Some people think we should automatically believe any woman who claims to have been a victim of sexual assault.
There’s even been some clever wordplay where some phrase it as believing all victims of sexual assault.
Yes, even I almost didn’t notice the difference.
If they are victims of course we should believe them. Although if they’re victims, belief is irrelevant. They’re victims and something terrible happened to them. It’s not something I should believe or not, it’s the fact.
If it’s been proven.
If, however, there’s no evidence for the accusation and it remains a claim, then why should I believe it? Why should I believe any claim anyone makes about anything? I mean obviously it’s normal to (more or less) believe the banal stories that your friends and family regale you with – apparently it’s a conversation stopper and mood changer when you analyse their little stories to death and casually point out the things that don’t make sense – but when it comes to claims that could have significant consequences or are extraordinary, then surely it’s common sense to exercise extreme caution and only accept them as facts after a thorough investigation and analysis of the evidence presented.
There are of course, two major exceptions. The first is if someone claims there’s a god and gives you the list of his rules and regulations which you must adhere to if you are to escape his wrath and enjoy his favour. Forever. Although this is only if the person telling you is from your team … I mean religion, whereupon you must believe them without question, but if they’re from any of the four thousand or so other religions you must clearly see it for the made-up nonsense it is. The second exception to the don’t-believe-claims-that-could-have-significant-consequences-or-are-extraordinary rule, is if you get an email from a Nigerian prince who needs your help to bring $40 billion in gold bullion to your country and all he asks is for the $1,500 postage fee, in return for which he will give you half the gold. It’s not as if you can’t afford the money. After all, you must have received a text congratulating you for winning $30 million in some mobile phone lottery!
‘Believe All Women’ Is Discrimination Against Men
‘Believe all women’ sounds nice and lovely, but it’s not.
There’s a woman, she’s been through hell, she’s in terrible pain having just experienced the worst trauma of her life and she needs you to hear her, she needs you to understand her, she needs you to be there for her.
What could be more appropriate than that?
But let’s not forget the more alarming implication. That the man she accuses of sexually assaulting her is without any doubt, let alone any investigation, guilty of what is considered in this day and age and hemisphere, one of the most heinous crimes that can be committed.
And if he protests his innocence, we’ll take her word over his because we believe all women.
Even if you don’t know the official definition of discrimination, if you’re at all normal, something inside of you must be saying hang on a minute, is this really a good idea?
‘Believe all women’ is blatant discrimination against men. You’re treating men and women differently and specifically you’re treating men less favourably than women, because when it comes to sexual assault, you’ll believe the women who claim to be victims but not the men who claim to be innocent.
This is discrimination at its finest. You’re treating people differently based on (real) gender and giving one group of people power over another. Women are now able to destroy the lives of men with one unproven claim.
And this despite all the work the Western world has been doing over the last few hundred years to eliminate discrimination and champion equality. Because historically, most human societies discriminated against one or two or every other group.
Now there are two problems with discrimination and giving one group of people power over everyone else. The first is that you’re giving one group of people power over everyone else! The second, is that it’s very difficult to decide who should be in the group with the power. Inevitably, everybody wants to be in that group, and it is very hard to get volunteers to be in the ‘you can have power over me’ group. Historically speaking there’s always been some sort of altercation between the two groups as they attempted to sort out this intractable problem, and I’ve yet to be convinced that the process surrounding any decisions on this matter were conducted using the fairest of methods.
Even after it has been decided who is in which group, there was often a lot of nasty unpleasantness for the group without the power. I imagine this explains much of their desire not to be in that group in the first place and while it may be highly presumptuous to do so, I think I can safely speak for most of those in the oppressed group when I say that they didn’t like it very much.
Fortunately, there came a period when some people said enough is enough. Let’s not do this anymore. Why have a society where one group of people has power over another and uses it for their own ends and personal enjoyment. Let’s send everyone into therapy and they can sort out their feelings of inferiority due to a lack of personal achievement without effecting everyone else.
Yes $75 – $150 a session for a mere fifty minutes is expensive, but it’s even more expensive to rebuild that village the marauding hoard have just razed to the ground.
And so it came to pass.
The Western world decided that instead of giving one group of people power over another, instead of discrimination and prejudice, they would create a society where all its members were considered equal and where everyone had certain rights that couldn’t be taken away from them.
Fantastic.
But now there seems to be some regression. ‘Believe all women’ stands in direct opposition to the West’s ideology of equality and injects an element of discrimination back into society.
‘Believe All Women’ Erodes Legal Norms
Part of the move from discrimination and oppression to equality and inalienable rights, was the introduction of certain legal norms to create a fairer and more just society.
The Rule of Law means that authority comes from well-defined and established laws and not an arbitrary exercise of power. Instead of the king being able to cut off your head if he thought you were too ugly, you can only be punished if the law says you are guilty of some crime.
Due Process is a person’s legal right to be tried for alleged crimes properly and not in an unfair, arbitrary or unreasonable manner, which would be a violation of Due Process and the Rule of Law.
