by Doctor Science
American society can’t yet treat rape, sexual abuse, and sexual harassment as crimes, because they are too common. We have to make them rare first: only then will going through the legal system be anything other than selective enforcement.
The past month or more has been horrific for many of my friends, who are being constantly reminded of their traumatic experiences with rape, abuse, and the dismissive way they’re treated. This is what “trigger warnings” are for: to give survivors a chance to control what they have to deal with. And that’s why I’m cutting here, with a plea to my friends to take care of yourselves in this very stressful time.
Over the past weeks, as every day brings another set of stories about famous men in Hollywood, journalism, or politics who are habitual rapists or sexual harassers, men are starting to get a hint of an inkling of what women have known for centuries: sexual harassment, abuse, and rape are common and pervasive. At least half of women in the US and the UK have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace; I’m betting men who don’t appear straight get it even more, because more of them work in male-dominated industries.
Most harassment isn’t reported, because reporting usually doesn’t help the victim and often makes their situation worse.
Rape is less common than harassment, but a quarter to a third of women experience it in the course of a lifetime. Again, most aren’t reported, and there’s no reason they should be: the victim has no reasonable expectation that they’ll get justice.
Although the vast majority of rapes and sexual harassment are committed by cis men, most men aren’t rapists or active abusers. There’s a subset who are habitual, repeat offenders: sexual predators. But this subset is large: if researchers don’t use the word “rape”, 5%-10% of men will admit to being rapists (links here).
So when I see people saying “Rapists should be shot! Rapists should rot in prison!” I *know* you’re not serious. You’re not actually calling for the execution of one out of every ten — or twenty — men, or for their incarceration. You’re especially not calling for it to happen to one out of ten or twenty of your friends.
Not that it would be practical, anyway. There are too many rapists and sexual predators to punish them as the law dictates, so any prosecution must be selective and on some level unfair.
Many people are disturbed at the current wave of sexual-predator outings, and the way the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” seems to have been tossed aside. Presumption of innocence is important when we’re talking about something that is actually a crime that the legal system can deal with.
But rape and sexual assault aren’t crimes, not in practice. They aren’t reported, the reports aren’t taken seriously, victims are as likely to be attacked again as they are to see justice done. And they’re so common that the legal system and society as a whole literally cannot afford to treat them as crimes.
That’s why the traditional way of dealing with sexual predators is a whisper network, treating them as a missing stair. Women (and other likely victims) have to assume that men and other powerful people won’t believe them or take them seriously, so they have to protect themselves covertly and even duplicitously. Potential victims also have to be hyper-aware of little things, warning signs, patterns of behavior that don’t rise to the level of legal evidence.
So as Ijeoma Oluo says, When You Can’t Throw All Men Into The Ocean And Start Over, What CAN You Do?
I do know this: Every single sexual abuser is 100% responsible for their actions and there is nobody else to blame than the person who is choosing to violate another person.
And I also know this: This entire patriarchal society is responsible for every single sexual assault that occurs.
Both of these things are 100% true at the same time, and if we want to battle rape culture—if we want to finally end the brutality that so many women have faced for pretty much the entirety of history—we have to start addressing both of these realities at once.
What can we actually *do*, individually and as a society?
1. Discover and remove powerful sexual predators. I’m not talking about every man accused of rape, or even every rapist. I’m talking about *serial* rapists and harassers, men who do this over and over again because they can get away with it. Start at the top, because fish rots from the head.
2. Replace them with non-predators, especially women, double-especially with non-white women — because they’re more likely (not certain!) to see things from the victims’ POV.
3. Tell better stories, ones that aren’t focused on individual, violently-heroic men. (I’ve got LOTS more to say about this another day.)
4. Men have extra work to do. First, stop letting your friends, co-workers, and heroes get away with bullying, harassment, and misogyny. Women and disfavored men don’t have the leverage to change men’s culture from within, but *you* do.
5. Everyone, but especially men, needs to learn to listen to victims and believe them.
Our culture trains us from youth to minimize women’s concerns. Matthew Remski blogs about how much of an unthinking, bodily reflex to dismiss women’s voices:
I know in my bones what minimizing the other feels like.
I’m an expert at minimizing, and I’ve used it with female partners in ways, often subtle, for most of my adult life, and I’ve only recently begun to listen to the call-outs on it, mainly from my partner, and also others.
My minimizing reflex is mobilized in an instant. The speed is a clue. My partner gives me feedback. Whatever the content is I instantly reframe it so I can feel like it’s either personal attack on me, or — and this is harder to see — as a problem that I am now responsible for, on behalf of someone who I instantly tell myself is overreacting. Both reframes are designed to render the incoming data dismissible.
Remski is self-aware enough to realize that minimizing women is not the core of the problem.
Where does it all come from? I don’t know, but I chant this famous bell hooks quote like a mantra (quoting it for the second time in two posts shows that I don’t know much at all about her work):
“The first act of violence that patriarchy demands of males is not violence toward women. Instead patriarchy demands of all males that they engage in acts of psychic self-mutilation, that they kill off the emotional parts of themselves. If an individual is not successful in emotionally crippling himself, he can count on patriarchal men to enact rituals of power that will assault his self-esteem.”
Why do I feel hooks is about 1000% right here? Because there’s only one other person in the world I know I have the reflex to belittle, who is not or has not been a female partner.
It’s my son, who turns five tomorrow.
When he gets the big emotions, something in my body wants him to stop, wants him to get over it, ignore it, shake it off, stop crying.
To end on a hopeful note, here’s excommunicated conservative David Frum (summarized from Twitter):
A lot of talk about how these revelations of sexual abuse from Moore et al reveal some kind of moral-cultural decline. This is wrong.
The revelations are occurring -and have power- not because of a decline in behavior but a rise in ethical standards.
Abuse of the weak by the strong is the most ancient theme of human history.
It’s disgust at abuses of power that is new.
The full and equal humanity of women is also a new idea, one that is still being absorbed in all its radical implications
The reason things seem to be getting worse is that people are demanding better.
I’m not an optimist by nature. But I do sometimes perceive some gifts in this age of Trump. Maybe the revolt against sexual abuse is one of them – or can be, if you demand it.
Thanks for this excellent post.
Thanks for this excellent post.
Seconded.
Seconded.
Thirded.
Thirded.
American society can’t yet treat rape, sexual abuse, and sexual harassment as crimes, because they are too common
I wish I could find a way to argue that this is not true, but I can’t.
