A seemingly consensual, one-night sexual encounter would later destroy the life and career of Jonathan Kaiman. The Atlantic’s Emily Yoffe reviews the events of that fateful evening — and prompts a wider discussion with Danielle & Christina about whether such cases will erode the credibility of #metoo.

Subscribe to Femsplainers Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

There are 2 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member

    I haven’t listened to this podcast in quite a while.

    The giggling going on, in connection with reporting a story of a woman who cut off her husband’s penis, is absolutely appalling. To her credit, Dr. Hoff Sommers didn’t want to report on the story at all, and was critical of giggles of Ms. Crittenden when she reported on the story.

    Making matters worse, Ms. Crittenden defended herself by accusing men of cutting off “not breasts, but other parts of women in the name of . . . a ritual” — never mentioning that this is a barbaric Islamic practice, and giving the impression that American men support such a horror. I’m pretty sure that most American men, or at least the sensible conservative ones, actually have to work pretty hard to resist the urge to massacre the Jihadi monsters who mutilate women in this way.

    Even after the rebuke from Dr. Hoff Sommers, Ms. Crittenden continued to suggest that it is not a big deal to cut off a man’s penis, because you can rescue it, you can reattach it, and even if you don’t, “a stump would still allow for a man to use the restroom.” Accompanied by more giggles, of course.

    Perhaps Ms. Crittenden was intending to draw attention to the absurdity of the WaPo story’s light treatment of this heinous crime. If that was her goal, she sure failed with me. I guess “femsplaining” isn’t very effective.

    • #1
    • October 8, 2019, at 2:56 PM PDT
    • Like
  2. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member

    Ladies, you are being a bit irrational, in my estimation.

    You complain of harassment, and support the MeToo movement as having exposed serious misconduct. You then point out that there are no clear rules in this area, and you propose none. You observe that the entire situation is subject to abuse in the form of false accusation. You have no solutions whatsoever. You have no standard that you can articulate. Frankly, your standard appears to be your subjective view that a man did something “inappropriate,” which you will decide after the fact. Just like Mr. Kaiman’s accusers, who you criticize for doing the same thing.

    This makes it appear, to me, that your entire moral view regarding sexuality is incoherent.

    We had a good traditional rule through the 1960s, keeping sex inside monogamous, heterosexual marriage. I still support the rule. 

    You complain about the absurd requirements being put forward by the MeToo movement and others, and sometimes enacted by the radicals, but you have no viable alternative.

    I’m going to mansplain. You don’t change an effective rule until you have an alternative that you have carefully thought through, and tested. I don’t understand why this is controversial. Now we’ve done so, and the problems are becoming apparent. The sensible thing to do is to return to the rule that worked.

    I do appreciate that you recognized the problem of the “psycho accuser” that is leading men to cease to associate with female co-workers outside the workplace (and perhaps even when alone inside the workplace).

    • #2
    • October 8, 2019, at 3:53 PM PDT
    • Like