Archive

Posts Tagged ‘sexual assault’

Brouhaha over Kavanaugh as an Accidental Genius Move by Democrats

October 8, 2018 18 comments

Over previous 2-3 days, CONservative media outlets have been masturbating with the pretense of joy over the Kavanaugh confirmation. Even usually non-mainstream CONservative alt-right losers are trying to portray it as some great “victory” for Trump. It is amusing to watch their hilarious Gollum death dance, largely because my understanding of history is large enough to know how this will all end. To understand what I am talking about, let me ask a simple question.. Why are there many policies and regulations, especially in USA, about sexual harassment?

Have you ever wondered if this was always the case? Surely, there must have been a time after women entered the workplace in large numbers when policies and regulations about sexual harassment were largely non-existent. Also, why is the issue of sexual harassment a much bigger deal in North America (especially USA) compared to West-Europe, to say nothing about parts of the world. And what does any of this have to do with moribund establishment Democrats making, what I consider to be, an accidentally genius move by opposing Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

A couple of weeks before Y2K, I was an unusually young M.Sc student at one of those pre-Xmas departmental parties. After mixing among the crowd for a while, I ended up sitting down with two professors. After talking about a variety of topics, we came to the issue of sexual harassment because some well-known professor had been recently disciplined by the university for that infraction. Both told me that things used to be quite different even a decade ago, and one was happily married to a woman he started dating when she was his summer student.

When I asked them about their theories as to why things had changed so much and so fast, they were almost unanimous in blaming it on fallout from the ‘Anita Hill controversy’. At this time, I was vaguely aware that a woman named Anita Hill had accused a nominee to the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas, of sexual harassment. I was also aware that her attempt to stop his nomination was not successful and republicans had tried to get her fired from a university.

I could not however, at that time, make a connection between the fallout of that controversy and the slew of policies and regulations concerning sexual harassment which were rolled out by large corporations as well as governmental institutions in the 1990s. Almost a couple of years passed. Then one Saturday night, I came across an administrative assistant (and her girlfriends?) whose office used to be along the route to my lab as a student. We briefly exchanged pleasantries and I introduced her to my companion as the secretary whose office was two doors away from the office that dealt with sexual harassment claims etc.

We had a quick laugh about it and then I asked her if that office was always there. She replied that they only came into being around 1993 or 1994 and something about Anita Hill. She also said that prior to this, women either did not complain or went through internal departmental channels if the harassment was especially persistent and severe. After a couple of more minutes during which I told her about my new job in a different part of that building complex, we went our own way. Though a bit drunk, something in my mind immediately made the connection between this incident and the one mentioned a couple of paragraphs above.

But I still could not understand how an incident which had occurred a decade ago and on other end of the continent had such a profound and widespread impact. And let us not forget that this was before everybody and their dog was on the internet and social media. Anyway.. the next morning after a cup of tea and with nothing else to do, I decided to spend some time on Google to find out when policies and regulations surrounding sexual harassment (as we know them today) came into being.This was in an era (1999-2011) when Google search was at it peak.

After searching for about an hour, I noticed a few persistent patterns. Firstly, most modern policies and offices to deal with sexual harassment in universities seem to have started in the early to mid 1990s. There were, of course, some outliers which had something like that as early as late 1980s. But the bulk of them came into existence with four to five years of the Anita Hill controversy. The same held true for large corporations. I briefly considered the possibility that this might be an artifact of the modern internet becoming public in 1994, but the clustering of dates was just too tight (and just before 1994).

After that, I decided to go out and get something to eat and walk around the more fashionable parts of that city. By the time I returned, this topic was nowhere in my conscious mind. Without much to do a Sunday night, I ordered a pizza and went about finishing the remaining two beers in my fridge. Because this was in the pre- YouTube era, I decided to watch some documentary on the Vietnam war on TLC\A&E\ History Channel (back when they broadcast stuff other than fake “reality shows” about pawn shops, truck drivers, naked survivalists and similar crap). Anyway.. this one was part of a series about why USA lost the Vietnam war.