Maybe the current round of outings of, and consequences for, serial abusers represents a true change in the culture. Maybe it doesn’t. I don’t know, we’ll have to wait and see.
But I’m hard pressed to think of a woman in my own life who hasn’t put up with her share of behavior ranging from harassment to rape, and I am also hard pressed to think of a single one of those examples that resulted in anything more than the most minimal of consequences for the perpetrators. If that.
A really good post Doc S, I wonder how the discussion will go.
American society can’t yet treat rape, sexual abuse, and sexual harassment as crimes, because they are too common
I wish I could find a way to argue that this is not true, but I can’t.
Maybe the current round of outings of, and consequences for, serial abusers represents a true change in the culture. Maybe it doesn’t. I don’t know, we’ll have to wait and see.
But I’m hard pressed to think of a woman in my own life who hasn’t put up with her share of behavior ranging from harassment to rape, and I am also hard pressed to think of a single one of those examples that resulted in anything more than the most minimal of consequences for the perpetrators. If that.
A really good post Doc S, I wonder how the discussion will go.
American society can’t yet treat rape, sexual abuse, and sexual harassment as crimes, because they are too common. We have to make them rare first
I have to disagree, in large part. It may be that the penalties for rape and sexual abuse need to be reduced, in order to get more cases actually reported and punished. I don’t know that I would accept that either, but maybe.
Sexual harassment, on the other hand, needs a lot more clarity on what is and is not acceptable before the penalties get criminal. I’ve seen way too much change, just over my lifetime, to think that we are all clear on what is OK (and when) and what is not.
The “casting couch” stuff that has been reported is clearly out. But something like what the elder Bush is reported to have done? I find it objectionable, but I also recognize that the culture he grew up in found it entirely acceptable. Should he have learned better as standards changed? Probably. But I can recognize that people retain the culture that they grew up in for a long time, and under quite changing circumstances.
But pretending that rape and sexual abuse shouldn’t be crimes is, to my mind, nonsense. Just for openers, if something fits the definition of assault and battery, regardless of the “sexual” component, it ought to be obvious that it is a crime. Guys who can’t grasp that get no slack in my mind.
If actual enforcement runs up the prison population, well far better for that reason than for locking up drug users!
American society can’t yet treat rape, sexual abuse, and sexual harassment as crimes, because they are too common. We have to make them rare first
I have to disagree, in large part. It may be that the penalties for rape and sexual abuse need to be reduced, in order to get more cases actually reported and punished. I don’t know that I would accept that either, but maybe.
Sexual harassment, on the other hand, needs a lot more clarity on what is and is not acceptable before the penalties get criminal. I’ve seen way too much change, just over my lifetime, to think that we are all clear on what is OK (and when) and what is not.
The “casting couch” stuff that has been reported is clearly out. But something like what the elder Bush is reported to have done? I find it objectionable, but I also recognize that the culture he grew up in found it entirely acceptable. Should he have learned better as standards changed? Probably. But I can recognize that people retain the culture that they grew up in for a long time, and under quite changing circumstances.
But pretending that rape and sexual abuse shouldn’t be crimes is, to my mind, nonsense. Just for openers, if something fits the definition of assault and battery, regardless of the “sexual” component, it ought to be obvious that it is a crime. Guys who can’t grasp that get no slack in my mind.
If actual enforcement runs up the prison population, well far better for that reason than for locking up drug users!
Fourthed… and I very much look forward to your expanding point 3.
Is there a real change in our culture ? I can’t speak for the US, but I think, perhaps, there might just be the beginning of one over here.
This is another angle which bears consideration…
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/13/women-respond-man-we-like-accused-harassment-dublin-theatre-michael-colgan-power
Fourthed… and I very much look forward to your expanding point 3.
Is there a real change in our culture ? I can’t speak for the US, but I think, perhaps, there might just be the beginning of one over here.
This is another angle which bears consideration…
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/13/women-respond-man-we-like-accused-harassment-dublin-theatre-michael-colgan-power
And I also know this: This entire patriarchal society is responsible for every single sexual assault that occurs.
I think at least that part is nonsense. There would be sexual assaults and related acts even in a totally non-patriarchal society.
As long as sex is pleasurable and some people lack self-control (for whatever reason) there will be such acts. And that does not even include forced sex as part of gender-independent power trips (some sadists do not care about which set of genitals their victims have).
And I also know this: This entire patriarchal society is responsible for every single sexual assault that occurs.
I think at least that part is nonsense. There would be sexual assaults and related acts even in a totally non-patriarchal society.
As long as sex is pleasurable and some people lack self-control (for whatever reason) there will be such acts. And that does not even include forced sex as part of gender-independent power trips (some sadists do not care about which set of genitals their victims have).
The “casting couch” stuff that has been reported is clearly out.
we coincidentally ended up watching an episode of Cheers last week where an attractive professional-looking woman (Barbara Babcock) walks into the bar, flirts with Sam and eventually seduces him. she’s also a talent agent who apparently specializes in getting handsome male athletes TV commercial spots. so, she gets Sam a commercial. after a while (days? weeks?), Sam gets around to feeling like she’s using him for the sex and decides he’s going to tell her No More, even if it costs him future TV spots (which he thinks it will). it does!
at the end, the woman has a little confession to Dianne in which she says (paraphrasing): of course i’m using my position to get sex from these men. i’m past my prime, unlike you, and my position is the only way i can get guys like this. might as well take what i can get.
so, it’s a switch-up on the old casting-couch trope. with a touch of ick.
the co-writer of that episode (and of many episodes of other TV shows), Ken Levine, runs an interesting blog and he takes reader questions on Fridays. so, i asked him about that episode – would he write it the same today? hope he answers.
The “casting couch” stuff that has been reported is clearly out.
we coincidentally ended up watching an episode of Cheers last week where an attractive professional-looking woman (Barbara Babcock) walks into the bar, flirts with Sam and eventually seduces him. she’s also a talent agent who apparently specializes in getting handsome male athletes TV commercial spots. so, she gets Sam a commercial. after a while (days? weeks?), Sam gets around to feeling like she’s using him for the sex and decides he’s going to tell her No More, even if it costs him future TV spots (which he thinks it will). it does!
at the end, the woman has a little confession to Dianne in which she says (paraphrasing): of course i’m using my position to get sex from these men. i’m past my prime, unlike you, and my position is the only way i can get guys like this. might as well take what i can get.
so, it’s a switch-up on the old casting-couch trope. with a touch of ick.
the co-writer of that episode (and of many episodes of other TV shows), Ken Levine, runs an interesting blog and he takes reader questions on Fridays. so, i asked him about that episode – would he write it the same today? hope he answers.
