Maybe this will work out, after all

Sexual harassment….bad.  Sexual assault…really bad.  Rape…the worst.  It’s all a crime, an ugly, ugly crime.  And it’s all a crime potentially punishable by jail-time.  And, according to most women, the entire spectrum from bad to criminal is a truly heinous crime that has simply gone on far too long and this, the ‘Weinstein Effect’ is long overdue.  Due process and jail-time is just not enough.  They want faster and more devastating results.  If the accused’s life is totally ruined, it’s a good thing. 

And, it would appear that we are doing just that.  It would seem that alleged perps are being pursued and persecuted.  That’s good, right?  We need to get the bad guys.  Ruin ’em.  Grind ’em into the mud.  Kill their careers.  Destroy their family.  Get ’em while the gettin’s good.  What the hell…’cut off their dicks!’  Why the hell not?  C’mon, the guys didn’t use their dicks the way they should have.  Not the way the women wanted them to.  We can all see that.  They should have no rights to their own dicks.  Cut ’em off, Lorena.

Seriously…Louis C.K. really should NOT have one.  Ya know?  They really should castrate him.  He’s so yucky.  It’s just awful.  Really awful.  To have to sit and watch him ’cause of his power….yuck.  And listening to him do it on the phone….it went on forever!

Furthermore, we are asked to simply believe the accuser.  Fully.  100%.  No need to check out the claims because that just victimizes the poor woman further. If they say it happened, damn it, it happened!  If they say it happened thirty years ago, that makes no difference – hang the bastard!

“I was offended.”  “He had power.”  “I had to listen to him masturbate over the phone!”  

Oooooh, oooh, and if three or more women say it happened, that is, like, all the proof anyone needs.  Makes no difference if the male claims it was consensual sex, harmless or even clumsy flirting, a genuine expression of love or even if he admits to light-guilt due to the presence of alcohol, an initial willingness on the part of the victim until, at the last minute, a whispered ‘No’.  C’mon!  If the incident did not turn out exactly as the woman wanted, he should go to jail.  “Hey!  If I was offended, why not?” 

Anyway, who cares?

On the face of it, this blanket condemnation AND punishment of the accused BEFORE any proof has been established is contrary to all our moral codes, laws and social expectations…or, rather, it was.  Not anymore.  NOW it is OK to ruin men by smearing them.  Now the guy pays simply on an allegation.  NOT even a formal accusation filed with the police is required.  ‘We don’t need no stinkin’ badges!’   An allegation in the media will do.

And, do we care?

Well, it is cheaper for society, that’s for sure.  No lawyers, no police, no judges.  That part is good.  And, at least the woman isn’t doing it for reasons of blackmail or monetary compensation like has been done so often in the past.  This makes it purely a matter of revenge.  Keyword: pure.  It may be wrong but at least the motives are clear.

I kinda like that, actually.  It always seemed to me that money should NOT be the only compensation for wrongdoing. I think most crimes should require criminals to ‘work’ for the betterment of society and, if appropriate, the victim.  But the law has no other means to ‘make someone whole again’ after negligence or accident or even criminal acts other than ‘quantum’ (money) and that seemed to taint the process to my mind.

This process – however mob/kangaroo-court in nature – eliminates quantum from the equation.  Or so it appears at first glance.  Once you have ruined Weinstein, Roy Moore, Kevin Spacey and anyone else whoever offended you, what court in the land would think you deserved further compensation?  Wouldn’t they just say, “Well, you wanted your pound of flesh, you wanted revenge, you wanted to ruin the guy and you got that.  You are, indeed, empowered.  Sheeesh, are you ever empowered!  And he is not! On what basis can you now claim more?” 

 

 

6 thoughts on “Maybe this will work out, after all

  1. David, It somewhat reminds me of the time many years ago when I was forbidden to see my daughter. Even though our divorce decree said “reasonable access” I was not allowed. If I showed up at my ex’s house, she called the cops. I went to court at least a dozen times over a period of 14 years and got absolutely nowhere! The judge always came up with a reason and it varied. But the bottom line was, “you’re a man, you’re bad and it must be your fault!” No due process whatsoever. I hear rumors that it hasn’t changed much.

    Like

    • I am sorry to hear that. Hopefully, you and she have reconnected. I was a mediator and an arbitrator for over 20 ‘active’ years. I have done literally hundreds of mediations and many, many family separation agreements. Maybe 1% of the dads were suspect, none were clearly bad. Some were a mess. Some had tempers. Some were irritating. But virtually all loved their children. At least 1% of the mothers were also suspect. They, too, had problems. NOT perfect. Vis a vis the kids? Equal love.
      One difference: my estimate (totally anecdotal): about five percent of the women used the children for leverage to ‘get’ what they wanted from the male. To be fair, when two people don’t cooperate, they fight and twist and lie but there was never a clear gender bias (good gender vs bad) for me with my clients (don’t forget, parents who CHOOSE mediation are usually more sane and fair-minded from the get-go).
      Having said all that, yes – there was and is a clear bias against males with the police – not so much in the actual written law. If a woman claims she has been hit by her spouse, the male goes to jail for the night. No proof required. No time for moving the car, getting belongings or anything. Handcuffs and marched to the car.
      Their rationale? Someone has to leave, may as well be the male.

      Like

    • I wrote a reply. Another one lost to the ether, I guess.
      Briefly: as a mediator for a long time, both genders came to the separation agreement party with problems. But, overall, it was equal. Of course, in one case the man was the worse actor but, in the next, the woman was. Over hundreds of cases, it was equal. And, one thing was almost always clear: they each loved their children the same. To be fair, I only had couples who CHOSE mediation and that, in itself, is saner and more fair than chucking lawyers at each other. So, I had the sane ones. Mostly. The law is pretty fair, pretty equal. The application of the law is subject to the biases of the judges but they are not THAT bad as a rule. The biggest bias is with the Attorney General and the police. If a woman claims her spouse hit her, he goes to jail for the night. NOT a hotel. JAIL. NO belongings. No arrangements allowed. Handcuffs and a march to the car. Their rationale? Someone has to leave. The bias? He is assumed guilty and treated like a criminal.

      Like

  2. Maybe this will all work out…the unfolding and the rebalancing has been ongoing for thousands of years. The struggle for equality will continue as long as inequality is evident. It is a dialogue that needs to continue in our society with a clear eye look at what is really happening.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s