So I was not going to talk about Brett Kavanaugh, politics, or the charges against him, and by “charges” I mean charges in the court of public opinion. I am still not going to talk about Kavanaugh directly because both proclaiming his innocence or pronouncing his guilt all about the intertoobz is just stoopid.
There is a much larger issue here that is far more important, and that is how the chattering conservative class never seem to realize they are actually much like cats at the mercy of a little red dot. Seriously, quiver that laser light to the right and all the little chattering cats will run to the right. Or if you’d like to see them try to climb up the wall, point it towards the wall. It’s almost like having a remote control in your hands.
In politics the goal is not to prove some guy’s guilt or innocence. Trust me, all but a tiny handful of faithful advocates even care if Judge Moore is a serial abuser or if Kavanaugh raped a woman in high school. Nobody really cares! I’m sorry, that’s very jaded and cynical, but just trust me on that. The goal in politics is actually to use your little laser dot to herd all your cats in the direction you want them to go.
You want to collect negative quotes and talking points for the next election. You want to be able to taint people’s perception of a political party. Every time someone hears “conservative,” or “Republican” you want them to think of #Metoo, sexual assault, cover ups, and leadership that just doesn’t care about women.
You want them to remember every appalling thing they ever heard a conservative on the internet say. You want to be able to run video clips and copy tweets of people reacting poorly to sexual abuse allegations.
And much like cats compulsively chasing a laser dot, the chattering class always provides plenty of ammo in which to use against them. So many useful idiots, so little time.
So Pastor Wilson wrote a post called, The Man with the Quivering Red Laser Dot on His Chest. I’m using him as an example because well, because Wilson is the last person whose quotes you want anywhere near your political campaign. He is such easy pickings because he is in love with his own words and so there are often many catchy (and vile) phrases to choose from.
I agree with him from time to time, but I also can see the other side, like how he posts a picture that implies women who are sexually abused, are just bratty children objecting to a little boy kissing them. Like how he says, “So why are we good with everybody feeling up Lady Justice?”
Or like how he says, “We need to stop thinking that miscarriages of justice will somehow right themselves,” and he seems to a have absolutely no awareness of the irony! The only “miscarriage of justice” he can imagine in a rape case, is the injustice of some man not able to receive his full entitlement, a promotion or a political nomination. He does not see or even acknowledge that there can also be a victim who may have suffered four decades of injustice already.
“We need to stop thinking that miscarriages of justice will somehow right themselves,” is the very lesson behind the entire #Metoo movement. Wilson’s idea of a “miscarriages of justice” is that a victim spoke up and someone was inconvenienced in some way.
I am, or at least I was, a sexual assault advocate for many years, and I read Pastor Wilson’s and many other conservative’s words with a sinking feeling in the pit my stomach, a keen awareness of what is really being said here.
Boys will be boys. Women always lie. Women have no worth and value. They are all just like Potiphar’s wife. It’s not actually a crime to rape one, she was probably just asking for it anyway. A man’s career is far more important than a woman’s right to justice. Our values are totally subjective and based exclusively on power, not on morality….
Listen, your words really matter, your words shape the very narrative and influence the politics of those around you, for good or for ill. More than half the voters in this country are women, the vast majority who have had experiences with some form of sexual abuse, and in general they tend to vote for leadership they believe cares about them, and wants to protect them.
I have spent literally years trying to get Christians and conservatives, on the front lines of the sexual abuse crisis. Decades before #Metoo there was this talking donkey, (that would be me,) braying, “incoming!” Not only is educating yourself about sexual assault a great way to break the cycle, to protect children, and help to heal victims, it’s good politics, too!
Try to remember the politics here are not actually about Judge Moore or Judge Kavanaugh’s guilt or innocence, the politics are about writing a narrative, based on your opponent’s very own words. In other words, the facts are irrelevant, the intent and purpose is to trigger an emotional reaction that will influence what lever people decide to pull in the voting booth.
Pastor Wilson attempts to use the story of the adulteress about to be stoned as an example of how Jesus handled allegations of sexual misconduct. He does not perceive her as a victim of injustice, or as a woman about to be outright murdered by a bunch of self-righteous pharisee. Instead he portrays her as the perpetrator of a crime, the equivalent of a pedophile, a rapist, a sexual abuser, a bad guy we should apparently not condemn, because Jesus Himself said, neither do I condemn you.
And this folks, is why you never read the bible through the lens of your own politics, seeking to make it conform to your own preconceived notions. Our politics will soon be forgotten, washed away, but the Lord’s word is forever.
I admit complete defeat, total surrender on this matter. I just give up. It will never happen. Most conservatives will never get it! And for those who don’t know, when a woman admits complete defeat, that means you actually lost the whole battle. The way conservatives react to sexual abuse really is their Achilles heel, their one weakness that leads them to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory, over and over and over and again, because some people just never learn.
And ironically, I guess that really is justice.
