Emily Lindin–Founder of the Unslut Project, author, and film-maker–gifted us today with the absolute worst means of fighting sexual assault possible. In a tweet storm seemingly designed to either infuriate or instigate a hysteria of response, she wrote the following:
Here’s an unpopular opinion: I’m actually not at all concerned about innocent men losing their jobs over false sexual assault/harassment allegations.
First, false allegations VERY rarely happen, so even bringing it up borders on a derailment tactic. It’s a microscopic risk in comparison to the issue at hand (worldwide, systemic oppression of half the population).
And more importantly: The benefit of all of us getting to finally tell the truth + the impact on victims FAR outweigh the loss of any one man’s reputation.
Sorry. If some innocent men’s reputations have to take a hit in the process of undoing the patriarchy, that is a price I am absolutely willing to pay.
How many of our reputations have suffered unfairly? How many of our lives have ALREADY BEEN destroyed because of physical violence against us? Why was that acceptable, but now one man’s (potentially) unfair loss of a career opportunity is not?
We have been TRYING to use the legal system and it does not work for us. Clearly. Now we are trying public shaming. Maybe this will work against men – they have used it against us so successfully, after all.
End rant. And I won’t apologize for it. Stop harassing and raping us. #MeToo
Let’s break this down, shall we?
Firstly, justice. Genuine sexual assault victims are in need of justice; of some certainty that something is being done so they do not have to suffer again. You cannot unravel the very essence of justice in order to implement it. The concept of justice involves the searching out of truth weighed against error in a context where neither the truth nor the error may be readily apparent. Everything Emily suggests here flies in the very face of what she professes to desire. As Jake Tapper wryly observed, “I’m guessing you didn’t get a good grade for your 7th grade book report on To Kill A Mockingbird.”
Next, she terms the stories of sexual harassment and abuse a “systemic oppression of half the population.” While the stories are frightening in their numbers, half the population should mean half the population. But in this case, half the population means those who have been sexually abused, which is not half the population. Furthermore, oppression is a strong word. Also, incidentally enough, an incorrect one. Use that language when talking to the Koreans under the Japanese occupation in the early-to-mid 1900s. Tell that to the tens of millions who died under the oppression of Stalin’s Russia or Hitler’s Germany. This is crime, not oppression.
Emily is calling for the attack of an entire group of people based on the crimes of a fraction of the group. I am also assuming she would advocate for Muslims not to be held guilty for the crimes of extreme Islamists, and that she is completely unable to understand the concept of a double standard. By the very examples held up and touted by so many in America, how would this not fall under the exact definition of hate crime?
I’m writing about Emily, not because I think she is representing all Americans, all Democrats, or all women, but because she is encircling in blazing red ink the very heart of a rising sub-problem. In the wake of women opening up about the abuses they have absorbed, a thought pattern is simmering as a result which encourages the criminalization, distrust, and ostracism of all men by the mere virtue of being male. And without launching into an entirely new article, let me say this. Men are not our tyrants, tormentors, or dictators. They are our friends, colleagues, and fellow humans. Bad ones exist, just as bad women exist. A trend of evil has been encouraged among the bad ones, and society is dealing with it. But the destruction of justice, reason, and common decency is not the answer–it is the very fabric of the problem.