The Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination process over the last couple weeks has highlighted how much our culture has changed in terms of male-female dynamics. As well as issues of whether we should believe every sexual assault allegation simply on the word of a woman, regardless of any lack of evidence. Issues of due process and the like. However, that has been covered elsewhere ad nauseum, including an excellent article by John Kass in the Chicago Tribune.
I’m not going to beat that dead horse here. I understand the point of many Progressives and Feminists is that we should Believe All Women. So rather, my question here is this: What would a world where we “believe all women” look like? What are the implications? Most people spend all their time arguing about whether we should always believe the woman nowadays in these he-said, she-said situations … but would any of us actually want to live in such a world?
- Suspension of Due Process – There would no longer need to be any evidence, and the rights for the accused, a hallmark of Western liberal society, would be suspended. Witch hunt standards would replace them. Perhaps we would tie Kavanaugh to a stone, throw him a lake, and see if he sinks, like they used to try witches? Either way, having any sorts of rights for the accused automatically interferes with our ability to believe the accuser 100% of the time, so they’d have to go. The accused would not be able to defend themselves.
- Men Would Become the Hunted – We would have to assume any accusation against a man, however outlandish, was always true. And women, this would include your beloved grandfather, father, son, brother, and so forth. If we truly were to believe 100% any accusation or other tale a woman told, then we would have to automatically assume any accused man was automatically guilty.
- Women Would Be the Powerful Ones – In this scenario, a woman would have the ability at any moment to destroy a man’s life, livelihood, career, etc. At any moment, with just a word. Do we want to live in a society where one group holds such power over another group? It certainly isn’t a “liberal” policy.
- Dating Dynamics would Change – Men would have to stop being the aggressors in dating interactions, because it would open them up to such accusations. No more asking women out. Any romance would have to some sort of written consent before proceeding, and would have to be initiated by the woman.
- Birth Rates would Significantly Decline – Women have a serious aversion to being sexual aggressors, asking men out, or to making the first move in general. We could discuss why this might be the case, evolutionarily or otherwise. But either way, the result of this combined with point above about changes in dating dynamics means we would see a serious decline in birth rates. Oh wait, we already are seeing that in most of the West. This would exacerbate the problem.
- Men would lose All Parental Rights – Since women could simply make a false allegation of sexual misconduct at any moment that would have to be believed 100% of the time, then they would be incentivized to do so in any child custody dispute. And the court would be compelled to side with them, and against the man, every single time.
- Zero Consequences for False Allegations – Which would likely lead to a significant rise in such false allegations.
- Zero Accountability of Women – Women in this scenario would become even more reckless in future generations. Because once you disconnect consequences from the behavior, then positive or negative behavior ceases to mean anything. Not exactly a recipe for individual excellence.
- Men would have Less Incentive – Men would have much less incentive to innovate or sacrifice for society (e.g. volunteer for military service). All relationships are transactional in nature, even our relationship with broader society. If we strip away the social contract that guarantees men something in exchange for their investing in society, they lose the incentive to do so.
There are of course many other potential consequences. But I would simply leave the reader with this question: Is it “liberal” to give a certain group the power to destroy a member of another group’s life with just a word? Because when we are told to “believe all women”, that is what we are actually being told to do. It is in fact odd to see some men, including many male reporters like Rex Huppke and Eric Zorn, arguing that we should believe all women. What is clear is that they have not thought through the downstream consequences of their argument.
The long term implication of believing all women, no matter what, is that we will as a society be abdicating our responsibility to create an environment where individuals, women included, can be the best they can be. This is neither in their best interests as individuals, nor that of society as a whole. It is a complete violation of the very principles of classical liberalism.
The reality is that women are just people. And people sometimes lie. Let us not forget that.