Doug said:
I don’t disagree with your words here, but I do think there’s a need for greater context. The entire “debate”, “argument”, “discussion”, “pontificating opinion”, on the subject of the current #MeToo movement and women striving for sexual empowerment to be equal with men… is all buried inside the title of your blog here, IB. “See, there’s this thing called biology…”
Speaking as a man (which is the only vantage point from which I can speak about anything… unless I had some operation to fix that, although I’m not sure genital modification instantly changes opinion) what I may have to say on the topic will likely not sit 100% well with women simply because I am a man stating it. The same holds true for what women have been struggling to convey to men over the millennium.
As you may recall I tend to bang away at most of our social problems are directly related to mental health problems, which so far the nation is ignoring. The victimization of women by men creates many of the traumas women experience over their lives, that many times can ruin their lives. I’m all for tossing men in jail for their assaults on women either directly or from abuse of manly power. But there are many other situations women encounter in life with men that can also cause life long emotional impairment… ala this Kavanaugh/Dr. Ford situation. Fine.. let’s lock the men up for their crimes. But the victim always remains to deal with it. I’m all for mental health advancements to formulate treatments to relieve emotional trauma so people, women, can continue with a happier life.
But this is NOT going to change anytime soon… humans have been around for 200,000 years and nature has evolved us to survive as a species based on our gender roles and instinctual assigns.. which are NOT socially equal in all ways. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive to be more than we can be as a species.. but we truly need to accept our natural origins in order to build upon better solutions. Us humans spend a huge portion of our existence fighting against, controlling, managing, our instincts anyway, from law to religion. All this isn’t going to change with just a hundred years of women carrying signs.
LikeLiked by 3 people
insanitybytes22 said:
Well, the past “hundred years of women carrying signs” has actually granted us the right to own property and to vote, so apparently things can and do change.
I think in the culture there is still a whole lot of confusion and misunderstanding around the difference between an illicit sexual encounter and rape. We churchians often act as if premarital sex is the precise same thing as pedophilia or forcible rape. That fault does not lay with human biology at all, it is the fault of misguided religious teachings that try to imply all sin is sexual in nature and also equal in nature. Pastor Wilson frequently displays this fact, as he does in his tale of the adulteress about to be stoned. A sin is a sin is a sin. So, a woman caught in adultery, or a man being attracted to a woman, becomes the precise same sin as forcible rape or pedophilia, at least on an emotional and spiritual level.
LikeLike
Doug said:
So.. this Pastor Wilson fellow has the insight to simply solve social issues by tossing religion at it?
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
Hmmm, well yes, I suppose that really is his mindset. In the process of throwing “religion” at social issues however, he does a pretty good job of demonstrating exactly how “religion” has actually caused or made worse some pretty major social issues.
LikeLike
Doug said:
The problem is not religion but rather the humans who aspire to it.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
Well, the Lord is awesome, our faith is incredible and beautiful…. but then there is the institution known as “religion.” Nobody really wants to live in an institution. 🙂
LikeLike
Doug said:
Yeah.. something like that. 🙂
Honestly, IB, the more I read the replies to your post here (the posts “skirting” politics seem to gain the most responses it seems) I just see the total futility in solving what women are trying to achieve; “We need more religion!”, “We need more laws!”, “We need men to just grow up and keep their zippers up!”, “We need to expose more lecherous males for the perverts they really are, even if we have to go back to their pre-teen years to prove it!”.. and of course, the ever popular reason for all the ills of the country… Hillary’s damned 30,00 emails!
(yawn)
LikeLike
John Lewis said:
I will just say that you are absolutely right, guilt or innocence is irrelevant here. You seem to point the finger at “conservatives”, but the right and the left both chase the little red dot equally. Only difference is who’s pointing. We are a society of useful idiots who will all stand on sides right and left pointing at those on the other side as the “useful idiots.”
To which I say, the more we live our lives by this lie, the more the devils laughs out loud. The sound of WINNING.
From one who strives to follow neither the elephant nor the donkey, but the lamb. Imperfectly, but imperfectly seeking that Kingdom of God.
Not sure if this makes any sense, or even applies to the question at hand. But thought I’d share anyway.
LikeLiked by 4 people
insanitybytes22 said:
I love that! I don’t follow donkeys and elephants either, I follow the Lamb. Or sometimes the Lion if you prefer! Regardless, our culture frequently trying to conflate faith with politics has created a lot of confusion in the world.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John Lewis said:
Amen to that! In a lot of ways, the marginalization of the church and the end of the 15 centuries of “Christendom” are, paradoxically, the best thing that could happen to the church in the long run…
We can finally get back to being the church as the ecclesial body of Christ, as opposed to the religious justification of the empire…
LikeLiked by 3 people
insanitybytes22 said:
Amen!
I too have been learning that the “end of Chrstiandom” may not be such a bad thing after all. At first it was just depressing, but now I am beginning to see the potential, the Lord’s vision for His church rather than man’s vision. And surely that is going to be a good thing…:)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mel Wild said:
“We can finally get back to being the church as the ecclesial body of Christ, as opposed to the religious justification of the empire…”
Amen! Well said.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John Lewis said:
Thank you!
LikeLike
John Branyan said:
We cannot compare Roy Moore and Brett Kavanaugh. They are two different people. Accusations of sexual abuse can’t be applied equally to every accused person.
