Objectively, I have had a lot of luck in my life. I was born as a white, heterosexual male in one of the richest countries on earth and have always enjoyed the benefits of a stable (and comparatively liberal) democracy.
On the basis of these fortunate circumstances alone, objectively speaking, my situation is better than that of millions of other men outside Western democracies. And most likely I am also better off than most women worldwide with regard to a central aspect.
What I am talking about, how could it be any different at the moment, is, of course, a life that was largely free of sexual harassment of any kind.
I didn't have to do anything special to achieve that. Simply the fact that I was born and the characteristics associated with it were sufficient to enable me to live a fairly carefree life regarding this.
That is called privilege. I am not sad or ashamed about that, but it is important to remember this precious gift from time to time. Especially in the light of the current debate about Brett Kavanaugh, who has now been confirmed as a Supreme Court judge.
If you have one last spark of common sense (and morality), you can't help but pay tribute to Dr. Ford for the courage it took to engage in a fight in which she almost certainly could only lose.
Within a political climate that led to a man who, as a notorious liar with racist and misogynistic statements, rose to become the most powerful political figure in the world, a fight for the investigation of sexual assaults seems to be a lost cause.
To dare this fight nevertheless requires remarkable courage.
All the more significant, however, were the public reactions regarding the accusations against Kavanaugh.
If you were reading through the commentary sections of relevant online media in the course of reporting, you couldn't help but see a perceived army of (predominantly male) commentators who saw a vicious political intrigue of the political left behind Dr. Ford's statements.
Now I personally am far from identifying myself with the agendas of left-wing parties, so I have no reason to associate myself with their goals. Therefore, even the assertion of a political intrigue becomes even more absurd for me.
But let's assume that the whole thing was actually a big setup to prevent Kavanaugh from being a judge at the Supreme Court.
If that is the case, then this show would have been an unparalleled loss-making business.
There are three important reasons for this.
First:
The odds were never in favor of the Democrats. With the current distribution of power in the Senate (51 Republicans, 47 Democrats, 2 Independents), it was very unlikely from the beginning that Kavanaugh would not be confirmed, as the Republicans naturally wanted one of their own sworn for the highest judicial office. However, why it was not possible to find a candidate who was not confronted with allegations of sexual abuse is a different matter.
Secondly:
Immense personal risk for Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. She had nothing to gain by accusing Kavanaugh of sexual abuse. It is doubtful that her books on statistical analysis or research methods in clinical trials will be published in higher volumes due to her public appearance.
Instead, she faced personal attacks from Kavanaugh's followers. Her email account was hacked, she received insults and death threats, and she even had to leave the house with her family as the pressure became too strong.
Why would she risk all this (and it was quite foreseeable that such reactions would follow) if the prospect of achieving anything was scarce anyway?
Thirdly:
Now, of course, one could argue that Dr. Ford was merely a "pawn sacrifice" of dark forces who tried with all their might to harm Trump and undermine his decisions.
But again, strong doubts are appropriate. With the imminent mid-term elections, such a political coup would be an enormous risk for the Democrats - should it be exposed. An orchestrated action always carries the danger of someone talking. If the American public had heard that the Democrats were trying to play a set-up game, an election disaster might be inevitable. To take such a high risk to possibly get another Supreme Court candidate? Extremely unlikely.
Something very crucial has apparently escaped many of Kavanaugh's defenders: The whole affair was ultimately a job interview and not a criminal trial.
For this reason, the much-cited presumption of innocence is also irrelevant.
Before the first torches are unwrapped to burn me at the stake of public opinion making, I would like to elaborate a little on this statement.
Yes, the presumption of innocence is a great asset when it comes to protecting people from unjustified punishment by the state. The democracies of this world have quite rightly imposed high standards on themselves in order to protect the privileges of their citizens.
This mechanism, however, cannot be transferred one-to-one to other areas of public life.
The presumption of innocence serves to protect people from harm, in other words to guarantee a minimum of legal certainty. On a scale, then, we are at the lower limit.
