Feminism Has Gone Too Far – Pt. 2

While Pt. 1 of this series dealt with the creeping trend of the abdication of responsibility through fat acceptance, this post deals with something much more explosive.

The #MeToo feminists are ready for war. Their codependent mob is rabid; its vitriol continues to strengthen, along with its sense of immaculate virtue. This unchecked metastasis is a consequence of identity politics and tribalism, but its ideology shares philosophical DNA with leftist political movements throughout modern history. Ironically, the world is a binary reality to these post-modernist enthusiasts, despite their insistence on the infinite number of gender types. There are the accused and there are the accusers. You’re either a protector of victims or a protector of rapists. Ambivalence is tantamount to support for the enemy.

Bret Kavanaugh’s confirmation provided another chapter in the feminist Bible’s account of the tyrannical patriarchy’s oppressive reign. The board is set. The pieces are moving. They want to burn everything down in a glorious revolution that will correct the imbalance of power between the sexes. Individuals are expendable pawns in the execution of the masculinity purge. Individual justice is a paltry consideration; group justice is the feminists’ aim, although the promise of vengeance certainly makes the prospect of revolution even more seductive. All accusers should be believed without question because, ultimately, they believe its better to be safe than sorry.

It’s no longer innocent until proven guilty. For those accused, the burden of proof is on them. It’s amazing how short our memories are. The #MeToo playbook pulls from the most murderous regimes in history, all of which aimed to achieve freedom from abusive hierarchies and institute equality and social justice. Even more uncanny, they all were perpetrated under the guise of the protection of oppressed victims.

I have no interest in smearing Christine Blasey Ford or defending Kavanaugh. That’s not what concerns me. What concerns me is the erosion of fundamental American principles. Let’s be clear, the Republican Senate’s outrage was manufactured political theater. They did not have one iota of concern for Christine Blasey Ford and whether or not she was telling the truth. That was never a pertinent consideration for them because the only thing that they cared about was ensuring Kavanaugh’s confirmation was successful. That being said, the Democrats’ righteous indignation was no more genuine. Kamala Harris, Corey Booker and others gave emotive, syrupy sermons that bemoaned the prevalence of rape culture and the bravery of any self-proclaimed survivors. Make no mistake, these prophets of social justice had two, and only two, considerations that were motivating their zealous performances: the 2020 Presidential election and the defeat of Kavanaugh (both as penance for Mitch McConnel’s theft of Merrick Garland’s seat and as defense against a Republican majority on the court). The left rightly mocked Lindsey Graham’s outburst, but failed to identify the same behavior in their progressive idols.

The truth is that Ford was an answered prayer to the Democrats. They wanted more to come forward, especially in time for the mid-terms. When your constituents are millennial Democrats, you need mass hysteria to drive people to the polls. Every accuser is a warhead of political opportunity that they can detonate in whatever manner they deem most fruitful. There are two elements that are present in all political achievement: a victim and a scapegoat. There is no victim more effective than a survivor and there’s no scapegoat more detestable than a rapist. The mere act of asking questions about a victim’s accusation and story is seen as sympathy for the accused. Nothing energizes a grassroots movement like an alleged rape victim crying on national television. That’s why the Democrats pray for more tears. They lubricate the cogs of the mob machine.

The feminists, aided by false reporting from outlets like The New York Times and President Obama’s administration, have already exerted control over the majority of American universities. The Campus Rape Frenzy: The Attack on Due Process at America’s Universities, by KC Johnston and Stuart Taylor, Jr., details this phenomenon in disturbing detail. According to NPR, schools across America have overwhelmingly created policies that shift the burden of proof to the accused. Furthermore, the standard of proof has been downgraded from  ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ to ‘the preponderance of the evidence,’ which is a much lower bar.  There have been many reports, in schools across the country, of accused male students being denied the right to present evidence for their innocence before being expelled from their colleges. Feminists have brainwashed progressive politicians into believing that there is an epidemic of rape in American higher education. This is simply not factually accurate, as evidenced by many meta-analyses, such as Johnston and Taylor’s reporting.

Fundamental American principles are gradually being eroded. The presumption of innocence and the right to due process have suddenly become luxuries that are nullified by certain accusations. While there hasn’t been any legislation that would affect criminal proceedings, radical feminists and the #MeToo mob have already begun pushing for the new university policies to become criminal laws. In their view, nothing is more important than neutering the abusive patriarchy and equalizing the genders.

