I swear the Telegraph women’s section is even worse than the Guardian. They’re currently going loony over the Kavanaugh nomination. Here’s a disgraceful one picked at random in which the stupidity burns white hot:
It’s something most women know instinctively. The smearing of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s accusers shows how many men automatically assume that all women are liars
‘Most women’? It’s normally only Guardianista women who assume that every woman in the world think like their little group does, but the Telegraph Women’s section is giving them a run for their money.
‘All women are liars’. For a start, let’s unpick the glaring ambiguity here that the author, Joan Smith, and her sub-editors (not the Telegraph really has sub-editors any more) have failed to notice, or have pretended not to notice.
Does ‘All women are liars’ mean ‘All women lie all the time?’ Obviously no-one believes that.
Or does it mean that ‘All women lie some of the time?’ That’s obviously true, because everyone, men and women, lie sometimes.
Or does it mean, ‘All women lie enough times that the word of a woman, any woman, cannot be trusted on important matters?’ No-one believes that either. Obviously there are many women whose word can be trusted. Maybe there are some incel chatrooms where you can find men who says that no women’s word can ever be trusted, but it’s not something many men believe.
So once we do a little undergraduate work in picking apart the ambiguity here, the absurdity of it becomes apparent.
The rest of the article is no better:
On Wednesday, Republican members of the committee released a statement accusing Julie Swetnick – who has claimed that she witnessed Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge drugging and gang-raping girls at parties in the early Eighties, and is herself a rape victim – of lying about Kavanaugh’s behaviour towards women when he was a young man.
Well, let’s see. Swetnick made absurd allegations that at age fiteen to sixteen, and in his school uniform, Kavanaugh and his buddies drugged and then gang-raped numerous women, including herself, at parties. Not just one party, but at over ten parties that Swetnick went to Kavanaugh was part of a drink-spiking mid-teens mass-rape gang.
Now, you might be wondering (but Joan Smith certainly isn’t) how come this Julie Swetnick kept going to these parties where there would be a massive gang rape happening every time? Why didn’t she bolt for the door as soon as she walked in and saw these criminal masterminds? Because, it turns out, she didn’t realise at the time that the gang-rape was happening. You see, she never actually saw Brett Kavanaugh, or anyone else, spiking any drinks (let alone raping anyone). But get this: she saw him around the punchbowl, handing out drinks. She also saw other boys near the punchbowl who were laughing. Damning evidence indeed.
And, she says, she did later tell people about the rapes, once she realised what had been going on under her nose the whole time. She told her mother… who is now dead. And a policeman, who is now dead. She may have told others, but cannot remember their names.
Nobody has backed up any of what Swetnick alleges, despite the fact that she says that everyone in the county knew about the parties. In fact, not a single person has been found who even remembers her attending any party that Brett Kavanaugh attended. And NBC tried hard – very hard – to find some. What’s more, sixty men and women who knew Kavanaugh at that time have said (under penalty of felony) “that he was only ever respectful towards them and others”.
So here we have a woman telling obvious lies for explosive political purposes, and all Joan Smith has the wit to do is to complain that Swetnick’s ex-boyfriend said disrespectful things about her. And Smith actually has the nerve to say that say that Swetnick is the one who has been ‘smeared’.
Note that the media organ that is doing the actual investigating here is Breitbart, whereas the media organ that is going with vague, ignorant ‘feelz’ is the Telegraph. (I can only remind people not to pay for this garbage. I subscribe, but only so I can fisk it.)
I’ve never understood the notion that women habitually lie about sex, randomly accusing men of rape, while men tell the truth at all times
This is actually written after numerous rape trials have fallen apart in the UK because it became clear that the woman making the accusations were lying. Of course, no-one is saying that ‘women habitually lie about sex’, which is a ridiculous straw man. Nor is anyone saying that men tell the truth at all times. It’s hard to believe that even the Telegraph’s Women’s section can publish such rubbish. That some women lie about rape for personal reasons is just well-established, as attested to by the women who are currently in jail for doing this. And we know only too well that leftists will gladly tell lies to advance the leftist cause. So the idea that leftist women will come forward to make false accusations – accusations that are damning, but suitably vague enough to protect them against perjury – for an important political cause is all too predictable.
In the Trump era, the assumption that all women are liars is being openly expressed at the highest levels of government.
Where? Examples? (And not just examples where doubt is expressed about Ford and Swetnick’s stories.)
Rape complainants don’t lie any more than victims of other serious crimes
Really? How many people are in jail because they falsely accused someone else of bank robbery? It’s an irrelevant point anyway. The fact is that, as Smith is now admitting, women do lie about rape. And leftists lie for the cause. Something Smith doesn’t mention, possibly because she is simply unaware of almost all the facts in these cases and is concerned only with how they feed her neuroses, is that:
The lawyer for Christine Blasey Ford’s “beach friend”– the one who worked for the FBI in the office of former Schumer staffer Preet Bharara–just so happens to be the FBI official who oversaw the Clinton e-mail and Trump Russia probes.
There are many, many holes in Ford’s story, but I’m going to presume you already know about them.
it’s the men who promote such baseless smears who should be ashamed of themselves.
In the few days since this article was published, I wonder whether Smith has started to realise that she’s been had. (A lot of Democrats have now become angry with Swetnick and her lawyer because they think her clearly ridiculous stories undermined Ford’s allegations, which they regarded as more credible.) I think: probably not. The Telegraph’s Women’s section doesn’t have much truck with old-fashioned feminist ideas, like that women should acquaint themselves with facts and reality rather than trusting their emotions for everything.
Update: I note without comment that Joan Smith has written twenty articles for the Telegraph, everyone of them about rape, and all with titles like “The police have a duty to believe all rape victims – have we learnt nothing?” I also note that one of them says that she is ‘Co-chair of the Mayor’s Violence Against Women and Girls panel’. This is what the Telegraph has become.
Update 2: Turns out she’s also a Guardianista. No great surprise there. And a Humanist.
Update 3: Some more relevant articles by me about the Telegraph Women’s section and the Kavanaugh debacle:
Claire Cohen: Ordinary people are angry, and here’s why
Claire Cohen: Ordinary people are angry, and here’s why. Part 2
Female rage is getting out of control… at the Telegraph