The Kavanaugh “Scandal” and Female Marxism
Brett Kavanaugh, U.S. Supreme Court nominee, within days of his confirmation vote, has suddenly been hit with an accusation of sexual misconduct…or molestation…or maybe it was attempted rape…from thirty-five years ago. The allegation was known by Senator Feinstein for months, but held for launching until the last moment, so that scrutiny of the accusation and accuser would take a back seat to the full glory of an unsubstantiated personal smear, cashing in on the thrilling momentum of the so-called “‘Me Too’ movement,” which would more accurately be named “The ‘All men are rapists’ movement.”
A few thoughts that have occurred to me as this story has quickly unfolded (unraveled?) over the past couple of days:
First of all, contrary to those defenders of Kavanaugh who are banking everything on the assumption that the accuser is lying from A to Z, I believe that, beyond its small-pond relevance to the individuals in question here and now, the matter of whether the accuser’s story is true or not is ultimately beside the point, in the larger scheme of things — so far beside the point that I’m willing to grant its essential veracity merely for the sake of questioning its real meaning, premises, and implications.
The allegation dates from back when Kavanaugh was seventeen. At an alleged high school drinking party. And where no rape is alleged to have occurred, but only a moment of drunken and/or lustful excess from a teenage boy, directed not at a stranger, but at a female “friend” who was a participant in the drinking party.
For the record, I am not “excusing” drunken lustfulness. I don’t drink, I despise the social corrosiveness of our (or any) era’s so-called “drinking culture” (likewise the West’s analogous “drug culture”), and I wish modern teenagers were raised to be more modest and restrained around the opposite sex – or simply kept away from one another for the most part, in the absence of adult chaperons. But the idea that a fifty-three-year-old man is to have his career and reputation destroyed on an allegation of irresponsible behavior as a teenager at a high school drinking party is indicative of how far off a cliff female Marxism (aka feminism) has pushed the debate about male-female relations.
Another indication of the damage done by female Marxism is that even those who wish to defend a man like Kavanaugh against charges of this nature almost invariably feel obliged to qualify their defense with, “But of course if he’s guilty, then I hope he rots in hell.”
Why? Because when he was seventeen (as we have all been) and drunk (as most modern teenagers have been), he (allegedly) lost control of his hormones one evening (as most teenagers left to their own devices in mixed company will do) and behaved crudely or overzealously toward a girl?
For that, he deserves to have the book thrown at him, his career demolished, and his family humiliated, thirty-five years later? If that’s our style of moral judgment now, then the Marxist tribunal mentality has successfully eviscerated modern civilization.
This side of the “issue” is, in its ultimate civilizational importance, far more important than the question of whether or not the woman is telling the truth. For more is at stake here than a Supreme Court nomination. This story brings to the fore, or back to the front burner, the whole subject of the feminists’ reinvention of the relation between the sexes and its vocabulary, and forces us to assess, and perhaps take sides on, their effort’s real meaning and motives.
The tribunal is a standard Marxist and neo-Marxist (e.g., Maoist) method of social control. When “progress” requires the redressing of some newly-discovered historical wrong, individual wrongdoers are brought up before the tribunal and sacrificed to the god of “proper attitudes.”
The goal of the tribunal is never really to target this or that individual per se. Men like Brett Kavanaugh are merely useful examples. Nor is the goal isolated to any specific type of unacceptable behavior, since the standards of acceptability are continually changing in a progressive totalitarian society, as Orwell explained.
Rather, the true goal is mass intimidation, universal psychological control. From these well-publicized cases, everyone is meant to absorb a lesson: Your whole life is on trial at every moment. Everything you ever said, every relationship you ever had, every weakness you ever exposed, is fair game, and may be drawn out of the well at any moment to destroy you, on whatever grounds we deem necessary. We – the State, Society, the Collective — own you. Therefore, you must do as we say, or else.
Having learned this lesson in self-abasement and institutionalized cowardice well, but still clinging to the natural human need for saving face, we develop clever psychological strategies to continue feeling righteous while at the same time avoiding self-incrimination within the ever-shifting rules of the moral intimidation tribunal. Thus, we all live in a progressive continuum of self-denial, pretending to be shocked and outraged every time it is some newly-targeted group’s turn to be carted off to the re-education camp for “crimes” we must all claim to be scandalized by today — although we all acknowledged these same sins in our own souls only yesterday.
That the accuser was upset by the encounter, or even “traumatized” by it (assuming it happened), I do not doubt. Teenagers often get themselves into situations they later regret, or regard as a little riskier than they had realized before the drinking started. And when emotions, testosterone, alcohol levels, and teenage sexual flirtations are running too high, things can reach a pitch of abnormality or carelessness that leaves deep impressions.
But does this supposed trauma justify her current course of action? Are her residual feelings a blank check on any sort of behavior from her now, decades after the fact?
To come at this from another angle, namely from the point of view of the alleged victim: I had a pretty lousy childhood in some ways, and an even worse time as a teenager. If I sifted through my memory, I could probably come up with a few specific people who personally humiliated or hurt me back then in ways that left scars for years. But if I noticed that one of those people were running for public office or nominated for a big position today, thirty-some years later, would I even think of trying to derail him by “coming forward” with some old story about how badly he treated me one day back then?
