Not all the time of course.
If they say they’ll be ready to go out in five minutes, there is a tiny possibility you could be waiting a smidgen longer.
Or more.
But when they say they have been sexually abused, you must believe their version of events.
Forget the fact that people lie. Forget the fact that memory is not that reliable. Forget the fact that people are vindictive. Forget all that.
There’s a new law of human nature.
A woman will never ever lie about sexual abuse.
At least, that’s what they say.
Some posit the following logical explanation:
No one wants everyone else to know that they have been sexually abused. Ergo, (Sorry. It felt like an ergo moment. It’s certainly shorter than writing therefore. Don’t worry – I noticed the irony) if they tell you that which they wouldn’t want you to know, it must be true.
The truth is, there is something to it. There always is. There is a stigma attached to being sexually abused. There’s no getting around that. It’s not the same as accusing someone of keying your car.
But on the other hand there is the element of vengeance and retribution. It’s not impossible that a woman would want to take revenge on a man for some reason. Maybe he didn’t open the door for her. Or worse, maybe he did. Maybe he liked her enough to ask her out, or even more catastrophically maybe he didn’t. Or maybe he really was just an unpleasant male that she thought did something that was worth some kind of retribution. And if a woman hates you to the point of taking revenge, it can’t be impossible for her to put herself in an embarrassing position to get back at you.
Especially in this day and age. Where sexual abuse is right up there on the list of the top two most evil things that can be done by a human being, along with the even more egregious sin of ‘disagreeing with me’. Society looks upon abusers with a most severe eye and the mere mention of a possibility of a suspicion of it, can ruin a man’s life.
Yet people still wonder what she gets out of it.
If I haven’t made it clear, I’m suggesting that one of the things a woman can get out of a false accusation of sexual abuse, is revenge.
And the sympathy and respect that millions of people have towards real victims of abuse.
Oh, and not to mention the million dollars raised for them by the person who started their gofundme page.
Was that really so difficult for them to work out?
I suppose so.
There is also something even more problematic in giving one group of people power over another.
And that is, that you’re giving one group of people power over another.
Now if at this point you’re asking the obvious question, what’s wrong with giving one group of people power over another, I would like to alert you to the fact that apart from being totally immoral it is also 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 has always been some sort of altercation between the two groups as they attempted to sort out this intractable problem.
Even after it has been decided who is who, there is 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.
Dictators have had power over their subjects, men over women, whites over blacks, religious priests over their followers.
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.
Then came a period when some people said enough is enough. Let’s not do that 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 and their depression 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 raised to the ground.
And many agreed.
No one group should have power over another. We tried it in the past and I’m not convinced that for a lot of people, it worked out too well. Let’s not do that again.
Then during the period of time when this idea of one group not having power over another was being implemented, a problem arose. You see, while some people genuinely thought the whole thing was a good idea, others thought it was a good idea, but that their group should be an exception.
I’m not sure this problem has actually been solved.
But we worked hard and lo and behold, did quite well. The idea that one group of people should have power over another is now considered immoral by most members of our enlightened, civilized society.
Well done ancestors!
Sadly however, though not for those who like to have power over others, some people are trying to bring it back.
Yes, two thousand years of cultural evolution, enlightenment, scientific discovery and we seem to have either left some co-members of our species behind or we’re in the middle of a dramatic reversal of direction.
Though we’re being very responsible about it. We’re not giving the power back to the groups that used to have it. Oh no. That would be wrong. Instead, some people want to give it to precisely those groups who were the victims during the first round, so that now they can have a turn at being the abuser.
It’s only fair after all. And this is the era of equality.
In fact, some go further (Mark Hamill – without mentioning any names) and suggest that all power be given to women, since it was men who messed everything up so royally in the first place.
Faultless logic as always from Hollywood.
At least in their malfunctioning minds.
You can always count on them to live in a fantasy world. That is their job after all.
Let’s analyse what he said, using what I hope is some basic common sense.
I’m sure you’ll let me know the precise point at which I go wrong.
It does seem to be the case that most of humanity’s leaders in the past were men. And that most leaders were dictators / monarchs / autocrats. That means powerful and probably evil with it.
Isn’t there some saying about power and corruption?
Yes.
