### WARNING: Plain speaking in this essay! Proceed at your own risk! ###
Doesn’t anyone recognize the monumental insult to women that the phrase “believe all women” is?
The Kavanaugh confirmation hearings seem to have scratched off a lot of scabs from wounds on the national psyche that are mostly self-inflicted.
In this so-called #MeToo age, we’re supposed, say some fringe nutcases in the feminist movement, to believe all women when they say they’ve been victimized by a man.
To say: “believe all women” is to insult women and men. To “believe all women” is to do nothing less than to strip women of their humanity, of the vast complexity, variability, capability, willpower, creativity and imagination — for good or ill! — built-in to being human.
Seriously: when it comes to men, are women not people? Are they not capable of lying? Of selfishness? Of ignobility? Just like real people? Are they all just one big pack of sameness? No single one of them any different from any other? All completely honest? All completely noble, selfless? All just good super-people? One big, mooing, cud-chewing herd of sameness without the ability to choose to be bad people?
Here’s another possibility: Are women perhaps too stupid to know how to do bad things? Are women too self-unaware even to recognize the temptation to do bad things to others? Specifically to men?
More to the point, is there really someone — anyone — out there trying to pretend that no woman ever used sex to get her way? That no woman ever used sex to manipulate a man into doing what she wanted him to do? That no woman ever used sex as a… weapon? Anyone who believes all that has never been a man.
Whoever suggests all that is implying that women are nothing more than weak-willed, feeble-minded… animals. To “believe all women” is to pretend they’re of little more complexity or intellectual capacity than… the family pet.
I’ve personally spoken with many dozens of women about this topic. I’ve asked them point blank: “Have you ever lied about sex? Have you ever used sex to get your way with a man?” One hundred percent of the time, the response came back as some variation of: “Are you kidding? Of course! Yes, to both!” The answer to the obvious follow-up question: “Why?” was just as immediate, just as universal: “Because it works.”
Then, when women elaborated on this subject, they invariably said that they used sex to get their way, to manipulate, to reward. Furthermore, they said that they withheld sex for the same reasons, as well as to punish.
Put food in front of the hungry family cat or dog, he’ll always eat. Always. One hundred percent of the time. It’s not in his repertoire to say something like, “Hmmm… I’ve been packing on the pounds lately, maybe I’ll pass up this meal and go for a jog around the house.” No… he’ll eat the food.
If a woman finds herself in a socially- or sexually-charged situation, are there really people out there — including half-witted Senators from Hawaii — asking us to believe that no woman would ever do the wrong thing? A bad thing? Especially with all the myriad, well-documented stories out there of women simply fabricating accusations of sexual impropriety against, say, a guy who spurned their advances?(1)
If “believe all women” is a thing then, inescapably, when a woman is faced with an opportunity to do something bad, like a cat or dog, she simply doesn’t have the brain power to make the choice to do it.
Nothing against my cat or dog whatsoever… in fact I love my cat and dog immensely. They’re full-fledged members of my small but growing family. And, yes, I believe my cat and dog… every time. In fact, I believe everything that all my cats and dogs have ever “said” to me, in trying to communicate their hunger, excitement, affection, discomfort, annoyance (something at which cats are particularly adept)… anything. I’ve always believed my pets whenever they’ve come to me to try to express something.
If you’re a pet owner, you know also that they do this quite a lot. And, yes, I believe all cats and dogs. Why? Because unlike humans — yes, feminists and women included! — cats and dogs don’t have the capacity to be dishonest, to mislead. They have only the capacity to be… cats and dogs.
I used to have outdoor cats. Occasionally they’d come home with little trophies from the woods in the back yard. I always kept my cats well fed, but all manner of mice, chipmunks, occasionally birds and other wildlife critters wound up, bedraggled and dead, on our back porch. I never thought I had a rogue cat when that happened. I never figured that I needed to give my cat sensitivity training, or any hooey like that. I understood that it was in his or her nature to prey on these small woodland creatures. He wasn’t “bad” or “good” for doing this, he was “cat.”(2) That’s it. He had no choice.
Needless to say, “believe all women” can mean only “believe no men.” Ever. If — as “believe all women” does — you reduce women to beings with little more brainpower or intellectual capacity than the family pet, who has no ability to make the decisions to act outside of a narrowly-constrained set of behaviors, then you imply that men are exactly the same.
Except that you’re saying that in all interactions with women where there’s a disagreement, men will always act badly, are always in the wrong. You’re suggesting that men will never act nobly, never act with generosity, or grace, or kindness. That men are always just trying to get her pants off as soon as they possibly can, and if their fake “charm” doesn’t work, then they’re going to remove those pants by force.
