Grant both the accused and the accuser anonymity. #ProblemSolved
The world of Canuckistan politics has been rocked these past few days by precisely what Margaret Atwood predicted would happen with the witch hunt known as #MeToo: an accusation is a conviction, and two Tory (conservative) players have been taken down.
Coincidentally, the person most likely to benefit will be the former Prime Minister’s daughter, Caroline Mulroney, who can’t win the nomination without a giant handicap like a sex scandal. Can’t wait for her to explain how she’s a strong empowered woman who doesn’t need men.
I want to digress for a moment to remind feminist commentators that Atwood’s book The Handmaid’s Tale deals directly with the political implications of false accusations and the lethal irrationality of a mob of women who believe, rightly or wrongly, that they have been ill-used.
A group of handmaidens are told that a man has raped a pregnant handmaiden, causing her to lose the baby. For Atwood, the unborn baby is never a ‘fetus’, but a representation of the human future and the culmination of a fertile woman’s purpose. To kill an unborn baby is the worst crime imaginable. The accused man is handed over to the mob of women, who promptly tear him to pieces. It turns out that the accusation is entirely false, and the man is instead a political operative working to free the handmaidens, so Ofglen ( a ‘woke’ handmaiden) dispenses him with a modicum of mercy,
The rape accusation is false, the mob of women murder an innocent man and it is all for naught. The handmaidens have made their own lives harder, but they feel vindicated, and feelings trump everything in the world Atwood creates.
Feminists appear to be laboring under the delusion that Atwood intended the novel to be an instruction manual. It is most decidedly not. Atwood is writing a dystopian future in which everyone is harmed by the loss of fertility. In The Handmaid’s Tale, we are led to believe the collapse in human fertility is the result of some sort of nuclear fallout, but in 2018, the fertility collapse is upon us, mostly because women just don’t ‘feel’ like having children. Hedonism is a powerful drug, and women seem to have a limitless capacity for selfishness.
Until they actually have a child. In Atwood’s world, the loss of a child makes the handmaidens suicidal. The child gives the women’s lives meaning and purpose and to lose the infant is unbearable. Once again, Atwood is not agreeing with feminists that babies are icky and we are better off without them. Quite the opposite. She makes the somewhat obvious claim that motherhood is what defines a woman. A woman without children may be a human being, but she is not a woman. The full realization of a woman’s potential is only realized when she has given birth.
Atwood does not explore the inverse, for men. Men can be human beings, but until they have been in a physical battle, they are not men. Do I really believe that? The MHRM will hate me for it, but yes, I do. Men can be human beings, as can women, but what defines a woman is birth and what defines a man is battle.
Maybe I just watch too much Vikings.
Let’s dispense immediately with the preposterous idea that women are not murderous liars under the right circumstances. Of course they are. This is the state of being human. We lie, and we will kill each other with or without provocation. Gender does not predict who will lie, kill, steal or otherwise behave abominably. Gender predicts who will be punished for that, to be certain. Men are always punished more harshly than women. That’s called sexism, but don’t hold your breath waiting for feminists to fight for gender equality in sentencing and conviction rates. The adage that men are more violent than women only holds if you exclude abortion and violence against children, especially toddlers.
The first person to hit you was probably a woman.
The person who will lie about sexual assault is probably also a woman.
The solution for women being human is actually rather simple. We can end, with one stroke of the pen, women’s ability to lie and destroy, on a potential whim, while still maintaining the ability identify and sanction true predators in our midst:
Grant the accused anonymity.
Any woman (or man), anywhere, anytime, under any circumstance, can accuse any other man (or woman) of any crime whatsoever. But neither the accuser nor the accused will be identified until there is a conviction in a court of law.
Why would women oppose this? Because it removes their ability to lynch a man. Women can only count on mob
justice violence, because individually, all social construction aside, attacking a man is generally a bad idea that will end with the lady in question having her ass handed to her.
The media likes to scorn and scoff critics of feminism who assert that feminists hate men, and feminists respond with a big ‘so what if we hate men‘, on the grounds that simple, delicate, fragile, tender little wimmins can’t possibly hurt men. Until they acquire the power of a mob.
That is what happens when you give women power.
Because women are human beings.
What a radical notion, indeed.
Lots of love,