A. You want proof but also acknowledged that proof can't come into play here. If it did--i.e. if she showed up with a taped recording, like one of Weinstein's victims did--you'd accuse her of inviting harassment in order to catch Kavanaugh in the act. Therefore, even though she has "proof," she's of disreputable character. No way for her to win that argument.
B. "Proof" is for juries and legal cases. We're not discussing Kavanaugh's criminality. We're discussing his fitness to serve on the supreme court. You don't need proof for this because it's clear, as you've already said, that "something happened." If that's clear, then we don't need to know exactly how long he held her down for, what kind if liquor he drank, how drunk she was, etc. etc. Something happened, and that's enough to question his nomination. It's not enough to put him in jail, however.
C. You seem to buy into this notion that women just be comin out the woodwork to accuse him because they don't like his views on abortion, or some such. If this was true--i.e. that we can dispose of public figures whose views we don't like--it would be happening way more than it does. The fact that it's happening more now speaks to our society's attempt to make up for years of shutting down accusers. That's not liberal weepy bullshit, it's what has actually been happening in this country for a long time. For too long it's been the accused who have the benefit of the doubt, when (also for too long) that's because accusers were actively dissuaded, if not prevented, from coming forward. Why would there be "proof" from that time when it was an era in which accusations like hers would have been disastrous for her? (although, of course, she did tell friends and colleagues, as several have testified) She made a conscious choice, so I'm not saying she had no agency; but her choice, due to circumstances at the time, shouldn't prohibit consequences for Kavanaugh now.
Your complete distrust of women in this case is more suspicious to me than the fact that more are coming forward. You've set up a case in your own mind in which there's no viable position for an accuser to take. I find your diagnosis of the "social cancer" to be the more serious "social cancer."
And yet their decisions set precedents for innumerable cases down the line.
