'...Both the feminist reaction to Christine Blasey Ford's testimony, in my opinion, and the negative letters about Ghomeshi's article, illustrate some essential principles of feminist activism today which, as Plumrose points out, reflect basic tenets of postmodernism in its two phases which no longer need to be spelled out, and which some protesters may not even explicitly understand themselves. I would state these as follows. Modern western society is characterized by the domination of men, especially straight white men, over women. That domination is expressed both through language and through acts, which are themselves a form of language. Any form of sexual assault is such an act. (For decades feminists have argued, without systematic evidence of any kind, that rape is about power, not sex, and that its very purpose is to subjugate women.) Straight white men also exercise domination by inflicting trauma--and any act that reflects their dominance can inflict such trauma. This is the theory behind the idea of "microaggressions" which is a feature of campus ideology today. And critically, every form of trauma experienced by any member of an oppressed group--that is, any nonstraightwhitemale--is simply one tiny part of a much larger trauma that straight white males have been inflicting for millennia. That is why even hearing Christine Blasey Ford's story of 35 years ago, many women said, triggered their own traumas. It's also why feminists claim that reporting an assault, much less bringing the accused to trial and testifying publicly against him and undergoing cross-examination, is a further trauma that victims should not have to undergo. Let me say again that I am not taking any position on these tenets of the new ideology, I am merely trying to report them. Everyone can decide for him or herself whether to accept them. There is some reason to think that Blasey Ford accepted them herself. That may be why she actually believed that by giving her story to her Congresswoman she might stop Kavanaugh from being nominated or confirmed. Here Senator Feinstein, in my view, did her a grave disservice. When the accusation reached her she should have told Blasey Ford that she had only two choices. She could come forward publicly, at great personal cost--a cost reflecting the political stakes involved in the appointment--or she could decide to remain silent. There was no third way--and in a free political system, there should not be.
It is because every violation of boundaries, from actual rape to an unwanted hand on the posterior, supposedly symbolizes a much bigger system of oppression, I believe, that feminists have thrown out any concept of degrees of severity where these issues are concerned. No less a figure than the junior Senator from New York, Kirsten Gillibrand, stated this very clearly in a famous facebook post in which she explained why her colleague Al Franken had to resign from the Senate because a news reporter said that he had given her more of a kiss than she had bargained for, and a few women said he had patted their rear at campaign stops. I quote:
"The pervasiveness of sexual harassment and the experience women face every day across America within the existing power structure of society has finally come out of the shadows. It is a moment that we as a country cannot afford to ignore. . . . To achieve lasting change, we will need to fight this everywhere on behalf of everyone by insisting on accountability and working to bring more women into leadership in each industry to fundamentally shift the culture. . . .
"We have to rise to the occasion, and not shrink away from it, even when it’s hard, especially when it’s hard. That is what this larger moment is about. So, I have spent a lot of time reflecting on Senator Franken’s behavior. Enough is enough. The women who have come forward are brave and I believe them. While it’s true that his behavior is not the same as the criminal conduct alleged against Roy Moore, or Harvey Weinstein, or President Trump, it is still unquestionably wrong, and should not be tolerated by those of us who are privileged to work in public service.
"As the mother of two young boys, we [sic] owe it to our sons and daughters to not equivocate, but to offer clarity. We should not have to be explaining the gradations between sexual assault, harassment and unwelcome groping. And what message do we send to our sons and daughters when we accept gradations of crossing the line? None of it is ok and none of it should be tolerated. [emphasis added.]
"We should demand the highest standards, not the lowest, from our leaders, and we should fundamentally value and respect women. Every workplace in America, including Congress, needs to have a strong process and accountability for sexual harassment claims, and I am working with others to address the broken and opaque system in Congress.
"While Senator Franken is entitled to have the Ethics Committee conclude its review, I believe it would be better for our country if he sent a clear message that any kind of mistreatment of women in our society isn’t acceptable by stepping aside to let someone else serve."
Any transgression, in short, by any man against any woman, should evidently result in the termination of whatever his career happens to be, followed by an indefinite sentence as a social leper. Neither exoneration in court, nor offenses that (as in Franken's case) could never be subject to prosecution, makes any difference--because every offense is part of something much bigger, a generalized series of offenses by men against women in which each must be punished for all. And for the same reason, any man who defends an accused man, or even gives a public forum--as Buruma did for Ghomeshi--must be severely punished as well.
To this must be added another tenet: that women's accusations against men should, by their very nature, be believed. The general model of oppression helps get around some of the problems inherent in this tenet. Ghomeshi was acquitted partly because he was able to produce a morning-after message from one of his accusers in which she spoke very warmly about the encounter that she later claimed to be abusive. Many feminists would argue that this message merely proved the depths of her oppression.
And behind this controversy lies the biggest question of all. Has western civilization been mainly a system that allows straight white men to oppress anyone else? Or is western civilization characterized, especially in comparison to other civilizations, by certain ideas of equality that initially applied only to white men but which inevitably have spread to include everyone else? Forty years of academic postmodernism, I think, have brought the first view into the mainstream and into our politics. I do not share it....' DK
While there is much here to applaud, he talks, in the last quoted paragraph, still, very much from within the Whig tradition, from whose ongoing excesses of misinterpretation even he, now, rightly recoils in horror, in horror.
American liberal whiggism is a loose cannon on the global stage.
Trump, no less than feminists DK cites or quotes in disgust, are merely different and contrary emanations therefrom.