Your point 5 – belief – is where things have, I think, already changed significantly for the better. All the rest is (barely) a work in progress, but here I think there has been a genuine sea change, and not just among those predisposed to listen.
On that score, the Atlantic has a piece on the Bill Clinton problem.
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/11/reckoning-with-bill-clintons-sex-crimes/545729/
Your point 5 – belief – is where things have, I think, already changed significantly for the better. All the rest is (barely) a work in progress, but here I think there has been a genuine sea change, and not just among those predisposed to listen.
On that score, the Atlantic has a piece on the Bill Clinton problem.
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/11/reckoning-with-bill-clintons-sex-crimes/545729/
Nigel, you silly rabbit. All Clinton did was lie under oath about a blow job. Jesus. He didn’t lie his ass off for years, right up until the moment he was confronted with irrefutable physical evidence otherwise. He also didn’t take a bribe to pardon Mark Rich. HRC really did understand the cattle futures market. There is no pay-to-play at the Clinton Foundation and nothing in their past is any evidence to the contrary. No one has ever been able to make anything stick on the Clinton’s. Because there is no there there. All fiction.
I wonder if the Atlantic writer will have a job in a month.
How unwise of her to point out that men who wrap themselves in liberal cloth can get away with this shit. We’ll see how that bit of honesty plays out over time.
Doc, I agree completely that there is too much mistreatment of women. Using rape, assault and harassment in the same sentence is part of the problem–not the problem with it happening–but with defining and punishing it. That said, I’d be interested in your views on the Atlantic article. Seems to me that when you rightly call on men to deal with male issues, some degree of clarification is fair: what’s your take on WJC? Did he hit on any women in which he did not enjoy a power relationship? How did/does he fit into your worldview? Same with HRC, in this specific context?
Also, while I agree with you about bad-acting men, what can/should be said about women like Gwyneth Paltrow who, after being mashed by Weinstein, go on to work for him and praise him, giving him cover to have his way with the next who knows how many women with a lot less power and fame to fall back on? Ms. Paltrow is one of seemingly ten’s if not more women who were complicit in this bullshit.
As for a solution, there is no silver bullet. What can make a difference is making it safe and effective for victims to speak up. It will never be easy. The urge to repress, to forget, to push the memory so far beneath the surface that it will never mar conscious thought has to be overwhelming. I can’t begin to describe how it can be done, but if there was a way of constructively persuading victims that by coming forward, they can prevent other women from enduring the same pain, *that* will be the first big step forward: public humiliation if not a trial. Force the criminals to face their accusers and explain themselves.
Nigel, you silly rabbit. All Clinton did was lie under oath about a blow job. Jesus. He didn’t lie his ass off for years, right up until the moment he was confronted with irrefutable physical evidence otherwise. He also didn’t take a bribe to pardon Mark Rich. HRC really did understand the cattle futures market. There is no pay-to-play at the Clinton Foundation and nothing in their past is any evidence to the contrary. No one has ever been able to make anything stick on the Clinton’s. Because there is no there there. All fiction.
I wonder if the Atlantic writer will have a job in a month.
How unwise of her to point out that men who wrap themselves in liberal cloth can get away with this shit. We’ll see how that bit of honesty plays out over time.
Doc, I agree completely that there is too much mistreatment of women. Using rape, assault and harassment in the same sentence is part of the problem–not the problem with it happening–but with defining and punishing it. That said, I’d be interested in your views on the Atlantic article. Seems to me that when you rightly call on men to deal with male issues, some degree of clarification is fair: what’s your take on WJC? Did he hit on any women in which he did not enjoy a power relationship? How did/does he fit into your worldview? Same with HRC, in this specific context?
Also, while I agree with you about bad-acting men, what can/should be said about women like Gwyneth Paltrow who, after being mashed by Weinstein, go on to work for him and praise him, giving him cover to have his way with the next who knows how many women with a lot less power and fame to fall back on? Ms. Paltrow is one of seemingly ten’s if not more women who were complicit in this bullshit.
As for a solution, there is no silver bullet. What can make a difference is making it safe and effective for victims to speak up. It will never be easy. The urge to repress, to forget, to push the memory so far beneath the surface that it will never mar conscious thought has to be overwhelming. I can’t begin to describe how it can be done, but if there was a way of constructively persuading victims that by coming forward, they can prevent other women from enduring the same pain, *that* will be the first big step forward: public humiliation if not a trial. Force the criminals to face their accusers and explain themselves.
There is no pay-to-play at the Clinton Foundation and nothing in their past is any evidence to the contrary. No one has ever been able to make anything stick on the Clinton’s. Because there is no there there. All fiction.
Nice to see you finally come to your senses on this matter, McKinney.:)))))
As for the Doc’s post….fifthed (hic). Outstanding.
I think, and certainly hope, that Frum is correct. The similarities with “the gay” becoming (more or less) socially acceptable is a bit overwhelming.
Maybe the arc of justice does bend the way we all say it should.
There is no pay-to-play at the Clinton Foundation and nothing in their past is any evidence to the contrary. No one has ever been able to make anything stick on the Clinton’s. Because there is no there there. All fiction.
Nice to see you finally come to your senses on this matter, McKinney.:)))))
As for the Doc’s post….fifthed (hic). Outstanding.
I think, and certainly hope, that Frum is correct. The similarities with “the gay” becoming (more or less) socially acceptable is a bit overwhelming.
Maybe the arc of justice does bend the way we all say it should.
Perhaps what one might say about women like Gwyneth Paltrow is that they were also victims, at a time when those who did try to speak about were routinely ignored or disbelieved.
One might also say read the first Atlantic article I posted to,get some inkling of why it’s not quite so simple.
One might also note that you don’t similarly consider all the ‘complicit’ men around Weinstein.
Perhaps what one might say about women like Gwyneth Paltrow is that they were also victims, at a time when those who did try to speak about were routinely ignored or disbelieved.
One might also say read the first Atlantic article I posted to,get some inkling of why it’s not quite so simple.
One might also note that you don’t similarly consider all the ‘complicit’ men around Weinstein.
Maybe someday we’ll be able to discuss the harassment of women without trying to count political coup.
