Trump: it is a "difficult" and "scary" time for young men

[Frankenterfer]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45722404

Vile man. Vile men.

I've never heard bad language from DH but "absolute wanker" was heard when watching the news.

@veryverysilly what do you think of @GrinitchSpinach 's reply that it is multiple accusations, and the FBI are not being allowed to do exactly tree sort of thorough investigation which would interview witness, character references etc and ascertain what is the truth?

Three woman have made accusations, one was interviewed and gave very compelling testimony which has been ignored, the other two have also been ignored.

How does this square with your views? The accusations are currently unsubstantiated because they are not being allowed to become substantiated

And also I'm interested in your reply to @lunamoth581 's post about this testing his fitness for such a high and important post. This is Not a criminal trial where he will be locked away without due process. Its a job interview where all sorts of red flags are being wilfully ignored

I encourage any woman who has suffered rape/sexual assault/harassment to speak up and make themselves known so more scumbags end up in prison. If anything I want more women speaking about this, my problem with this whole thing is the increased importance placed on unsubstantiated claims of any sort

Ha fucking no chance mate. Those two sentences are completely at odds with each other. How can a woman speak up without making an, at that point, unsubstianted claim? Until the police have conducted a full investigation and gathered evidence, all allegations would be unsubstantiated. At what point in your world would this woman be allowed to speak up?
Sounds like you think it should be only after a full police investigation, trial and sentence. If someone punched you, would you tell anyone? Like "you'll never believe what John did Friday night, he punched me when he was drunk. Watch out for him". Or would you only tell people after john had been found guilty of assault? If you can't see how utterly absurd and offensive your views are to women then nobody can help you.

the accuser says all of it happened 36 years ago and has no evidence to back it up and multiple witnesses say it didn't happen and it's just in time for him to be promoted to scotus? Please think about these things. The burden of proof should always be on the accuser not the accused and the fact that that has to be explained says it all about the time we live in.
Agreed
People generally are believed when they report other crimes. If you report a car theft you're not assumed to be lying
If you said your car was stolen 36 years ago what do you think the police would do? If you said I stole it 36 years ago do you think it would be fair for me to lose my job (not Kavanaugh, me) while it was investigated?
You should listen to to the victim not believe them without evidence, if I accused you of murder without evidence would you expect for me to be believed? No. The car analogy is ridiculous as a car being missing is evidence of a car being stolen just saying someone raped you doesn't mean you should be believed, again the person should be listened too. However due process must occur for us to remain in a civil society if the opposite becomes mainstream it will be a weapon used and it will be taken advantage of
Exactly. Rapists and sexual abusers get no sympathy from me but the public flogging on this is the same reason MPs won't speak out about their concerns regarding self-id. There's no rational discussion, just emotion. So the discussion is completely avoided and people talk in secret, or in code. Victims should be able to come forward publicly, #metoo was powerful because it showed how many women have been affected by men's sexual violence. However this particular case seems entirely politically motivated. He was/is a judge. A big enough fish to fry, should the accuser have wanted to go public last year. The police could have opened an investigation on him ten, twenty or thirty six years ago. Instead, it's right before he is appointed to the Supreme Court.
His appointment would be a coup for Trump, it would make the SC more conservative leaning for years and years to come. But regardless of his politics, blocking him with these allegations is timed to influence a political outcome, not to get justice for the alleged victims. They're being used.
Having watched Kavanaugh in front of the Senate I think he's demonstrated he's unsuitable for the job regardless of the allegations. He displayed a disturbing lack of self control, he told numerous little lies and I would be very surprised if he hasn't got a booze problem. Agreed completely.

I think he's completely unsuitable, and very unpleasant. But regardless of my personal beliefs about him I can still see this as a partisan attempt to affect the outcome of the appointment, rather than a quest for justice on behalf of the three women.

And regardless of the low conviction rates and miniscule number of false accusations I still think it's a bad idea to believe anyone blindly with no evidence because you want to show solidarity. Especially when the outcome is a media shitstorm.

There's a difference between telling women to "pipe the fuck down" and "Maybe you are making too big a deal our of this issue"

Nope. Again I’ve yet to see any posts of yours that are at the very least sympathetic to the inequality and abuse women in the West (as well as elsewhere) face. Which still makes me wonder what brought you to MN Feminism board when you clearly think the fight has been won and we’re just making a ‘fuss’.

