Sexual harassment victims ignored by progressive narrative

Eric Dixon:

The current news “wave” of sexual harassment allegations against high-profile elected officials and media celebrities is not about redress for the victims.

It’s not about creating safer workplaces for women — and also, for men.

The victims are, as they so often are, mere individuals, little more than collateral damage, but they are useful for the role they play here. Arguably, it’s double victimization.

Without the victims, and without the equally appalling (and in at least one case, likely criminal) sexual behavior of these predators (some of whom have, it must be noted, admitted indirectly to at least the partial truth of the allegations), the larger but hidden agenda at work cannot be advanced and achieved.

The indefensible nature of the behavior is necessary. It supports the horrible accusations, so often made with full knowledge of their falsity but nonetheless useful for intimidation, that anyone raising questions about evidence, the credibility of accusers (years if not decades after the fact) or the cultural standards for defining sanctionable, punishable offenses, never mind actual culpability, is essentially condoning, approving or even participating in the even more horrible behavior.

Of course, high-profile bad actors are necessary to generate the publicity needed to send the messages to the general population.

The conflation between just highly-inappropriate (and flatly boorish) behavior, which behavior often crosses into the illegal in the workplace and can easily turn into criminal, is also with a purpose. Confusing the population as to what behavior is “allowed” is useful fosters apprehension, insecurity and indecisiveness, weakening any sense of a universally-accepted (and respected) “bright line” standard (whether legal or cultural) for behavior. As legal and cultural uncertainty grows, the “accepted” standard becomes that which is set by the loudest and boldest voices.

Enter the ultra-progressive mob.

This is the same constituency largely responsible for the speech, conduct and student disciplinary codes on many college campuses which replace constitutional standards for due process with purposefully vague standards for “balancing the equities” in the name, naturally, of “fairness.”

When the clarity or objectivity of standards or their general acceptance by the population become weakened, the standards decline as the source for authority. The replacement is the progressive mob, whose standard becomes “it’s what we say that goes.” What’s important here is not the standard or standards, but who’s setting them.

It is in keeping with this totalitarian objective to seize power that there are efforts to deter any and all concerns about evidence, about procedure, to prevent anyone from raising questions which might interfere with the haste of the mob. In keeping with that object, expect that the vilest of motives will be (if they have not already been) ascribed to those expressing concerns about the methods and processes we see unfolding. Those concerns need to be discouraged, deterred or outright prevented, perhaps by any means necessary, because mere questions give rise to the procedural, legal barriers (e.g., due process) against which the progressives are afraid to confront and fear they will face defeat.

Read more