Powerful people quite often get away with stuff that less-powerful people don’t. It’s not a left/right thing, it’s not even a political thing.
Maybe someday the Clintons will offer themselves as a living human sacrifice for conservatives to draw and quarter, live on TV. Maybe that would satisfy the freaking obsession with the Clintons and the Evil That They Do.
But I doubt it.
The topic under discussion is not a left/right thing.
Maybe someday we’ll be able to discuss the harassment of women without trying to count political coup.
Powerful people quite often get away with stuff that less-powerful people don’t. It’s not a left/right thing, it’s not even a political thing.
Maybe someday the Clintons will offer themselves as a living human sacrifice for conservatives to draw and quarter, live on TV. Maybe that would satisfy the freaking obsession with the Clintons and the Evil That They Do.
But I doubt it.
The topic under discussion is not a left/right thing.
i too wonder why people don’t conduct their personal lives in ways that seem obvious to me in distant, third-hand hindsight.
i too wonder why people don’t conduct their personal lives in ways that seem obvious to me in distant, third-hand hindsight.
WRS, 5:43.
WRS, 5:43.
Featured on LGM recently (at least, I think this was the collage).
I grew up watching these movies on TV, and I’m sure that many other people did as well. Our culture is changing, I think. But this is our cultural heritage. Mad Men was stylized, but it was also true.
One of my memories, when I was about eight, was of visiting the home of friends of my parents, when their slightly older than me son explained that the ideal female was 36-24-36. We learned it early,
Featured on LGM recently (at least, I think this was the collage).
I grew up watching these movies on TV, and I’m sure that many other people did as well. Our culture is changing, I think. But this is our cultural heritage. Mad Men was stylized, but it was also true.
One of my memories, when I was about eight, was of visiting the home of friends of my parents, when their slightly older than me son explained that the ideal female was 36-24-36. We learned it early,
We learned it early
36-24-36, and compliant.
We learned it early
36-24-36, and compliant.
Oh, and the next thing on youtube is Free, White and 21. Yep, that’s us. Maybe I’ll close out youtube now.
Oh, and the next thing on youtube is Free, White and 21. Yep, that’s us. Maybe I’ll close out youtube now.
Maybe that would satisfy the freaking obsession with the Clintons and the Evil That They Do.
But I doubt it.
I think part of the obsession with the Clintons is pure frustration. Here was Obama, actually living the family values that they champion, and they couldn’t find any sexual immorality dirt on him. (And you just know that they had an army of private investigators out looking for years!) At least with Clinton, they had something to point to.
Maybe that would satisfy the freaking obsession with the Clintons and the Evil That They Do.
But I doubt it.
I think part of the obsession with the Clintons is pure frustration. Here was Obama, actually living the family values that they champion, and they couldn’t find any sexual immorality dirt on him. (And you just know that they had an army of private investigators out looking for years!) At least with Clinton, they had something to point to.
russell: Maybe that would satisfy the freaking obsession with the Clintons and the Evil That They Do.
Nah. Clinton Derangement Syndrome is a terminal disease. If our own “reasonable Republican” McKinney can’t get over it, what would a little human sacrifice accomplish when it comes to the Limbaughs, Hannitys, and Coulters of the world?
Libruls agreeing to abolish taxes on the rich, make guns available for sale in blister packs at 7-Eleven, and forbid abortion after the first date, might, might I say, reduce The Right’s Pavlovian response to the Clinton name. But nothing will eliminate it entirely.
And, wj: thanks for pointing out that the Obamas were the closest thing to Ozzie and Harriet the White House could ever hope to host.
–TP
russell: Maybe that would satisfy the freaking obsession with the Clintons and the Evil That They Do.
Nah. Clinton Derangement Syndrome is a terminal disease. If our own “reasonable Republican” McKinney can’t get over it, what would a little human sacrifice accomplish when it comes to the Limbaughs, Hannitys, and Coulters of the world?
Libruls agreeing to abolish taxes on the rich, make guns available for sale in blister packs at 7-Eleven, and forbid abortion after the first date, might, might I say, reduce The Right’s Pavlovian response to the Clinton name. But nothing will eliminate it entirely.
And, wj: thanks for pointing out that the Obamas were the closest thing to Ozzie and Harriet the White House could ever hope to host.
–TP
“(And you just know that they had an army of private investigators out looking for years!) ”
So who is they? Because I didn’t. In one breath this isn’t a left/right thing, in the next breath it is a Clinton thing and an Obama thing.
It is also not an evangelical thing, there are lots of evangelical sinners. Failing is part of trying, even for Christians. I get no perverse pleasure out of seeing people fail at something that is central to their beliefs. I’m sure they are disappointed enough in themselves.
The list of people in and out of politics actually living family values is pretty long, on the left and right. I doubt that lots of evangelicals were hoping Obama would fail at that.
“(And you just know that they had an army of private investigators out looking for years!) ”
So who is they? Because I didn’t. In one breath this isn’t a left/right thing, in the next breath it is a Clinton thing and an Obama thing.
It is also not an evangelical thing, there are lots of evangelical sinners. Failing is part of trying, even for Christians. I get no perverse pleasure out of seeing people fail at something that is central to their beliefs. I’m sure they are disappointed enough in themselves.
The list of people in and out of politics actually living family values is pretty long, on the left and right. I doubt that lots of evangelicals were hoping Obama would fail at that.
“make guns available for sale in blister packs at 7-Eleven”
Nope. Too hard for the morons to open. Needs to be open bins.
“make guns available for sale in blister packs at 7-Eleven”
Nope. Too hard for the morons to open. Needs to be open bins.
In one breath this isn’t a left/right thing, in the next breath it is a Clinton thing and an Obama thing.
Different commenters, different comments.
We all breathe our own breaths.
In one breath this isn’t a left/right thing, in the next breath it is a Clinton thing and an Obama thing.
Different commenters, different comments.
We all breathe our own breaths.
I love the conspiracy theories about the liberal media. It’s as though The Atlantic had no choice but to publish that article, and the only way they can respond to somone from breaking ranks is to fire the rogue reporter. (Besides that, here’s liberal me reading the article and nodding in agreement as I read it.)
Very strange!
I love the conspiracy theories about the liberal media. It’s as though The Atlantic had no choice but to publish that article, and the only way they can respond to somone from breaking ranks is to fire the rogue reporter. (Besides that, here’s liberal me reading the article and nodding in agreement as I read it.)
Very strange!
