Wellesley will mourn Hillary’s loss forever and deflect accountability away from Hillary herself. Hillary lost because of her own weaknesses as a candidate and faults as a human being. Shame on Wellesley that its leaders deny that objective truth.
Aggrieved feminism is not the route to happiness and self-fulfillment. Men are not the enemy.

Gahrie said...

What’s in this for us?"

Power.

Meade said...

MadisonMan said...
"Men do not emerge into adulthood unscathed from encounters. Should I parade what's happened to me in the past? I just accept that the World is not a nice place, and no one gets from Point A to Point B easily."

I'm afraid this may likely be in reference to the event several years ago in which I happened to be on shore as MadisonMan was stepping off his paddle board from Lake Mendota and I commented something to the effect of, "So YOU are the famous MadisonMan. Well well well, from your online persona, I would not have guessed you were so tall and handsome in your Speedos and nipple rings."

As per my recent mandatory Title IX lookism training, I need to admit to myself that even if I don’t remember everything about that event, or don’t believe myself capable of hurting someone, that it is possible I may have crossed a boundary and caused MadisonMan to feel unsafe.

#overthecomingweeksi'llbethinkingaboutresigning

Rick said...

I know the answer that many women would give — are giving — is: Good. Be scared. We have been scared for forever. It’s your turn for some sleepless nights....

Remember for decades feminists have claimed they only want equality. We've always known that isn't true. But now even the specific feminists for whom that was true are admitting they've known all along it wasn't generally true. By admitting they understood this but still defended feminism as searching for equality they're admitting they were complicit in pushing for favoritism.

Daniel Jackson said...

"Remember for decades feminists have claimed they only want equality. We've always known that isn't true. But now even the specific feminists for whom that was true are admitting they've known all along it wasn't generally true. By admitting they understood this but still defended feminism as searching for equality they're admitting they were complicit in pushing for favoritism."

So THIS explains why my feminist estranged wife is being such a male chauvinist pig in our divorce negotiations!

hombre said...

In general: Women are mean. Men are stupid. Outside of RHH's "one-on-one" scenario, this does not bode well for men in the short run. In the long run female sexbots will be perfected and the dynamic will change dramatically, very dramatically.

rhhardin said...

There's still Blair's Law, referring to "the ongoing process by which the world's multiple idiocies are becoming one giant, useless force."

rhhardin said...

The point of civilization is the domestication of the differences between men and women, not their elimination. Quite the opposite of elimination.

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

What should we do after believing all women and we find out that one of them lied, believe no women? "Believe all women" means not treating women like humans. If that's what they want, I don't think they'll like what they get.

n.n said...

Lynch the men. "Select" the babies. It's a material world, and girls just want to have fun.

Correction: female chauvinist pigs. It's worth distinguishing between the majority of women, and the male chauvinist pigs' feminine counterparts in collusion.

Sebastian said...

"The wider Left needs to strongly and stringently denounce Feminism. They need to make people believe that they are for nuclear families and are 'like us' in almost all ways except a few social movements."

Instead, Bernie is calling for a "cultural revolution." Avoiding "unintentional fetishization" is the least of it.

Bruce Hayden said...

“In general: Women are mean. Men are stupid. Outside of RHH's "one-on-one" scenario, this does not bode well for men in the short run. In the long run female sexbots will be perfected and the dynamic will change dramatically, very dramatically.”

To be fair, there is a reason why we are so stupid, and it sits between our legs. Prime Directive for male programming of most species is to impregnate as many females as possible. That means, for our species with hidden, year round, ovulation, that we have to be ready at any time, JIC opportunity presents itself.

In any case, I think that this is already happening - we are seeing the alpha males having an increasing percentage of the sex with women, with the betas getting cut out more and more. You see this in poor black communities, where guys brag about how many women they have had kids with - none of whom they support, of course (thanks to the Dems for subsidizing illegitimacy through welfare). But we are also seeing that dynamic in the hookup culture, esp on college campuses. (And, yes, through Islamic sanctioned polygamy). First problem is all the beta males who aren’t getting laid. For the lower classes, this means that they aren’t being domesticated, and instead tend toward pack violence. For the middle class, it means they tend to not buckle down into productive careers.