Christine Blasey Ford has been invited to speak to the selection committee under any circumstances of her choosing. Nobody has accused her of lying. In fact, the process of confirming a supreme court justice has been delayed by the possibility that she is telling the truth. “The conservatives” believe her. They’re inviting her to tell her story. What else would you suggest they do to demonstrate that sexual abuse is taken seriously?
LikeLiked by 3 people
insanitybytes22 said:
“What else would you suggest they do to demonstrate that sexual abuse is taken seriously?”
Their words, the heart they express, and their demonstrated understanding of sexual abuse issues would be a great start. Recently you objected to the cover up in the Catholic church as evidenced by the Pennsylvania investigation. Like it or not, that is actually a pretty good example of the conservative response to sexual abuse. Repress it, hide it, cover it up, blame the victims, and promote the perps.
LikeLike
MJThompson said:
To quickly refresh your memory and establish a basis for reference, I was raised a Catholic, but now I am born again Protestant pastor. My former experience within THAT institution exposed me to multiple hypocrisies. When compared to Scripture, their dogma and practice is greatly flawed. But to cite them as examples of conservatives is likened to elevating the devil to sainthood!
I am no longer Catholic, but I remain a conservative. In my definition of conservative values, we seek the truth in ALL areas while committing to the preservation of it. This is quite unlike the organization that merely perpetuates its propaganda.
What most non-Catholics do not realize is the predisposition toward sexuality within the church. They actually teach that sex is so vile that the Holy Spirit leaves the room whenever such activity occurs! Their long history of segregation of the genders stems from this doctrine. Unfortunately, such forced celibacy results in perversions. Of course, they MUST hide and ignore all allegations. To admit such activity would expose the frailty of their dogma!
While I completely agree with your condemnation of such hypocrisy, I do not think it rightly applies to all those who hold to sincere conservative values. When it comes to sexual abuse, a conservative ideal of abstinence outside of marriage is a far more constructive remedy than unrestricted sexuality. Scripture declares the ‘marriage bed’ as undefiled. The liberal notion of ‘free love’ and whatever feels good is right, quickly devolves into uncontrolled obsessions that externalize in exploitation.
God provided sexuality as a means of reproduction and a mutually gratifying experience between consenting partners. The term ‘sexual intercourse’ was ideally intended as a form of intimate communication. THAT ‘communication’ was never to be forced maltreatment! MOST Conservatives are NOT ignorant to this concept.
Sex is however, an appetite that requires fulfillment. Engaged in an inappropriate manner, gratification becomes harder to achieve. A realistic approach to sexual abuse MUST include well-substantiated FACTS. Mere assumptions about the reasons for or frequency of such assaults will never remedy the ages-old dilemma. Until sin is fully eradicated in ALL humanity, abuse will continue.
Never the less, we are ALL responsible to provide individual remedy to victims. This is NOT a ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ problem. It is a human depravity issue. One case at a time, we can hope to provide much needed solace.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
Sorry about that MJ. “Elevating the devil to sainthood?” Ha! Perhaps.
The thing is when Catholics broke away from the church, we actually took a lot of that same human depravity with us. The Catholic church is simply the easiest and most visible example, but there is a huge evangelical and protestant problem too. Those people clearly do identify as conservative and they dominate the conservative narrative. This does not mean every single conservative is going to be blind to sexual abuse. It means that collectively, the loudest and most prominent conservative message is “we don’t care about sexual abuse and if it ever happens it is most likely a woman’s fault anyway.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
MJThompson said:
Just to set the record straight, the following statistics have been reported. The full auricle is posted @ http://victimsofcrime.org/our-programs/dna-resource-center/untested-sexual-assault-kits/about-sexual-assault.
Nearly 18.3% of women and 1.4% of men have been raped at some time in their lives. These are unacceptable numbers, but far from “a majority”. More than half of female victims of rape reported being raped by an intimate partner and 40.8% by an acquaintance. The fact that half involve abuse by men familiar with the women indicates a confusion about mutual consent. Contrary to the notion that rape is NOT a crime of passion, but an assault upon an unsuspecting victim, only a small majority of all rapes qualify for this distinction.
79.6% of female victims of rape experienced their first rape before the age of 25, and 42.2% before the age of 18. Youthful attractiveness and naivety seems to be a consistent stimulus. More than 27.8% of male victims experienced their first rape when they were 10 years of age or younger. Pedophiles thrive on younger guys because of their innate sexual curiosity.
Rates of victimization vary among ethnic groups. Approximately 22 % of Black, 16% of White, and 14.6% of Hispanic women in the United States have experienced rape at some point in their lives. 26.9 % of women who identified as American Indian or Alaska Native and 33.5 % of women who identified as multiracial non-Hispanic women reported rape in their lifetimes.
LikeLike
Doug said:
Very good! Now.. what does that suggest to you in trying to identify the problem (if a problem at all) and how to solve it?
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
These are unacceptable numbers, but far from “a majority”.