The Presumption of Innocence is the legal principle of considering a person innocent until proven guilty.
These were … settled … legal norms.
Then came the ‘believe all women’ rule, which is about elevating what women say over what men say simply because it’s part of an ideology (women: good, men: bad) some people happen to favour.
In fact, one could argue, and I think that’s what I’m about to do, that simply believing one side over the other is the antithesis of the Rule of Law, Due Process and the Presumption of Innocence. Not only that, but the whole purpose of the Rule of Law, Due Process and the Presumption of Innocence is to ensure that despicable principles which promote the arbitrary exercise of power like ‘believe all women’, cannot be implemented.
To actually ‘believe all women’ is therefore an erosion of legal norms.
Taking Things Too Far
Some will say that I’m taking this too far. ‘Believe all women’ just means don’t dismiss her claim outright; take her claim seriously. It doesn’t mean don’t believe the man, it doesn’t mean treat him unfairly and prosecute him on her say so.
Now I’m sure that some people understand ‘believe all women’ in this way. But I’m also sure that many do not. And understandably so, after all, the meaning of the phrase ‘believe all women’ does mean … and here’s the clever bit … believe all women. It’s not rocket science. And believing someone means you accept what they say as true. And it logically follows that if you accept what the woman says as true then you will believe and accept as true that the man she accuses of sexually assaulting her, is guilty. And if he’s guilty there should be repercussions. None of this is farfetched. It’s just the basic logical progression of the phrase ‘believe all women’.
If only the authors would have foreseen how their slogan would be misunderstood.
If only you could hear the level of sarcasm in my voice. But alas, the inadequacies of the written word.
So you may think I’m taking things too far, but that’s only because you don’t take the phrase ‘believe all women’ literally and to its logical conclusion. Others do, and many men have suffered severe repercussions – all based on an unproven claim which is an erosion of a person’s rights and blatant discrimination.
I’m sure that after my claim, you’ll want some proof.
Ok then. If you insist.
Campus Rules for Claims of Sexual Assault
There have been numerous instances of men being expelled from colleges based solely on a claim of sexual assault from a woman. If he can’t find another college to take him, then his earning ability has in all likelihood been destroyed (assuming he was studying something worthwhile to begin with and not one of those useless degrees that are simply an excuse to moan about how intrinsically evil you think white men are). If a year or two later, he can get back on track with his education and career then he’s ‘only’ had one or two years stolen from him. Either way, there has been a violation of legal norms and blatant discrimination.
Often the men must prove their innocence, instead of the accuser having to provide evidence of guilt. They can be prevented from gaining access to materials that would exonerate them and sometimes are not even allowed to know the name of their accuser, so they have no idea what evidence they need to produce to clear their name. This is the exact opposite of how it works in an actual court where there is Due Process and the Presumption of Innocence, which logically must mean that the campus disciplinary process is a kangaroo court.
A Ruined Life After an Accusation of Rape or Sexual Assault
After the mere accusation of rape, the life of the accused can be destroyed, and his reputation permanently ruined. He could lose his job, his apartment, his friends and any positions that he has in communal life.
When some sort of repercussion or consequence occurs as the result of an accusation, that’s more than just taking the accuser seriously. And if the consequence is being fired from your job or evicted from your apartment, that’s an erosion of the accused’s legal rights and if it’s based on the special believability of women, blatant discrimination.
The Left’s Decent into Madness over Brett Kavanaugh
In 2018 we saw a witch hunt launched against Brett Kavanaugh during the process of nominating and confirming him as a Supreme Court Justice, where one unsupported accusation of rape (yes more came latter, but the hysteria had already started) lead to the Left declaring him unfit for the job, demanding he not be confirmed and proclaiming that if he was, America would be ruined and the world would come to an end sooner than already predicted by climate change.
Now you may be wondering whether, had the nominee been on the right team and an adherent of the appropriate and approved opinions, who as a Supreme Court Justice would uphold the laws the Left like, there would have been the same reaction or whether there would have been the need to grant everyone immunity from the sacred principle of ‘believe all women’.
No, you’re probably not wondering. You know you’re dealing with the Left. You probably also remember the specific example of Hillary Clinton’s approach to the women who accused her husband of sexual misconduct – she certainly didn’t seem to believe them.
Now granted, the Left failed to prevent Brett Kavanaugh from becoming a Supreme Court Justice, but they still, based on one unsupported claim, judged him to be guilty of sexual assault and tried to ruin his life and career. The Senate voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh 50 to 48. But that’s still 48 senators who voted against confirming Brett Kavanaugh. That’s 48 senators who were prepared to impose consequences based on a woman’s claims. This means the Left and almost half of the United States Senators were prepared to violate Brett Kavanaugh’s rights and discriminate against him based on gender.
If you still think all that these people want is for a woman’s claim of sexual assault to be taken seriously then you haven’t been paying attention.
