#ford-kavanaugh | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

whitehotharlots · 1 month

Text

Tara Reade, Christine Blassey Ford, and the bleak limitations of pettiness feminism

For what it’s worth, I found the accusations made by Tara Reade and Christine Blassey Ford both imminently plausible. I’ve never met Joe Biden or Brett Kavanaugh, but I’ve spent more than enough time around entitled white collar pricks to realize that things like non-consensual workplace groping and wacky frat house sex pranks are a part of their worlds. There was nothing about either story that struck me as obviously false or otherwise disqualifying. Both very well may have happened.

But I also believe that there’s a wide chasm between plausibility and proof–especially in criminal matters, and extra especially in regards to the sort of accusations that could result in yearslong jail sentences. Sexual assault cases are notoriously hard to prosecute in their immediacy. If we’re talking about something that happened years or decades earlier, there’s no reasonable way to prove the accusations in a manner that would warrant a formal, judicial response.

By 2020, this belief of mine was considered hopelessly out of date, borderline sacrilegious. The Trump era ushered in a new diligence in regards to how the public was supposed to understand and react to accusations of sexual misconduct: women should be believed, full stop. Accused men should be punished, full stop. The crisis of the moment meant that all the old notions regarding due process and the fixed standards of what is or is not a crime had to be thrown out.

Remember that “Shitty Media Men” list from 2017? God, seems like forever ago. The list was a wholly anonymous Google Docs spreadsheet containing the names of several dozen men in media and a brief description of their alleged crimes. It was written about in glowing terms by publications big and small, heralded as a bold and exciting new chapter of social justice, and the list’s creator–Moria Donegan–was eventually granted status as a star commentator.

Did you read the list? I did. About one in every 15 or so entries contained a very severe accusation–something along the lines of “he raped me in the dumpster behind Arby’s” or “he keeps tricking me into getting stuck in a dryer.” But the vast, vast majority of entries alleged nothing more than minor interpersonal conflict: “he doesn’t respect my work,” “he raised his voice at me one time in 2012,” and other stuff along those lines. One entry really stuck out: the accuser admitted that she had never met the man. “But,” she said, “he must be a creep… just look at the stuff he writes!”

No doubt, at least some of these men were/are grade-A jerks. But the bulk of them appear to have just been disliked by a colleague or acquaintance who felt the need to take advantage of a social justice movement to exact revenge. This is how human interaction works. No one is beloved by everybody; everyone will experience some instances in which they treat others with less courtesy than they probably should; and, well, sometimes two people who are otherwise completely decent despise one another for reasons that are inscrutable to everyone but God.

The malignancy of the Shitty Media Men list is that it caused readers to conceptually associate minor interpersonal conflicts–some of which admittedly did not happen, most others of the sort that would cause no reasonable person to find one party entirely at fault, let alone worthy of expulsion from polite society–with major violations such as rape and assault. This was the new era: every accusation is proof of guilt, and all guilt is of the same severity. It’s too hard to definitively prove that a rape happened, ergo we needed to dismiss the usual evidentiary standards of criminal proceedings in regards to rape. And, also, mildly upsetting a female colleague is now the same thing as rape.

Wonderful stuff. Fantastic stuff.

A year passed. The Notorious RBG ascended to the great rap battle in the sky, and it was up to the dastard President Drumpf to appoint her successor. He settled upon a youth-pastor-cum-jurist who resembled a crude caricature from a late 1800’s anti-Irish political comic. The man had a rap sheet a mile long: lackey to Ken Starr (himself quite the defender of rape), Yalie, anti-abortion, corporate puppet, helped rig the Florida vote in 2000, Federalist Society member, blah blah blah all the horrible shit you expect from a GOP nominee to the Supreme Court.

None of these facts mattered much within the liberal imaginary, however, as they weren’t that far afield from the activities of the sort of justices liberals find inoffensive. No, the #Resistance had an ace up their sleeve: a lady said he had sexually assaulted her 30 years prior, and she was willing to say so in front of congress.

He must have been toast after that, right? Because everyone had spent the last few years hashtagging #BelieveWomen, right? They’re not gonna say they believe women and not believe them, right? It can’t be that this precedent we just set up would only be used to ruin the lives of low-level middle manager type guys who did inconsequential stuff, right? Right?

No. Of course not. Republicans never even pretended to care about that shit.

In the non-conservative press, Blassey Ford was treated as a hero. Her effort was brave, and her failure served to validate the premise upon which it was founded: women are not believed enough, and men can get away with anything.