Today (10/6/18) the pea-brained Senator from Washington state said this:
“Republicans are saying: ‘Your voices just don’t matter,’” Sen. Patty Murray of Washington said Saturday. “Your experiences, your trauma, your pain, your heartache, your anger — none of that matters. Their message is, ‘We don’t have to listen. We don’t have to care. Sit down and be quiet.’”
No, the problem is that so much of the “trauma, pain, heartache and anger” Murray refers to is… lies. Or imaginary. This outburst from the pea-brained Senator from Washington state is particularly ironic in light of the fact that her friend, the half-witted Senator from Hawaii, actually told men to sit down and be quiet. Does anyone think that the half-witted Senator from Hawaii is alone in her lunacy?
No one’s real “trauma, pain, heartache or anger” is unimportant. However, when the system is awash, as it is (Read here, for example.(2a)), in faked accusations of sexual impropriety, it seriously dilutes the urgency anyone can give to the real accusations. Why? Simple: the whiners and the feeble-minded, the ego-feeders, and the self-obsessed — you know, feminists — have long been flooding the country with fake cries of wolf.(3)
“Believe all women” implies that women are less than half as capable — intellectually and morally — as they actually are. That they are incapable — like a dog or cat — of making the choice to do bad.
Well, if women are incapable of doing bad, then the good that they do isn’t from a considered choice either. Like the cat or dog — she simply has no choice. She should get no credit whatsoever for being a good person, because, according to “believe all women,” she can’t be a bad one. By saying, “believe all women,” you remove the possibility of women’s being blamed for doing bad things, but you also eliminate any possible credit they could ever take for doing good things.
It’s the same for men. If all men are always in the wrong, in any dispute with a women, that means — again inescapably — that men have no choice, and are therefore acting only in accordance with their very nature. In other words, like the family dog when he eats your slipper, or the cat when he brings home the dead chipmunk, the only thing women should have a right to do when men misbehave, is to shrug their shoulders and say, “Oh, well… Not his fault. That’s just how they are.”
Oh, you can train the family dog not to eat your slipper, but you can’t train slipper eating out of his nature. To make him behave, you have to use a primitive sequence of basic appeals to his brain either to prefer the treat you’ll give him, or to fear the punishment you’ll mete out.
But he still wants to eat your slipper.
We do this with men. Society has long had a set of standards in place that recognize a basic fact: the average man is a third again larger than the average woman, and more than twice as physically powerful. With that basic fact in place, it’s obvious that all societies have a built-in imperative to… control men. And they do it through a complex array of social conventions — established by men, by the way — all designed to protect women from the fact that they will nearly always come out on the short end of a physical conflict — no matter what the circumstances — with a man.
This complex array of social conventions ranges from the very simple: opening doors for women, throwing capes over puddles for them, inculcating “ladies first” deep into men’s psyches — to the complex and deeply meaningful: fighting the bear at the front door, running into the burning house to rescue her and the children, taking a bullet from the burglar for her, or taking one from a faceless enemy on the battlefield.
There are deep, important reasons for which we refer to the countries we men have died for in the countless tens of millions, as… “her.”
Note this well: One important reason for which a feminist can bring herself to say the manifestly stupid phrase, “believe all women,” is because — not being a man — she’s incapable of understanding the vast nobility of which men are capable, and which they have demonstrated countless billions of times throughout human history.(4)
When the single man encounters the beautiful woman, he wants to have sex with her. He knows, however, that if he were to act aggressively on that desire, then there are a lot of possibilities.: #1: She could say, “Sure… let’s go!” #2: she could reject him flatly, #3: she could put him off, but not definitively, #4: she could call the police, #5: she could ignore him completely, #6: he could do nothing, pass it off as a chance encounter, assume that she’s so attractive that she must already be with someone, and wax wistful over what he wishes could have been… and so on. We all know that #1 is mathematically the least likely of the bunch, while #6 has the greatest chance of being the outcome of this encounter.
The single man knows all this too and so, doing some quick calculations, decides what to do, or not do, among the myriad options available to him; most of which, I should add, will not lead to his having sex with the beautiful woman.(5)
The point, though, is that in that chance meeting, #1: the man wants to have sex with the woman, and #2: the woman probably is at least somewhat aware of that fact. That instantly sets up a “power” dynamic, with the woman firmly in charge, that — unless something bizarre disrupts it — will endure for the rest of the couple’s relationship, whether it ends right there at that moment, or they get together, marry and stay married for 60 years.
During that period of 60 years, it would be almost weird to expect the man to behave absolutely perfectly, with respect to the couple’s intimate relations, without ever crossing over any lines of impropriety. Furthermore, as everyone knows intuitively — especially men! — it would be bizarre to think that the woman would never use sex as a tool to further her goals in her relationship with the man. Or as a weapon to resolve conflicts between them. In other words, the way sex works, it can be a tool or weapon for women, in ways that it can not be for men.