Well, those statistics represent actual reported rapes. Most rapes are not reported at all. I also said, “the majority of women have experience with some form of sexual abuse.” Sexual abuse need not amount to rape. I think that’s a true statement, “the majority of women have some experience with sexual abuse,” meaning when we deny the truth or attempt to minimize it, women have actual experiences to reflect back on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Blue rose said:
These cases are difficult to deal with. I actually believe this woman but I also think that Kavanaugh, if he wasn’t drunk enough to not remember anything, probably saw the situation differently. He probably thought this girl is really into me while she’s terrified of being raped. Two people can view the same situation in entirely differently.
However, women do lie sometimes and I’m not sure how we deal with it. There are often no consequences for lying. It happened to a good friend of mine. A coworker tried to accuse him of sexual assault (it turned out he was the 3rd guy she had accused at his job) fortunately for my friend he had never been in a room alone with her so it was obvious she was lying. But a friend of my husbands had and even worse situation. A woman went to the police and said that he raped her. He was arrested and eventually she admitted that she lied, but my husbands friend never got the 15 grand worth of bail money and lawyers fees back.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
Yep,I hear you. One thing that is all wrong with the Kavanaugh case and others is that they are being tried in the court of public opinion. In the legal system, the accused have rights and protections, there are rules of evidence. To try a case in the media or in the halls of congress is just nutty, because that is totally the wrong venue.
In fact, we could even make an argument that whoever sat on these allegations and failed to report them to the cops was actually aiding and abetting a crime. You report to the cops,they investigate and then it goes to the prosecutor who investigates. Then charges are either filed or not. Then it goes to trial where it is investigated some more. An accusation must pass through a lot of layers of justice and be examined by unbiased people before it ever becomes an actual charge, let alone a conviction. But if you just drop it in the media or on the floor of congress, you’ve kind of bypassed all the legal checks and balances. That makes this case all wrong, right off the bat.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doug said:
It suggests the process to fulfill advise & consent on a court justice selection is broken.
LikeLike
MJThompson said:
This is an intriguing thesis, and I appreciate your sharing it. It is quite timely and important, especially for conservative old white men like me to fully scrutinize. I mean this SINCERELY. My regular reading of your blog has provided a necessary perspective that has rewarded me with a deeper comprehension of a female point of view.
Of course, there is more than one side to every premise. When we come to realize that most positions find the exact opposite only at the absolute extreme, black is clearly black, white is white. Unlike the familiar Chinese symbol of the Yin & Yang, representing a little white (good, positive, bright, and masculine) in every black (evil, negative, dark, and feminine) & visa-versa, REAL GOOD is fully RIGHTEOUS regardless of gender, and EVIL is totally devoid of ANY light. Whenever we use generalizations in the course of presenting evidence, we immediately change the reality of black & white into grey.
I agree with what you shared, except for my biased male perception. When you include as an example of the false notions ‘most’ men have of women – “They are all just like Potiphar’s wife”, you contradict your argument. The fact is that Joseph was completely innocent of her false allegations!
Admittedly, MOST women are NOT like Potiphar’s wife. But if it is really true that “the vast majority [of women] have had experiences with some form of sexual abuse”, then the prevailing ignorance among men regarding this must be remedied. The notion that the attempted stoning of the woman merely points to her guilt, dismisses the real moral to the story. Jesus turned away her accusers by virtue of their shared guilt! NONE are righteous; no not one. But He died to grant forgiveness to us ALL.
We MUST apply the Golden Rule to every situation, in our personal lives and in the political arena. Even the early Native Americans understood this, long before any exposure to Christianity. “Walk a mile in another’s moccasins”, Have sincere empathy for both sides. THAT generalization is appropriate.
However, when a specific allegation is levied, we must NOT revert to sweeping abstractions based upon personal bias and/or preconceptions. Black is Black and White is White. Established facts are the truth. Mere unsubstantiated allegations (from a woman or a man) require proof. Justice must favor presumed innocence, NOT ‘guilty until proven otherwise’.
Perhaps you are right. Maybe the majority of men are brute beasts who ravage women with no regard for their feelings or rights. But such generalizations should never excuse the actions of the few Potiphar’s wife models.
In this you’re absolutely right, “some people just never learn”. Hopefully, my perception of THIS case does NOT blind me to the illumination you’ve aptly presented. SOME of us guys are really trying to learn.
LikeLiked by 2 people
insanitybytes22 said:
LOL! Honest to goodness, I do not think all men are “brute beasts.” The reference to Potiphar’s wife is actually based on another post that Wilson wrote, in which he equated ALL women to Potiphar’s wife. Because I guess we are all married to the most wealthy and powerful man in the kingdom and wielding all this unchecked political power?
Anyway, if your attitude is that all men are Joseph, all women are Potiphar’s wife, you have established a bias in which no woman will ever see justice and no man will ever be held accountable for rape. If all men are Joseph then obviously it would be a miscarriage of justice to charge them with anything, ever.
