The #MeToo Era is Officially Over
Just as P. Diddy reminds it was originally about something very real...
Hey folks,
As you are likely aware, Nevermore thrives on controversy.
I guess part of this is just the punk spirit of taking pleasure in defying social convention, but there is more to it than that.
I lived in the heart of the anarchist movement when wokeness was in its ascendancy. For years, there was always one ridiculous conflict going on around in the political scenes around me.
I was always getting trouble for one thing or another. To be fair, I can be pretty pig-headed, crass, and rude, so I definitely get why some people don’t like me.
Usually, it was feminists who had a problem with me. I guess this might have something to do with me being a womanizer, but I think it’s also just that when some feminists encounter a cocky, assertive male, they want to cut him down to size.
Eventually, I basically quit participating in public meetings and started organizing only with people I already knew and trusted. It was just too much of a pain in the ass dealing with constant activist scene drama.
A lot of the drama had to do with allegations of sexual misbehaviour of one kind or all. The definition of sexual assault was expanded to include basically anything, and in many cases it seemed like accusers had ulterior motives of one kind or another.
For years, many of us wondered whether weaponized rape accusations had become a preferred tool of the New COINTELPRO, but in the absence of hard evidence, we were left guessing.
Eventually, evidence mounted to the point where it became reasonable to assume that this was true. The case of Julian Assange should have been seen as a dead giveaway, but it was only after the smear campaigns targeting Rod Coronado and Skyler Williams that I became convinced.
Then came the case of Russell Brand. The British mainstream media came out against the movie star, comedian, podcaster, and anarchist political commentator, who, by his own admission, used to be “very promiscuous”.
A drug-addicted movie star fucking lots of babes! Well, I never! Can you imagine? What on Earth is the world coming to?
Brand was accused of rape, but the allegations don’t really focus on the act of penetration as the defining characteristic of the sexual assaults in question.
I would have commented on his case at the time, but I was working 12 hour days at the time.
Fortunately, Nevermore contributor Iain Davis did do a very fair and thorough job of examining the allegations, ultimately concluding that Brand was being unfairly targeted by a smear campaign.
I contented myself with defending Brand in the comments section of Iain’s article.
Basically, the most damning allegation against Brand were that he may have fucked a sixteen-year-old girl (which isn’t illegal in the U.K.), and that he ejaculated inside a woman without her consent.
After reading Iain’s piece, I wrote something entitled “What does the word Rape even mean anymore?”, but decided not to publish it at the time.
After reading something just now by the great Meghan Murphy, I’ve decided to publish it, because it is now clear that (some) feminists are now in an earnest process of political reorientation.
Perhaps now what I have to say will actually be received as constructive criticism.
If you don’t know who Meghan Murphy is, she’s a Canadian journalist and leading feminist thinker, although she distanced herself from the feminist label last year.
She’s not alone in doing that, by the way. The feminist brand has lost a lot of its lustre in recent years.
Here’s what Meghan had to say about #MeToo in a recent piece about philandering science bro Andrew Huberman:
We are all, it’s fair to say, well over #MeToo. It became cringe, as Kat Rosenfield argued in a near-perfect essay for Unherd recently. The cycle of sometimes-believe-women-if-convenient to believe-all-women has circled back to don’t-believe-women-they-are-attention-seeking-whores.
Indeed, the phrase “believe all women” had turned out to be stupid, although its heart was in the right place. For so much of history women who spoke up about abuse and sexual assault were treated as vindictive liars — the jilted ex trying to get back at the man who left her — regretful sluts who went too far and don’t want to be accountable for that choice, or hyberbolic man-hating lunatics.
#MeToo has become so cringe I don’t even like writing about it. But I will say it began as hopeful thing… I do recall, very early on, feeling glad this reality was being talked about — that pretty much all women shared at least an experience, if not endless experiences, of yuck male behaviour, whether it be rape, abuse, or some kind of run-of-the-mill dicking around. It didn’t take long for the movement to become an orgy of online — often anonymous — accusations of, well, who even knows.