But, and here’s where it gets interesting, (not really. I’m just being sarcastic for the idiots) most men were not dictators.
In fact, since being a dictator means you are the leader of your country, and since there must be fewer rulers of men then there are men, otherwise … well you’d have a mess, so the number of evil dictators was unavoidably only a tiny fraction of the total number of men.
Here, let’s put that in an equation:
$$normalsizeleft( frac { number; of; bad;leaders }{ number;of; men;being;led } right) ; times ; 100;=;percentage;of; bad; men$$
$$normalsizeleft( frac { no.;of; bad; leaders }{ no.;of;men; being;led } right) ;times ; 100\ \ ;=;percentage;of;bad;men$$
Let’s suggest an example:
$$normalsizeleft( frac { 10,001; (the; Duke;had;men) }{ 1,000,000 } right) ;times ;100;=; 1%$$
$$normalsizeleft( frac { 10,001; (the; Duke;had;men) }{ 1,000,000 } right) \ times ;100;=; 1%$$
This means that the number of not necessarily evil men would be quite large. Let’s have another equation:
$$normalsize100%;-;percentage;of;bad;men\ =;percentage;of;not;necessarily;bad;men$$
$$normalsize100%;-;percentage;of;bad;men\ =;percentage;of; not; \ necessarily;bad;men$$
Plugging this in to our above example:
$$normalsize100%;-;1%;=;99%$$
In summary, this is saying, that 99% of men were not necessarily bad.
Now you may argue, but wait a minute, I’ll bet that if any of those 99% of not necessarily bad men would become the ruler or one his men, he would transform into a bad person. After all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts … well you all know how that ends. If not, you should have looked it up when I mentioned it before.
The problem with the above logic, is that it ends the argument to give women a turn to be in charge. They would be just as bad as men, because power corrupts.
Of course there will be those who will argue that the above rule does not apply to women. After all, we haven’t any evidence that it does. The rule was formulated based on the behaviour of men who had power over others. Who knows if the principle would stand if women were given power.
I do.
And it does.
Proof:
All the false rape accusations that occur once you give women the power over men that comes from believing all women without any evidence.
Aside from the ridiculous convenience of giving parameters to rules that favour your own argument.
And as for women being able to do a better job, well it’s easier to do a better job once you’ve got running water, fast food and an endless supply of toilet paper.
Really, it’s not that surprising that with the increase in number of people who have what to eat and a roof over their head, there was a decrease in people trying to kill each other and take their stuff.
Who would have guessed.
Yes I’m saying it’s easier to be a leader in the most technologically and morally advanced era of all time – so far. And that there may be a teeny tiny correlation between these two variables.
But in a time of scarcity and poverty, ie. all of time apart from the last three quarters of a century, where disease ran rampant and the death toll from … well everything was sky high, when everyone was miserable because life stank and not only because the streets were also the sewers, where technological advancement was limited and medical cures usually included the consumption of things you and I would never think of even touching – in such a time, I’m sure you can understand if things weren’t organised to perfection.
And the hypocrisy of course is awful.
Criticise a group for having an issue in a statistically significant larger percentage of their population and you always get the ubiquitous “are you saying all black people are criminals!” How about listening for a change. Since the percentage mentioned is not 100%, logically speaking I can’t be referring to all of them, rather I mean a percentage of them that correlates precisely with the percentage I say. That just makes sense. But if you want to say all men would be bad leaders, because the past dictators were men who made a mess of things in an era which was conducive to that particular mess, that’s fine.
Idiots.
Though more disturbing are the legions of people who agree with them.
I’d like to make a suggestion.
See if you agree with this idea.
Instead of giving one group of people power over another, let’s create a system where all members of society are equally subjected to sane and sensible laws that flow from a rational and objective thinking about right and wrong.
We could even give it a snazzy name.
We could call it the Rule of Law.
Let’s leave subjective belief for things with far less impact on society like whether the G-d you happen believe in demands that certain types of people be killed for the crime of being the person that G-d, presumably, created him to be. Just like you are.
Or we could go with the Rule of Law thing.
Whether we end up with the Rule of Law or some kind of situation where certain groups have power over other groups, will depend on which side gains the upper hand in the upcoming power struggle.
Do not worry. The irony of a power struggle to ensure the rule of law is not lost on me either.