In the case of adultery, pointing to the “shared guilt” of her accusers makes a lot of sense. No doubt they are all stoning the woman for something many of they, themselves are guilty of. Also,one cannot commit adultery alone, so there is a man missing from the tale. But rape? 99 percent of rapists are men. Rape does not lend itself well to the idea of shared guilt. It is not an equal sin to be an unwilling participant in a forcible assault. Men cannot look to women and go, well women are rapists too, because physicality and statistics just don’t bear that out. A huge problem for women is not that we are unforgiving or condemning of men, but actually that we will excuse the man and blame ourselves instead! Our culture tends to support and encourage this. Certainly rapists benefit from it. Also, Jesus is not telling the adulteress about the be stoned to forgive her accusers. Her accusers are supposed to be looking at their own selves, which is why he asks them, “who among you is without sin?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
MJThompson said:
Absolutely, you’re spot on = “If all men are Joseph then obviously it would be a miscarriage of justice to charge them with anything, ever.” But I was alluding to the RARE case of Joseph where his innocence was completely ignored in light of the ‘superior’ position of his accuser (which by the way, was prophetically symbolic of the condemnation of Christ).
Food for thought… just as men are predominantly guilty of rape, women must bear the ultimate responsibility for abortion. Even in the rare cases of rape, reasonable alternatives such as adoption are available. The elimination of an innocent life must be the ultimate concern.
Both are violations of God’s perfect law. Unlike Catholic dogma that presents the severity of sin as apportioned levels (venial, mortal), ALL sin is sin. To God, none is ‘less’ offensive than another. Neither is one less forgivable than another. [I can hear my fellow theologians crying foul] – “every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven” – Mt. 12:31. THAT one sin is an actual life-long unrepentant rejection of the Holy Spirit’s revelation of salvation – the ONLY eternal forgiveness of sin.
My point goes back to the need for a universal application of the Golden Rule, regardless of gender. Peace and continued blessings!
LikeLiked by 1 person
HAT said:
Ross Douthat in yesterday’s NYT agrees with you on this – sorry I can’t send the link; title “The Kavanagh Accusation is Dangerous for the Pro-life Movement”. This analysis exactly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
Interesting! Thanks for the link, I’ll go check it out.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
Yep! He really nailed some of the complexity going on.
I found this to be quite true, “And having that long-awaited victory accomplished by a male judicial appointee confirmed under a cloud of #MeToo suspicion seems like a good way to cement a perception that’s fatal to the pro-life movement’s larger purposes — the perception that you can’t be pro-woman and pro-life.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mel Wild said:
I don’t have any pithy political comments, but I liked your red laser pen analogy. Neitzche was right. We really are just cattle in the herd….or maybe cats in a red laser trance. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doug said:
Perhaps the more appropriate analogy.. we are the glowing eyes that suddenly pop up in the headlights of the oncoming car.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mel Wild said:
LOL!
LikeLike
RichardP said:
As detailed in the book of Genesis, God created this present world by bringing order out chaos. And he did that by establishing boundaries. So too are societies established and made to flourish through the establishment of boundaries. And part of those boundaries are the rules and regulations that each jurisdiction establishes which say when this happens you do that. These are things we learn as children and on throughout out schooling on into young adulthood.
The ridiculousness of what is going on can be seen in these two following examples:
1. As a child we are taught that, when we see a fire, we should call the dogcatcher.
2. My daughter was raped last night. I immediately reported that rape to my senator, who forwarded my notice to the FBI.
We can immediately see the ridiculousness in both of those examples. None of us have been taught that the response in either 1 or 2 is the proper response.
The fact is, all of us know – because we were taught this – that for every public action that needs some sort of attention, there is an appropriate authority to appeal to. And the dogcatcher is not the appropriate authority to appeal to when we spot a fire. And neither is our Senator the appropriate authority to appeal to when we have been raped.
It IS correct to look sideways at someone who reports their rape / attempted rape to their Senator rather than to the folks who are actually charged with the responsibility for investigating it – the local police.
Anybody who argues otherwise, or who argues that this is not actually the issue that is in play here, has demonstrated that they have an agenda other than solving the problem that has been stated.
The only issue that has any validity in what is going on right now is my Point 2 above. And people are right to criticize this action, because we all agree how ludicrous Point 2 sounds if that is the course of action I would follow if my daughter actually was raped.
There is no doubt that women have feelings that can be hurt and abused. There is no doubt that men can make women feel upset and/or unsafe. There is no question about that. But this current situation is about none of that. It is about the ridiculousness of my Point 2 above. We all know that is not the appropriate response for all of the rest of us, and it is not the appropriate response for Dr. Ford. Therefore, we can conclude that what is really at issue is an agenda.
IB, everything you have said in this post is valid – within the proper context. This situation with Dr. Ford is not that context. Dr. Ford is engaged in my Point 2 above. For that reason, there will be no cloud of uncertainty whatsoever over Brett Kavenaugh if he becomes a member of the Supreme Court. Because Dr. Ford has not actually accused him of attempted rape. To do that, she would have had to file charges with her local authorities and within the statute of limitations time-frame. She did neither, and so this situation is rightly looked upon as mere political machinations. That reflects badly on Dr. Ford, not on Judge Kavenaugh.