So there you have it, folks:
#MeToo is Officially Over!
(Could someone please let Laura Dodsworth know, please? Seems like she missed the memo.)
That said, I think it would wise not to get too giddy.
Rape is still totally a thing, serial sexual abuse is still totally a thing, and many rich and powerful people manage to get away with horrible crimes for shocking lengths of time. Let’s not forget that’s what #MeToo was originally about.
But in recent years, a lot of things that do not conform to conventional definitions of sexual assault have been treated like rape, leading to activist men being cancelled.
I was one of these, which is something that I talk about at some length in a recent episode of the NVRMR! podcast.
Feminists seemed not to care about the casualties of cancel culture, but quite a few men died after being banished from their activist communities.
WHY ARE SO MANY THINGS ROUNDED UP TO RAPE?
In recent years, it seems like a lot of things are being rounded up to rape, and I think that’s a problem. We all know the story of the boy who cried wolf.
If feminists want a world without rape, they should not reflexively support every woman accusing a man of rape, because if those claims turn out to be false, people will treat rape allegations less seriously.
Furthermore, the word rape seems create a false moral equivalency between different types of sexual assault. I think it’s pretty undeniable that some rapes are much worse than others, but it seems weirdly taboo to say so. But if one in interested in justice, one must deal with the particulars of specific situations.
Well, the good news is that cancel culture is over. The reaction to the cancellation campaign targeting Russell Brand shows that people just ain’t having it.
My question to the people who got carried away in the #MeToo moment is simply this: Are you going to apologize at some point?
What does the word Rape even mean anymore?
Will the smear campaign against Russell Brand mark the end of the #MeToo era?
by Crow Qu’appelle
I will say very little about Russell Brand in this article, but let me state up front my bias.
I believe that Brand is a real anarchist, an important dissident, and a genuinely spiritually wise man.
It does not surprise me at all that he would be the victim of a smear campaign.
That’s all I have to say about him. If you are interested in details of the accusations about him, I refer you to the work of Iain Davis, who is as fair and balanced as always on a very thorny subject.
I am more interested in pointing out that the cat is now out of the bag about weaponized rape accusations, which I’ve been talking about for quite some time.
I myself was kicked out of the Montreal Anarchist Bookfair many years away because a very mentally ill trans “man” claimed I raped “him”.
I have always maintained my innocence, and part of my opposition to woke ideology comes from the pain of being banished from one’s tribe.
I lived in an anarchist collective at the time, and I was also kicked out of my home. No one ever even gave me a chance to tell me my side of the story. It was an obscene mockery of justice, and a hard life lesson.
I have to admit that there were positive long-term benefits of the experience, though. Now that I know the pain of being falsely accused of a crime I didn’t commit, I am more committed to principles of justice than I was before.
The word rape evokes strong emotions, for obvious reasons. But the #MeToo era has not succeeded in making the world a better place. It has basically been a witch hunt in which people with dubious motives revel in social media pile-ons.
It’s clear that many people aren’t interested in justice - it’s a perverse form of entertainment for a certain type of person - the type that gets their kicks from schadenfreude.
The time has come for this to come to an end, and for this reason I want to ask a simple question.
What does the word Rape even mean anymore?
The word “Rape” used to mean “an act of penetrative sexual assault”, in which a man uses physical force to push his penis inside her vagina against her will and against her protestations. What’s the definition now? Who knows?
I certainly am not saying that rape isn’t a major societal problem. Far from it. But unfortunately, so many men have been accused of sexual impropriety now that the reasonable person has no option other than sort the accusations into different mental categories.
The case of Russell Brand shows that the R-word no longer has the power it once did, because it’s been overused. Remember the story of the boy who cried wolf? How did that end?
Although I will point out that all surveys of sexual behaviour show that people have are having less sex than ever before. Sociologists have even coined a term for this phenomenon - the Great Sex Drought.
This problem is rarely spoken of, or even thought of as a social problem. But isn’t a good sex life part of mental and physical health? I think so. Don’t you?