Scratch that “from.” Editing error.
Scratch that “from.” Editing error.
On the topic of the OP – I literally cannot think of a woman I know who doesn’t have some story about being harassed, assaulted, or raped.
Everything from unwelcome advances from employers, to date rape, to attempted rapes, to mass transit frottage, to somebody masturbating in their general direction at the beach.
People making weird noises and rude suggestions to them when they are simply walking down the street.
Probably the creepiest one was a friend’s sister who went to the public library, stepped away from the desk she was reading at, and returned to find that someone had masturbated into the pocket of her coat.
This is stuff that women encounter *regularly*, that men basically just don’t have to deal with as part of normal life.
I find that I can’t disagree with Doc S’s basic proposition here – this kind of stuff is so widespread that it is virtually impossible to consistently enforce whatever laws are on the books to counter it. Starting with exposing and shaming the truly serial offenders might be the best way to make some kind of dent in it.
But I really do think that women live in a different world than men do. I don’t consider myself qualified to tell them that they aren’t actually experiencing what they say they are experiencing.
I take their word for it, and am frankly grateful when women offer constructive and non-hostile suggestions for how to improve things, as Doc S has done here.
On the topic of the OP – I literally cannot think of a woman I know who doesn’t have some story about being harassed, assaulted, or raped.
Everything from unwelcome advances from employers, to date rape, to attempted rapes, to mass transit frottage, to somebody masturbating in their general direction at the beach.
People making weird noises and rude suggestions to them when they are simply walking down the street.
Probably the creepiest one was a friend’s sister who went to the public library, stepped away from the desk she was reading at, and returned to find that someone had masturbated into the pocket of her coat.
This is stuff that women encounter *regularly*, that men basically just don’t have to deal with as part of normal life.
I find that I can’t disagree with Doc S’s basic proposition here – this kind of stuff is so widespread that it is virtually impossible to consistently enforce whatever laws are on the books to counter it. Starting with exposing and shaming the truly serial offenders might be the best way to make some kind of dent in it.
But I really do think that women live in a different world than men do. I don’t consider myself qualified to tell them that they aren’t actually experiencing what they say they are experiencing.
I take their word for it, and am frankly grateful when women offer constructive and non-hostile suggestions for how to improve things, as Doc S has done here.
“Perhaps what one might say about women like Gwyneth Paltrow is that they were also victims, at a time when those who did try to speak about were routinely ignored or disbelieved.”
This is a valid point, up to a point. Then, women have agency. Those adult women who put up with him are complicit, they made adult choices that going along was best for them.(Teens not included in this comment).
I lost three positions in two companies in my career for turning down sexual advances from women I worked for. No, I certainly could not go to HR, and their bosses knew why I was let go, in one case, and moved to a lesser position in another group in the other two.
I could have one time agreed(single at the time) with no consequence except my dignity. In all cases I felt guilty later as I saw young men in a similar circumstance saying yes or no. But, I did have a pretty good idea I was employable outside their sphere of influence, so saying no was a temporary setback.
“Perhaps what one might say about women like Gwyneth Paltrow is that they were also victims, at a time when those who did try to speak about were routinely ignored or disbelieved.”
This is a valid point, up to a point. Then, women have agency. Those adult women who put up with him are complicit, they made adult choices that going along was best for them.(Teens not included in this comment).
I lost three positions in two companies in my career for turning down sexual advances from women I worked for. No, I certainly could not go to HR, and their bosses knew why I was let go, in one case, and moved to a lesser position in another group in the other two.
I could have one time agreed(single at the time) with no consequence except my dignity. In all cases I felt guilty later as I saw young men in a similar circumstance saying yes or no. But, I did have a pretty good idea I was employable outside their sphere of influence, so saying no was a temporary setback.
Don’t know about left/right but some are trying very hard to make this a Religious/Culture War thing.
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/53_pastors_sign_letter_of_supp.html
Don’t know about left/right but some are trying very hard to make this a Religious/Culture War thing.
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/53_pastors_sign_letter_of_supp.html
Btw, I agree with this completely:
“I take their word for it, and am frankly grateful when women offer constructive and non-hostile suggestions for how to improve things, as Doc S has done here.”
Btw, I agree with this completely:
“I take their word for it, and am frankly grateful when women offer constructive and non-hostile suggestions for how to improve things, as Doc S has done here.”
But I really do think that women live in a different world than men do.
Not to discount the experience of women in general with sexual harassment and worse, but I particularly can’t imagine what it would be like to walk through life as an especially attractive woman. How do you not scream, “Will you just leave me the fnck alone!” several times a day? I don’t know how I wouldn’t absolutely hate it. Whatever advantages it would offer wouldn’t be worth it, IMO.
But I really do think that women live in a different world than men do.
Not to discount the experience of women in general with sexual harassment and worse, but I particularly can’t imagine what it would be like to walk through life as an especially attractive woman. How do you not scream, “Will you just leave me the fnck alone!” several times a day? I don’t know how I wouldn’t absolutely hate it. Whatever advantages it would offer wouldn’t be worth it, IMO.
1) I “Bernie would have won” sexual harassment? Meant fairly seriously, and I believe it is viewed as such over at LGM.
2) I have little of interest (to myself, I can’t speak to what might interest others ex ante) to say on the body of the post at this time. Looks good, I approve, etc.
3) The totalizing structure of the post in its entirety, the move the includes under the same rubric from rape and physical abuse to “minimiz[ing] women’s concerns” does interest me. (See above pt 1; is “BWHW” an act of dismissal of women?) This is an ideological and political move, a very aggressive conflation of radically different actions, motivations, intentions, consequences…whatever the hell might be included under imagined or actual or disputed minimalizations.
Note: My marxist move from nice restaurants, vacations, clothes to billionaire yachts and pension looting is the same, self conscious form of move, “all middle class consumption is exploitation” and received much resistance.
(okay,okay OP point 2 “women want the money and power for everybody’s good” is viewed with suspicion and skepticism as possible opportunism. Sue my cynicism, a shrill voice of experience.
4) The last, almost parenthetical, bothers me a lot. I do not consider stoicism or asceticism or the forbearance of the public display of emotion in themselves always bad, nor do I consider the refusal to display strong emotion publicly to be particularly masculinist or patriarchal, nor do I consider the public display of emotion particularly feminist or god help us “feminine.” This is, I believe an patriarchal essentialism that too many feminists have embraced for reasons I care not to speculate on at this time.
