On October 9, 2018, the Independent published a clever Indy 100 article that translates for men, why so many women have been so viscerally upset over the fast tracking by GOP US senators of the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to become the next US Supreme Court justice, especially after a credible, reputable female witness Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was discounted by them as being confused over her sexual assault allegations against a drunken Judge Kavanaugh and his friend while they were in high school.
Here are excerpts from the article, “A writer used a perfect analogy to explain why women are so opposed to Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment:”
“The past few weeks has arguably been one of the most uncomfortable and controversial in the history of American politics. “
“Last week, Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed as a Supreme Court justice following an FBI investigation in sexual assault claims made against him by Dr Christine Blasey Ford.” (Even FBI Drector Chris Wray has admitted that FBI probe had strict limits placed on it by White House, at recent US Congressional hearing.)
“Although they are still claims and allegations, the way that Ford was treated during the investigation and afterwards was a little hard to stomach.”
“Yet for some, who haven’t experienced sexual assault, sympathising with Ford proved to be difficult, when it really shouldn’t have been.”
“In an attempt to fix that, writer A.R. Moxon, composed a clever analogy for men, to explain why it’s so painful for women to hear stories like Ford’s and for them to be basically ignored.”
“His Twitter thread cleverly uses the painful experience of a man being kicked in the genitals as a way of perfectly explaining why most women will object to Kavanaugh’s appointment, guilty or not guilty.”
Julius Ghost(Read Pinned Tweet!)@JuliusGoat
Imagine you found a girlfriend, and you loved each other.
One night, you were fooling around and she kicked you as hard as she could in the nuts, and it all came rushing back.
Imagine she acted like obviously you wanted to be kicked in the nuts,mocked you for getting emotional.
Julius GhostImagine you told the police, and they asked you what you’d been wearing before she kicked you in the nuts. Asked if you’d had a drink. Asked what you might have been doing before. Had you been naked? Kissing?
You had.
You left.
Julius GhostImagine there were laws that said that if a wife kicked her husband in the nuts it wasn’t assault.
Imagine you heard about men with ruptured testicles who had to pay for their own forensic reports
Imagine you saw statistics showing only 1% of kickings resulted in conviction.
Julius GhostImagine a girl was caught kicking a boy repeatedly in the nuts while he was passed out drunk.
Imagine the judge let her off, because she was worried about the damage to the girl’s future prospects. She was a star swimmer with a scholarship.
Imagine this happened all the time.
Julius GhostImagine if one day men all started talking about how almost all of them had, at one point or another, been kicked in the nuts.
Imagine if women’s main concern was what false accusation might do to their reputations, and whether this new honesty might ruin the mystery of sex.
Julius GhostImagine a woman ran for President.
Imagine audio came out of her bragging about making it a regular practice to kick men in the nuts without even introducing herself.
Imagine she lost no support for this.
Julius GhostImagine she claimed the men accusing her were lying.
Imagine she said they were too ugly to kick.
Imagine there had never been a male president.
Imagine she ran against the first major-party male candidate.
Imagine he had experience, and she had none.
Imagine she won anyway.
Julius GhostImagine she supported a Senate candidate known for kicking young boys in the testicles.
Imagine she nominated a judge.
Imagine the judge was accused of kicking a boy in the nuts.
Imagine the accuser had to hide from all the death threats as a result.
Julius GhostImagine the man who had been kicked testified, providing sworn testimony.
Imagine the judge gave an vindictive rant in response.
Imagine he was derided for providing no evidence.
Imagine if they looked for no evidence.
Imagine the judge was given an op-ed to explain herself.
Julius GhostImagine the President mocked the accuser in font of a crowd, and the crowd laughed and clapped.
Imagine the judge was confirmed.
Imagine the deciding vote was a man.
Can you imagine?
Julius GhostNow imagine that being kicked in the nuts might result in you having to create, in your body, a genetic replication of the person who kicked you.
And imagine that the judge intended to make sure you’d have to carry it.
Imagine that was the *reason* she was chosen.
Julius GhostI can’t imagine women’s rage today, but this exercise, while abstract, helped me get nearer to it than I’d been.
Be kind to women, guys. Today and every day.
If you see somebody being cruel to women, or abusive, or violent?
Kick ’em in the nuts.
Julius GhostBy the way it’s 100% insane that this issue seems to require an analogy to draw a sharper focus on how wrong our society presently is, but here were are.
Gronda Morin 
Gronda, Dr. Ford said it well when she testified under oath after passing a lie detector test. She said her testimony may not be heeded, but she had to give it. That was lost once Kavanaugh came in later with his righteous indignation and the GOP Senators fawned over him. He lied. He was belligerent. He was accusational. The one who appeared judicious was Dr. Ford.
But, she was not the only one. There were two others who came forward and neither were brought before the committee. That was by plan. Make it a one on one match. Defeat the one and you win. It really is that simple.
Ramirez was interviewed by the FBI, but they were told to limit the time and scope of the process. And, Trump in his infinite wisdom said Swetnik was not credible, so don’t interview her. Why?
The Republicans used a case of the few lying accusers against the vast ocean of accusers who are hurt. And, the even larger number who never go forward. Because a small percentage falsely accuse that means none can be trusted?
We never got at the truth. The vetting was limited as was the FBI investigation. We do know Kavanaugh lied under testimony. Why?
Keith
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dear Keith,
The GOP lawmakers used to get away with these tactics as a lot of it was sub rosa but this is not the case anymore.
Senator Collins tried to play the old sidestepping tap dance show around the truth but her days in the US Senate will end when she’s up for reelection. As a pro-choice republican, she sold out most women in her state when she voted to confirm Judge Kavanaugh to be the next US Supreme Court justice.
The reality is that how leaders deal with accusers like Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez and others, will be viewed from the perspective of the “MeToo” movement. There has been a c-change.
Here’s reality on Planet Earth in the USA. When a woman comes forward with an allegation that she was sexually assaulted by a particular assailant, she has to swear out a statement which is a form of evidence but it is a first step. Dr. Ford took the extra step by passing a polygraph test which is also evidence. This is evidence that can’t be used during a court hearing but it does bolster her credibility.
The irony here is, that it was Judge Kavanaugh who ruled in favor of law enforcement using polygraph testing as a tool.
After a claimant has signed and sworn to her / his accusations, then comes a competent investigation to corroborate or to contradict her/ his assertions. You can’t short cut this second step while claiming to have treated Dr. Ford with fairness which is what the GOP senators did.
They did not fool most American peoples with their tactics.
Hugs, Gronda
LikeLiked by 2 people
Gronda, I wrote a post earlier today about smugness and righteous indignation. Judge Kavanaugh and his Senator groupies showed faux righteous indignation. To be frank, the more who fawned over him comvinced me something was amiss. It was akin to the famous fawning Trump cabinet meeting. Keith
LikeLiked by 2 people