![\"A](\"https:\/\/actualthinking.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Believe-All-Women.jpg\")
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n
Some people think we should automatically believe any woman who claims to have been a victim of sexual assault.<\/p>\n
There\u2019s even been some clever wordplay where some phrase it as believing all victims of sexual assault.<\/p>\n
Yes, even I<\/em> almost didn\u2019t notice the difference.<\/p>\n If they are <\/em>victims of course we should believe them. Although if they\u2019re victims, belief is irrelevant. They\u2019re victims and something terrible happened to them. It\u2019s not something I should believe or not, it\u2019s the fact.<\/p>\n If it\u2019s been proven.<\/p>\n If, however, there\u2019s no evidence for the accusation and it remains a claim,<\/strong> then why should I believe it? Why should I believe any claim anyone makes about anything? I mean obviously it\u2019s normal to (more or less) believe the banal stories that your friends and family regale you with \u2013 apparently it\u2019s a conversation stopper and mood changer when you analyse their little stories to death and casually point out the things that don\u2019t make sense \u2013 but when it comes to claims that could have significant consequences or are extraordinary, then surely it\u2019s common sense to exercise extreme caution and only accept them as facts after a thorough investigation and analysis of the evidence presented.<\/p>\n There are of course, two major exceptions. The first is if someone claims there\u2019s 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 \u2026 I mean religion, whereupon you must believe them without question, but if they\u2019re 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\u2019t-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\u2019s not as if you can\u2019t afford the money. After all, you must have received a text congratulating you for winning $30 million in some mobile phone lottery!<\/p>\n \u2018Believe all women\u2019 sounds nice and lovely, but it\u2019s not.<\/p>\n There\u2019s a woman, she\u2019s been through hell, she\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n What could be more appropriate than that?<\/p>\n But let\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n And if he protests his innocence, we\u2019ll take her word over his because we believe all women.<\/p>\n Even if you don\u2019t know the official definition of discrimination, if you\u2019re at all normal, something inside of you must be saying hang on a minute, is this really a good idea?<\/p>\n \u2018Believe all women\u2019 is blatant discrimination against men. You\u2019re treating men and women differently and specifically you\u2019re treating men less favourably than women, because when it comes to sexual assault, you\u2019ll believe the women who claim to be victims but not the men who claim to be innocent.<\/p>\n This is discrimination at its finest. You\u2019re 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Now there are two problems with discrimination and giving one group of people power over everyone else. The first is that you\u2019re giving<\/strong> one group of people power over everyone else<\/strong>! The second, is that it\u2019s 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 \u2018you can have power over me\u2019 group. Historically speaking there\u2019s always been some sort of altercation between the two groups as they attempted to sort out this intractable problem, and I\u2019ve yet to be convinced that the process surrounding any decisions on this matter were conducted using the fairest of methods.<\/p>\n 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\u2019t like it very much.<\/p>\n Fortunately, there came a period when some people said enough is enough. Let\u2019s 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\u2019s send everyone into therapy and they can sort out their feelings of inferiority due to a lack of personal achievement without effecting everyone else.<\/p>\n Yes $75 – $150 a session for a mere fifty minutes is expensive, but it\u2019s even more expensive to rebuild that village the marauding hoard have just razed to the ground.<\/p>\n And so it came to pass.<\/p>\n 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\u2019t be taken away from them.<\/p>\n Fantastic.<\/p>\n But now there seems to be some regression. \u2018Believe all women\u2019 stands in direct opposition to the West\u2019s ideology of equality and injects an element of discrimination back into society.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Due Process is a person\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n The Presumption of Innocence is the legal principle of considering a person innocent until proven guilty.<\/p>\n These were \u2026 settled \u2026 legal norms.<\/p>\n Then came the \u2018believe all women\u2019 rule, which is about elevating what women say over what men say simply because it\u2019s part of an ideology (women: good, men: bad) some people happen to favour.<\/p>\n In fact, one could argue, and I think that\u2019s what I\u2019m 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 \u2018believe all women\u2019, cannot be implemented.<\/p>\n To actually \u2018believe all women\u2019 is therefore an erosion of legal norms.<\/p>\n Some will say that I\u2019m taking this too far. \u2018Believe all women\u2019 just means don\u2019t dismiss her claim outright; take her claim seriously. It doesn\u2019t mean don\u2019t believe the man, it doesn\u2019t mean treat him unfairly and prosecute him on her say so.<\/p>\n Now I\u2019m sure that some people understand \u2018believe all women\u2019 in this way. But I\u2019m also sure that many do not. And understandably so, after all, the meaning of the phrase \u2018believe all women\u2019 does mean \u2026 and here\u2019s the clever bit \u2026 believe all women. It\u2019s 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\u2019s guilty there should be repercussions. None of this is farfetched. It\u2019s just the basic logical progression of the phrase \u2018believe all women\u2019.<\/p>\n If only the authors would have foreseen how their slogan would be misunderstood.<\/p>\n If only you could hear the level of sarcasm in my voice. But alas, the inadequacies of the written word.<\/p>\n So you<\/em> may think I\u2019m taking things too far, but that\u2019s only because you don\u2019t take the phrase \u2018believe all women\u2019 literally and to its logical conclusion. Others do, and many men have suffered severe repercussions \u2013 all based on an unproven claim which is an erosion of a person\u2019s rights and blatant discrimination.<\/p>\n I\u2019m sure that after my<\/em> claim, you\u2019ll want some proof.<\/p>\n Ok then. If you insist.<\/p>\n 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\u2019t 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\u2019s \u2018only\u2019 had one or two years stolen from him. Either way, there has been a violation of legal norms and blatant discrimination.<\/p>\n 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<\/em> Due Process and the Presumption of Innocence, which logically must mean that the campus disciplinary process is a kangaroo court.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n When some sort of repercussion or consequence occurs as the result of an accusation, that\u2019s more than just taking the accuser seriously. And if the consequence is being fired from your job or evicted from your apartment, that\u2019s an erosion of the accused\u2019s legal rights and if it\u2019s based on the special believability of women, blatant discrimination.