One of the talking heads in that documentary was saying something about how USA never paid attention to how the Vietnamese perceived their presence in their country and then he said something to the effect of “we won every battle, but lost the war”. And this when I had my epiphany about how the Anita Hill controversy unintentionally gave rise to the policies and regulations surrounding sexual harassment as we know them today- at least in North America. Republican CONServatives (with the help of Democrats like Joe Biden) did win one battle by confirming that ugly toad, aka Clarence Thomas, to the Supreme Court- but they lost the war.

The attempts by Republicans and some Democrats to publicly humiliate Anita Hill to push through the nomination of that uncle Tom.. I mean Clarence Thomas, made her into an unintentional martyr for the cause of a certain ascendant brand of feminism. It also helped that the guy accused of sexual harassment was seriously lacking in the looks and personality department. Subsequent Googling revealed that women (especially white educated women) saw those hearings very differently from men. It did not help that her subsequent harassment by republicans and attempts to kick her out a university job made Anita Hill into a bonafide martyr for white educated professional women- the same ones who came to populate administrative positions in universities and large corporations.

It then occurred to me that the course of the movement against sexual harassment in North America might have been different if those myopic idiots had spiked the nomination of Clarence Thomas in favor of a less revolting corporate cock-sucker. But no.. those idiots had to “win” that battle. And this is how they lost the war and that is why we now have so many policies, regulations and all the other stuff surrounding sexual harassment. I cannot resist pointing out that “victory” of putting that Uncle Tom on the Supreme Court ended up costing many hundreds of thousands men their jobs, careers and promotions- not to mention social status.

Clarence Thomas was only accused of sexual harassment and most of this occurred before the internet and social media age (at least in their full-blown form). Kavanaugh has been credibly accused of sexual assault and worse. His looks, history, personality and demeanor have not helped sell his case to most women. FYI- most women do not constantly post on social media about supporting CONservative causes with their styled bleached hair or tits hanging half-out. Mark my words, this is going to get much uglier and far more consequential than what happened after Clarence Thomas was pushed through to the Court. And yes, this has very serious potential of helping Democrats in future elections- because face it, women universally and viscerally hate mediocre men trying to force them to into uncompensated sex.

What do you think? Comments?

Kavanaugh Confirmation is American Version of Brezhnev 1979 Speech

October 6, 2018 14 comments

Regular readers of this blog will be aware of my two recent posts about why the nomination and attempt to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court were incredibly bad ideas with huge potential for future disasters due to second/third order effects. To be clear, I have always seen that court as a regressive institution whose primay function is the maintenance of status quo for the wealthy and corporations, at the expense of everyone else. I also wrote that confirming him would be the best surprise gift for establishment Democrats since Trump’s 2016 electoral victory.

Putting an entitled effeminate man credibly accused of multiple sexual assaults and a poor liar, like Kavanaugh, to the Court does wonders for the ability of otherwise moribund establishment Democrats to motivate voters as well as collect donations. And yes.. it does matters a lot how Kavanaugh appears to most women of reproductive age, and not just due to of his stance on abortion. As I keep on saying, he is a living breathing embodiment of the mental image most women have of that rich but unattractive asshole who tried to sexually assault them.

Let us be honest about it, a guy who had to corner women in a room or stick his penis in front of their face was not making them wet in the first place. Sadly, there are more than a few retarded men who want to believe that all CONservative women will steadfastly support that loser because they came across a few photos of a minuscule number of attention-whoring barbie CONservatives pretending to do just that on Twitter. First of all, most CONservative women are post-menopausal, tending towards senility and on their way out. More importantly, most of their daughters don’t share their belief system and never will.

And do not, for one moment, assume that there will be no future revelations about Kavanaugh. On the contrary, we are going to see and hear a lot more about the misadventures of Brett and his friends at Georgetown Prep and Yale. And ya.. establishment Democrats will keep hammering away at him- largely because it increases voter turnout and nets them more donor cash. If you don’t believe me, just look at what they have built out of the ludicrous accusation that Trump is a Russian puppet. This is going to be a long.. long road.

But what does any of this have to do with Leonid Brezhnev‘s now infamous televised address from December 1979? Also who was this guy? For those of you born after mid-1980s, Leonid Brezhnev was the leader of the erstwhile- USSR from 1964 to 1982. In other words, his political career began and ended before many of us were born or old enough to understand things. But as you will soon see, all of this is very relevant to the USA of 2018.