Kavanaugh's hearing, however, was about promoting him for his work - no minimum standards had to be met here, but far more important principles.
One of these principles, for example, is that a future Supreme Court judge should not lie under oath. In the case of Brett Kavanaugh, there are at least serious doubts about that.
Also the picture of Kavanaugh, originally created by himself, as a student who was never to blame for anything. Especially with regard to his very intimate relationship with alcohol. Several of his former fellow students disagreed with Kavanaugh's assertion that he had never drunk to the point of blackout. Drinking yourself senseless is fortunately not a punishable offence, but Kavanaugh's handling of it should at least raise questions.
For a judge in the US Supreme Court, there should, no, have to be other standards than for the rest of the population. Nobody condemns Kavanaugh for drinking too much during his studies. It only became problematic when he publicly lied about it and drew a picture of himself that did not correspond to the facts. A Supreme Court judge should not have such a questionable relationship to the truth.
Again, the whole thing was not a criminal trial, but a job interview.
Let's assume that the accusations against Kavanaugh are not true or even half as bad. As an outsider, we can only judge this to a limited extent at the moment anyway.
Let us also imagine that we are in the hypothetical position of finding a private piano teacher for a teenage girl (daughter, niece, girlfriend, etc.).
Now we hear similar accusations against our desired candidate as in the Kavanaugh case.
Would one really vehemently refuse an official investigation under these circumstances? Wouldn't one at least doubt one's own decision to place one's protégé in the care of a man who is confronted with these allegations? Just in case the allegations might be true?
Why should one refuse the same procedure for an office that entails much more power?
Somehow the logic does not really open up to me.
A popular "argument" in the course of this debate was also that currently it is the case that a woman only has to say that there has been sexual abuse and immediately the man's life would be ruined.
This assumption is as absurd as it is unrealistic. The mere fact that Kavanaugh, despite all the accusations and dubious circumstances, is now a Supreme Court judge proves this allegation wrong. But you can also take a look at some statistics.
In a very detailed study at the beginning of the 2000s, a number of British researchers looked among other things at the question of what figures are available on false sexual abuse allegations.
A total of 2643 cases of sexual assault were reported - 216 of which proved to be false. Only 126 of these allegations were formally reported to the police; only 39 reported a suspect; in six cases arrest was carried out and in only two cases did a trial take place before the allegations were rejected.
Alternatively, you can look into the National Registry of Exonerations, where you can see that of all convicted sex offenders since 1989, only 52 have been innocently imprisoned - but for murderers there were 790 cases in the same period. And yes, I am aware of the distinction between relative and absolute numbers and that the number of death-related crimes is higher, which of course increases the absolute number of wrongly imprisoned inmates.
However, the lower number of imprisoned sex offenders also coincides with another statistic - namely that the number of imprisoned sex offenders is generally lower:
Apparently the myth of the poor, falsely accused man is in most cases exactly that - a myth.
For many women, however, having to live with sexually assaulting men is still a bitter reality. Every day. That's why it was a good and right thing that Dr. Ford found the courage to take an open stand against Kavanaugh.
As things stand at present, it is unfortunately not clear whether Dr. Ford's accusation against Kavanaugh is correct. Even though I am inclined to believe her, a final statement cannot be made at this time. That is very regrettable, but difficult to change. I am only too well aware of the dilemma involved.
As a victim of sexual assault, you have basically always lost.
If one speaks openly about it immediately afterwards, it needs at least an officially certified confirmation that the appropriate assault actually took place - otherwise only one statement stands against another and after all anyone can claim anything.
If one remains silent (e.g. out of fear or shame) about it, it never happened, the crime remains unpunished and everything remains the same.
If you break the silence after a long time, everything is just an intrigue to put the perpetrator into social isolation and to ruin him as a social person.
A Lose-Lose-Lose-Situation so to speak. It is a misery.
The solution?
I don't know. Don't exercise your own urges without consent? Treat people with respect? Be less an asshole in general?
Sounds boring? Maybe that's exactly why it could be a good idea.
Dare more logos, less pathos.