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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 \u2018believe all women\u2019.<\/p>\n No, you\u2019re probably not wondering. You know you\u2019re dealing with the Left. You probably also remember the specific example of Hillary Clinton\u2019s approach to the women who accused her husband of sexual misconduct \u2013 she certainly didn\u2019t seem to believe them<\/em>.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s still 48 senators who voted against confirming Brett Kavanaugh. That\u2019s 48 senators who were prepared to impose consequences based on a woman\u2019s claims. This means the Left and almost half of the United States Senators were prepared to violate Brett Kavanaugh\u2019s rights and discriminate against him based on gender.<\/p>\n If you still think all that these people want is for a woman\u2019s claim of sexual assault to be taken seriously then you haven\u2019t been paying attention.<\/p>\n It\u2019s ironic but the Left think we\u2019re stupid. \u201cCan\u2019t you see,\u201d they explain patiently, \u201cthe nomination and confirmation process is a job interview not a court case. The same standards don\u2019t 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\u2019s not what we\u2019re doing! This is a job interview. A prospective employer doesn\u2019t need to prove you\u2019re guilty before rejecting you!\u201d<\/p>\n 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\u2019t or doesn\u2019t need to occur in the other.<\/p>\n But perhaps we should take a closer look.<\/p>\n The essence of the Left\u2019s 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\u2019s not a justice related situation, they simply don\u2019t apply.<\/p>\n And while that\u2019s technically true, it also completely misses the point.<\/p>\n 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 \u2013 discover) the reasons for instituting them, it doesn\u2019t make sense that for everything else it\u2019s perfectly reasonable to return to the unfairness of arbitrary judgements and unjust treatment.<\/p>\n 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\u2019m going to treat you fairly and not consider you guilty without some sort of evidence.<\/p>\n And yet it seems that there are some people who, when there\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s say Bertha accuses Chris of sexual assault but there is not enough evidence to convict Chris in a court of law, he can\u2019t 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 \u2026 being fair and just is only for a court of law!<\/p>\n 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\u2019s not a court of law so there\u2019s no reason to act fairly, it\u2019s not a court of law so why not believe a random accusation and ruin his life because of it.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n And yes, a prospective employer doesn\u2019t need to prove you\u2019re guilty before rejecting you, they can decide not to take the risk, but they shouldn\u2019t reject you because their unsubstantiated, private judgment found you guilty. The difference between rejecting an applicant based on the possibility they\u2019re a criminal and not wanting to take the risk, and rejecting an applicant based on your unfounded personal verdict that they\u2019re guilty of some crime, is the difference between reasonable, civilised risk assessment and using your subjectivity to bully someone and get your own way.<\/p>\n I\u2019ve heard many people say, \u201cI believe her\u201d. But they never say why. They just believe!<\/p>\n This is pure subjective thinking. They can\u2019t rationally explain why they believe her because instead of being based on facts their belief is based on personal preference and feelings.<\/p>\n I suppose objective, logical thinking like Due Process and the Presumption of Innocence, is reserved for a court of law.<\/p>\n 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 \u2013 \u201cI don\u2019t feel that eating all this cake will make me fat\u201d.<\/p>\n 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\u2019re women and women are subjectively deciding \u2026 well I think you\u2019ve got it from here.<\/p>\n Surely instead of promoting subjective thinking, we should be promoting rational, sensible, objective thinking. Surely that\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n Subjective thinking is a ridiculous and appalling method of making decisions, but there\u2019s 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 \u2026 wait for it \u2026 subjective.<\/p>\n To explain: If you\u2019re 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.<\/p>\n So for example, when you subjectively decide to \u2018believe all women\u2019 and subjectively decide to consider someone guilty based on no objective evidence but because that\u2019s what you prefer to think, or that\u2019s what you feel like thinking, that says far more about you than it does about the person you\u2019re accusing. It tells us the kind of person you are \u2013 you\u2019re the kind of person that wants to judge someone as guilty despite the lack of evidence.<\/p>\n In case I\u2019ve not made myself sufficiently clear, it says – and I\u2019ll put it as nicely as I can – you\u2019re scum.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Some people think we should automatically believe any woman who claims to have been a victim of sexual assault. There\u2019s even been some clever wordplay where some phrase it as<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1904,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/actualthinking.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2018"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/actualthinking.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/actualthinking.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/actualthinking.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/actualthinking.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2018"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/actualthinking.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2018\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2368,"href":"https:\/\/actualthinking.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2018\/revisions\/2368"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/actualthinking.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1904"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/actualthinking.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2018"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/actualthinking.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2018"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/actualthinking.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2018"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\u2018Believe All Women\u2019 Is Discrimination Against Men<\/h2>\n
\u2018Believe All Women\u2019 Erodes Legal Norms<\/h2>\n
Taking Things Too Far<\/h2>\n
Campus Rules for Claims of Sexual Assault<\/h2>\n
A Ruined Life After an Accusation of Rape or Sexual Assault<\/h2>\n
The Left\u2019s Decent into Madness over Brett Kavanaugh<\/h2>\n
The \u2018It’s Not a Court Case\u2019 Excuse<\/h2>\n
\u2018Believe All Women\u2019 Is Subjective Thinking<\/h2>\n