There is such a long global tradition of stoic and ascetic and religious women in communities of women.
Observed Scene: early toddler learning to walk falls down; toddler looks at grandmother and starts to cry; grandmother makes eye contact with toddler and laughs;toddler turns from tears to laughter.
Is this patriarchy?
1) I “Bernie would have won” sexual harassment? Meant fairly seriously, and I believe it is viewed as such over at LGM.
2) I have little of interest (to myself, I can’t speak to what might interest others ex ante) to say on the body of the post at this time. Looks good, I approve, etc.
3) The totalizing structure of the post in its entirety, the move the includes under the same rubric from rape and physical abuse to “minimiz[ing] women’s concerns” does interest me. (See above pt 1; is “BWHW” an act of dismissal of women?) This is an ideological and political move, a very aggressive conflation of radically different actions, motivations, intentions, consequences…whatever the hell might be included under imagined or actual or disputed minimalizations.
Note: My marxist move from nice restaurants, vacations, clothes to billionaire yachts and pension looting is the same, self conscious form of move, “all middle class consumption is exploitation” and received much resistance.
(okay,okay OP point 2 “women want the money and power for everybody’s good” is viewed with suspicion and skepticism as possible opportunism. Sue my cynicism, a shrill voice of experience.
4) The last, almost parenthetical, bothers me a lot. I do not consider stoicism or asceticism or the forbearance of the public display of emotion in themselves always bad, nor do I consider the refusal to display strong emotion publicly to be particularly masculinist or patriarchal, nor do I consider the public display of emotion particularly feminist or god help us “feminine.” This is, I believe an patriarchal essentialism that too many feminists have embraced for reasons I care not to speculate on at this time.
There is such a long global tradition of stoic and ascetic and religious women in communities of women.
Observed Scene: early toddler learning to walk falls down; toddler looks at grandmother and starts to cry; grandmother makes eye contact with toddler and laughs;toddler turns from tears to laughter.
Is this patriarchy?
Oh. The Victorian painting at the end was fucking great, Thank you, saved to wallpapers.
Oh. The Victorian painting at the end was fucking great, Thank you, saved to wallpapers.
“I doubt that lots of evangelicals were hoping Obama would fail at that.”
“This is Republican town, man. (Moore) could have killed Obama, and we wouldn’t care.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/alabama-republican-voters-stand-roy-moore-n819906
If Hillary Clinton HAD murdered Vince Foster and Seth Rich, I’d have voted for Bernie Sanders and watched him be accused in last year’s election campaign of helping Clinton murder Foster and Rich, which is just an allegory conservatives tell themselves about raising taxes and improving healthcare in this country.
One point I think everyone is missing about Clinton/Lewinsky, except sapient, who alluded to it, is that the republican party weaponized the entire sexual saga for nakedly partisan political purposes.
Not a one of them, the professional ones, were outraged in the least at the act or where it was done.
Christ, when Gingrich was deposed as Speaker, his successor Livingston lasted six minutes and then when he finally got it back in his pants, we were presented with … Dennis Hastert, for cripes’ sake.
That’s what I call a deep bench of buggering horndogs.
There was a reason for the rest of our history that consensual sexual behavior in the political class, regardless of what anyone thinks of it, was kept on the QT, because we wouldn’t have any candidates for political office available to run any longer, given the human element.
Who did Linda Tripp, the friend, the colleague, refer Lewinsky to, in the latter’s unsettled, fragile state at the time? Her Pastor? Her psychiatrist? An attorney? A Counselor on sexual abuse? The Police?
No.
To Lucianne Goldberg, Nixonian dirty trickster and dish dealer who knows where every dick and orifice are in Washington D.C. at every hour, because she likes it. So she can help conservative politicians fuck the body politick with their policies.
How do we think that semen stain of a son of hers has made it do far with his bullshit act?
And then the two of them, those pigfucking concerned women, taped the vulnerable Lewinsky without her permission.
So Moore and every other republican can burn.
As for what the right-wingers, including evangelicals, think they are doing supporting Moore, well, when a Soviet nuclear sub surfaces and is sighted ten miles up the Hudson River and another three hundred miles up the Mississippi and this White House shrugs their collective shoulders, and the filth on the right wing say, so what, it’s Obama’s fault, oh my God, look over there, a fag received a wedding cake from a liberal!, maybe we’ll finally realize what needs to happen in this country and who it needs to happen to.
By the way, I love that states have different ages of consent for minors regarding sexual matters, with some of the youngest ages on the books in red states.
I guess that’s whatcha call states rights, like a guy with no health insurance dropping dead of a heart attack without health insurance in one state and a guy ten feet away in another state getting medical care for his coronary because health insurance is available and subsidized.
Because why, again?
Someone tell me the difference between a sixteen-year old giving her consent to being felt up by a 35-year old male in a car parked on one side of a state line, where it is allowed, and another sixteen-year old girl undergoing the same treatment from a 35-year old man, parked ten feet away on the other side of the line in a state where all hell will break loose when the law shows up.
It’s either good behavior or it’s bad (that would be the right guess) behavior. It can’t be both within ten feet of each other, because of an imaginary boundary. So which is it, God-botherers? Let’s make up our minds and stop acting like giving states a choice in the matter is the higher value.
So much for universal values and this crapola conservatives are constantly preaching about liberals practicing relativism in all things.
America just makes shit up.
Anyway, I’m glad every thing is coming out. How hard is it, exactly, to keep our hands to ourselves, particularly in the workplace?
Grow the fuck up, men, and yeah, the few women who mash at work too.
Stop it.
I understand that in support of Moore and Hannity against Keurig, which pulled its advertising, conservatives around the country are assaulting small kitchen appliances, perhaps even sexually.
It’s revelatory, don’t we think? They are treating coffeemakers just like they treat women.
“I doubt that lots of evangelicals were hoping Obama would fail at that.”
“This is Republican town, man. (Moore) could have killed Obama, and we wouldn’t care.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/alabama-republican-voters-stand-roy-moore-n819906
If Hillary Clinton HAD murdered Vince Foster and Seth Rich, I’d have voted for Bernie Sanders and watched him be accused in last year’s election campaign of helping Clinton murder Foster and Rich, which is just an allegory conservatives tell themselves about raising taxes and improving healthcare in this country.
One point I think everyone is missing about Clinton/Lewinsky, except sapient, who alluded to it, is that the republican party weaponized the entire sexual saga for nakedly partisan political purposes.
