A comment on this Rational Male post does a pretty good job in outlining the changes to gender relations we’ve seen in just 3 years:
We went from No means No (which meant that if she doesn’t say no, it’s on … which pretty much is the basic human mating script) to “affirmative consent” (“may I kiss you now” … “may I lick your breast now?”, etc., per the “rules” required before any physical contact *and* at “each stage of escalation”). Very few people actually follow affirmative consent, as we know, but it’s the rule at most colleges and universities. It isn’t the legal rule for rape, in terms of determining what was “consensual”, currently, but the FI is working on that, believe me.
Now, we have the goalposts moving even further along, from “affirmative consent” to “enthusiastic consent” — which means that if her consent is even verbally expressed, but isn’t clearly enthusiastic, then it isn’t “reliable as consent” because it could be the result of “pressure”, and if the consent “was real, it would be expressed enthusiastically, because when people really are consenting to sex, they’re always enthusiastic about it”. So essentially the standard they are pushing now (and which is getting rolled out on campuses right now) is that if the girl isn’t jumping your bones and begging for your cock, it’s rape/assault. Of course, again, not the legal standard, but that doesn’t matter that much — as we can all see what is happening right now is that the legal standard is being marginalized, because people can be destroyed in our media saturated environment without any involvement of the legal system at all, and the standards that apply in that extra-legal environment are the ones that the FI wants to apply, whether the legal system applies them or not.
Recall that December 2017 is the three year anniversary of Sabrina Erderly’s Rolling Stone article about a completely non-existent rape at a University of Virginia fraternity house. Fast forward three years and female-driven allegations of sexual misconduct have ushered in fresh calls to Believe Women, and Fight Patriarchy.
The difference is that this time around, there are real lives, real careers and real reputations at stake among the accused. Haven Monahan wasn’t a real person. As such, the ramifications of men losing their livelihoods and reputations the second an allegation is levied, without due process, sets a dangerous precedent. It seems as though some are starting to understand this. Cue Mika Brzezinski, co-host of Morning Joe, who ruffled some feathers within the Feminist Thotocracy with the following comments the other day on her show:
It’s going to be complicated, but I think women feel that they are maligned and treated through the process and therefore they’re afraid to step forward, so we need to look at the process.
But right now any woman, can say anything, and a man’s career is ruined. Now, a lot of women can say things that are true, and careers should be ruined. But the problem is that any woman can say anything, and that’s it, it’s over. Is that how we’re running businesses now?
She’s absolutely right in that the treatment of mere allegations as though evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, such that guilt is assured and sentencing is to be meted out, simply because the allegation exists is a bad idea. Before I continue discussing Brzezinski’s words though, I have to introduce Slate typist Allison Benedikt, who wrote a roundabout condemnation of the #metoo movement generally on the grounds that it is ultimately lacking in the understanding of the nuance underpinning human sexual relations. At least, that is my reading of her post, in which she describes how her boss in a position of ***POWER!!!*** hit on her, which led to them becoming husband and wife. She writes:
When my husband, John, and I started dating, we weren’t sure it was OK. We kept it secret from our colleagues for awhile, though we did ask another editor to manage me. Brushing past each other in the office and sitting with our legs touching under the table at after-work gatherings where no one knew we were together was the most exciting time in our early relationship, a glorious phase that ended when a colleague spotted us holding hands on the sidewalk outside of a West Village bar and blew our cover. We eventually told our bosses that we were in love, and they were happy for us. It wasn’t until years later that John told me he used to look down the back of my jeans at work. I was surprised—I guess he had been discreet—but filed that little nugget away as cute, not creepy. It turns out a long, long time ago, he thought I was hot.
But when John took me to a dark bar after we closed our first story together, or when he made his move on the steps of the subway station, in the romantic glow of the Duane Reade sign, why wasn’t that harassment? Though he wasn’t the editor of the magazine or anything close, he controlled which assignments I got, and which I didn’t, and would have been the person to write my evaluation, had we done those back then. There were the steps John took to evaluate my interest before leaning in for that kiss, like asking me out for drinks after work. But what if I had felt pressure to say yes to his invite? Or what if, when he did kiss me, I had pulled away? At the time, our work and our social lives were all mixed up in wonderful, messy, risky ways. I know John wouldn’t have punished me at work had I not been interested in his advances; if he had, that would have been harassment, and not OK. Even so, life at the magazine might have become uncomfortable for me, or for him, if things hadn’t worked out. Maybe I would have wanted to find another job, or maybe he would have. Maybe, because I was younger and less established, it would have fallen on me to figure that out, which would have been hard, but no harder than needing to find a new job because I wasn’t advancing or because I hated my boss for nonkissing reasons. Maybe I wouldn’t have cared at all that this weird dude kissed me. Maybe I would have been flattered. Or maybe it would have really sucked. In none of those scenarios, though, would John have been a sexual harasser simply because he had more power in the office than I did and made a move. He took a risk. I was capable of evaluating his advances for myself. In my case, I welcomed them. If we had just met today, though, I fear there’s no way he would have even tried.