Another few years passed. Due to a confluence of events of that ranged between skullduggery and outright rigging, the Democratic presidential primary narrowed down to a less-corrupt-than-average politician who was called a “socialist” because he was to the left of Grover Norquist, and a credit card lobbyist who was once accidentally appointed vice president.

The credit card lobbyist should have been considered especially ignominious, considering the degree to which the #BelieveWomen mantra was prevalent on the left. Decades earlier, in a situation quite similar to that faced by Blassey Ford, he led the charge in aggressively dismissing the accusations of a woman who had accused a SCOTUS nominee of sexual misconduct. Surely that was the sort of thing MeToo would not abide, right? Right?

Again, no. The semi-socialist was repeatedly smeared as a racist and sexist for reasons that no one could ever quite articulate. Social media figures openly solicited false allegations of sexual misconduct against him. In spite of being a leftist Jewish man, in spite studies showing that his supporters were actually far less aggressive and hateful than those of Hillary Clinton, he was still the most toxic and evil presence to ever enter into Democrat politics. #BelieveWomen and #MeToo precedents were very effectively invoked: there doesn’t need to be proof, and there doesn’t need even be an accusation. He’s evil because we say he’s evil. His name is on the spreadsheet.

But the guy who got Clarence Thomas onto the Supreme Court? That was regrettable, sure. But it was a youthful transgression! He’s apologized! It doesn’t matter.

Then we got a late-primary curveball: a woman who verifiably worked with Biden claimed he had jammed his hand down her pants. The allegation was decades old and therefore unprovable in a legal sense, and suddenly that was an issue where it hadn’t been just a few months before. The MeToo movement’s purveyors worked to clarify that she was a lying, mentally unstable, and possibly Russian slut.

A year earlier, we were told that due process was a misogynist construct, and that expressing skepticism toward politically opportune allegations was an expression of patriarchy and privilege. Now, faced with allegations that would force them to choose between a semi-leftist or Donald Trump, the progressive vanguard suddenly decided that these old principles of Enlightened Liberalism weren’t so evil after all.

Blassey Ford is about to embark on a book tour, receiving near-unanimous praise (and ample financial compensation) for her bravery. She might not be a household name, but among those who do remember her, she is revered as a hero.

Reade, meanwhile, is a permanent disgrace who had to defect to Russia.

In a sad way, the disparity between how these two women were treated demonstrates the conditions that spawned MeToo: a woman who makes an accusation against an unpopular or hated man will be, at least, believed. She will not suffer negative consequences. She may even be rewarded, even if the man himself isn’t punished. But a woman who goes against a man who is too important, too well-connected? She won’t even get a chance to testify. She’s actually even worse than the abusers. Every aspect of her account and character will be placed under a microscope, and anything she cannot prove with 100% fidelity will be held up as proof of how horrible she is. She’s also on the spreadsheet.

And in an even sadder way, this disparity demonstrates why the MeToo and BelieveWomen stuff was horribly misguided from the start. Removing the structures that allow society to function will not magically result in a more just society manifesting from the wreckage of the old. You might–might–remove some of the most malignant shitheads. But in the process you will ruin the lives of many who are either innocent or marginally guilty, and you will entrench the utter empowerment of those who are, only in some small ways, the lesser evils. There’s no path forward, here. There is no hope here.

13 notes · View notes

beardedmrbean · 12 days

Text

NPR defended embattled chief executive Katherine Maher against "online actors with explicit agendas" on Wednesday as her old social media posts continue to go viral for exposing her personal left-wing ideology.

What seems like a never-ending supply of social media messages Maher posted before running NPR have been unearthed in recent days by critics of NPR, including Manhattan Institute senior fellow Christopher Rufo.

Maher, who served as the CEO for Web Summit and Wikimedia Foundation prior to taking over NPR last month, showed her support for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020 while regularly sharing liberal talking points and criticizing Donald Trump. Many feel that someone with such blunt partisan views running NPR on the heels of veteran editor Uri Berliner penning a scathing takedown that detailed the "absence of viewpoint diversity" at the organization could be troublesome, but the organization chalked up the resurfaced tweets as "bad faith" attacks.

"This is a bad faith attack that follows an established playbook, as online actors with explicit agendas work to discredit independent news organizations," an NPR spokesperson told Fox News Digital.