So here is a quick historic primer about the actors and context to this event. Leonid Brezhnev came into power in 1964 after Nikita Khrushchev was deposed by an internal coup. It is fair to say that he was chosen because he was seen as least likely to rock the boat, especially since his predecessor was well.. kinda impulsive and often did things without carefully thinking through the consequences. This is not to say that Khrushchev wasn’t an effective leader. It is just that other people near the top preferred somebody more predictable and boring.

Initially, it looked like a good choice. As some of you know, USSR experienced massive real growth and improvement in living standards for its people from 1946 to the early 1970s. Did I mention that this occurred in spite of the chronic stupidity and short-sightedness of its political elite. Long story short, the first few years of Brezhnev’s “leadership” were good for most people. Then the consequences of previous bad choices and attempts to copy the most disastrous aspects of western capitalism caused economic stagnation.

The later years of his “leadership” were also characterized by a general social and intellectual malaise throughout the country, partially caused by regressive social CONservativism. By the late 1970s, many Russians had started to express serious doubt (in their private circles) about the direction and future of their country. But this being USSR, those doubts were almost never aired in forums larger than your close family and intimate friends. While Gulags were a thing of the past, nobody wanted to risk job promotions or attract extra scrutiny from the security apparatus.

Back to Brezhnev.. as we now know, his health declined a lot in later years to the point where, by 1979, he was a mere shadow of his former self. Of course, he never expressed a serious desire to resign (that we know of) and the other people at top were not especially interested in replacing him before his death. For some years, they were able to hide the extent of his physical deterioration from the public. However, towards the end- it was very obvious. And then he decided to record that televised address in December 1979.

By now, some of you must be wondering.. “what is exact connection between the recent farce of Kavanaugh’s confirmation and some televised address made by an old and sick leader of USSR in 1979”? Well.. both are pivotal moments for the loss of public confidence in existing systems of governance. Confused? Let me explain.

In the very late 1990s to early 2000s period, I performed research at a couple of places alongside many immigrants from the eastern block, including Russia. Almost every one of them was about 10-20 years older than me. We often used to talk about non-research related stuff including how things went south in USSR after 1980. During the course of these discussions I noticed something peculiar. While each one of them reached their moment of epiphany about the future of USSR through an often unique set of circumstances, a majority made at least passing mention of the speeches and public appearances made by Brezhnev from 1979 till his death.

But why would people remember a few routine speeches made during that time period? More importantly, why did they connect them to the final collapse of USSR in 1991? At that time, internet video sites such as YouTube did not exist, and my options for further investigating such stuff on the internet was restricted to reading transcripts, archived newspaper articles etc. A few years later (around 2004 or 2005) I came across a highly edited clip of one such speech while watching some TLC/A&E/History channel documentary about USSR in the 1980s. And yes, it looked like he was not doing too well.

But I still could not understand why people who grew up during time remembered the ambiance of those speeches. A few more years later, I finally came across a YouTube clip of one such speech. It was then that I started to realize why people who were around when that speech was first broadcast associated it with the beginning of end for USSR. Long story short, if you watch the speech, a few things quickly becomes obvious. Firstly, Brezhnev was in pretty bad shape and not just physically. Secondly he seemed unaware of, or did not care about, the severity of his medical problems. Nobody around him was trying to help him beyond doing perfunctory stuff.

To summarize, those speeches (including the one linked below) mass-validated the worst fears people in that country harbored about the system but were afraid to discuss with anyone outside of their close social circle. It was now obvious to almost everyone that those in charge were seriously disconnected from reality and were not even trying to put on a proper dog-and-pony show. It also revealed that almost everyone at the top was looking out for themselves, and nobody else. And don’t forget that this came at the end of almost a decade of economic and social stagnation. Even people who had some real faith in ability of that system to solve problems could no longer believe that was likely. It was all just too hard to ignore and look past.

The Kavanaugh confirmation is the contemporary american version of Brezhnev’s televised speeches from 1979. You cannot look at that shitshow and pretend it was anything but a shitshow. You cannot look at that guy, his bad acting, constant lying and still pretend that he was a good person. You cannot make a plausible case that the guy is anything beyond a sadly mediocre, but born rich, asshole who had sex with unconscious women when he was in high school. But most importantly, you cannot ignore that the system to confirm such an atrocious person to the Supreme Court worked just as it was intended.