Not a one of them, the professional ones, were outraged in the least at the act or where it was done.
Christ, when Gingrich was deposed as Speaker, his successor Livingston lasted six minutes and then when he finally got it back in his pants, we were presented with … Dennis Hastert, for cripes’ sake.
That’s what I call a deep bench of buggering horndogs.
There was a reason for the rest of our history that consensual sexual behavior in the political class, regardless of what anyone thinks of it, was kept on the QT, because we wouldn’t have any candidates for political office available to run any longer, given the human element.
Who did Linda Tripp, the friend, the colleague, refer Lewinsky to, in the latter’s unsettled, fragile state at the time? Her Pastor? Her psychiatrist? An attorney? A Counselor on sexual abuse? The Police?
No.
To Lucianne Goldberg, Nixonian dirty trickster and dish dealer who knows where every dick and orifice are in Washington D.C. at every hour, because she likes it. So she can help conservative politicians fuck the body politick with their policies.
How do we think that semen stain of a son of hers has made it do far with his bullshit act?
And then the two of them, those pigfucking concerned women, taped the vulnerable Lewinsky without her permission.
So Moore and every other republican can burn.
As for what the right-wingers, including evangelicals, think they are doing supporting Moore, well, when a Soviet nuclear sub surfaces and is sighted ten miles up the Hudson River and another three hundred miles up the Mississippi and this White House shrugs their collective shoulders, and the filth on the right wing say, so what, it’s Obama’s fault, oh my God, look over there, a fag received a wedding cake from a liberal!, maybe we’ll finally realize what needs to happen in this country and who it needs to happen to.
By the way, I love that states have different ages of consent for minors regarding sexual matters, with some of the youngest ages on the books in red states.
I guess that’s whatcha call states rights, like a guy with no health insurance dropping dead of a heart attack without health insurance in one state and a guy ten feet away in another state getting medical care for his coronary because health insurance is available and subsidized.
Because why, again?
Someone tell me the difference between a sixteen-year old giving her consent to being felt up by a 35-year old male in a car parked on one side of a state line, where it is allowed, and another sixteen-year old girl undergoing the same treatment from a 35-year old man, parked ten feet away on the other side of the line in a state where all hell will break loose when the law shows up.
It’s either good behavior or it’s bad (that would be the right guess) behavior. It can’t be both within ten feet of each other, because of an imaginary boundary. So which is it, God-botherers? Let’s make up our minds and stop acting like giving states a choice in the matter is the higher value.
So much for universal values and this crapola conservatives are constantly preaching about liberals practicing relativism in all things.
America just makes shit up.
Anyway, I’m glad every thing is coming out. How hard is it, exactly, to keep our hands to ourselves, particularly in the workplace?
Grow the fuck up, men, and yeah, the few women who mash at work too.
Stop it.
I understand that in support of Moore and Hannity against Keurig, which pulled its advertising, conservatives around the country are assaulting small kitchen appliances, perhaps even sexually.
It’s revelatory, don’t we think? They are treating coffeemakers just like they treat women.
Austin Cooper Meyers
Austin Cooper Meyers
“They are treating coffeemakers just like they treat women.”
Or Beatles albums
“They are treating coffeemakers just like they treat women.”
Or Beatles albums
wj:
I’m not saying we should “pretend that rape and abuse aren’t crimes”. I’m saying we, as a society, already are. We CAN’T prosecute and imprison all the rapists: to start with, it would double or triple our currently excessive prison population. We’re talking probably at least 2% of the adult population, something like 5 million people. It is literally impossible.
I’m not saying get rid of the laws, hopefully we’ll need them later. But right now, rape law is a sham.
wj:
I’m not saying we should “pretend that rape and abuse aren’t crimes”. I’m saying we, as a society, already are. We CAN’T prosecute and imprison all the rapists: to start with, it would double or triple our currently excessive prison population. We’re talking probably at least 2% of the adult population, something like 5 million people. It is literally impossible.
I’m not saying get rid of the laws, hopefully we’ll need them later. But right now, rape law is a sham.
If (and I’m not at all sure I’m able to believe the numbers, but just for the sake of discussion) that number of men actually have committed rape, then I still see no reason not to make an effort to lock them all up. Yes, we’d need to prioritize– based on the level of violence would be my initial thought.
But still, start now and don’t stop. It’s not like anybody is unaware where the line is on violent rape. (As opposed to sexual harassment.) If the prisons get full up, either we parole other, non-violent offenders or we use some prison labor to build more prisons.
We can do it. We should do it.
If (and I’m not at all sure I’m able to believe the numbers, but just for the sake of discussion) that number of men actually have committed rape, then I still see no reason not to make an effort to lock them all up. Yes, we’d need to prioritize– based on the level of violence would be my initial thought.
But still, start now and don’t stop. It’s not like anybody is unaware where the line is on violent rape. (As opposed to sexual harassment.) If the prisons get full up, either we parole other, non-violent offenders or we use some prison labor to build more prisons.
We can do it. We should do it.
the first step is admitting we have a problem.
that presents us with the different problem of: a lot of people – mostly men ? – don’t think we have a problem. and a lot of people want to make it a left/right issue.
so… throw another log on the fire, we’re gonna be here a while.
the first step is admitting we have a problem.
that presents us with the different problem of: a lot of people – mostly men ? – don’t think we have a problem. and a lot of people want to make it a left/right issue.
so… throw another log on the fire, we’re gonna be here a while.
the first step is admitting we have a problem.
We definitely have a problem.
People might disagree on what behaviors are problematic. In the case of unwanted sexual overtures in the workplace, whether verbal or touching, that’s well understood problematic behavior. The fact that people now complain about it, and action is sometimes taken (usually later than it should be, and only when it’s publicized) is a positive development. It needs to improve.
Given the long hours people spend at work, it’s not unusual for people sometimes to bond in romantic relationships. I know many couples who first met because they worked together. People who spend time together in a normal, non-alcohol-fueled atmosphere sometimes get to know each other in a healthy-seeming way, and develop real intimacy. Despite rules against it, I doubt that consensual relationships at work will ever really disappear, even when people are on different rungs of a hierarchical ladder. I’m fine with discouraging this, and making personnel adjustments, but not fine with vilifying people to whom it happens.
That’s different than people who continually seek out situations to corner other people, or make people uncomfortable with inappropriate sexual comments, or opine on people’s appearance, or demean people otherwise, whether sexually or with other types of bullying.