"In this case, they resorted to digging up old tweets and making conjectures based on our new CEO’s resume," the spokesperson continued. "Spending time on these accusations is intended to detract from NPR’s mission of informing the American public and providing local information in communities around the country is more important than ever."

Rufo has also unearthed old video of Maher saying the First Amendment makes it too difficult to censor "bad information." But much of the controversy surrounding her is the result of posts on X, the platform previously known as Twitter.

Before taking over NPR, Maher tweeted essentially whatever was on her mind. For example, she once shared details of a dream where her and Kamala Harris were on a road trip together "comparing nuts and baklava from roadside stands" before she "woke up very hungry."

Others were more political.

Maher wrote on X in May 2020 that while "looting is counterproductive," it was "hard to be mad about protests not prioritizing the private property of a system of oppression founded on treating people's ancestors as private property." In another post on the thread, Maher said that property damage was "not the thing" Americans should be upset over.

In another 2020 post, Maher is seen donning a Biden for president hat and said it was the "best part" of her efforts to get out the vote.

"I can’t stop crying with relief," she wrote after Biden won.

Maher also took issue with the infamous New York Times Tom Cotton op-ed in 2020, saying it was "full of racist dog whistles." She argued it was based on the "false premise that the country is in a state of ‘disorder.'"

Several of her old posts that have resurfaced reference concern over White privilege and "White silence."

In June 2020, Maher declared "White silence is complicity."

"If you are White, today is the day to start a conversation in your community," she continued.

Maher identified herself as an "unalloyed progressive" supporting Clinton in the 2016 election. However, Maher had some criticism for Clinton at the time, saying she wished the then-Democratic presidential nominee "wouldn't use the language of ‘boy and girl,'" because it was "erasing language for non-binary people."

In 2018, she wrote, "I’m angry. Hot angry, slow angry, relentless angry. This anger is going to fuel and burn for a long time, and it will deliver back exponentially," during Christine Blasey Ford's testimony accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault.

Rufo joined Fox News on Tuesday to explain why he’s been busy circulating Maher’s old tweets.

"I spent the last day or two digging through her tweets to show people exactly what she believes. It’s actually incredible. It is the most vapid, left-wing propaganda imaginable," Rufo said on "Jesse Watters Primetime."

"She’s been at it for year. She’s a supporter of BLM, she believes in the pseudo-science of White privilege, White fragility, she criticized her own Whiteness," he continued. "It’s like Mad Libs for left-wing women."

In addition to the deluge of old social media messages being resurfaced, NewBusters reported on Wednesday that Maher has donated to Democratic candidates such as Stacey Abrams. NPR did not immediately respond to a request for comment about her donations.

Berliner, who resigned after blowing the whistle on NPR’s liberal bias, doesn’t think Maher is fit for the job.

"We're looking for a leader right now who's going to be unifying and bring more people into the tent and have a broader perspective on, sort of, what America is all about," Berliner told NPR media reporter David Folkenflik prior to quitting. "And this seems to be the opposite of that."

Berliner also scolded Maher when he stepped down.

"I am resigning from NPR, a great American institution where I have worked for 25 years. I don’t support calls to defund NPR," Berliner wrote in a statement published on X. "I respect the integrity of my colleagues and wish for NPR to thrive and do important journalism."

"But I cannot work in a newsroom where I am disparaged by a new CEO whose divisive views confirm the very problems at NPR I cited in my Free Press essay," Berliner continued.

#nunyas news

8 notes · View notes

cmesinic · 1 month

Text

Another woman,nationally abused by the fascist in Congress.

#cmesin

6 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 1 year

Text

A secretly made documentary expanding on allegations of sexual assault against supreme court justice Brett Kavanaugh has premiered at this year’s Sundance film festival.

Justice, a last-minute addition to the schedule, aims to shine a light not only on the women who have accused Kavanaugh, a Donald Trump nominee, but also the failed FBI investigation into the allegations.

“I do hope this triggers outrage,” said producer Amy Herdy in a Q&A after the premiere in Park City, Utah. “I do hope that this triggers action, I do hope that this triggers additional investigation with real subpoena powers.”

The film provides a timeline of the allegations, initially that Kavanaugh was accused by Christine Blasey Ford of sexual assault when she was 15 and he 17. She alleged that he held her down on a bed and groped her, and tried to rip her clothes off before she got away. Kavanaugh was also accused of sexual misconduct by Deborah Ramirez, who alleged that he exposed himself and thrust his penis at her face without her consent at a college party.

Kavanaugh denies the allegations. He turned down requests to take part in the documentary.