FYI- only the edited version of Brezhnev’s speech in this clip was eventually televised. But even it was full of obviously slurred words and odd body language.

What do you think? Comments?

More Thoughts on the Flaming Disaster of Kavanaugh’s Nomination

September 30, 2018 31 comments

Let me be upfront about something before we proceed any further. I had no real desire to write another post about the latest train-wreck in DC aka Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to Supreme Court. There are so many other interesting and consequential topics which I could have written about. Sadly, the shitshow surrounding nomination of that worthless loser has become national news and could have some pretty significant effects on immediate future- specifically outcome of November 2018 elections.

With that in mind, let me revisit what I wrote about that rich rapey mediocre prep-school jock a few days ago. It is my firm opinion that the idiots in Republican establishment should never have nominated somebody as widely despised as Kavanaugh. The recently publicized sexual assault accusations against him are only a small part of the litany of reasons he is seen in such poor light by establishment Democrats. Kavanaugh was, after all, part of the Kenneth Starr “investigation” as well as Bush43’s administration. But why is that such a bad thing?

This is where I start telling stuff you might not want to hear. You see.. protection of the rich and capitalist class from average people has always the main function of Supreme Court and through most of its history it has been a highly regressive institution. The Warren Court was perhaps the only time in history that it consistently ruled in a quasi-progressive manner. But how the court has ruled since the 1980s? Long story short, it has consistently ruled in favor of the rich, powerful and corporations and against average people- with exception of social issues.

But why do establishment Democrats care about who is appointed to the Supreme Court? As you all know, both establishment Democrats and Republicans are corporate whores. But, then shouldn’t their choice of candidates for that court be almost identical? Well.. for a long time that was indeed the case. There is a reason why most Supreme Court nominees, as late as the 1990s, were confirmed by an almost unanimous Senate vote. Sure, some were a bit to the right and some to the left – but by and large, they were predictable “centrists”.

Then the presidential election of 2000 happened and we know the role played by a slim majority of that court in appointing Bush43 as president. From that moment onwards, the Supreme Court (and appointments to it) were irreversibly politicized. Of course, there were other reasons for that change- ranging from changing demography of USA, irreversible decline of white male privilege, establishment Democrats support of identity politics to cover up their neoliberal belief etc.

And this brings us to why the nomination of Kavanaugh was such a bad idea. Once again to make a long story short, he was always seen as a rabid partisan figure by Democrats and there was no way they were going to confirm him. But could things have gone differently if that orange-haired buffoon had nominated a less controversial figure? What about somebody like Thomas Hardiman? For starters, the guy is a good corporate whore- just like his appointed predecessors. More importantly, his wife and in-laws are of Mexican descent and prominent democrats.

In other words, Hardiman in addition to having a compelling life story and being a good corporate whore could be relied upon to support progressive social causes. Sure, he would have only been 90% of the corporate whore Kavanaugh would be, but let us be realistic- it would be way easier to confirm him. In fact, even sad turtle face aka Mitch McConnell conveyed that to Trump on more than one occasion. But the dumbfucks in White House thought they knew better than everybody else and decided to nominate that post-menopausal woman-faced loser.

But why so much hate for this guy? Well.. it is way more than hate. I can foresee very plausible scenarios in which his confirmation (or even failed nomination) could have large impacts on the results of 2018 and 2020 elections. But before we go there, let us talk about why the sexual assault charges against him are so sticky and problematic. I kinda hinted to that in the previous paragraph by calling him a ‘post-menopausal woman-faced loser’. Still confused at what I am hinting at? OK.. let us do a thought experiment.

Imagine that the person nominated to the supreme court had the looks of a handsome masculine actor, rock star or sportsman. Now ask yourself, would sexual assault accusations by Christine Blasey Ford have been more credible or less credible? Would she have even accused him of sexual assault in the first place? Ok.. let me ask you a question, which might seem odd. Have you noticed a common thread running through almost every man who has lost his career because of accusations of sexual assault or harassment. Anything..

