Monica Lewinsky Still Passing the Buck

[Rev. Rye]

Is anyone else conflicted by the Me Too movement?  I am.

It's like this.  No one, male or female's job (unless they actually signed up to be a prostitute) should ever have their job hinge on giving out sexual favors.  No boss should ever imply that it does.  Full stop.

Some people actually want to sleep with their bosses.  They shouldn't get any sympathy if they do and it goes sour unless the boss fires or demotes them because it soured.

But that doesn't mean that every women who complains was actually forced to have sex.  Even women,, yes women and kids,  lie sometimes.  Nor does it mean that every man or woman who was ever asked out by their boss is a victim. So a single unsupported accusation shouldn't end anyone's career.  Perhaps some investigation first?

And there's the time frame problem.  Sleep with me or else is/was always wrong.  But innuendo and leering in 1980 and earlier might be given a pass for ignorance.

But any moderation appears to be not allowed. It's getting as impossible to compromise as gun control and abortion rights.

Monica wanted to have sex with the Pres.  Her choice, her problem.

Me too. On the one hand, sexual harrassment of all kinds is a huge problem and vastly underreported. Unfortunately, the thing is the movement seems to have decided that therefore, EVERY incident reported should be treated as the Gospel Truth (note, elsewhere, I used statistics from RAINN and the biggest study of false accusations and concluded that a false accusation of rape likely happened once every three hours; small in comparison to the number that actually do happen and never get reported, but still a non-negligible number), and, furthermore, deciding to treat every sexual misconduct whether a come-on or full-blown rape as deserving the same punishment. And don't take my word for it, take Amber Tamblyn's. And I'm going to be charitable and assume that either Amber A) doesn't know about the fact that Forced Disappearances are really a thing (most notably used by Latin American dictators in the 1970s and 1980s) B) Did not have that on her mind when she wrote it. Because if she was aware, it would appear she's openly advocating Hollywood should commit what Article 7 of the Rome Statute describes as crimes against humanity. I hope to Hell she was at least less aware of the implications of that than her invocation of Dubya earlier in the same paragraph. 

Overall, William Burroughs said it best: "the oppressed love the oppressors and cannot wait to follow their example." And now, they're hell-bent on doing so and hell-bent on making sure they remain unaware that they're falling into the same exact traps their oppressors used to keep them down, or if they do become aware, it's okay because they're not the ones getting shafted this time around, and their ideology has allowed them to create a self-image that lets them feel good about themselves, regardless of their circumstances.

In a shitty position, whether it's having a crappy date or being raped and tortured? Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth.
When you actually do get in a position where you can inherit the Earth? I told you women aren't meek creatures who live to serve men!

Let it be known, it's likely that most of the allegations being thrown about are accurate and many of the men accused are almost certainly guilty. But it's a dangerous leap to assume that just because most of them are right, then all of them are right (there has to be a name for that fallacy, but I don't know what it is.) You'd just be taking the prejudices that kept the Weinsteins in power for so long and just flipping who benefits from it all. You really think you can make the world a safer place? You'll have to do better than switching out who benefits from what bullshit power structure.