#MeToo? Or #MeSometimes?

0
914

I can’t remember a time when hypocrisy and fluid principles were so prevalent as they are today. One of the greatest examples of this is the #MeToo movement, which encourages women to speak out against historical abuse. Feminists are becoming more angry by the day, as rightly, any genuine abuse is inexcusable and deserves both condemnation and justice.

Dig a little deeper though, and we see an underbelly of ugly politics and insincerity in many cases. During the American presidential campaign we saw hand-wringing outrage at candidate Trump’s ‘locker room talk’ where he was caught on mic boasting of his past deeds in a laddish uncouth manner. Whether bravado or truth seemed to be irrelevant for his opponents. As did a full apology, as for those that choose to be offended, even over something more than a decade ago cannot be appeased by regret and apology. There is no forgiveness or opportunity to move on given by the baying mob. In this case, the ‘mob’ was people that didn’t want Trump to win, and used this as a way of venting their frustration, whilst conveniently overlooking some of the more detailed and disturbing historical claims against the Clintons.

It prompted a women’s movement that included ‘pussy hats’, obscene banners and hundreds of thousands taking to the streets to vent their anger at such ‘offensive and inappropriate behaviour against women’. Then, the liberal and Hollywood elites that had feigned such outrage and offence during the whole campaign cycle suddenly had an industrial scale scandal to deal with, as major Democrat donor Harvey Weinstein’s dark past started to unravel and the long suspected sordid side of Hollywood was laid bare. A #MeToo hashtag appeared, but the anger seemed disproportionate. Many of the protesting women seemed to still fixate on now ‘President’ Trump. This bizarre sense of selective outrage was amplified further when Iranian women started to remove their hijabs in protest, shedding male and Islamic oppression at great risk to their personal safety. The expected rush of support from liberals and women in the West didn’t happen, as this awkward turn of events didn’t seem to suit their narrative – President Trump was on the side of those women. The hashtag for those brave ladies withered on the vine, it even seemed to be suppressed by the social media giants.

Look at the empowered women providing entertainment at Formula One and Darts, or the workers at the President’s club now seeking employment thanks to the angry mob. Even sick children suffer in the name of this gross virtue signalling, as Great Ormond Street Hospital fly in the face of claims the NHS hasn’t enough cash and return all the money raised by the charity.

So this brings me around to ‘Charity’. It is known by every amateur and actual psychologist that ‘thou dost protesteth too much’ is often a characteristic of human nature. We see examples of this online and in the real world. Online we see groups proclaiming they are ‘Against Hate’ or ‘Resisting Fascism’ but in reality they offer no positive messages, don’t attempt to enter dialogue and obsessively attack the voices that they disagree with. In the real world, as we saw with Jacob Rees-Mogg, face covered thugs turn up to intimidate and shout down a voice they don’t agree with. The louder they scream ‘fascists’ the more they show the outside world that it is a fascist ideology they crave, with themselves at the centre, and in control of policing thought and opinion.

The Oxfam scandal has rightly appalled people that donate cash to good causes, donors learning that workers have been indulging in orgies whilst abroad on charity work, those workers then quietly resigning when revealed and the information not being shared appropriately across the entire charity sector. Today (11th Feb 2018) the Mail on Sunday broke a story that alleges Brendan Cox, husband of the late MP Jo Cox, has been accused of sexual misconduct in the US, shortly after leaving his senior role at ‘Save The Children’. That role was itself left under a cloud of claims of ‘inappropriate behaviour towards women’, a claim Mr Cox denies.

Whether Mr Cox, like many of the Hollywood elite, a vocal critic of President Trump has done anything wrong will remain to be seen, but the reaction to this story is quite remarkable. The Daily Mail has been photo-shopped to show Hitler reading it, howls of condemnation for breaking this story with calls for boycotts of the paper itself (note: that didn’t work too well for Virgin Trains).

#MeToo? Or #MeSometimes?

Yet when President Trump suggested ‘false allegations are wrecking lives’, the BBC ran a story on 11th February 2018 that attacked him from all sides, with quotes from a number of his enemies howling with indignation that this was yet another attack on women.

Confusing huh?!

One can’t imagine the mental gymnastics that one must go through to maintain a narrative when your principles are so fluid, and your outrage is so selective. The rules have to be the rules if you are to have any credibility – Brendan Cox has to be treated in the same way as President Trump. It is a FACT that there are false accusations, and they DO wreck lives. But if Brendan Cox was, let’s say, Jacob Rees-Mogg, the paper that published it would be a bastion of the free press to many, not a ‘fascist tool of evil’ as described by one particularly angry twitter user this morning. #MeToo? More like #MeSometimes