Of course not. I’ve gotten on with my life, scars and all, and I would have to assume my childhood nemesis had done the same. Who am I to pass summary judgment on the person’s character now, or attempt to destroy his life in the name of exalting or romanticizing my childhood pain, after all these intervening years?
Revenge of this sort can be a very cheapening and self-belittling motivation. Being big enough not to care about those old affronts anymore is more of the nature of adult maturity, and defines the truest victory.
Unless, of course, what happened back then was more than merely personally upsetting or infuriating, but actually felonious.
The accuser uses some very inflammatory language in the various iterations of her claim. But much of that language is of the abstract sort. What precisely, in concrete terms, and without her interpretive or subjective assessment, is she claiming Kavanaugh did, or tried to do?
In her own account I see words like “pinned down on a bed” and “trapped in a room.” And yet she did in fact “free herself” from the situation, seemingly without suffering any physical harm, and without being either pursued at the time or threatened with repercussions by Kavanaugh and the second boy named in her allegation.
What does “pinned down on a bed” mean, exactly? Since no ultimate rape is alleged to have taken place, and the original New Yorker account refers vaguely to the woman having been “able to free herself,” to what extent are the words “trapped” and “pinned” in this context being used metaphorically or conditionally, rather than literally and absolutely?
That is to say, if this same language were used to describe an encounter with two strangers in a park at night, then “pinned down” and “trapped” would carry their most unambiguous, literal, and ominous senses, and this would unequivocally be “attempted rape,” as some are casually calling it.
But this was (on the woman’s own account) a small, private party for a group of teenagers who were friends – “friendly acquaintances” was her term, I believe – and a party based, like most such parties unfortunately, on underage drinking. She also gives no account of any details before or after the alleged encounter that would suggest these boys posed any danger to her (even in her own mind) except at that one scary moment when she claims things got out of hand before she “freed herself.” Does this context not give a different color to the descriptive language she is using thirty-five years later? If not, why not?
If, however, the events happened more or less as she portrays them, then, were I connected to the boy in question, I would have said to him, “You idiot! You’re bloody lucky you were too drunk, or she was too sober, to let things get further out of control.” And if I were the boy’s father, I would add, “If I ever even see you within ten feet of alcohol again before you are of legal age, I’ll personally rip your liver out. And if you ever want to date another girl on this Earth, you had better find the one you treated in such a crude manner and apologize to her sincerely, on bended knee.”
One might object, “But if you were the girl’s father, would you feel differently?”
Perhaps. But even this requires a little mitigating context. Again, if the alleged perpetrators had been strangers to my daughter, and had approached her out of the blue, my outrage and desire for the severest punishment would be both understandable and just. The boys in question, however, were, on the accuser’s own account, friendly acquaintances, and the event is alleged to have happened at a no-parents-allowed party in which the girl was a voluntary participant.
In fact, her explanation for why she didn’t go to her parents with this news in the first place is quite telling: She claims she didn’t tell them because she knew they would have been furious with her if they had found out she had been at an underage drinking party.
Why would they have been angry with her? Answer that question honestly in your own heart, and you will understand why I insist that context matters, in spite of our universal female Marxist indoctrination to the contrary.
Was the incident in question, as reported by the alleged victim, but minus her loaded interpretation of events decades later while apparently trying to save her marriage, an attempted rape, as some are saying? Attempted rape is a very big accusation, and it isn’t clear that even the woman’s own original story tries to make that big a claim.
Teenagers at a drinking party act foolishly, and eventually things get really stupid — punch-that-guy’s-lights-out stupid, even. Is that “attempted rape”? Words have meanings, or at least they did before feminism got at them.
By rough analogy: If someone punches me in the chops, and then gets distracted and walks away, or his friends say, “Hey, let’s calm down,” can I go around thirty years later accusing that person of attempted murder? “After all,” I might explain, “he only punched me in the chops, but how do I know he wasn’t trying to kill me? — even though he didn’t come anywhere close to killing me, didn’t continue to pursue the attack after the initial punch, and never renewed his assault at a future date.”
“(Attempted) murderer!” See how malleable language can be when facts, context, and common sense don’t enter into how one uses it?
This is where sixty years of mainstream female Marxism have left us. Every allegation from a woman, no matter how fuzzy or ancient, no matter how loaded the accuser’s timing or motives, no matter how conveniently selective her memory, must be treated as having the weight of a felony conviction, and as grounds for destroying a man’s career and family, as a “warning” to all other men: “We’re coming for you next, if you displease us in any way!”
I don’t like Donald Trump, have no personal opinion about his nominee Brett Kavanaugh, and I’m sick of the current overuse of the term “witch hunt” in every context. But this really does have the stench of a true witch hunt.
The Democrats and other progressive activists jumping on this vague, ancient accusation of teenage stupidity to score points against Kavanaugh’s confirmation are hypocrites at a level that defies imagination. For their sole motivation for using this story to delay and undermine the confirmation is to preserve Roe v. Wade against the threat of an anti-abortion Supreme Court majority.
They oppose Kavanaugh ostensibly because once, thirty-five years ago, one girl — a girl now very much alive, well, and successful — allegedly suffered a traumatic experience at a teenage drinking party. Yet their specific goal in opposing him is to preserve their supposed right to continue causing fatal trauma for tens of thousands of girls, from now till Kingdom come.
Just a thought, ladies: What if “kingdom come” actually comes? What will your hypocritical “defense of women” do for you then?