It is no longer content with simply reporting assaults; it now "doxes" the alleged aggressors. In doing so, the most radical self-proclaimed activists have turned their backs on the feminism of pre-MeToo. They have declared war of the sexes, and in order to win, all means are justified, including the moral destruction of the adversary.
Armed with a binary thought process that ignores doubt,** they care little for the complex and often difficult search for truth. In their eyes, human beings are either all good or all bad. There are no more nuances. The myth of absolute purity dominates.
To this first dualism is added a second, equally questionable one: women, whatever happens, are innocent victims - and very often they are, but not always - men, potential predators and aggressors, including sometimes towards other men. This allows the activist Alice Coffin to declare: "Not having a husband means that I am less likely to be raped, killed, or beaten... It also prevents my children from being so." - And to invite women to become lesbians and to do without the gaze of men -...
Based on the statistics of domestic violence, women and men are essentialized into opposing moral postures: good and evil, victim and aggressor. Perverse, lying and vengeful women do not exist. All that is left is to conclude with separatism, since man is the most dangerous threat to woman.
Mentioning female violence is forbidden. When we insist, we always get the same answer: if there is violence from women, it is to defend themselves from that of men. Physical violence is not written in the genome of women. Neither is psychological violence. This is perhaps to forget a little too quickly the domestic violence that is inflicted on men, which is the subject of a collective denial of reality. To speak of the latter would seem to relativize that of which women are victims, and consequently to betray their just cause. For the same reasons, we pretend to ignore the role of mothers in the violence inflicted on children. If pedophilia is essentially masculine, blows and other mistreatment, including sexual, are often carried out with the complicity of the mother. At most, we talk about non-assistance to a person in danger.
If female violence can only be a reaction to male violence and if the word of women is sacred, what is the point of doubt and a serious investigation before condemning? We can bypass the filter of justice. Media lynching and pillorying are applied immediately. The accusers, strongly supported on social networks, judging at the speed of a click, trigger a maelstrom especially when a public person is targeted and the press gets hold of it.
The consequences are overwhelming for the accused put on the spot.** It is a social, professional and sometimes family death. You are no longer looked at in the same way, you have become a suspect and any attempt at explanation and defence is in vain. The only solution is to file a complaint for defamation, which can sometimes take years to be judged; and even if you are acquitted, you will continue to bear the mark of infamy for a long time. It will be said that raped women also wait years to see their aggressor convicted and to be able to rebuild their lives. But one does not justify the other.
In the space of a year at least, three men in France have been thrown to the dogs before the courts cleared them of the charges against them: a journalist, a former minister and a trumpet player. The latter was even initially sentenced to four months in prison with suspended sentence, before being acquitted when it was discovered that the complainant had lied. Today, it is a minister in office and the deputy mayor of culture of the Paris City Council who are in turmoil. The demonstrators who demand "zero tolerance" for those accused of sexual assault have nothing to say about those who have lied, or fabricated.
These double standards are the consequences of an oppositional logic and a staggering ignorance of human beings. By suspecting some of all vices and covering others with the cloak of innocence, neo-feminist activists are leading us straight to a totalitarian world that admits no opposition.
As for the proposed solution of "becoming lesbians and turning away from the gaze of men", it can only trigger an immense burst of laughter. It would not be worth mentioning if it were not the abrupt expression of a hatred of men that some are not far from sharing. This warlike neo-feminism risks dishonoring the cause of feminism, or even making it inaudible for a good while. Everyone will have lost, and first and foremost, women.
Most Helpful Opinions