In fact, the sexual attraction being as powerful as it is — in both directions, by the way — we know that both the man and the woman will frequently do things that potentially injure the other’s psyche or feelings. Women withhold sex, or gaze flirtatiously at an attractive man. Men act selfishly in the bedroom. Women are master games players in their relations with men, while men are less skilled, but just as frequent, games players in their relations with women.
This, we all know, is true of married couples. It goes double for single men and women!
Here’s the final, and possibly the most important truth: Within the impossibly complex maelstrom of sexual and emotional games-playing, manipulation, flirtation, ego-feeding and -protecting, that is the singles social scene, most “signals” are misinterpreted.
Men and women both are overloaded with misconceptions about the other. However, I’d venture to deduce that women are more misinformed about men than the other way ’round. Why? Simple: the prevailing zeitgeist “out there” says that women know, and understand, all about men, while men know, and understand, nothing about women. The truth is most likely this: What women know about men is, mainly, wrong, while men realize that they understand women poorly. In other words: men’s understanding of men-women relations is probably the most accurate.
Ronald Reagan said, when speaking of the Left, “It’s not that they don’t know anything, it’s all the things they know that aren’t so.” This could be said of women as it pertains to men. Men, at least, know that they lack knowledge and understanding as it pertains to women.
So, what happened all the way back in Brett Kavanaugh’s youth? No one knows. More to the point, no one can know. One thing I know is that during my high school and college years, as it is today, in the area of sexual relations, the girls/women very firmly had the upper hand.
This image of tiny, frail, bedraggled women being battered and bruised by pimply-faced geeks heading off to top-of-their-class graduations from Yale (like Brett Kavanaugh) rings completely false. If anything should have set off alarm bells in American heads, it should have been these allegations against Kavanaugh.
So, believe all women? Never. I wouldn’t ever do that to them. Or to men. I love them both too much.
Believe… the truth. Nothing else. And to believe the truth, you have to seek the truth. Never prejudge anyone.Never presume that you know all there is to know, especially about allegations coming from 36-year old memories!
And, never try to pretend that women aren’t people. People who are just as good or evil, as noble or ignoble, as brave or cowardly, as honest or dishonest, as pure or impure… as any other, you know… people.
Women are not dogs and cats, as feminists imply.
(1) This is going to be difficult for a lot of women to read, but it’s an important truth: most women are unappealing to the vast majority of men. Only a tiny percentage of all the women that a man meets are attractive to him in a physical sense. And I mean a tiny percentage. The prevailing zeitgeist has it that all women are in danger from all men. And we constantly hear the statistic that one woman in five is sexually assaulted in her lifetime.
Further investigation of that statistic shows that any time a woman reports that she interpreted a man’s behavior as inappropriate — whether imagined or not — that counted as “sexual assault.” Furthermore, things like accidental contacts, as well as lingering gazes, and even a handshake or a hug that lasted longer than expected, all counted as “sexual assault.”
When one stripped out the faked, the fabricated and the nonsensical, to the extent possible, the real statistic for women experiencing inappropriate behavior from a man comes out to less than one in forty. Yes, yes, yes… too many, but a much more accurate statistic. Just as importantly: less than one in forty is probably a good estimate for the percentage of women a man encounters whom he finds physically attractive. Less than 2.5%.
Why is this important? Simple: the vast majority of what women interpret to be men coming on to them, or flirting with them, or trying to be sexually aggressive with them is… imagined. Made up. Fabricated. Why? I don’t know… I can only guess that it’s a need to feed the female ego. Goodness knows we men go through enough silly gymnastics to feed our egos! It would be silly to pretend that women don’t do the same thing. Are women not real people? Feminists seem to think they’re not.
(2) Yes, I mean “he or she” when I say “he.” It’s the generic use of the pronoun. This is another thing that feminism got wrong. There was no linguistic or social advantage to men in the fact that the generic third person singular pronoun has always been “he.” In fact, it served more as a disadvantage. Why: Simple — when someone said “she” the speaker was referring to a specific, unique, particular individual, not just any old person. “He” can refer to just any old person, of no particular importance or individuality, unless so specified by the speaker.
2a) Key quote from the author:
Is this seriously the argument being perpetrated in the name of women’s rights? It’s ridiculous, illogical and dismissive. And — most significant — does nothing to advance a real discussion of sexual assault. The time I have spent with victims on both sides of this issue, be it those who were sexually assaulted or falsely accused (Yes, that’s a real thing with real research supporting it!), are the times that have shaped me as a lawyer, and as a human. (red highlight added)
The author, Catherine Cherkasky, is a veteran litigator in the field of sexual assault, with wide-ranging experience as both a prosecutor and a defense attorney. When she says that “false accusations are a real thing,” you can believe it. In the red highlighted passage, above, are links to Cherkasky’s documentation as well. A key finding from that documentation: Forty-one percent of rapes in an actual study were found to be false. It didn’t stop there. More than one half — 56% — of these false rape claims were “for alibi purposes.” In other words, the woman had done something wrong, and was accusing a man of rape to deflect attention away from her own misdeeds. That link is here.
