So one of the more sensible women at the Telegraph, Allison Pearson, says, quite rightly, that female rage is getting out of control, and it won’t end well. So far, all agreed. But then she says:
Dr Christine Blasey Ford, who made allegations of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh dating back to high school, gave moving and plausible testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee at great risk to her reputation and safety.
In what way was it ‘plausible’? Her story fell apart. None of her witnesses have a clue what she’s talking about. Do you mean it was plausible because she put on a good performance? Is that your measure of plausibility? Nothing to do with evidence then?
And as far as her reputation goes, she’s now going to be a star on the left, in the same way that Anita Hill is still regarded as a brave, courageous heroine.
Nor was it a good look to have the allegation made public just as the Republican-supporting judge was about to change the balance of America’s highest court. Her action could too easily be mistaken for political convenience, rather than civic duty.
Easily mistaken, yes, easily mistaken, in the way that Arabs who run towards the Houses of Parliament waving what looks like a gun and shouting ‘Alluh Akbar’ are easily mistaken for real terrorists.
But Pearson was just getting warmed up:
The opposing side was even worse.
Yes, she really said that.
Kavanaugh himself gave an unpleasant, pink-faced performance, alternately petulant and angry.
It doesn’t seem to occur to Pearson that he may be innocent. How would she behave if she was accused on worldwide TV of being a rapist? Cry? Scream? Admit she was guilty when she wasn’t?
If he was a woman, they’d have called him hysterical.
No, if he was a woman they’d have called him brave and feisty, and he’d be on the cover of magazines all the time with puffball pieces written about him, which is what happens, for example, with Rose McGowan, despite her berserk rages.
And now for the most ridiculous paragraph in the whole ridiculous piece:
Most sinister of all was the calendar he had kept from his teenage years.
I swear I’m not making this up. Look at the link if you don’t believe me.
Who on earth knows exactly what they were doing on a Friday in 1982, and for what reason might they have kept that evidence?
Allison Pearson apparently thinks that a teenage, 80s Brett Kavanaugh thought that to cover up a sexual assault he’d keep his calendar for that year for decades in case it ever came up in, say 2037. Because then he’d be able to sway a jury by producing a calendar which doesn’t list the dates he raped people.
Personally, I have all sorts of stuff from my teenage years that I’ve kept. I’ve had to throw some of it out over the years as space has become an issue, a scenario which is less likely to be a problem for a well-paid lawyer living in America. I’ve never been a diary or calendar person, but I’ve kept some of the silliest things. It wasn’t because I was covering up for a string of bank robberies I committed. It was because of the fondness I have for those days.
Nor did I much like the anxious, sidelong glances Kavanaugh’s wife gave him
If I’m ever arrested for a crime I didn’t commit I really hope that Allison Pearson is not on the jury.
Still, any moderately sensible person would see there were holes in both arguments. Except moderate and sensible are no longer on offer.
Pearson is under the mistaken impression that she’s moderate and sensible, rather than gullible and neglectful of the principles that underlie civilization.
Mind you, compared to the unhinged harpies that work in the Women’s section of the Telegraph, she is completely moderate.
Historically, witch-hunts were evidence of moral panic. Man-hunts are just as ugly. Women are better than that.
Why do feminists, or columnists in their feminist mode, always talk in such generalities, making claims that are not even remotely true even if we replace the ‘all’ with ‘most? They do it with men: ‘All men are rapists’, for example. This is no different. Women aren’t a block group in this respect.
I’m not saying we can’t make some true generalisations about women. But this is not one of them. When it comes to tyranny, women aren’t any different to men. Some men are drawn to power so that can abuse it, some aren’t. Same with women. Some men join in witch-hunts, some don’t. Same with women.
So yes, some women are ‘better than that’, but there’s no reason to believe that the claim applies to all, or even most, women. A lot of women not only are not better than that, but they’re at front of the pack, handing out pitchforks, and egging everyone on.
If Allison Pearson wants a good look at that sort of woman, she only has to look at some of her colleagues in the Telegraph Women’s section. As I’m sure she has. I expect this article was her little dig at them. So I’ll end on a positive note — at least she’s having a go, however feeble, at her pitchfork-wielding colleagues:
What we have instead is boiling female rage, which justifies thinking that any man who stands accused is guilty, because, you know, they got away with it for so long so, hey, string him up!