The Chicago Tribune published an editorial last week criticizing Tony Robbins comments recently about MeToo. I’ll get into Robbin’s comments in the next section, but in essence Robbins told stories about powerful businessmen he knew who were reluctant to hire attractive women in this era of MeToo because the potential lawsuit risk if any of their male employees might be tempted to make sexual advances towards them.
The author, Heidi Stevens, argued that this would be equivalent not hiring a contractor because he drives a nice car, as one of his employees might be tempted to steal the car.
Of course, that argument glosses over one fundamental fact: if you accuse someone of stealing your car, then you need hard evidence to prove it. Otherwise known as due process, essentially. But for sexual harassment cases in the era of MeToo, the accusation is the evidence.
One doesn’t need any corroborating evidence, or at best maybe a little circumstantial evidence, to back up the claim. As long as the claim is plausible, it is as good as an indictment. In fact, Feminists argue that all sexual assault claims should automatically be believed no matter what.
And that, in simple terms, is the very definition of a Witch Hunt: when accusations become evidence themselves.
Ms. Stevens of course fails to understand that simple principle. She fails to understand that she is in essence becoming a proponent of witch hunts. And she fails to understand the very real risk assessment business owners and organizations must make in light of things like MeToo. As I have written before, there are unintended consequences.
The full story of Tony Robbins and MeToo is that he was at one of speaking at one of his self-improvement seminars, when Robbins got in an argument with one of the female attendees about using victimization narratives as a form of empowerment. Robbins position was that that was simply tearing others down in order to raise yourself up, and that one should be able to raise themselves up without tearing anyone else down.
It is a fair argument. In fact, it is very much in line with the classical liberal thinking of Locke and Hume and Voltaire. A corollary to the Doctrine of Individualism that is a core foundation of classical liberalism.
It’s interesting reading some of the comments on the Tribune article, people arguing that “men should just suppress their biological urges” around attractive women. Yet these same Progressives get up in arms if someone suggests gay people could just suppress their biological urges. Apparently straight men are not afforded the same leeway.
That is some Progressive Hypocrisy right there. But I digress