From what I have read of your writing, you are a bright women. For that reason, I believe that you know all of this already – particularly the ridiculousness of my Point 2 above.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
Yep. I’m in complete agreement about the halls of congress being the wrong place to litigate sexual abuse. I think in a comment above I even suggested that sitting on this info rather then reporting it to the cops, could amount to aiding and abetting a crime or interfering with an investigation. To take it outside the realm of our legal system also takes it outside the realm of legal protections, defendants rights, the rules of evidence,etc. That makes it suspicious already, but also just unethical. The motivation isn’t justice at all, when you try to bypass the whole justice system.
LikeLike
Doug said:
I think “an agenda” is the entire issue here. All sides have some sort of agenda. I think if you are assuming “having an agenda” is somehow casting some adulterated accusation of bias, well, you’d be right.. but the “other side’s” agenda is also in play here. The dispute is not “agendas” or having them or not. Everyone has them. Does Dr. Ford have an agenda? Of course she does… even if you totally remove the suspect timing of it all, Ford’s willing to reveal her accusation could very well be a reflection of a personal agenda to let the world know that Kavanaugh is not as squeaky clean as some folks might be suggesting. Maybe it’s a way she personally is trying to come to emotional grips with the 40 year old experience that she’s alleged to having had with Kavanaugh. We don’t know for sure that motivation. Maybe it’s her own personal retribution toward him for screwing up her emotional life. It doesn’t have to have some grand conspiracy to it. It’s simply HER agenda. But that’s all speculation so far. The GOP has an agenda to get this conservative-thinking judge on the Court to finally get the Court biased conservatively for the first time in 40 years. Personally, it’s MY a agenda is get an UNBIASED justice appointed the the Court.. but we know that isn’t going to work.
We all have agendas. So what?
LikeLike
Citizen Tom said:
Reblogged this on Citizen Tom and commented:
Originally, I just intended to just write a comment, but the more I thought about it the more interesting I thought IB’s observations.
To make identity politics work, Liberal Democrats have to understand our differences and then contrive to use those differences to split us, and that they have done. Make no mistake.
To a large extent, the controversy over Brett Kavanaugh is just in preparation for the election in November. So Conservatives have to be careful with their words.
So is IB right? Are Conservatives hurting themselves? Probably. We do need to assure women that Conservatives abhor sexual abuse of any kind. However, everyone is entitled to a presumption of innocence, even men disliked by Liberal Democrats. Balancing those two messages can be confusing.
Anyway, here is the comment I had planned to leave.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Doug said:
Well, Tom… sex may be a gift from God… but he’s left out the “when” and “how” and with “whom” one can obtain use of this gift. It may be a gift but it’s not without passing a few hurtles before engaging in it… um.. properly.
I think the better question is… why is there rape? God gave us sex, hence a by-product is rape. Do we thank anyone for this?
Now, don’t pile on a bunch of scripture that “tells” us how to behave sexually… there are some real non-Biblical reasons rape exists, and I am suggesting until we understand that part and accept those reasons.. we are likely going to go nowhere to try and fix the problem.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
Why do men commit rape? That’s actually a very good question, Doug. I can’t answer properly, but I did talk with some pedophiles once and what was so sad, was the compulsion, the despair, almost like an addiction. Sex is a powerful influence and if you’ve imprinted or bonded with something disordered like that, it’s now a compulsion. I came away not only feeling empathy for those guys, sad for them, but absolutely convinced they have very little control over themselves. They can never be alone with kids, that’s for sure.
LikeLike
Doug said:
I fully agree with that.
But here’s what I am saying… to even attempt to under the “why” we need to understand the “why” of our existence. Here’s a sample….
Of all the species of animals roaming this earth why is it that human females are so ill-suited to defend themselves from aggressive males? In all the other species females are at least an even match to fight off unwanted male partners. This is one major reason that rape is only a concept of humanity… not other species.
Anyway.. there’s a few of these natural conditions that make rape basically just a human situation.
LikeLike
Tricia said:
@Doug…what you’re saying about humans being the the only species who commit rape is scientifically incorrect.
LikeLike
Doug said:
I wasn’t including “forced copulation” within the animal kingdom outside of humans.
Just an example.. this is from Wiki…
“It has been noted that behavior resembling rape in humans is observed in the animal kingdom, including ducks and geese, bottlenose dolphins,[1] and chimpanzees.[2] Indeed, in orangutans, close human relatives, copulations of this nature may account for up to half of all observed matings.[3] Such behaviors, referred to as ‘forced copulations’, involve an animal being approached and sexually penetrated as it struggles or attempts to escape. These observations of forced sex among animals are not controversial. What is controversial is the interpretation of these observations and the extension of theories based on them to humans.”
One might conclude that the term “rape” is a judgmental cause & effect term of human social behavior simply because humans can reason… and “forced copulation” as suggested in the animal kingdom are varieties of species-related instinct given there is no judgment of the act within their species.
I hope this is what you were suggesting I was not taking into consideration.
LikeLike
Tricia said:
Yes that was it Doug. But really how do we know it’s non judgmental between animals? I don’t think it is either but just saying we don’t really know.
