Kavanaugh Can Join Thomas.

[John V]

Nope!  I wasn’t  referencing that or making any comments that the word of men is different than that of a women. As I said you missed the point.

---

Perhaps you should read all of the post, before flying off into a tizzy.

Here is your entire post (#9 in this thread): 

And all of the sudden; anonymous hearsay, about an account that we have little details on; and happened about 40 years ago, is evidence.  For some, it sometimes appears, that evidence and reason is heavily dependent on what narrative the wish to tell.

Emphasis mine. 

You are speaking directly about Christine Ford, the woman who has come out and said what Kavanaugh did to her 40 years ago. That is largely in keeping with the point of this thread topic. It is about Kavanaugh and his accuser.

No, at that point to his knowledge the accuser hadn't come forth. You bolded it yourself.

Clearly YOU have an issue with this particular woman coming out decades after an incident and saying something.

Looks more like he had an issue with a Senator putting forth anonymous hearsay, as he said.

If you didn't, you wouldn't have felt compelled to preface that paragraph with "And all of the sudden".

As Feinstein kept it secret all through the vetting process, it was indeed all of a sudden. It was obviously held back for political purposes.

You aren't in her corner. You aren't saying she was right to come out. You say nothing of the sort. Your paragraph above does NOT in any way show any sort of support for the claim she's making. In fact, you're really complaining about what she did.

Anonymous hearsay doesn't have a corner.

The part I bolded is misogynistic in its very nature because for a number of posts now, I have made comparisons about how evidently, to some people it's this horrible thing for a woman to come out and talk about sexual abuse from decades ago. but when hundreds of men come forward with claims of sexual abuse by priests, which is also decades old, those same people bitching about Kavanaugh's accuser, are okay with taking the men's claims at face value. You refuse to address this. You don't dare say the same thing about the men that you said about Kavanaugh's accuser. Instead, you try to strawman and blameshift your way out of it by saying that I'm not understanding what you're saying. I know exactly what you're saying and I see right through it.

Most people take accusations from multiple sources more seriously than a single charge. It would seem unusual to me that a man would commit a sexual assault, get away with it, and then never do it again. Usually such people feel empowered to continue to do so. When people come out with a #metoo charge against a particular person, it's usually followed by similar charges from several others who have no apparent reason to collude. We don't have that with Kavanaugh at this point. 

Was your first post in this thread about those men? Of course not. I brought it up as a comparison because you were essentially shaming this woman for how long it took her to speak up. You refuse to acknowledge any of that. So clearly, you have double standards. Your silence on the matter of the men waiting decades until they reported, speaks volumes.

In these cases, the testimony is stronger evidence if it was reported to others contemporaneously. You know that. It's not shaming to note that this accusation is weaker because it's old and hadn't been contemporaneously reported.

He's right, you're really reading in a lot that isn't there.