Reverse the Polarity!

From Sam Harris' podcast #126 "In Defense of Honor" earlier this year with Tamler Sommers, discussing (among other things) whether men who have been ostracized based on women's accusations of naughtiness should be grudgingly permitted to plead guilty of witchcraft to crawl their way back into the public's good graces:

_________________________________________
Sommers:
"it's also a question of what they have to offer the world [...] part of the equation whether this is fair or not is: well, what's the benefit that can come from, y'know, artistically, or, in terms if what kinds of norms you can broadcast or the ways in which it would be healthy for everybody involved to see you take responsibility and be re-integrated into the community and with someone like Charlie Rose who's already on the back side of his career, it's just... it's a little harder to, tooo, uh, imagine [...] And again, I don't exactly know what Charlie Rose... diiid, I know he was creepy... and I know he was prop- sex-... he was accused of sexual har- ... b-but he wasn't accused of sexual assault, was he?"

Harris:
"Uuuhh, not that I-I'm... aware of... nooo, but it was just kind of, it was the professional impediment this posed to so many people working under him"
_________________________________________


Whenever you hear any feminist bullshit about women being victimized by men, remember that feminists claim they stand for equality. So imagine the same statements being made by men. Among the many insane accusations being used by the lynch mobs of the #MeToo public hysteria you'll find the deadly sin of obscene phone calls. For fuck's sake, yes it's wrong, but it's a mere nuisance. There are degrees to wrongness and thus degrees to the appropriate punishment. How would such professional impediments sound in reverse?

"I'm a thirty-five-year-old man. I was traumatized for life because three years ago my coworker Daisy called me up and sounded as though she were polishing her bean while bending my ear. And she didn't even charge me $2.99 per minute! In fact, that was the most traumatic part of all!"

The heavy breathing came up, if I'm not mistaken, in the list of fainting couch lamentations against Charlie Rose. Seems fitting that his sexual indiscretions would turn out to be as milquetoast as his show. Much like Sommers (and the vast majority of my fellow hoi polloi) I don't exactly know what Charlie Rose did, or even what various self-interested women say he did or how they claim it affected them. I can't be bothered to actually look up such inane trivia. Unlike the rest of you however, I don't consider my ignorance sufficient grounds to have random men thrown out of their jobs and rendered unhireable, possibly thrown in prison, demonized for the rest of their lives and have their memory smeared as violent thugs.

And that is what we're talking about. We're not debating whether making sexual advances is wrong (a highly debatable "fact" but let's shelve that for another day.) We're assured it's so unforgivable that such monsters must be utterly obliterated from our public sphere and made the objects of our two minutes hate. We're so sure of this that we don't even need to distinguish any sort of gradations to their offense, or even wonder whether actual harm was done. Women have accused men. Of something. Whatever. The mere accusation is witch enough. Burn them!

Again, reverse the polarity. Imagine I didn't just get an imaginary nuisance phone call. Instead:
"I want my coworker Daisy to be fired and blacklisted, to pay me 'mental anguish' damages to about the cost of my new car and have her name smeared in every media outlet I can reach. You have to do this because on April 14 of 2009 at 2:37 p.m. she did (dilfully and with malice of foreskinthought) fondle my frondle without my express notarized consent!"

Imagine we do all that. Nothing short of ostracism will suffice. We vilify Daisy's name in every public forum until she can't even leave her house without a disguise and all her penis enlargement e-mails get replaced with death threats. Daisy's out of a job, all her friends have turned on her and she has to take out a loan to pay me my court-imposed compensation. Daisy, for whatever reason, wants to grovel for some kind of re-integration into the community. She admits all guilt, spends months apologizing tearfully for her crimes against me and by extension against all man-kind, accepts that she will henceforth live branded with a scarlet F for fondler but she just wants her job back damnit! At this point, if we're to keep the polarity consistently reversed, we would deny her even her chance at redemption. You see, it's "a question of what she has to offer the world." Fairness depends on likability. Only the cool kids get to kiss and make up. Her pariah status is contingent on proving her use to us. Having been accused and presumed guilty of transgressing some puritanical taboo, she must justify her continued existence. Most likely, we'll all decide post-facto "well, I never liked her anyway" because she's more convenient as a target for our communal abuse.

Except women aren't required to justify their existence like men are. We're so intrinsically, instinctively eager to play women's saviors and attack men. We don't need the facts. We don't need context. We don't need perspective. We, the public, just need, neeeeeeed to hate them. How comfortable would you be, instead, wrecking a woman's entire life and hounding her remorselessly for the capital offense of "was creepy"?