Rape has become a worb.
This is a major problem because rape is, of course, one of the worst things that a human being can do to another person, and it is true that women are disproportionately the victims of it.
What’s more, it’s not at all uncommon. Most liberals and many anarchists have a naive take on violence against women. Opponents of the Prison-Industrial Complex often act as if everyone in jail is an innocent victim of the system. I’ve been to jail. I can assure you that there are some bad dudes in there. It’s not enough to say that rape is wrong and that in an anarchist society no one would ever rape anyone.
About one third of guys in jail are there for domestic violence, and most of those guys are probably rapists too. Anyone who’s spent time amongst the lower strata of society knows that rape isn’t uncommon. It’s deplorable, sure, but it’s unrealistic to banish or kill all rapists.
Furthermore, a lot of things that do not involve a penetrative sexual assault are likened to rape.
There is blame to go around on this one. The problem goes back to before the woke era.
What is statutory “rape” for instance? It doesn’t fit the above definition, now does it?
If a 20-year-old Canadian has a 16-year-old girlfriend, they can have consensual sex in Canada (where the age of consent is 16), but if they visit the U.S., their consensual sex has magically become rape.
Why use the word rape to describe consensual sex between people with an age difference deemed unacceptable to society? Why not use a more accurate word?
Here’s another example: In Mexico, women don’t have the same expectation that men must wear condoms. They haven’t been programmed with the same “Sex=AIDS” propaganda that we have. This does lead to problems, however.
Take a case such as this: Man and woman are drinking. Man takes woman back to his place. They fuck. Everything so far is consensual. He then ejaculates inside her. She is furious. She demands he pay for the Morning After pill. He doesn’t want to because it’s expensive. He offers to pay half. She is even more furious and goes around telling everyone he’s a lousy dirtbag. The rumour mill being what it is, the story changes in the telling, until everyone thinks he’s a rapist.
Why do some many things get rounded up to rape?
This happens a lot. Things get rounded up to rape. Why? I’ve thought about this a lot, and I’ve got a theory. It’s because women have instincts of self-preservation, and there is a mental category in their brains where the important point is: “BAD NEWS - STAY AWAY”. (Correct me if I’m wrong.)
In the above example, is the female brain malfunctioning if she files him into the “Bad Dude” category? No.
The consequences of an unwanted pregnancy are dire, especially amongst people who do not have such a blasé attitude towards abortion as is now common in Western countries. Forcing an unwanted pregnancy on a woman is a pretty fucking egregious violation of her trust.
My opinion is probably of limited value, but I would argue that while the above example is not rape, it is a form of sexual assault.
A Simple Proposal
It seems to me that the word rape is over-used because the English language lacks a good descriptive term for cases in which a man ejaculates inside a woman without her permission.
This is common enough, and inventing a new word would make it easier to talk about.
I’d like to propose an idea. Why don’t we invent a term for this kind of sexual assault in order to differentiate it from rape?
Here’s my suggestion - Jackboxing.
Think of a Jack-In-The-Box. Get it?
If this word caught on, we wouldn’t have to misuse the word “Rape” in order to describe a woman’s sense of violation when her trust is betrayed in this particular way.
“Rape” refers to “penetrative sexual assault” (or at least it used to). In the case of jack boxing, the unconsensual part isn’t the penetration, but the ejaculation. It may be sexual assault, but it’s not rape. It's something else.
But what if it’s accidental?
Apparently, there is legal precedent for cases of sexual assault in which the penetrative sex was consensual, but the ejaculation was not.
It seems difficult to prove one way or the other, but the point that I want to make here is that intention matters a great deal in a crime.
Example 1: High school sweethearts Janey and Joe break up so Janey can go to art school in a faraway town. He is still in love with her. When she comes back home for Christmas, they hook up and he deliberately jackboxes her, hoping that if he gets her pregnant, she’ll abandon her life plans to be with him.
