The Guardian has an anti-Trump piece that says he rushed to judgment in New York City's infamous Central Park jogger case. I am not going to opine on whether The Guardian was unfair to Trump--that is beside the point of this post.
On April 19, 1989, an 28-year-old investment banker was brutally raped in Central Park. Five innocent juveniles--four black boys and one Hispanic--were wrongly convicted for various crimes in the attack. It was among the most shocking injustices in modern history.
Shortly after the attack and before the wrongful convictions, Donald Trump injected himself into it. The Guardian writes:
Just two weeks after the Central Park attack, before any of the boys had faced trial and while Meili remained critically ill in a coma, Donald Trump, whose office on Fifth Avenue commanded an exquisite view of the park’s opulent southern frontier, intervened.The article paints Trump as a hateful demagogue who resorts to "otherising" (you read that right) in order to incite like-minded haters to rage. It says it's not surprising that Trump is likely to win in South Carolina tomorrow, given that state's association with slavery.
He paid a reported $85,000 to take out advertising space in four of the city’s newspapers, including the New York Times. Under the headline “Bring Back The Death Penalty. Bring Back The Police!” and above his signature, Trump wrote: “I want to hate these muggers and murderers. They should be forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes. They must serve as examples so that others will think long and hard before committing a crime or an act of violence.”
This is not a defense of Donald Trump, this is about a hypocrisy that should be obvious to regular readers.
Trump is accused of rushing to judgment and assuming innocents are guilty of heinous crimes based on stereotypes about them and an accusation. But when radical feminists and their media enablers do the very thing they accuse Trump of doing--and they do it all the time--they are showered with PhDs, tenure, and book deals. One of them is likely to get the Democrat Party nomination for president.
Need examples of how the sexual grievance cartel rushes to judgment? You can't be serious, but see, for example, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Hillary Clinton says that men accused of rape should be deemed guilty until proven innocent. And can you say "gang of 88" from the Duke Lacrosse case? And my favorite--Amanda Childress, Sexual Assault Awareness Program coordinator at Dartmouth College, asked this about students (hint: it's always men) accused of sexual assault: "Why could we not expel a student based on an allegation?"
Trust me, I could go on and on and on with one example after the next, but you get the point.
Last summer, Donald Trump said Mexico is "sending people that have lots of problems" to America including rapists, drug runners, and other criminals. He was widely condemned for reducing an entire class of people to vile caricature. Yet, when feminist superstars like Jessica Valenti reduce young men as a class to vile caricature, she gets book deals. Valenti has written: "Rape is part of our culture; it's normalized to the point where men who are otherwise decent guys will rape and not even think that it's wrong. And that's what terrifies me."
The principal moral and intellectual failure of modern feminists who write and advocate about rape is the unconscionable rush to judgment whenever any rape accusation is lodged. It is richly ironic that these same social justice warriors are among Donald Trump's most vocal opponents. Their hypocrisy is breathtaking.