How can a woman speak up without making an, at that point, unsubstianted claim? Until the police have conducted a full investigation and gathered evidence, all allegations would be unsubstantiated. At what point in your world would this woman be allowed to speak up? Sounds like you think it should be only after a full police investigation, trial and sentence. If someone punched you, would you tell anyone? Like "you'll never believe what John did Friday night, he punched me when he was drunk. Watch out for him". Or would you only tell people after john had been found guilty of assault?
I'd tell people John had punched me but I wouldn't have 24 hour rolling news coverage about it, because neither John nor I are famous. And of course all allegations are unsubstantiated until they are substantiated. If I said John punched me 36 years ago I wouldn't have millions of people demanding he was removed from his job as a postman either.
This is about the media and the misuse of understandable sympathy and emotion to influence politics. It isn't about justice. You can believe Kavanaugh's accusers and still be able to see that.

"This is about the media and the misuse of understandable sympathy and emotion to influence politics. It isn't about justice. You can believe Kavanaugh's accusers and still be able to see that."

Do you think that the media have put Prof Ford up to this, encouraged her to make the accusations, or have they just latched onto an opportunity that's presented itself and run with it?

Do you think that Prof Ford is politically motivated and using her (possible) assault as a tool to achieve her own political aims? What should the media have done with this story?

What should the media have done with this story?
That's a very good point, it's unrealistic to expect them to ignore such a big story.

I have no idea whose idea it was to go public with the accusations now, I wouldn't like to speculate.
There are lots of interested parties who would want to block Kavanaugh. I'm not saying I think he should be appointed, but an allegation from 36 years ago surfacing the day before - what is there to stop that happening to anyone? Where's the due diligence in determining whether this claim has merit? Is all the reporting balanced - stating bald facts only in an unemotional way? It's manipulative.
He's just a bad example really because he's so unpleasant.

AssassinatedBeauty
I think the point for me isn't "do you really think she's lying?" and more "what if she is lying?" Even if you believe her, accepting this trial by media means at some point politics will be changed by accusing an innocent person of something they didn't do, and if the accusation is emotional enough, the fact it is false will be irrelevant.

I'm interested in this phrase verysilly "due process becoming less respected over time."

Due process has no respect from me. I lost it back at age 14 when I realised that I could pretty much be raped by impunity by men who thought 'no' meant 'yes' and that if I reported it I would then be torn apart and not listened to.

I can hear your point, but surely you can also see that due process does not exist for women. Domestic violence is also rarely prosecuted, and women are always unsupported in fact when there is a violent male on the loose. Therefore coming here and arguing in favour of the current situation which favours men will bloody piss people off.

If I said John punched me 36 years ago I wouldn't have millions of people demanding he was removed from his job as a postman either.

Well, you might possibly have them argue that John should keep his job as a postman but not be appointed to lifetime tenure as one of the most influential jurists in the country. you know?

This is an interview for a job it is almost impossible to fire someone from and which influences every aspect of american society. Despite what judge kavanaugh and his supporters think, he isn't entitled to that job. it is a privilege to get it not a right. In any other job - including an application to be a postman - everyone would have long since said "you know what, let's give it to the next guy on the list - this one is a bit odd."

Whoever trump nominates is going to be as conservative as kavanaugh and as likely to overturn Roe v Wade. The point isn't about unethically blocking the appointment of a conservative justice (as the republicans shamefully did to a moderate justice nominee in the last years of Obama's presidency) it is about blocking the appointment of THIS justice.

But the patriarchy doesn't need to worry - another false alarm this one. he'll be appointed and my daughter's generation will have the joy of him on the bench knowing that it is quite likely that as a drunken entitled frat/prep boy he thought he could force himself on a 15 year old. You go white men -there really is no stopping you

Do you think that Prof Ford is politically motivated and using her (possible) assault as a tool to achieve her own political aims?

I am going to guess that Prof Ford has spent her whole life trying to put the assault behind her, and seeing his name as a Supreme Court justice nominee has brought it back to her. I suspect that she will remember her first-hand experience of how he thinks of and treats women and will think of Title IX and the Clery Act and Roe v Wade and think "I have to speak up now about what he did to me because if I don't, he will be put on that bench and such a misogynist cannot be entrusted with legal decision concerning the rights of women and girls".

Well, I suppose "she's doing it for political ends" is a step forward from "she's doing it for the money". Both equally nonsensical, but I suspect the first feels as if it lends a more respectable veneer over the sentiments behind them.

Oh, and rape apologist boy, don't message me again.

Do you think that Prof Ford is politically motivated and using her (possible) assault as a tool to achieve her own political aims?

well if she is that worked well for her didn't it? I'm sure the death threats and moving her family around and being sneered and mocked by the sitting president of the USA at a rally (always scary things rallys) were worth the excellent shot of being believed in her politically motivated lies... NOT. Or put more succinctly are you for real? Did you hear her testify?

She is a brave woman who felt a civic duty. If it happened again and the woman was my friend I would tell her that her civic duty isn't worth it. This and the belfast rape trial have changed my mind about a lot of things.

@Melanippe - Wtf, I hope MNHQ sort them out.