LikeLike
Doug said:
I understand the supposition you are trying to make.. and I suppose until some language is developed between humans and the other animal species, we will never honestly know for sure. But we can get fairly certain using behavioral observation. I will ask of you though… is it important that “maybe” the lower life forms also interpret forced copulation as rape.. or is this about poking a few holes in what I’m suggesting? 🙂
LikeLike
Tricia said:
Kinda both Doug, lol 😉
LikeLike
Doug said:
Actually that was the predicted response. 🙂 I know I’m anti-Trump in my “leanings”.. and on top of that I’m not in total lockstep with most of the religious interminglings reflected on IB’s blog here, which is why I prefer not mixing with religious interpretation. So I understand your wariness in accepting whatever I slap into cyberspace. If you want to dialog a bit before boredom and frustration sets in.. I am still curious why it’s important to you that we, humans, acknowledge that the concept of rape extends across the animal kingdom.
I am also curious what your own “solution” might be in our current environment of rape “awareness” and the culpability of males having abused women across a spectrum of issues for eons. I’m not trying to bait you; I am not sitting here in some wild-eyed anticipation of jumping down your throat and inferring your intellect. In fact, I’m not even thinking about Donald Trump at the moment. 🙂 (Although, that window is soon to close.) 🙂
LikeLike
Citizen Tom said:
@Doug
The Bible does not tell us anything, but don’t pile on a bunch of scripture? 😕
The reason for sin is explanned in Genesis 3. It was only after Adam and Eve decided that they wanted to be God, to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong, that they looked upon each other with lust instead of love.
The Bible condemns sex outside of marriage, and it commands a husband and wife to love each other. That love the Bible talks about is not sexual love; it is about caring for another person as much as we care about our self.
We sin against each other — rape each other — because we don’t love each other. We sin because we love our self too much and our neighbor too little.
Does science have anything to offer? Well, there is that paternity test. It can help the court figure out which man to bill for raising his children, or should I say spawn?
Without love, what does science have to offer? We may avoid STDs. We may produce prettier people, but will we produce better people?
You say we don’t need the God of the Bible to produce better people? There was a time I believed that. Then I read and started studying the Bible.
LikeLike
Doug said:
“You say we don’t need the God of the Bible to produce better people?”
Actually, I didn’t say that. But… let’s roll with that one. Has the Bible worked so far?
I’m not casting doubt on the Bible, Tom. I’m saying spiritualism has it’s place in the human experience… but when used by itself to solve problems it tends to fall short.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
Ha! I think you’re both right. I sometimes say the bible is not like an IKEA instruction manual and when we try to use it that way, we are once again looking for an external solution to what is an internal problem. We have to change our hearts. You cannot just issue a list of “God said” rules and hope they download into what is really always just going to be bad soil. The bible, the Lord Himself, must be internalized.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Citizen Tom said:
It is not spiritualism. It is obedience to a higher authority. As IB says, it must be internalized.
This appears three times in the Bible, once in Jeremiah, and twice in Hebrews.
LikeLike
Lander7 said:
I think you’re wrong on this one. I think everyone in office do what they do for entertainment.
The people don’t like boring politics.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
Bread and circuses, huh? I think there’s some truth to that. People love drama. Politics without scandal probably wouldn’t interest us at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ColorStorm said:
These days, talking donkeys may just make more sense…… ask Bala-am. 🤗
LikeLiked by 2 people
insanitybytes22 said:
Right?? I call people talking donkeys all the time, but there is a difference between simply braying or actually being a donkey for the Lord, one who speaks His words.
Saw a cute cartoon, “what’s the difference between a donkey and royalty?”
With Jesus upon you, you’re a donkey before cheering crowds and waving palm fronds. 🙂
LikeLike
Tricia said:
Nothing like stirring the pot with a post on religion, sex and politics IB, well done! I don’t have much to say about Pastor Wilson, I don’t know much about him and have not read the post you linked to. I do agree conservatives need to be more cognizant that sexual assault can and does occur frequently in our society and to it automatically go in tribe mode and leap to the defense of someone who doesn’t deserve it. I don’t think this is the majority of conservatives by the way, but there are enough of them in the public eye who say really dumb things that paint the rest of us in a bad light. That being said I will copy the comment I left on Tom’s post regarding Kavanaugh.
“I do have to say this whole Kavanaugh episode makes me physically ill just thinking about it. Did he sexually assault this woman? Who really knows, but as of now nothing points to the fact that he did and nothing about the life he’s led after high school shows him to be a sexual predator, just the opposite.
His accuser may be sincere or confused or whatever, but she’s allowed her issue to be hijacked by the Democrats who of course are trying their darnedest to exploit it for political gain.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
newenglandsun said:
You’ve been missing out on Tucker Carlson’s coverage of this I see. He has frequently stated he has no reason to doubt the woman’s claims. That said, the real question should be whether the Democrat party actually believes her claims. The answer is a resounding “NO!” They don’t and then go on television lying about it acting as if they care. They had this information long before the hearings started, and with numerous other objections to Kavanaugh, you wonder why they didn’t bring it up. It is because they never believed the claim was true! They want people thinking that the conservative Republicans don’t believe women when they make the claim and so they made the convenient release and then performed an act worthy of Shakespeare or Aeschylus.