The ‘It’s Not a Court Case’ Excuse
It’s ironic but the Left think we’re stupid. “Can’t you see,” they explain patiently, “the nomination and confirmation process is a job interview not a court case. The same standards don’t apply. Of course we believe in the Rule of Law! Of course we believe in Due Process! Of course we believe in the Presumption of Innocence! Of course you can never convict anyone on the basis of what an accuser says, but that’s not what we’re doing! This is a job interview. A prospective employer doesn’t need to prove you’re guilty before rejecting you!”
Now this argument sounds good superficially. Find a difference between two things and assume that because of it something that occurs in one of them can’t or doesn’t need to occur in the other.
But perhaps we should take a closer look.
The essence of the Left’s argument here is that Due Process and the Presumption of Innocence are legal principles that only operate in a court of law, for criminal trials that could lead to a conviction or punishment. If it’s not a justice related situation, they simply don’t apply.
And while that’s technically true, it also completely misses the point.
Because the purpose of Due Process and the Presumption of Innocence was to create a fairer and more just society. Instead of arbitrarily deciding someone was guilty a person became entitled to a fair trial, instead of placing the burden of proof on the accused they are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. And while these two principles clearly only operate in a court of law, once we remember (or in the case of the Left – discover) the reasons for instituting them, it doesn’t make sense that for everything else it’s perfectly reasonable to return to the unfairness of arbitrary judgements and unjust treatment.
No, we moved to a fairer system of justice because we wanted society as a whole to be more fair and that means using some informal version of Due Process and the Presumption of Innocence, that says even in non-justice related situations I’m going to treat you fairly and not consider you guilty without some sort of evidence.
And yet it seems that there are some people who, when there’s no legal requirement for it, are prepared to throw fairness out the window. For them Due Process, the Presumption of Innocence and fairness are not good ideas that make society better and which we should live by as much as possible, but a restrictive standard that fortunately only applies to a court of law.
Let’s say Bertha accuses Chris of sexual assault but there is not enough evidence to convict Chris in a court of law, he can’t be legally punished, but everyone else can treat him as if he were guilty and get him fired from his job and thrown out of his apartment, because hey … being fair and just is only for a court of law!
So of course it made sense for the Left to consider Brett Kavanaugh guilty and demand he not be confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice. It’s not a court of law so there’s no reason to act fairly, it’s not a court of law so why not believe a random accusation and ruin his life because of it.
Yes, a job interview is not a court case, they are two different things but it does fit into the general ideology of the Western world that the legal principles that guarantee fairness and justice in court cases should not be completely abandoned when it comes to non-justice related matters.
And yes, a prospective employer doesn’t need to prove you’re guilty before rejecting you, they can decide not to take the risk, but they shouldn’t reject you because their unsubstantiated, private judgment found you guilty. The difference between rejecting an applicant based on the possibility they’re a criminal and not wanting to take the risk, and rejecting an applicant based on your unfounded personal verdict that they’re guilty of some crime, is the difference between reasonable, civilised risk assessment and using your subjectivity to bully someone and get your own way.
‘Believe All Women’ Is Subjective Thinking
I’ve heard many people say, “I believe her”. But they never say why. They just believe!
This is pure subjective thinking. They can’t rationally explain why they believe her because instead of being based on facts their belief is based on personal preference and feelings.
I suppose objective, logical thinking like Due Process and the Presumption of Innocence, is reserved for a court of law.
Why would we want to promote subjective thinking at all, let alone for matters of importance like whether a person is guilty of sexual assault or not. The more subjective thinking is encouraged the more subjective thinking will occur because people like to make decisions based on what they feel. Conclusions arrived at via subjective thinking are invariably much more pleasant than conclusions arrived at via objective facts – “I don’t feel that eating all this cake will make me fat”.
Subjective thinking is already taking over even those areas which until now have been the domain of scientific, objective fact. Feminists are subjectively arguing that women are no different than men. Fat people are subjectively declaring that being fat is healthy. Men are subjectively deciding they’re women and women are subjectively deciding … well I think you’ve got it from here.
Surely instead of promoting subjective thinking, we should be promoting rational, sensible, objective thinking. Surely that’s more likely to further the advances mankind has already made in academia, technology and medicine and make the world a better place than people deciding on the accuracy of facts using the principle: if it makes me feel good = right; if it makes me feel bad = wrong; supporters of such ideas = evil.
Subjective thinking is a ridiculous and appalling method of making decisions, but there’s another aspect to subjective thinking that most people do not consider. And that is subjective thinking is an expression of the personality of the thinker. This makes sense because subjective thinking is … wait for it … subjective.
To explain: If you’re not using objective facts and reasoning to make a decision but are instead relying on feelings and personal preference then your decision will be an expression of your feelings and personal preference.
So for example, when you subjectively decide to ‘believe all women’ and subjectively decide to consider someone guilty based on no objective evidence but because that’s what you prefer to think, or that’s what you feel like thinking, that says far more about you than it does about the person you’re accusing. It tells us the kind of person you are – you’re the kind of person that wants to judge someone as guilty despite the lack of evidence.
In case I’ve not made myself sufficiently clear, it says – and I’ll put it as nicely as I can – you’re scum.