While I don't think a movie star losing a deformation case to a tabloid warrants comparisons to the 3rd Reich (night of the long vaginas incoming), the western justice system has become extremely ideologically driven.
One of the strongest veins in that ideological drive is feminism, and (as articles like this demonstrate) feminists regard doubt being cast on a woman's accusations of abuse as fundamentally "harmful". Not just to the woman in question, but to women as a whole.
I have no trouble at all believing that the UK judge factored the harm that such a verdict would cause the metoo movement into their decision.
While I don't think a movie star losing a deformation case to a tabloid warrants comparisons to the 3rd Reich (night of the long vaginas incoming), the western justice system has become extremely ideologically driven.
I have little to no faith in the Western 'justice' system. But my objection is the automatic assumption that the verdict that he did not like, proves that this particular trial was unfair.
One of the strongest veins in that ideological drive is feminism, and (as articles like this demonstrate) feminists regard doubt being cast on a woman's accusations of abuse as fundamentally "harmful". Not just to the woman in question, but to women as a whole.
I don't believe that the ideologies they espouse bear any relationship to what they actually believe. They are a tool for power, not something they actually believe in - as demonstrated by the fact that they were 100% fine with young girls in Rotherham being raped.
I have no trouble at all believing that the UK judge factored the harm that such a verdict would cause the metoo movement into their decision.
And neither do I, but I also know that if the verdicts were the other way around, he would be blaming it on female jurors.
I have little to no faith in the Western 'justice' system. But my objection is the automatic assumption that the verdict that he did not like, proves that this particular trial was unfair.
100% agree.
I don't believe that the ideologies they espouse bear any relationship to what they actually believe. They are a tool for power, not something they actually believe in...
I get what your saying, but I don't think it's as intentional as "a tool for power". I think the mentality here is much more scatter-shot and revolves first and foremost around the individual's image of themselves as "one of the good ones".
I believe this is why you see these ideologues (for lack of a better term) jumping so sporadically from protecting 'X' at all costs, to protecting 'Y' at all costs, to protecting 'Z', etc.
It all seems so much like an American high-school movie, where everything ultimately comes down to the moods and machinations of some mean-girl clique. Except instead of douche-bag teenagers it's judges, police, politicians, and journalists.
While I don't think a movie star losing a deformation case to a tabloid warrants comparisons to the 3rd Reich (night of the long vaginas incoming), the western justice system has become extremely ideologically driven.
One of the strongest veins in that ideological drive is feminism, and (as articles like this demonstrate) feminists regard doubt being cast on a woman's accusations of abuse as fundamentally "harmful". Not just to the woman in question, but to women as a whole.
I have no trouble at all believing that the UK judge factored the harm that such a verdict would cause the metoo movement into their decision.
I have little to no faith in the Western 'justice' system. But my objection is the automatic assumption that the verdict that he did not like, proves that this particular trial was unfair.
I don't believe that the ideologies they espouse bear any relationship to what they actually believe. They are a tool for power, not something they actually believe in - as demonstrated by the fact that they were 100% fine with young girls in Rotherham being raped.
And neither do I, but I also know that if the verdicts were the other way around, he would be blaming it on female jurors.
100% agree.
I get what your saying, but I don't think it's as intentional as "a tool for power". I think the mentality here is much more scatter-shot and revolves first and foremost around the individual's image of themselves as "one of the good ones".
I believe this is why you see these ideologues (for lack of a better term) jumping so sporadically from protecting 'X' at all costs, to protecting 'Y' at all costs, to protecting 'Z', etc.
It all seems so much like an American high-school movie, where everything ultimately comes down to the moods and machinations of some mean-girl clique. Except instead of douche-bag teenagers it's judges, police, politicians, and journalists.