The quest for social justice and perfect equality has materialized in many different forms throughout the twentieth century. Circumstances were different in each case. Each occurred in different countries, during differing times and had different ‘oppressors’ and ‘victims.’ But, the structure of the narrative remained the same: a privileged group exerts abusive control and oppression over many who are less fortunate; the less fortunate rise up and overthrow the tyrants, thereby removing the system’s inherent hierarchical structure.

In each of these revolutions, due process was circumvented by leftist extremists, due to provocative and unfounded accusations. History has shown that the ‘mob’ is easily angered (feminists aren’t the only ones easily triggered). The most evil humans in history achieved success through the exploitation and mastery of the mob. People throughout the ages have been so easily tricked into committing atrocities in the name of social justice. This is exactly what the feminists and the #MeToo movement are attempting to do right now. Here are just a two examples of this destructive historical re-occurrence.

In the late 1970s, Pol Pot and his leftist regime, the Khmer Rouge, took control of Cambodia. Entire cities were driven into the “killing fields” of the countryside, where millions were literally worked to death. These ‘liquidations’ were done in a manner eerily similar to the Nazi takeover of Poland. This purge occurred days after the Khmer Rouge usurped the previous royal administration of Cambodia. Pol Pot’s goal was to create a utopia of perfect egalitarianism, where all inhabitants shared one common mindset and consciousness. The citizens of this new nation state were theoretically free from oppressive individuality and enjoyed the blissful equality that is only possible through the elimination of free will. He sold that vision to his followers and mastered the manipulation of the mob.

The Khmer Rouge’s farming industry (powered by the slave labor of the killing fields), directed by the Khmer Rouge’s agricultural authorities, did not produce enough food to feed its citizens. Millions died of starvation. Those that stole food were accused of practicing individuality, creating privilege and perpetuating inequality. Offenders were either tortured or executed.

Several leaders of the Khmer Rouge became disillusioned with the party’s direction, but Pol Pot remained steadfast in his dedication to perfect equality. He believed that the utopia was failing because of devious saboteurs, not the party’s vision. This gave the Khmer Rouge a reason to find scapegoats for the famine. The accused were interrogated and tortured until they gave names, who were then tortured and forced to provide other scapegoats. This cycle went on for three years until the Vietnamese forces pushed the Khmer Rouge into exile. By this time, the Khmer Rouge had wiped out more than a quarter of Cambodia’s population.

In the 1930s, Stalin had a dilemma on his hands. Much of the agricultural community resented a privileged group of farmers that allegedly ‘flirted’ with capitalism and perpetuated inequality. These disgruntled, mediocre farmers formed a mob and gave Stalin an easy solution. The Soviet Union sent their richest peasants, the kulaks, to Siberia. Communist philosophy stated that wealthy peasants, like the kulaks, had acquired their wealth through tyrannical power and the capitalization of their privileged status. The Communist leadership accused them of ‘plundering’ their wealth from the hands of more humble farmers, who valued the collective good over selfish vanity.

The kulaks were put to work in the cold fields of Siberia where they were either murdered or froze to death. Their meager belongings (per family – roughly a few cows, several hired hands and small plots of land) were equally dispersed to the  other, poorer farmers. The kulaks were the most skilled farmers (hence their greater wealth) and their elimination caused Soviet agricultural output to crash. They were pawns in the Soviet plot that aimed to convince the masses that people like the kulaks were privileged, capitalist tyrants. In the end, the two million kulaks were wiped out for crimes that they didn’t commit.

History has shown us that the ‘mob’ is not the best barometer of social justice or moral truth. Principles mean that there cannot be circumvention of rights, or, the suspension of due process for certain crimes that certain members of the public deem particularly egregious. That is not America. That is not how our system works. I’m under no illusion that the #MeToo movement is in any way equal in horror to the Khmer Rouge or Stalin’s Russia. They’re not. However, the leftist ideology that guides their universalist vision of an egalitarian utopia has the same philosophical DNA as the movements championed by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Il-Sung and others. It is not acceptable to suspend individuals’ rights for the sake of the collective good. It is evil. It assumes that the mob, or its leaders, have a God-like omniscience. It assumes a relativist morality where principles are expendable and the intensity of collective outrage is the only relevant measure of moral transgression. This is wrong.  Those accused of rape should be charged and prosecuted, aggressively. Period. A corruption of the rule of law is not the solution. We’re better than this.

Leave a Reply