The Kavanaugh Hearings Showed #MeToo Has Mainstreamed Man-Hating

Just this month the Commonwealth of Virginia was hit with a slew of scandals involving the use of blackface by the top brass of the Virginia Democratic Party, engulfing Governor Ralph Northam and Attorney General Mark Herring. But among these controversies arose a scandal of a different, though familiar, nature. Two women have accused Virginia Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax of sexual assault years after the fact, and he now faces calls from his own party to resign immediately, even before an investigation into the allegations.

Now, where have we heard this one before? The infamous Kavanaugh hearings back in November 2018, where then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh faced accusations similar to those levelled against Fairfax.

Even though the United States Senate ultimately found the testimony of Kavanaugh’s accusers unconvincing and confirmed the man to the highest court in the land, Fairfax’s precarious situation demonstrates that the #MeToo debacle is far from over.

Whether or not the allegations against Fairfax are true, they most certainly relate to the Kavanaugh hearings, which were are a far clearer instance of the dangers of the #MeToo Movement.

Misandry, Not Feminism

Let’s be clear—the Kavanaugh debacle wasn’t about women reporting sexual assault. It was about the promotion of an anti-man, anti-masculinity ideology. In a word, the mainstreaming of man-hating, or misandry.

Misandry is the flip side of misogyny and has just as long and storied a history.

Whereas misogyny can trace its highlights to the writings of Aristotle (who in his Politics once wrote that “a female and a slave are upon a level in the community, the reason for which is, that amongst them there are none qualified by nature to govern”), St. Paul (who infamously advised that “women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak”); and Arthur Schopenhauer (who penned an infamous essay, “On Woman,” in which he declared that “Women are…childish, frivolous and short-sighted; in a word, they are big children all their life long”), misandry can be found in the ancient Greek myths of the Amazons (who disdained men for their own warlike company) and Clytemnestra (who killed her husband over his haughtiness and less-than-worshipful sacrifice of their child).

#MeToo Has Become SCUM

But in order to trace the lineage of misandry’s latest incarnation in the #MeToo Movement, we can’t ignore its modern-day inception alongside Second-Wave Feminism. Out of the Sexual Revolution and Women’s Liberation Movement came Valerie Solanas, a controversial figure–even in feminist circles.

The reasons for Solanas’s infamy? Two, to be exact: her attempted murder of pop artist Andy Warhol in 1968, and her penning of the SCUM Manifesto in 1967.

To touch on the latter, the SCUM Manifesto is Solanas’ magnum opus. In it she states her fundamental thesis that men are, in fact, deformed women, both morally and genetically. In a reversal of the misogynist thesis, Solanas’ Adam is nearly born from Eve’s rib:

“The male is a biological accident: the Y (male) gene is an incomplete X (female) gene, that is, it has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples.”

Not only this, but Solanas also envisioned a future where men are wiped out of existence and replaced by a new ruling caste of butch-lesbians, whom she called the “Society for Cutting Up Men.” Solanas therefore advocated not just “ending the Patriarchy,” as today’s Third-Wave Feminists screech, but instituting a Matriarchy as well.

In the SCUM Manifesto we see the same good-bad dichotomy the #MeToo Movement makes use of when analyzing the moral character of men and women.

How else can we explain the popularity of the #BelieveAllWomen and #BelieveSurvivors slogans on left-wing social media and among liberal politicians? How else can we explain the jettisoning of the English common law tradition of the presumption of innocence in favor of an automatic acceptance of women’s allegations?

We “New Victorians”

What is even more insidious is the wholesale demonizing of male sexuality in a fashion heretofore unseen throughout history, even during the Victorian era. Kavanaugh’s experiences as a well-off fraternity member at Yale became the subject not just of incessant gossip for formerly respected “newspapers of record,” but direct evidence of Kavanaugh’s evil nature and predatory character.

The fact that Kavanaugh drank—and drank to excess—immediately made him culpable of all manner of sexual misconduct in the minds of many, from alleged unwanted touching to all-out gang-rape.

We must remember that the Kavanaugh case occurred amidst the backdrop of increasing attempts to stifle fraternity culture on American college campuses: numerous frats have been banned from campuses not only for perceived sexual offenses, but also racial or politically-incorrect transgressions.

And what about the very idea of “sexual misconduct?” Haven’t we seen that term frequently bandied about in the wake of the #MeToo Movement before Kavanaugh?This too is particularly concerning because it is an airy-fairy concept used to characterize a wide variety of actions committed by men which may or may not be criminal. The terms “sexual assault” and “rape,” however, do not suffer from this ambiguity because they are very clearly criminal by definition.

The use of ambiguous yet morally definite terms such as “sexual misconduct” casts doubt on what sort of standard of evidence is necessary to prove such allegations; criminal offenses require conviction on the part of q judge or jury based on a belief of culpability “beyond a reasonable doubt.” But sexual misconduct? It seems as if the only evidence needed is uncorroborated hearsay—which is no evidence at all under the law.

Virility has become villainy under our new overlord, the Matriarchy.

A Final Reckoning

Make no mistake, negative sexual behavior on college campuses and in society at large is the fruit and reward of the 1960s Sexual Revolution, which promised an unfettered sexuality for all parties. Unfortunately, unfettered sexuality also meant an increase in negative sexual behavior.

But the way forward should not be this new Victorianism presented by the #MeToo Movement, which amounts to the creation of a Matriarchy under which all women are good and all men are bad based solely upon their masculinity and femininity.

Rather, an honest reckoning with the consequences of the Sexual Revolution is needed, where the true moral ambiguity of many sexual interactions is acknowledged, and a consenus between men and women as to what safeguards are necessary for peaceable co-existence is forged.

As the Kavanaugh debacle has shown, anything short of that will be a sexual Inquisition.

Written by Tom Worstein

Tom Worstein is a contributor to The Schpiel.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.




EXCLUSIVE: Leaked Affidavit Describes Torture Of Special Needs Staffer By NYC Democrats

White Privilege? Tekashi 6ix9ine To Walk While Paul Manafort Will Rot Behind Bars