Amid the torrent of sexual assault allegations being leveled at men like a raging dam that burst into society, feminists are literally okay with even false allegations harming innocent men. The battle cry, “Down with the patriarchy!” must be advanced, they say, regardless of truth, justice, or actual harm to innocent lives.
One bastion of liberal feminism and writer for Teen Vogue, Emily Lindin, posted tweeted this series (she’s since hidden her account from the public):
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.
This is a shotgun-style approach to sexual assault allegations with the potential for mass collateral casualties and confirms that feminists like Lindin operate with absolute and intentional recklessness in their quest to “undo the patriarchy.” Incidentally, with all the liberal calls for gun control because of the ability to inflict mass harm, where is the call for reasoned restraint and regulation, perhaps due process, in this arena?
But the public vitriol and sheer hatred for anyone categorically defined as “the patriarchy” has become much more important than actual truth or the individual impact on innocent parties. As a woman who has been on both sides of the criminal courtroom as a prosecutor and defense attorney, I am alarmed at the latest trend: the so-called woman’s “right” to be believed.
Chelsea Handler and others have taken to Twitter to say to anyone reporting an alleged sexual offense, “I believe you.” Fox News’ Martha MacCallum tweeted Tuesday, “Do all women have a right to be believed in sexual harassment claims. This is a minefield — but it’s a question that needs to be asked. What do you think?”
That this question needs to be asked shows a fundamental shift away from objective truth. We are beginning to value a category of persons (self-identifying or alleged victims) over the actual fundamental rights of every individual. In an objective, truth-seeking world, both the rights of the alleged victims and the accused can be preserved and protected simultaneously, whereas choosing a category of preferred persons to possess specific “rights” is the very definition of inequality that the feminists supposedly protest.
Historically, we have seen the terrible consequences for the presumption of guilt based on merely categorical association or allegations (the Holocaust, the Salem witch trials, the list goes on). And what if we’re talking about men of color? Or campus reports? Or is this only the “old white male” that categorically doesn’t get any defense? Of course the damage will be severe and unrestrained if we confer a right upon women to be unilaterally believed without reciprocity. Wasn’t unilaterally conferring rights and privileges upon only men without reciprocity for women precisely what led to feminism?
Feminists as social justice warriors are recklessly encouraging actual harm to their opposition because annihilating the patriarchy is a cause greater than actual justice and equality for everyone. This kind of recklessness that can destroy innocent lives is also why our Founders enumerated both freedom of speech and due process within the context of our individual, unalienable rights. True innocence must be valued and protected, even in the social and political context.
Moreover, compelling belief is an absurd concept. Who is going to actually compel you and me to believe anyone or anything? Compelled speech is even antithetical to our First Amendment protections from government, and to compel belief is a step far beyond that. Society should not and actually cannot compel belief in any manner for any reason. The right to believe is not just a matter of choosing religious beliefs, but the innate right of every human being to perceive the world around them and discover the nature of reality.
But when feminists have convinced themselves that the patriarchy is the greatest enemy to their social justice cause, they have no problem ditching fact-checking and shifting the burden of proof from the claimant woman to the accused man with reckless disregard for the truth. They are en masse weaponizing reports of sexual harassment.
We need to be very careful when responding to the volatile climate of sexual harassment and assault allegations. The truth of any allegation does matter, for both sides. True victims require legitimacy in the system as much as true innocent parties. The operative principle in play is that truth-seeking does matter. Possible innocence is a legitimate reason to pause and temper our mass hysteria and lower our social justice weapons.
Sorry, Ms. Lindin, harming an innocent man’s reputation or livelihood is far too high a price for anyone to pay.
Jenna Ellis is an attorney and professor of constitutional law at Colorado Christian University, a fellow at the Centennial Institute, a radio show host in Denver, and the author of The Legal Basis for a Moral Constitution.
[BIO] If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.