The first scene features Ford, half off-camera, interviewed by the film’s director Doug Liman, whose credits include Mr and Mrs Smith and The Bourne Identity. Justice features a number of interviews with journalists, lawyers, psychologists and those who knew Ford and Ramirez.

“This was the kind of movie where people are terrified,” Liman said. “The people that chose to participate in the movie are heroes.”

In the film, Ramirez, who previously told her story to Ronan Farrow in the New Yorker, also shares her story on-camera. Ramirez is referred to as someone “they worked hard for people not to know”, her story never given the space it deserved until long after Kavanaugh was confirmed to the court in October 2018.

Ramirez details a Catholic upbringing, before explaining that her high grades got her into Yale when the university was slowly diversifying its student body in the mid-80s. As well as being admitted only 15 years after women were allowed in, Ramirez was also biracial and working class. “My mum was concerned,” she recounts, emotionally, in the documentary.

Friends at the time refer to her as “sweet and Bambi-like” and “innocent to a fault”, but Ramirez tried to fit in by becoming a cheerleader and by drinking with her peers. This, she says, brought her into the orbit of Kavanaugh, who came from a privileged family and was known as a heavy drinker at the time (he is referred to in the film as someone who was usually “more drunk than everyone else”). Ramirez recounts the alleged event, when she was intoxicated and, she says, made, without her consent, to touch Kavanaugh’s penis, which he had placed near her face.

The film then details how the circles around Ramirez and Kavanaugh responded, showing text messages of a discussion when Ramirez’s allegations were about to go public, of a mutual friend being asked by Kavanaugh to go on record to defend him. Another friend refers to it as “a cover-up”.

The New Yorker included a statement from a group of students at the time in support of Kavanaugh. A year later, the film shows that two of them emailed the New Yorker to remove their names from the statement.

Ramirez’s lawyers claim they contacted Republican senator Jeff Flake, who was involved in Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings, to explain what happened to her. The next day Flake called to delay the confirmation and insist on a week-long FBI investigation.

But the film details how the FBI failed to call on the many witnesses recommended by Ramirez’s lawyers. Footage is shown of the film-makers meeting with a confidential source who plays tape of Kavanaugh’s classmate Max Stier, now a prominent figure in Washington running a non-profit, who allegedly witnessed Kavanaugh involved in a similar act of alleged drunken exposure with a female student at a dorm party at Yale. The woman has chosen to remain anonymous and this is the first time this recording has been heard.

It was made during the week the FBI investigated Kavanaugh, and despite Stier notifying them, they failed to speak to him. “You don’t talk to that guy, you’re not talking to anybody,” Liman said during the Q&A.

The FBI tip line that was set up is referred to as “a graveyard”, with 4,500 tips sent straight to the White House rather than being investigated. It’s referred to as another “cover-up”.

The film-makers also spoke to other accuser who alleged misconduct but could not be included in the film. “We did speak to people who had other allegations, and we were very careful and thorough, and it’s not for disbelieving them – but the stories you see here are the ones you are able to corroborate,” Herdy said to the audience.

Justice was made in secrecy over the last year, with NDAs signed by everyone involved. The project was self-funded by Liman, making his documentary debut. He told the Hollywood Reporter that the supreme court holds “special meaning” to him, his father having been a lawyer and activist and his brother a federal judge. He was frustrated by the FBI investigation into Kavanaugh that “never happened”, and sought the help of renowned documentary producers Liz Garbus and Herdy, both with specialised experience of films about sexual assault allegations, to do the work that he saw as unfinished, if barely started at all.

At the Q&A, he expressed the importance of secrecy, speaking about “the machinery that’s put into place against anyone who dared to speak up” and an awareness that this machinery would be turned on the film if it was made public.

“There would have been some kind of injunction,” he said. “This film wouldn’t have been showing here.”

It was only screened to Sundance high-ups on Wednesday before being officially announced on Thursday. It premiered to a sold-out cinema on Friday.

In the past few years, the festival has become a regular home to a number of investigative documentaries about alleged sexual predators in the public eye. Figures such as Michael Jackson, Bill Cosby, Russell Simmons and former Sundance mainstay Harvey Weinstein have all been spotlighted.

Since the announcement of Justice, Herdy confirmed they have been “getting more tips”, which started arriving just 30 minutes after the press release went out. Liman added that the film, which is seeking a distributor, will now possibly need to be extended and re-edited.

Herdy added: “It’s not over.”

67 notes · View notes