Example 2: Whilst at art school, Janey hooks up with her dorm mate at a party. They are both drunk. They don’t have a condom handy so she consents to unprotected sex. He is sexually inexperienced and prematurely ejaculates inside her. He is apologetic and offers to pay for the morning after pill.
See what I mean? Intention matters a great deal. In the first case, I feel that a significant violation has occurred. In the second, I don’t think that a crime has occurred at all. If Janey is an adult, she knows the risks of sex and tacitly accepted some risk of pregnancy by consenting to unprotected sex.
The consequences could be serious, but the consequences of many types of accidents can be serious.
SECOND-DEGREE RAPE?
In the current cultural context, if a man were to say “I didn’t mean to rape her”, that would probably not help his case at all.
No one questions that first-degree murder and second-degree murder are significantly different, and the law treats first-degree murder as much worse.
My argument is not that sexual assault isn’t deplorable. My argument is that intention matters. And not a little bit - a lot.
Intentional, premeditated rape is much worse.
There is a taboo against comparing rape to other crimes, and I understand the taboo.
But things have gotten too far out of whack. Rape is now seen as worse than murder, and certainly much worse than a bad beating. But is it?
This isn’t a pleasant thought, but would you rather be raped or murdered?
Now think of a female family member. Would you rather that she be raped or murdered?
Things are out of wack if people think that rape is worse than murder. So as unpleasant of an exercise as this is, I think we have reached the point where we do need to compare rape to other kinds of violence.
Why? Because feminists use the R-word in a similar way to how Zionist fascists use the H-word - to silence people they don’t like and to shut down debate.
But there’s something sick and awful about using a traumatic event. I hesitate to use the term “Rape card” because it’s crass and awful. But I have definitely seen feminists instrumentalize rape accusations, and it’s not the term “Rape card” that’s most offensive, it’s the behaviour it describes. It’s shameful enough to treat trauma as a form of currency, but it’s much worse to use it as a cudgel.
We have reached the point where most people no longer believe women when they accuse men of raping them. They want details before forming an opinion. This might be more true of men than it is of women, but it is true of women too. Add in cultural differences and we’re in a “white bitches crazy” situation.
There’s blame to go around on this one. I blame a campaign of ideological subversion undertaken by intelligence agencies, but feminists have to accept their share of the blame. By uncritically “believing” pathological liars with personality disorders who were dead-set on destroying the reputations of men who had provoked their ire, they have contributed to a cultural environment in which accusers will be doubted and their claims picked apart. For years to come, public sympathy will more often fall on the side of the man, who may well be a rapist.
Basically, things will go back to the way they used to be. Women who are sexually assaulted will have to suffer in silence or go through channels (like the “justice” system) which are unlikely to produce desired results.
If anything, the #MeToo era has taught us that the presumption of guilt is worse than the presumption of innocence, and that the rights of the accused must be balanced against the rights of victims if we aspire towards anything worthy of the name “justice”.
The saying that comes to mind for me regarding #MeToo and all of its consequences is "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
As you are doubtless aware I see myself as a 'feminist', so I would imagine you would be interested in my opinion on your piece.
I do, as it happens, understand what you are trying to say here - obviously it's a serious subject, but a part of me - well, the old-fashioned, affectionate feminist part of me - thinks it's really quite sweet of you to expend such effort trying to skirt, as it were, around the issue, and not to step on eggshells. I got that feeling all throughout the essay. There's a certain irony there of course - I mean you mentioned the word 'taboo' - which, it seems to me, the entire 'woke' thing is intended to manufacture.
But what I really wanted to say was that I think you may have a particular definition of 'feminist' which is, well, whether it's accurate or not is a question, but it's certainly a different definition to the one I have (or the type of feminist I am).
I'll explain - I generally take a view of the 'history of feminism' as one in which, basically, after some women fought for a long time and with much hardship against the patriarchal Establishment (Judaeo-Christianity, post-1066 feudalism etc.), they were able to win to themselves a greater respect within society (I'm talking western society here I guess). Think about people like Mary Wollstonecraft here, for example. I think you'll agree that someone like her bears zero resemblance to these 'modern feminists' you are describing? I'm more like Mary, by the way, if that helps.