But it isn’t all roses for the females either, despite them being the sex getting laid. Statistics have shown that there are several things that are highly determinative of ending up in the middle class, and one of them is waiting for marriage to have kids. Beta women screwing alpha males doesn’t tend to lead to that outcome. They are effectively sharing the alpha males as bed partners, and there just aren’t enough alpha males to go around (which is part of why they tend to marry the alpha females). Screwing around a lot essentially reduces their marketability with the beta males that they need, if they want a husband, but won’t sleep with until then. Esp if the beta males they need to marry have discovered alternative sexual avenues, while they have been spoiled by sex with the more appealing alphas. and what guy in his right mind would marry a woman who had slept with a bunch of alpha males, just because she could do it? What makes the guys think that these women wouldn’t cuckold them the first time some higher status male made a move on them?

This is why the mirage of sexual equality is so dangerous, and really counterproductive, for women.

Air Crew said...

Your blogs are amazing, just listened to George Shearing, thank you!

Jupiter said...

The practical difficulty here is that we are criminalizing behavior which generally occurs in private and leaves no trace, except in the memory. The rule of "innocent until proven guilty" will necessarily strongly favor the perpetrators of such crimes. "Believe All Women" resolves this problem by eliminating the presumption of innocence. But at some point people begin to ask, just how awful is it to be the victim of a "crime" that leaves no physical trace? We used to assume that a woman who was not interested in sex would take pains not to find herself alone with a man, and women who took no pains probably got precisely what they were after, assuming the man was similarly inclined. Feminists have now won the hard-fought battle to be alone with a man. But men are less and less inclined to be alone with a woman.

n.n said...

Historic injustice, huh. The very model of class diversity that denies individual dignity and misses the tree for the forest. Sometimes referenced as racism, sexism, and other things neo-National D... whatever.

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

I should be given preferential treatment in getting jobs over privileged women to make up for their fathers, grandfathers, great-grandfathers, and uncles denying my mother, grandmother, great-grandmothers and aunts who were discriminated against. It's a hysterical injustice.

Jim S. said...

I skimmed through a Reddit thread recently asking men, "What creepy things have women done to you?" The number of sexual assaults reported was disturbing, but just as disturbing was the sheer number of stories where a woman said she would accuse the man of rape if he didn't do what she wanted.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/7h6rur/men_of_reddit_what_creepy_things_have_women_done/?limit=500

Bill said...

Another excellent piece, by Claire Berlinski: The Warlock Hunt.

Anonymous said...

In a climate in which sexual mores are transforming so rapidly, many men are asking: If I were wrongly accused, who would believe me? I know the answer that many women would give — are giving — is: Good. Be scared. We have been scared for forever. It’s your turn for some sleepless nights....


Well, actually, whats going to happen is some non-leftist actual man is going to have his life destroyed by a false allegation, and he's going to decide "well, I have nothing left to lose, so I might as well make sure they all lose, too!"

Then his accuser will die. And some of her friends and supporters will die. And maybe some of the people who publicly embraced "destroying men's lives just on an accusation" will die.

And a lot of us will laugh, and then say "gee, isn't it too bad when people decide to take justice into their own hands?"

Because that's what this is, "private justice." "You harmed me, and now i'm going to harm you. I'm not going to use the courts, and the laws, and have to follow all the rules and procedures we've set up to keep too many innocent people from being punished. I'm judge, jury, and executioner. I have judged you, now I punish you."

Thing is, that's a game anyone can play. And will play.

We conservatives don't have the social infrastructure the leftists do, for destroying people's lives. That just means we need to be more direct about it.

But if people keep this up, we will be. Because there were really good reasons why we set up a justice system in the first place.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Thing is, that's a game anyone can play. And will play.



They don't believe you.

Rosalyn C. said...

Surprised that no one mentioned the classic Bible story of Joseph being falsely accused by Potiphar's wife where he ends up in jail.
Genesis Chapter 39: 7-20 -- No, you can not believe all women.

Anonymous said...

Bad Lieutenant said...
Thing is, that's a game anyone can play. And will play.


They don't believe you.



Well, then they will learn