What about their looks or lack thereof? Have you noticed that the most famous scalps taken by the MeToo movement have been mediocre to ugly-looking men (Harvey Weinstein, Bill O’Reilly, Charlie Rose, Roger Ailes etc) with either a lot of power or money? For some “odd” reason, handsome men with complicated sex lives such as such as Rob Lowe and Charlie Sheen (in their prime), music icons (Lenny Kravitz and almost every other famous male musician) and sport-stars just don’t seem to end up on MeToo lists. It is always the mediocre-looking guy (usually white) who got lucky and made a lot of money or came into some power.

But why is that so? The simple answer to that question is that looks, physicality and attitude are attractive to women in a way that money and power are just not. That is why the white wife of a white physician will gladly cheat on him with some mediocre musician- but the reverse will never happen unless money changes hands. Kavanaugh, you see, comes across an effeminate white guy who was born to rich parents, got into an expensive prep school and ivy-league university because of parents’s connection and glided through life despite his utter mediocrity.

To put it another way, this guy has not made many (if any) pussies wet- even in his twenties. And this is why those charges of sexual assault and general rapey behavior have turned out to be so sticky. He really looks like the rich but mediocre looking white guy who has to sexual assault women or otherwise compensate them to get laid. It does not help that he is such a terrible liar. To summarize, he instinctively looks and behaves like a mediocre-looking prep-school rapey asshole and most women are viscerally repulsed by guys like Kavanaugh.

But why does this matter? The simple answer is 2018 and 2020 elections. The slightly longer answer is that the Democratic party had been unable to come up with a program or issue which was strong or visceral enough to increase turnout among likely voters in the 2018 mid-term election. All that constant talk about Russia, Putin, Collusion was simply not influencing voters who are not already partisan. Then Trump gave them an unexpected gift by nominating an hypocritical and effeminate prep-school asshole who just happened to have done some pretty repulsive (at least for women) things when he was younger.

Now they have a highly emotive issue to constantly beat republican candidates over the head with and simultaneously increase turnout of their own voter base. And this is not going away whether, or not, he is confirmed. Indeed.. confirming him might be the greatest gift received by moribund establishment Democrats since the election of Trump. And ya.. he will almost certainly be subject to multiple criminal investigations once confirmed resulting in his impeachment (or resignation) within 2-3 years. Establishment republicans, being as pathetic as their Democratic counterparts, still think they can wing it by getting him confirmed. I guess that stupid people cannot (or won’t) find out any other way.

What do you think? Comments?

More Thoughts on Aziz Ansari “Sexual Assault” Scandal: Jan 20, 2018

January 20, 2018 37 comments

In my previous post on this topic, I wrote that latent racism and a miscalculation about the social standing of white womanhood in 2017 were major factors contributing to the accusations leveled by that woman against Aziz Ansari. The woman in question would not have dared to make those accusations unless she felt it was possible to get away with making them, given the significant amount of contrary evidence in her own testimony. In some respects, this case is eerily similar to another recent backfire for the ‘MeToo’ and Time’s Up’ movement.

How many of you have followed the aftermath of similar accusations against a journalist known as Jordan Chariton? To make a long story short, one of his female colleagues cheated on her husband with him and later accused him of sexual assault. The result of this malicious rumor and its dissemination by an other journalist, or two, resulted in him being fired by TYT- who was his main employer at that time. He has since sued HuffPost, which was one of main redistributors of that libelous report. As of time of writing this post, Jordan has reached a settlement with ‘The Intercept’ (for republishing that libelous claim) and TYT.

Now, some of you might say that this supports the idea that such claims against more well-known men are not inspired by racism- since Jordan Chariton is white. Well.. I never said that such claims were always due to racism. However, for reasons which I shall go into soon, race played a major role in the claims made by the accuser of Aziz Ansari. To start with, she accused Aziz of sexual assault even though her own account of that event did not support her contention. The woman who accused Jordan Chariton of sexual assault kept on altering her story to the point where later versions of her story clearly contradicted her initial version.