Lest you think that I’m here to suggest that men are always blameless, you couldn’t be more wrong. In the other link to Cherkasky’s research, we read these key paragraphs (key passages highlighted in red):
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
The authors examined 75 technical consultations and expert testimonials in which intrafamilial sexual abuse of a minor was reported.
Twenty two (30%) were found to be baseless and result of conflict, revenge of one partner upon the other. Of these 22, 5 involved men who accused their ex-wives and/or live-in partners. The remaining 17 cases involved charges by women against their ex- husbands, and/or live-in partners.
Charges of abuse represent not only an instrument of protection of one’s own children, but also a weapon of revenge against an ex-partner, putting these minors into the role of victims.
The point: Lying about sexual abuse is not only common, it’s rampant. Nearly half of all rape charges in the study cited by Cherkasky were false, and nearly a third of all intrafamily accusations of sexual abuse were false.
(3) I’ve told this story before, but it bears repeating: as my own marriage was falling apart — my then wife was drinking my kids and me out of house and home — several times she told me between clenched teeth that if I didn’t do as she told me, she was going to report to DCF (the Department of Children and Families) that I was sexually abusing my daughter. She even told me why she would do that: “Because I can,” she hissed, “and they’ll believe me.” That rocked me back on my heels. Needless to say, I’ve never sexually abused my daughter, or anyone else for that matter, but I realized that there was a good chance that my then-wife was right, and that “they” would believe her. I did as she told me. I have several divorced friends. Every single one of them told me that their then-wives threatened them with the same thing.
(4) All the first responders who perished in the Twin Towers collapse of 9/11/2001 were men. Someone made mention of this interesting fact one time that I heard, and then never again. There was a good reason for that fact as well: Responding to the attack on the Twin Towers was, of course, man’s work. And men died by their hundreds rushing up into the doomed towers, as everyone else rushed down to get out. I have a beautiful song to recommend to you:
A reason I recommend this haunting song is because of one of the words in it: “firemen.” The song, written by Tom Paxton (of The Last Thing on My Mind fame), uses the word: “firemen,” not “firefighter.” These were men. All of them. They knew they were going to die, yet they continued on trying to save more and more and more people. The song uses also, “policemen” (not “police officer“) and it has this lyric: “So now I go to funerals of men I never knew.”
These are funerals for the firemen who died while trying to save the people in the doomed towers. It’s an unabashedly pro-men song, written by a man. A song that, it’s possible, no woman could have written.
A man does know that built into every part of his being is the knowledge that part of his role in life as a man is possibly to sacrifice his life for a woman… and not necessarily a woman under his protection, but any woman.
Furthermore, every man knows that not to be ready, willing and able to do this is to deny his own very nature. This doesn’t mean that men don’t fail to live up to that nature — they do all the time — but they’re aware of it in ways no woman is able to be. And men live up to their natures as protectors countless times too.
It’s important to put in the ritual disclaimer here — something we’ve said often in these pages — no man can understand either the awesome nobility of women. It’s simply that when you face the bear at your back door, or the terrorist in the plane, or the mortally wounded skyscraper — you send in a man. It’s man’s work.
Here’s an important observation: There used to be a phrase “out there.” The phrase was: “Woman’s work.” It was supposed to refer to domestic chores like washing the dishes, doing the laundry, cleaning around the house or cooking.
With the triumph of feminism, though, that phrase went out of vogue, and you almost never hear it anymore. However, the phrase “Man’s work” — referring to things like mucking out the sewers or the septic tank, chopping down the trees, digging ditches, clearing the brush — never disappeared, and I hear it all the time. It still means the same thing.
Bottom line: when feminism demanded that men start doing the dishes and the laundry and the cooking, feminists never suggested that women would take over mucking out the septic tank, chopping down the trees, etc. The reason for that is simple: the typical woman can’t do those rugged, dirty jobs nearly as well or as quickly as a man, whereas just about any man can do the dishes or the laundry or the cooking as well as just about any woman.
(5) You’ll note that I used the adjective “single” in here several times. The married or attached man has a whole different set of calculations to make. The truly married, or truly attached, man is liberated from such a conundrum. He recognizes the beauty of the woman, all while “preferring the treats” that come as rewards for being faithful to his wife. And, of course, fearing the punishment she would mete out if he were caught. The truly married or attached man encounters the beautiful woman, is outwardly friendly and politely cordial toward her, and that’s as far as it goes.