This Daily Kos article expresses the outrage so many of us feel.
Kavanaugh is emblematic of an entire partriarchal culture of privilege, unaccountability, marginalization, and abuse of demographic minorities, and structural and ideological misogyny. And the Republican Party supports him just as they support the man who appointed him.
At least nineteen women have accused Donald Trump of sexual abuse. Nineteen. Were he the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, he would have been fired.
The #MeToo movement was partially inspired by Trump, ... and ... it has united millions of people of all genders finally to hold accountable even powerful, famous, wealthy, and seemingly culturally iconic men.
Those who defend Trump, those who defend Kavanaugh, those who make excuses for despicable behavior can't fathom that sexual abuse no longer will be tolerated. That is why the Republicans dig in.
Because sexual abuse was supposed to be okay, ... Trump got away with it, so why shouldn't Kavanaugh? Why shouldn't all men who abuse women?
Republicans say Kavanaugh's accusers are lying, even though it is the accusers who are asking for an FBI investigation, and it is the Republicans who are refusing one. As if liars normally ask to be investigated. [emphasis mine]
John Oliver dissected and mocked Kavanaugh's testimony:
Oliver ended his show by passionately arguing that he can’t see a good reason for pushing Kavanaugh into the position, noting that any Republican pick will likely restrict abortion rights.
“You don’t need to choose an unhinged partisan with multiple accusations of sexual misconduct hanging over him,” he said. “So it feels like they’re doing this, just to deliver a ‘fuck you’ to Democrats, and even more directly, a ‘fuck you’ to women.”
Oliver argued that there were several “disqualifying” moments in Kavanaugh’s testimony—none more so than his allegation of a left-wing conspiracy that sounded “positively Trumpian.”
“Now, that is absolutely horrifying ... we are supposed to have at least nine people left in America who do not talk that way, and yet Kavanaugh just all but came out and said he’s going to approach his entire tenure as one case of Me vs. The Libtard Cucks,” said Oliver.
(ellipses and emphases mine)
Via Joe.My.God., with more quotes and lots of intelligent and snarky comments:
(And as usual, I'm "Liking" not the facts but Ruth's reporting and sharing. Thanks, Ruth! I wouldn't mind the button being renamed.)
Also shaking my head at the right wing's use of "cuck" as an insult.
To any man who truly gets that women are people (why do we still need to think about Marie Shear's apt definition of the "radical notion" of feminism in the twenty-first goddamned century?) it's only a reminder that people are often attracted to other people, and sometimes break monogamous commitments they've made -- a man's wife or girlfriend having an affair is no different from a woman's husband or boyfriend having one.
And that intended insult has zero power over polyamorous people like me, or swingers or others who engage in many kinds of ethical, responsible nonmonogamy and who take joy in their partners taking pleasure with others.
(This diagram by Franklin Veaux includes "religious/social polygamy" and cheating, where consent is iffy or absent, but also a wide variety of ethical nonmonogamous relationship styles.)
One reason why I do not believe women outright is because of a mother I observed who fought tooth and nail to keep her children away from their father. She lied, over exaggerated, and was completely nuts. I heard voicemails of her yelling and making ridiculous accusations of the father. She would lie in court. She made agreements to meet halfway to pick up the kids but would always call saying her car wasn't working, and then would not work so he would pay more child support (and spend much of the money on herself). She brainwashed the children to side against him, but they saw that he was a nice guy when they visited him. I feel sorry for the children and father.
Is something hilarious about a man not being able to see his children?
If you take an example of a lying woman as an excuse to never believe us... don't get us started about men!
The God of the Hebrew Scriptures / Old Testament is male. (Hebrew, like Romance and some other languages, has gender baked into many parts of its grammar. There's no gender-neutral option; even "they" is masculine or feminine.)
And the Bible doesn't represent that god as a trustworthy truth-teller! The very first two chapters give two conflicting creation stories. Immediately afterwards, God lies about the humans dying "the very day" they eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, while the serpent tells the truth!
A story from there that holds up human deception as an exemplar: Jacob used an elaborate trick to steal the inheritance and blessing that his father Isaac intended to go to Jacob's older brother Esau.
The New Testament also portrays an untrustworthy male deity, who while incarnated promised his disciples that he'd return within their lifetimes. Some two millennia later, we're still waiting...
Why should we trust any man who holds up the Bible as a standard?
I don't think anyone is saying that all women's accusations should be considered right, all the time. Of course there are cases where women are irresponsible and not reliable. The point is that in this culture, women's accusations are routinely dismissed and men's denials routinely taken at face value.
Your personal experience matters.
I knew a single woman who dated a married man. Both accused the guy's wife of being a terrible mother and praised him as a father. But what happened? He divorced his wife, left those kids to her complete responsibility, to marry the single woman. The new happy couple never cared for the children, never even mentioned them afterward.
There's lots of variance, many anecdotes. What counts, to me, is the cultural patterns.
Nineteen women accuse the Republican President of sexual assault. The nation shrugs. Had nineteen men accused Hillary Clinton, imagine the tsunami of outrage and spittle.
In other words, you're willing to plot an entire curve based on ONE POINT. Little Hint: GET MORE POINTS before you make that kind of blanket generalization.
As it happens, I have my own share of points to plot, and honestly, they occasionally make me embarrassed to be a man, for the behavior of my fellow males. Do I believe women as a blanket practice? Not necessarily, but when a woman stands before a Judiciary Committee and comports herself with relative calm, despite what had to be a colossal case of nerves, and lays out a story which clearly disturbs her, while her alleged adversary goes off on a juvenile rant and exudes about as much judicial demeanor as a petulant child with his hand caught in the cookie jar, it is plainly and simply no contest.
Agreed that one anecdote doesn't prove that women or men are generally trustworthy or not! And Ruth makes an excellent point about the cultural patterns, where men too often are let slide, "boys will be boys", while women are abused and ignored.
As for the woman who stood before the Judiciary Committee last week, she is even more credible because she mentioned the assault to her therapist several years ago, well before the prospect of a conservative right-wing administration nominating justices or judges, and she only went public when her story was about to be revealed in the press. She has nothing to gain by lying. The petulant, ranting man who's applying for a significant job promotion (and who showed himself as unqualified on multiple fronts, to anyone who doesn't put party above country) has everything to gain by lying.
I mentioned this specific experience to serve as a reminder of how women can act, since it seems the recent status quo is to present women as completely innocent and well-meaning. Women can be conniving. It is not anecdotal. I do not have statistics on hand, but it is common for women to abuse the legal system and for the court to generally side with them. I'm not saying to disregard claims, but I do not trust women outright because they are women.