So you think Kavanaugh's story is encouraging men to shun the opposite sex? Really? Because in my perspective and I'm guessing I'm not alone in this all this farce has done is reinforce the fact that even if it is your actual, literal job to interpret and uphold a woman's rights you still don't have to respect or even recognize what those rights are. Especially not if you've got a silver spoon in your mouth because if a woman speaks out against you the right people are going to have your back and there's basically nothing you can to do screw up at that point and you don't have to say a word in your own defense. In fact everything you say and do can just make you look even worse and it won't impede you in the slightest. The woman on the other hand is going to get death threats and rape threats (how ironic) on a daily basis. But only you get to complain about that kind of harassment, she should expect nothing less while no man deserves this! The woman is going to have every aspect of her accusation and personal life picked apart and made into a public spectacle with the hopes it will shame her. You on the other hand can just shout "how dare you!" when the very senate itself asks questions about your character even if statements about your character are your only defense. You can cry about the impact on your life, your busy schedule, and all the stress, the shame of being accused... but a woman accusing a man? She deserves all the scorn and threats and invasions of her privacy that will continue long after the case is settled. Years of therapy? Don't count for nothing. Ongoing phobias? Deal with it bitch. Her job being threatened in ways yours is not? That'll learn her.
You don't have to put up with any of that, people should be ashamed of themselves for making you go through it and all consideration should be made on your behalf to limit and expedite any legal inquiry to get you back to your bright future but damn all the filthy harlot's in the world for wasting a single moment of your precious time because it's not like the sum total of her life compares to whatever months you're being inconvenienced.
For all the attempts to say that Christine Ford has no time, place, evidence, or witnesses she established a time pretty clearly. A time you referenced by complaining that it was 36 years ago. The summer of 1983. Which Kavanaugh responded to by pulling out his calendar collection. Something that actually hurt his case as in the numerous parties marked on it there was more than one that specifically named the same people Dr. Ford said were there. People she supposedly hadn't even met according to the counter-narrative so how would she have known their names? Brett Kavanaugh claimed Dr. Ford's four witnesses all denied her claims, which was untrue. While Mark Judge gave written testimony that he doesn't remember a specific gathering matching that description and her friend could not give a firsthand account voicing only character support that's not the same as a denial. And when witnesses three and four are Kavanaugh and Ford themselves that runs into another problem, guess what it is? Brett Kavanaugh and his supporters deliberately mis-state a lack of specific corroboration as a denial which is a pretty serious distinction legally. And further steps were taken to prevent corroboration. Questions were not asked of Mark Judge - alleged to have been in the room at the time beyond a written testimony that was prepared without any specific questions or allegations in mind that was not cross-examined. When Judge's book and the depiction it contained of his life that included characters bearing striking similarities to Kavanaugh he could not discredit his "friend" fast enough going out of his way to emphasize drinking, drug addiction, memory problems, and emotional stress that Judge was going through when he wrote the book before getting around to saying it was fictional... but also very backhandedly saying if they had questions about the book and its relation to real world events to ask Mark himself, which several senators wanted to do but were denied the ability. Even when Mark Judge and a whopping 40 other people who knew Kavanaugh from Yale released statements of their own volition that Brett Kavanaugh was severely downplaying what kind of a drunk he was and incidentally lying under oath which is a crime it never factored into the investigation. Those dozens of statements the FBI not only didn't take, but impeded the collection of. It was forbidden by Trump to make any sort of issue of Kavanaugh's drinking and partying even though Trump and Republicans tried to shift the narrative to make people think the drinking the sticking point for Democrats rather than the question of the reliability of Kavanaugh's memory which blackout drinking would impede or the fact he lied about his habits under oath. Which again: is a crime.
And all those lovely snide remarks about the proceedings from Republicans. "Tried to make it about everything but Kavanaugh's judicial record" they claim? Democrats received his record only hours before his hearing began and part of it was censored from them and thus excluded from discussion by the White House making that a really disingenuous snipe. And the stuff that is there? When questioned on specific issues Kavanaugh's responses are no more forthcoming than they were when he was questioned about some presumably raunchy shit he wrote in his yearbook including one particular woman he and his friends all implied they slept with... who was quite surprised to find that out herself. His pat response was he'd base decisions on "precedent" which says almost nothing. It says less than nothing about issues where there is no precedent but if we take that to mean he'd avoid issues where no precedent is set then that kind of implies he only does work when he can copy someone else's notes. Roe vs Wade, a specific concern to many, he refused to answer even that much on. Wouldn't say if he considered the matter settled or not despite citing precedence continuously when the topic was more general. Like everything he said at his confirmation hearing it was a cheap ass non answer. Slavery being legal is precedent as much as slavery being abolished. But even more stupid is that taking precedent into consideration is completely standard to the job yet he kept saying it like it was something special. Just like he kept repeating how he went to school and worked out. Yeah, I went to school too. So did Dr. Christine Blasey Ford that's why she's got the Dr. in her name. Does her busting her ass for that doctorate do anything to stifle your slander of her character or anyone else's? Does she get to say how dare you to anyone questioning her character or does that just automatically disqualify her? Well, more automatic than the assumption she's lying in the first place because she's a woman accusing a man of sexual assault in the first place anyway. Goddamned double standards.
He could not be less qualified for the job he was just given sexual assault allegations or no sexual assault allegations. Brett Kavanaugh showed nothing but utter contempt for every single moment of the proceedings and no indication that he's any different in a courtroom. And now that he's shown that this is how he views things when he's on the other side of the bench, that he is completely dismissive of testimony and fully expected far better treatment than his accuser, how could anyone believe he would be impartial in the future if they ever thought he was at any time in the past? He didn't have the patience to go through the motions knowing fairly well that this hearing was basically a formality to begin with. His job was never in any danger from the allegations alone. Rape is treated like a joke in most circumstances already and even the token show they would have gone through to dismiss the charge were treated like a bothersome imposition on everyone involved rather than a matter of the law. The burden of proof is enormous, the conviction rate is nearly non-existent, the disparity of treatment between the accuser and accused is absurd and doesn't match up with the fear you're pushing when examined despite heated public condemnations. Being a rapist, or an accused rapist, or theoretically a potential rapist is only ever really a problem when you're an immigrant. Boys will boys otherwise, especially when you're a good old boy.
So yeah. If men are afraid of women after seeing a man not get seriously investigated, receive various apologies and condolences for the inconvenience of what limited investigation took place, more consistently receive pity even from those who support the accusation, get selectively protected from testimony, refuse to answer several questions or respond with belligerence, THREATEN HALF THE SENATE, and then still get a promotion from the people he was a dick to that gives him power over the lives of millions while the woman was unapologetically stomped through the mud and never stood to actually gain anything in the first place while losing either way as her life is forever opened to people who will continue to harass her without having the same kind of legal protection and considerations as a judge would then I really have to question what constitutes a rational fear for my gender. Especially when the opposite gender is expected to put up with all that plus groping and an expectation for so much worse to happen to them if they ever enter a public place where men are present and are expected to just deal with it.