It is completely within the norm of human exploratory romantic behavior for people to take steps—sometimes physical steps—to see if the other person reciprocates their feelings. It is OK to flirt with a person who you aren’t sure wants to be flirted with. It is OK to not be 100 percent great at reading signals. It is even OK to be grossed out by someone’s advances, as long as those advances stop once you make clear you aren’t into it. There are predators and harassers, even more of them than I thought, and there are some lines that are simple to draw, even if we haven’t been enforcing them until now. But there has to be room for a relationship like mine to happen. And the difference between John being my husband and my harasser cannot just be that it worked out. The difference between actions that can get you married and actions that can get you fired can’t simply be whether or not the person you are interested in is interested back. Careers should end when someone tries, and is rebuffed, and does not heed that rebuffing. Careers should not end just because someone tried. We’re not all attracted to the people who are attracted to us.
Emphasis mine. Benedict seemingly understands the reality that men are the ones who have to make the first move, and must do so completely in the dark as to whether his feelings are mutually felt. As I wrote in Allegation Nation:
It is a biological reality that sperm is plentiful while eggs are relatively scarce, which imposes upon women the task of quality control with respect to male suitors. Incidentally it is this fact which explains why the majority of men are incredibly nervous in the mere presence of a woman he finds attractive, let alone in the midst of a simple interaction with one, to say nothing still of an attempt at intimate relations with one.
This is because, on a deep level, each sexual advance is a referendum on the suitability of the male, with a rejection rendering a verdict, albeit a temporary one, that the DNA of the male in question is not fit to remain in the human gene pool. It is utterly devastating when you think about it.
Because of imperfect information, highly charged emotions, fear, anxiety and confusion, there are going to be moments of awkwardness, ineptitude, regret and even callousness when it comes to sexual relations. It is inevitable. This is why, historically, the burden of proof for sexual misconduct has always been held extremely high.
The original false rape accusation comes from Scripture, and details the trials and tribulations of Joshua, a Hebrew slave, who refused to sleep with his master’s wife, despite her vigorous pursuit of him. In one episode, the wife essentially cornered Joshua and threw herself at him. Joshua scorned her yet again, and in his escape was disrobed by the wife, who grabbed on to his clothing as he fled. She spun this into a tale of Joshua attempting to force himself on her, and after she screamed, he took off, having no time to gather his things.
The word of the nobleman’s wife outweighed that of the slave, and thus Joshua was jailed. The story highlights the perils of sexual relations and how easily someone can be hurt, and how easily one can justify inflicting grave damage upon another based on something as trivial as hurt feelings. In modern societies, the gravity of sexual misconduct is taken into account, precisely through the establishment of an extremely high bar that one must clear in proving to took place. The evidence must be clear as day, because the ramifications for offenders are among the most stringent in most penal codes.
This is why, to Brzezinski’s point, a culture of allegation-as-conviction will lead to serious ramifications, starting with the marginalizing of women in the workforce. Men will not want to deal with women in any manner if anything from a hug or basic compliment and beyond is redefined as sexual harassment, necessitating termination.
But, some might say, shouldn’t private companies be free to hire, fire, suspend, demote, do whatever to any employee for any reason? In theory, yes. But what is slowly starting to become apparent is that the Cultural Marxist set have, through Corporate America, begun to achieve what they couldn’t through the political arena. Namely, the Cultural Marxists have noted the fact that so much of America is reliant on Corporate America in some way shape or form and targeted it as a captive population, as it were. Lording over them through HR departments and drab invectives from C-suite executives looking to keep the Mob at bay, they have managed to create a sort of Guilty Because We Say So environment which is a hallmark of their parent ideology, communism.
It is, in other words, the creation a parallel justice system which operates in the court of public opinion and thus is safe, for the most part, from legal recourse. One might not go to jail for merely being accused of badthink, or in this case badtouch, but one will surely have his professional life ruined.
The likes of Brzezinski and Benedikt are right to worry, and their concerns are commendable, given the fact that they are generally champions of the Feminist Thotocracy. So I suppose if even they can see major problems with #metoo, regardless of how they arrived at those conclusions, there is hope of a sensible resolution, even if it is just time.