Democrats Must Really Hate Women

Have you noticed that the #MeToo movement is dead to Democrats these days?

Democrat representative Katie Hill had an affair with a staffer, a violation of the core concept of #MeToo that bosses can't have sexual relations with subordinates, and Democrats are bemoaning the fact that she had to resign.

How can that be?

That's because they never really believed in #MeToo, and they never cared about women.  Democrat support for #MeToo was nothing more than a ploy to attack Trump and other Republicans.

Trump is infamous for his philandering, though it seems to have ended about a decade ago, so the Democrats thought the #MeToo movement would be a good weapon to attack him with.  They decided to sacrifice a pawn, Harvey Weinstein, a fading Hollywood mogul whose days of power were slipping into the past, to create a movement they thought could be used against Trump.

The problem is that unlike with Weinstein, there's no credible evidence that Trump ever coerced women.  Even the infamous tape reveals Trump saying women let a man grope them — i.e., Trump was talking about groupies, not women he forced to do anything.

Now, that doesn't make Trump a paragon of virtue, but it's clear he's in a different league from people like Weinstein, who used their position of authority to coerce women into having sex with them.

Democrats also sacrificed a less than totally popular Democrat senator, Al Franken, who probably won his office only due to voter fraud, not because they cared about women, but because it would allow them to attack Roy Moore, who had been accused of dating young girls.

That ploy worked, since the Democrats won the election against Moore and Franken was replaced by a hardcore leftist because the governor of Minnesota was a Democrat.

Unsurprisingly, now that Moore is history, some Democrats are trying to rehabilitate Franken.

We know that Democrats don't care about women because they all knew what Weinstein was up to for years, but they said nothing until Weinstein's power was waning and they saw a way to weaponize sexual harassment against Trump.

Democrats tend to view women as objects to be used.  Why else are they so insane in their support of abortion for any reason at any time in a pregnancy? 

Abortion is absolutely critical for sexual predators since without it they face the risk of 18 years of child support payments — not to mention that a baby's DNA is 100% proof that sex involving the man occurred.

Given that less than 2% of abortions are due to rape, incest, or a threat to the mother's health, pro-choice people who care about women would support abortion only in those cases.  In fact, 74% of Americans want more restrictions on abortions than we currently have.  But Democrats want abortion for any reason at any time because it enforces the patriarchy by pressuring women into engaging in casual sex by pretending sex can be made consequence-free.

But the real undeniable proof that Democrats don't care about women is none other than Bill Clinton.

Ronan Farrow, the reporter who brought Weinstein down, recently said the following:

"I think that it is very important to interject that Bill Clinton is a different conversation," Farrow told [Bill] Maher. "He has been credibly accused of rape. That has nothing to do with gray areas. I think that the Juanita Broaddrick claim has been overdue for revisiting."

But even ignoring the rape charge, back when Clinton was being impeached, the crime he was being charged with was lying about a #MeToo relationship in order to avoid losing a lawsuit over his sexual molestation of an Arkansas government worker, Paula Jones.

Bill Clinton lied under oath about his exploitation of Monica Lewinsky.  Even Monica herself has come to the conclusion that her relationship with him wasn't really consensual — something that every woman who has ever been hit on by her boss knew at the time to be true.

One woman said that even if "consensual" affairs are consensual, they create a huge problem for women who aren't sleeping with the boss.  Real human beings know that if the boss is sleeping with a subordinate, that subordinate is likely to get special treatment, even if the boss isn't aware of what he's doing.  Similarly, human nature is such that a man who is rejected by one of his employees is presumed likely to punish her in some way, hence saying no to a boss comes with a clearly perceived potential cost.

Anyone who cares about women should therefore reject the idea that bosses can have consequence-free affairs with women who work for them.

Clinton lied under oath because if it came out that Bill was violating the commonsense rule that bosses shouldn't be sexually exploiting the women who work for them — the core of the #MeToo concept — then Jones's case would be strengthened, because she could show that her claim was consistent with Bill's pattern of behavior.

Back then, and even now, Democrats seem unconcerned with the fact that Bill Clinton was the poster boy for the #MeToo movement.  They declared unequivocally that lying under oath about exploiting women was normal and not in any way a bad thing.  When Bill's #MeToo-shattering actions were forced into public view again recently due to Trump, Democrats responded with at best mild condemnation.  They talk about how the times were different back then, but that's a bogus claim.

Back then, everyone agreed that lying under oath is a serious crime — even Democrats.  But Democrats then and now have carved out an exception by saying perjury is justified if the lie is about sex, since the Democrat mantra back then was that "everyone lies about sex".

After Al Franken served his purpose and it was clear that sacrificing a pawn, Weinstein, hadn't helped Democrats against Trump, there was a short period where a few brave people actually cared about women.  Several powerful #MeToo predators were called out.

From the Democrat perspective, however, the problem with that was that too many of the famous #MeToo predators, like Matt Lauer, were Democrats.

Given that Democrats were fine with Clinton and knew about the other predators and did nothing until they thought they could sacrifice them in order to attack Trump and Moore, it's clear that as with all other things, Democrats' primary concern is getting more power for themselves, and if helping women doesn't achieve that, then they in general don't care.

Note that there was no complaining by Democrats when a McDonald's CEO was fired this week because of a consensual affair with a subordinate.  Hence, it's reasonable to assume that the Democrats' rejection of #MeToo applies only to Democrats.

The Democrats' desire to push the #MeToo movement down the memory hole and return to their historically consistent stance of declaring that sexual predators are OK so long as they're Democrats — JFK, anyone? — makes perfect sense.

They're not repudiating any of their deeply held beliefs.  They're just pivoting to another set of issues that show more promise in helping them win power over we the people.

Otherwise, how can we explain Democrats' continued acceptance of Bill Clinton and their condemnation of Katie Hill having to resign because she broke the #MeToo rules?  Ask women you know who might vote Democrat in 2020 if they really want to support a party that is cool with a sexual predator like Bill Clinton.

You can read more of Tom's rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.

If you experience technical problems, please write to