The point I am trying to make is that the woman who accused Jordan Chariton at least tried to change her story to make it sound like a sexual assault. In contrast, the woman who accused Aziz Ansari tried to extend the definition of sexual assault to new and highly problematic levels- specifically withdrawing consent after the encounter was consummated. In case you have not read her original account, it is clear that she never verbally communicated her desire to end the encounter to Aziz. Nor did he force her to participate in an act (such as penetrative sex) when she overtly refused to do so.

In other words, she accused him of sexual assault largely because the encounter failed to live up to her expectations. If that seems too harsh, consider that she by her own accounts went to his apartment on the first date, got naked with him and then engaged in repeated oral sex with him. Perhaps more importantly, she continued the encounter even after her allegedly felt that he was not “listening to her non-verbal communications of distress”. She was therefore a willing and enthusiastic participant in that encounter- when it occurred. So what happened afterwards? Why did she later start representing it as sexual assault, after the fact, rather than a date marred by poor sexual chemistry?

Part of the answer to that question can be found sprinkled throughout her account. To be specific, it is clear that she felt that Aziz did not live up to her sexual expectations after the encounter had started. Now, we can make all kinds of guesses as to why she felt like that- but it is clear that she knew who Aziz was and his general physical attributes before initiating said encounter. I mean.. if she did not want to have sex with short brown-skinned men, she did not have to approach him in the first place and then go on a date with him. And yet, she did all that and more. So why made her change the way she felt about it- after the encounter?

Let me put forth another idea about her motivations- specifically, that she is a ‘starfucker’ or ‘groupie’. I am sure most readers are aware that even pretty ugly men who are famous, or infamous, seem to get inordinate amounts of female sexual attention- which they would not receive if they were not famous. I can bet you that this woman would have given Aziz the time of the day if he had approached her before his entertainment career took off. Yet, after getting his own series on NetFlix and an award or two, it was she who approached and flirted with him.

But what went wrong? Why don’t other groupies (especially of musicians) complain about sexual assault regardless of the quality of sex? What made her answer the solicitation for such a story about Aziz Ansari by that webzine?

Here is what I think happened.. She correctly guessed that having sex with Aziz Ansari was a sure thing given his known preference for white women and his relatively newfound fame. Maybe she wanted it to be another notch on her proverbial ‘celebrity’ bedpost. However the combination of a lack of sexual chemistry between them and the less than enthusiastic reception from her friends after confessing to casual sex with a non-white guy made it necessary for her to reframe that incident as a sexual assault. She got her chance when the webzine that published her account began soliciting for such stories about Aziz Ansari.

She could now try to rewrite her less than stellar sexual encounter with a semi-famous non-white guy as sexual assault- thereby freeing her (in her mind) from any personal agency or role in that encounter. But perhaps, the single most important factor behind her willingness to share her story with that webzine was the following calculation- who would the public support.. an anonymous young white girl or a swarthy non-white man? As it turns out, she miscalculated pretty badly since 2018 is a very different from 1998 or even 2008- when that calculation was last viable.

Change in american society, racial demographics and communication technology over the last two decades have made the tired “wholesome young white girl sexually abused by swarthy non-white guy” shtick fundamentally nonviable. Furthermore, most men and more than a few women seem to have realized that and attempts to legitimize withdrawal of sexual consent after the fact would be highly problematic and quickly thin out most male support for other feminist causes- which is something they cannot afford, at least for now. Might write another part in this series depending on future developments and reader comments.

What do you think? Comments?

First Thoughts on Aziz Ansari “Sexual Assault” Scandal: Jan 16, 2018

January 16, 2018 36 comments

By now, most of you might have come across one or more articles on the Aziz Ansari “sexual assault” scandal. In case you have not, here are a few takes- Aziz Ansari Is Guilty Of Not Being a Mind Reader; Before We Burn Aziz Ansari Perhaps Some Self-Reflection Is in Order and The Humiliation of Aziz Ansari. Of course, there are also the white feminist moron types pushing this incident as yet another opportunity to push their agenda even further- #MeToo hasn’t gone too far—it’s just getting started; Aziz Ansari Is The Creep Every Woman Deals With; No, the woman’s story about a night with Aziz Ansari isn’t the worst thing to happen to #MeToo and How the Aziz Ansari Allegations Opened Up a New Frontier in the #MeToo Conversation. To put it another way, every mediocre female journalist with an opinion, or axe to grind, is writing about this news item.

