“I’m a feminist. I study rape culture. And I don’t want Al Franken to resign,” writes Kate Harding for the Washington Post.
As a feminist, Harding knows which forms of sexual misconduct, and in what context, are permissible. Franken has claimed he'll resign in light of the charges against him, but we're still waiting for that day to come.
Harding cautions that Franken's resignation would “drain the swamp of people who, however flawed, still regularly vote to protect women’s rights and freedoms” and give “old white Republican men” more power. Can't have that, can we? Much rather have his guy sticking his nose in our body politic, than give a putatively entirely "white" and "male" and "old" Republican Party more privilege.
Telling people they can't vote for "old white men" would be considered ageism, racism, and sexism, but only if they don't support subsidizing recreational abortions.
In politically correct doctrine, believing women and punishing offenders follows a very unique flowchart. If a woman accuses an offender who has championed feminism or occupies a position of social power—like Minnesota's junior senator—to advance the progressive political project, then that offender is off-limits or should at least be defended as much as possible. If the accused threatens the progressive narrative, then they should be regarded as guilty before innocent.
Take, for example, Girls creator and feminist activist Lena Dunham, who has made baseless allegations of sexual assault herself. When actress Aurora Perrineau filed sexual assault charges against former Girls writer Murray Miller, alleging Miller raped her in 2012 when she was 17, Dunham defended Miller. Dunham's official statement reads:
While our first instinct is to listen to every woman’s story, our insider knowledge of Murray’s situation makes us confident that sadly this accusation is one of the 3 percent of assault cases that are misreported every year.
Miller is the colleague of a feminist icon, therefore he is not be subject to the rules, though not everyone agrees, Constance Grady certainly doesn't for Vox.
For a self-proclaimed feminist, Dunham’s actions were not a good look, to say the least. The structure of our society and legal system is so stacked against victims of sexual assault that believing the victims is a basic pillar of feminism.
That "basic pillar of feminism" is guilty until proven innocent, then guilty based on whether or not the accused subscribes to the politically correct narrative.
Prolific pervert Harvey Weinstein was protected by feminists for years, until his myriad of victims went public. Anthony Weiner couldn't be defended because he was quite literally caught red handed. Kevin Spacey probably would have been OK, had he not awkwardly defended allegations of sexual assault by coming out as gay, at which point the Left had to choose between dropping Spacey or owning the fact he had played to the negative trope that gay men are perverts.
The vast majority of credible cases have three things in common: there is hard evidence, the perpetrators are often associated with the political Left, and everybody knew.
"You read that correctly, according to those within this wicked institution, everyone knew… and did nothing," as John Nolte writes for Breitbart. Political Title IX has proven to be hypocritical as it is purposed. Sharyl Attkisson says:
Ten days after Donald Trump became the Republican presidential nominee, the New York Times published a blockbuster article titled, “Crossing the Line: How Donald Trump Behaved with Women in Private.” The story’s authors, Michael Barbaro and Megan Twohey, interviewed Rowanne Lane, an ex-girlfriend of Trump’s… Shocking, but it wasn’t true. According to Rowanne Lane, the story was taken utterly out of context, garnished with the slanders of Barbaro and Twohey, and skewered into a political character assassination of then presidential nominee Donald Trump.
Lane collaborated with TIME magazine to publish a response to the hit piece: "Donald Trump Ex-Girlfriend Comes to His Defense: 'He Was a Gentleman."
“They spun it to where it appeared negative. I did not have a negative experience with Donald Trump, and I don’t appreciate them making it look like that I was saying that it was a negative experience because it was not,” said Lane.
“He never made me feel like I was being demeaned in any way,” Lane said in defense of Trump. The NYT deliberately misinformed the public to influence a presidential election... but nothing happened. Nothing happened after Lane publicly refuted the hit piece, the NYT did not retract or amend the article. Nothing happened because the hit piece did its work well, most people aren't even aware of Lane’s response in TIME magazine. The truth didn't matter, the mainstream media's hatchet job made sure of that.
Trump survived character attacks then, but the opposition picked up a few new tricks; this time Lisa Bloom is going to pay women to accuse Trump of sexual harassment. The victim business is good, Bloom offered to pay off the mortgage of one Trump accuser and pockets a cool 33 percent commission on stories from her victims that make it to media outlets. There are some on the Left who acknowledge the monster created by misguided Obama-era policy. Emily Yoffee writes for The Atlantic:
At many schools, the rules intended to protect victims of sexual assault mean students have lost their right to due process—and an accusation of wrongdoing can derail a person’s entire college education.
Swap "schools" with "levels", "students" with "men", and "college education" with "lives." Yoffee adds that many “remedies that have been pushed on campus are unjust to men” and such remedies “ultimately undermine the legitimacy of the fight against sexual violence.”
The bigger problem now, as we have seen with Roy Moore, is that the political operatives have realized weaponizing sexual assault claims is an effective way to derail an election. So, while there may be fleeting glimpses of moral sentience from the opposition camp, don't expect them to put down this sword anytime soon.