A real feminist knows, for example, that you cannot be a feminist and a Judaeo-Christian at the same time. Likewise, if you are a genuine feminist then you have to be something of an anarchist. For me, there is little difference at all between 'hierarchy' and 'patriarchy' (and thus 'statism'). And any system which has a 'commandment based morality' rather than a 'virtue-based morality' is by definition unnatural and hierarchical/statist. A system, that is, which dictates 'norms' and vilifies anything which doesn't conform to those norms. Likewise the word 'liberal' has been captured and misused - it doesn't mean 'freedom' anymore. It actually means 'patriarchal conservatism' !!
Virtue-based, simply premised on, or made possible by, emotional and psychological maturity.
We then have this early feminism progressing hand-in-hand with the struggle for socialist emancipation of the masses (against the (feudal, patriarchal) Establishment) - historically we see these two groups mutually aiding each other - although, one must say, with not as much support from the male socialists as we would've liked, but we are a forgiving species, of course. Anyway, now fast-forward to the post-ww2 era, and bring us to the 1960s counter-culture (read: anti-Establishment) movement. This is the point where the 'movement' (which includes the old socialist emancipators) or 'the resistance' suffers a concerted and systematic programme of attack by the Establishment. Just as you have Cointelpro (I think you mentioned that), you also have 'infiltration' of 'feminism'. Also use the term 'agents provocateurs'. These infiltrators will, put simply, pretend to be feminists, they will call themselves feminists, but they will express themselves in such unattractive, us vs. them ways so as to discredit feminism itself. Discrediting 'the resistance' by infiltration and control is a timeworn tactic of the Establishment, as I think you would agree?
So my take on all this, then, including a lot of the 'woke' shit, is that this kind of stuff is not being promoted by genuine feminists like myself, it is being promoted by the infiltrators - in other words, by the Establishment itself. And likewise in typical Establishment style, it is also infiltrating and controlling the 'other side' - the 'anti-woke'. And what happens as always it's the innocent who get caught up in the middle. For example if you look at the anti-trans 'feminists' you only need to see where they come from (the Vatican) and who they ally with - the far-right 'Christian' fundamentalist types - i.e. the archetypal patriarchy (!!!) to hopefully understand precisely 'which side they're really on'.
So when we talk about 'feminism' and 'feminists' we really need to take a step back and define what 'kind of feminist' (or pretend-feminist) we really mean. I am, believe it or not, vehemently against all these so-called new feminists who are a natural progression of the Establishment's infiltration and agent provocateur strategy. They do not represent me or the interests of women - or men for that matter (remember the patriarchy oppresses men too, by dictating roles for them) - and more than that, they are misrepresenting feminism, and demonstrably doing a massive amount of damage to the interests of women - and society/humanity itself in the process - and I say, this is deliberate and entirely intentional. And they do position themselves on 'both sides'.
Of course I don't know the precise details of your own personal run-ins with so-called feminists (or people who said they were feminists) and for it's worth I am sorry if you were unfairly treated, and I just wanted you to know that 'I am not that kind of feminist' - and 'we're not all like that'.
I think that's important to remember.
Oh, as a P.S. with regards to your statement 'murder is worse than rape' - actually that's not true from a psychological point of view (depending on the nature of the incident, granted, and the psychological state of the victim). Being raped is (or can be) a life-sentence. And it IS different for a woman than a man, on the psychological level. This is another issue though, so I'll not go on about it here. There are a lot of myths around rape, though, this much is true. Most rapes are committed by someone the victim knows (hence the horrifically low conviction rate - without some 'written consent' it comes down to one word against another - there are some places that are trying a different approach though, and perhaps that will change the culture. Rather than saying 'no means no' it requires an actual 'yes' from the woman. I think there is some merit in that, but as I say, it's for a different discussion).