There seem to be two distinct types of reaction to this story- even within the supposedly “liberal” media-sphere. On one side, you have the more pragmatic people who see that retrospective classification of bad or awkward sex into sexual assault would be disastrous for the long-term success of any worthwhile ‘MeToo’ type moment. On the other side you have more than a few young women fame-seekers.. I mean ‘third-wave feminists’ who are trying to use this incident to get their 15 minutes of fame and perhaps a career upgrade. The second group is, of course, willfully oblivious to the fact almost all male support for any ‘MeToo’ type moment would evaporate very quickly once they see other guys being accused of sexual assault for merely having less than stellar sexual chemistry- especially in the internet age.

What do I think about all this? And why did I wait for a couple of days before writting on a topic which I could have posted about within an hour of that story spreading on Twitter? To make a long story short, I have been through a similar situation many years ago- and yes, everything turned out well for me. But before we go there, let us talk about how the strategies which worked for me then can still be used, perhaps even more effectively, by somebody in Aziz Ansari’s situation. The very short version of what worked for me in such situation is as follows: a] extremely aggressive but plausible counter-allegations against the accuser invoking inherent white racism; b] making anybody involved in adjudicating such a situation tread very lightly for the fear of being exposed as a racist and c] researching and exposing anything said, written or implied by people adjudicating such a matter that shows evidence of even a slight racial bias.

So, here are my thoughts on this alleged scandal. Firstly, I think there is a strong racial component to this story. Some of you might disagree, but my considerable experience over all the years suggests that this particular incident would never have been publicized the way it was if Aziz Ansari was white. Some might say.. ” but, haven’t most of the celebrities shamed by the #MeToo movement been white?”. And my answer to that is- White celebrities exposed by this movement so far like Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Charlie Rose etc did things which are either clearly criminal or were gross abuses of their power to employ the people they are accused of assaulting. Aziz Ansari’s “crime” was that the delusional white girl he hooked up with was not impressed enough by the sexual encounter- though she did (by her own admission) blow him a couple of times on her own free will.

Now tell me, how many white celebrities have been recently accused of sexual assault because the sexual experience was less than stellar (according to the woman). Now I am not saying that such a thing won’t occur in the future, but let us face the obvious.. what are the chances that one of the few semi-famous non-white people in the entertainment industry just so happened to be the first semi-famous person in USA accused of sexual assault by a white women because the sexual experience was not stellar- according to her. While I can certainly go into the theories put forth by other people, as well as my own, on why this delusional racist white women accused Aziz Anasri of sexual assault- let us instead focus on the far more important question. How did we reach the point where a woman can accuse a guy (even if he is non-white) of sexual assault just because the consensual sex was mediocre or awkward?

A simpler way to understand this issue is to consider the conditions under which people will provide false testimony. While some people might lie under oath to escape prosecution, others do it because they think or feel that doing so carries little to no personal downside. For example, accounts of medieval trials of witches and ‘secret jews’ by local authorities or the church are rife with blindingly obvious examples of ludicrous exaggeration, pile-ons by multiple witnesses, exhortations to protect the virtues of white christian women and an otherwise lack of anything which looks like due legal process. Paradoxically, accounts of common civil and criminal trials from the same era or even the same set of judges show far more consideration being given to contemporary evidentiary standards, detailed testimony, punishment for perjury and far greater adherence to something approaching due process. But why? Why were some perpetrators treated so differently from others?

In my opinion, it comes down to who is being accused and who is doing the accusing. To put it another way, an accuser who is a relatively higher position in that society as compared to the accused can typically get way with perjury, lies, bullshit, exaggerations beyond what he or she could get away if the accused was of a higher social station than her. Some of you might protest.. “but Aziz Ansari is a multi-millionaire semi-famous person in the entertainment industry”. And to that, my answer is- the delusional racist woman who accused him of sexual assault is white and still thinks that her relative social station is higher than that of a non-white man such as Ansari- as was the case twenty years ago. As it turns out, she miscalculated badly and her relative social position in relation to someone like Ansari is rather different in 2018 than 1998. But racist idiots will learn no other way.

I will probably write a second post on this topic based on future developments in that story and reader comments.

What do you think? Comments?