There was a recent poll from Minnesota performed by Mediaite asking people if they believed Keith Ellison’s accuser. Only 5% of Democrats believe her. Richard Painter was shunned by the Democrat Party for bringing up Keith Ellison’s potential abuse. There is much more massive evidence against Ellison and I don’t know if we’re going to get to the bottom of the Kavanaugh thing. I have nothing for or against Kavanaugh but the point here is that the party that claims “Believe the women!” is the party that is richest in denouncing the claims of women.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doug said:
I’m borrowing my reply here that I made on another blog, as it seems relevant here as well.
Here’s some thoughts…
1. The entire process of this advise & consent process is a damned mess from the get go for decades. Politics and tribalism everywhere. That’s part of the lay-of-the-land now in D.C. No choice but to move on.
2. Second guessing the politics of it all, playing the supposition games about what event happened or not, trying to determine how to measure guilt or outright lying on hearsay, really matters not in the end. Whomever does the vetting checks, which I seem to be thinking is the FBI, will NEVER establish guilt or innocence because they just collect information and present it up the chain. That’s pretty much all they do in the real world anyway. Seems at best all they will do is confirm or deny or find no evidence that the alleged event happened, or even happened between the alleged parties involved.
But seems to me, right or wrong, true or fake, someone has come forward to make an alleged accusation regarding a candidate for SCOTUS. So.. if it takes another day or two for some impartial player to vet the accusation one way or the other than what’s the problem? The GOP still holds the card to vote Kavanaugh in at any time before the election. Nothing to loose.
3. This idea floating around in some circles that if by some measure Kavanaugh’s guilt in the act could be ascertained, that it matters not that he might have been a drunken teenager, at a party with apparently any number of inebriated made-the-wrong-choices teenagers (including the victim), he is applying for the most sacred and honorable of a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court and he should represent absolute ethical perfection. Well… ok… his job would be one of nine who interpret the Constitution in case brought before them. I am somewhat mystified that this criteria is not demanded of the one person who does indeed hold the highest office in the land, the President. That person may not have a lifetime appointment.. but that person has a helluva lot more power and influence domestically and around the world.. and affects us far more than any single Justice on the Court. Sorry… this reasoning is shear hypocrisy if not shear idiocy. But.. there’s a lot of that going around these days.
4. Kavanaugh is going to get appointed anyway… and why has this been such a big deal? He could end up turning moderate, convert to liberalism… oh… hey.. just maybe, he could be the one Justice to actually become unbiased! Uh, huh.
There are far more important things to worry about domestically than this wacky debate.
LikeLike
newenglandsun said:
I’ll add to your list another important thing:
5. Kavanaugh is the most moderate on the list. The Democrats are throwing up a “Hail Mary” pass in the endzone hoping to get a last minute touchdown before the midterms by tanking his nomination. The likelihood of them winning the midterms if they throw it up, very slim! Trump was primarily elected BECAUSE of Supreme Court issues. Kavanaugh is the most MODERATE pick he could have made. Do they want Justice Amy Coney Barrett who would certainly not have the issues of Kavanaugh but is even further to the right and risk losing Senate and having her after tanking Kavanaugh?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doug said:
Well, you could very likely be correct.. but the point of my reply was to make all of this as being rather insignificant, certainly only in my own opinion, because SCOTUS justices often change, if not from the initial awe and humbleness of first walking into the chambers feeding the awareness that they are rendering decisions for the nation and not a person or a party, but certainly down the road as time tends to mellow perceptions and there’s thoughts of legacy. So.. if any candidate passes vetting and public muster that’s fine with me. I don’t care how they are perceived initially as being one ideology over the other. My opinion.. who cares what their past party loyalties may lie.
Besides… all the public politics is concerned about is how one votes on Roe V. Wade, LGBTQ, and the Second Amendment cases anyway. Personally I think there’s more to “life” than just those items.
LikeLike
marmoewp said:
“Interesting” results from a recent Marist poll:
Q: “If the charge of sexual assault during a party in high school by Christine Blasey Ford against Brett Kavanaugh is true, do you think Brett Kavanaugh:
a) Should be confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court
b) Should not be confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court
c) Unsure”
29% of national adults think Kavanaugh should be still be confirmed in the case the accusations are true, 59% think he should not be confirmed in that case. This clear 2:1 ratio of no confirmation vs confirmation holds for basically any subdivision of the sample: by gender, by race, by area description, etc. In almost all cases 60% to 70% of the respondents say, that Kavanaugh should not be confirmed, if the aleged rape attempt were true.
There are two notable exceptions: 54% of Republicans and 48% of White Evangelical Christians think, that Kavanaugh should be confirmed, even if the Ford accusations of attempted rape were true.
LikeLiked by 1 person
emmanuelbouquillionquotes said:
What if you wish for your partner to miscarriage? What does that make or say about you?
LikeLike