Rape is criminal, and I really do think we must try harder to encourage people to report it by supporting victims, and teaching people how to document and prove their claims. We’ll never completely solve it. And it isn’t true that there’s no such thing as false accusations, as the Duke and UVA stories, and cases from the Innocence Project, illustrate. Due process is important because violent people should face jail time, and should be shunned, and no one should go through that who is innocent.
With the caveat of due process (which varies with the degree of the accusation), Doc’s five suggestions for how to improve things are right on.
the first step is admitting we have a problem.
We definitely have a problem.
People might disagree on what behaviors are problematic. In the case of unwanted sexual overtures in the workplace, whether verbal or touching, that’s well understood problematic behavior. The fact that people now complain about it, and action is sometimes taken (usually later than it should be, and only when it’s publicized) is a positive development. It needs to improve.
Given the long hours people spend at work, it’s not unusual for people sometimes to bond in romantic relationships. I know many couples who first met because they worked together. People who spend time together in a normal, non-alcohol-fueled atmosphere sometimes get to know each other in a healthy-seeming way, and develop real intimacy. Despite rules against it, I doubt that consensual relationships at work will ever really disappear, even when people are on different rungs of a hierarchical ladder. I’m fine with discouraging this, and making personnel adjustments, but not fine with vilifying people to whom it happens.
That’s different than people who continually seek out situations to corner other people, or make people uncomfortable with inappropriate sexual comments, or opine on people’s appearance, or demean people otherwise, whether sexually or with other types of bullying.
Rape is criminal, and I really do think we must try harder to encourage people to report it by supporting victims, and teaching people how to document and prove their claims. We’ll never completely solve it. And it isn’t true that there’s no such thing as false accusations, as the Duke and UVA stories, and cases from the Innocence Project, illustrate. Due process is important because violent people should face jail time, and should be shunned, and no one should go through that who is innocent.
With the caveat of due process (which varies with the degree of the accusation), Doc’s five suggestions for how to improve things are right on.
The Count: … conservatives around the country are assaulting small kitchen appliances …
I heard about this on the radio driving home this evening. And I heard that Keurig’s CEO was trying to make amends for hurting the delicate fee-fees of the RWNJs — possibly with visions of tax cuts dancing in his head? — and I wondered:
If I was in the business of selling coffee makers, and a bunch of those coffee makers got smashed beyond repair by an earthquake, a hurricane, or a herd of yaks, wouldn’t that increase my sales next month?
I ask because I work with at least one RWNJ (right here in MA!) at a company where the Keurig gets more use than the Xerox. The company — and, I claim, the whole Economy — would grind to a halt without a steady stream of coffee. If that yahoo were to smash the Keurig in the lunchroom to demonstrate his fealty to He, Trump and His pedophile protege, the company would of course fire the yahoo — but it would also buy a replacement machine immediately.
–TP
The Count: … conservatives around the country are assaulting small kitchen appliances …
I heard about this on the radio driving home this evening. And I heard that Keurig’s CEO was trying to make amends for hurting the delicate fee-fees of the RWNJs — possibly with visions of tax cuts dancing in his head? — and I wondered:
If I was in the business of selling coffee makers, and a bunch of those coffee makers got smashed beyond repair by an earthquake, a hurricane, or a herd of yaks, wouldn’t that increase my sales next month?
I ask because I work with at least one RWNJ (right here in MA!) at a company where the Keurig gets more use than the Xerox. The company — and, I claim, the whole Economy — would grind to a halt without a steady stream of coffee. If that yahoo were to smash the Keurig in the lunchroom to demonstrate his fealty to He, Trump and His pedophile protege, the company would of course fire the yahoo — but it would also buy a replacement machine immediately.
–TP
Carly Anne Kreibaum
Carly Anne Kreibaum
Tony P.: “but it would also buy a replacement machine immediately.
That’s exactly what Ringo said about Beatles albums which fake news cracker conservatives were convincing their kids to burn 52 years ago, the book burners, referenced by Marty above.
And so it was and ever shall be.
Tony P.: “but it would also buy a replacement machine immediately.
That’s exactly what Ringo said about Beatles albums which fake news cracker conservatives were convincing their kids to burn 52 years ago, the book burners, referenced by Marty above.
And so it was and ever shall be.
Great post, Doctor Science.
Great post, Doctor Science.
By coincidence, I’ve been reading the latest 700-page biography of Rasputin by Douglas Smith, he the holy man of the infamous patty fingers and of not observing the proprieties (as the Barry Fitzgerald character in the movie “The Quiet Man” termed these matters), during this latest efflorescence of abusive wtf.
Conclusion: None. The pre-revolution Russians were as good, if not better, at fake news than their present-day compatriots, so who knows the extent of what happened exactly.
But it contributed to the fall of the Romanovs.
By coincidence, I’ve been reading the latest 700-page biography of Rasputin by Douglas Smith, he the holy man of the infamous patty fingers and of not observing the proprieties (as the Barry Fitzgerald character in the movie “The Quiet Man” termed these matters), during this latest efflorescence of abusive wtf.
Conclusion: None. The pre-revolution Russians were as good, if not better, at fake news than their present-day compatriots, so who knows the extent of what happened exactly.
But it contributed to the fall of the Romanovs.
One point I think everyone is missing about Clinton/Lewinsky, except sapient, who alluded to it, is that the republican party weaponized the entire sexual saga for nakedly partisan political purposes…
I’m not sure that’s true, Count.
The point of the article I posted was surely that it was precisely because of this that the Democrat side of the aisle were hopelessly divided and confused of sexual harassment for decades.
The behaviour of partisan Republicans (which is to say most of those active in national politics) was, and is unconscionable. That really doesn’t change the fact that the evidence for Clinton being a serial abuser, or worse, is overwhelming.
That any number of politicians across the aisle were just that doesn’t change the matter.
This is not, and should not be, a party political matter – and there are examples of highly partisan Republicans, whhose attitudes I would otherwise abhor, who recognise that.
(I also recognise it is perhaps a little different in the UK, where both sides of the political divide seem now pretty well equally implicated, and also equally committed, insofar as they are, to change.)
One point I think everyone is missing about Clinton/Lewinsky, except sapient, who alluded to it, is that the republican party weaponized the entire sexual saga for nakedly partisan political purposes…
I’m not sure that’s true, Count.
The point of the article I posted was surely that it was precisely because of this that the Democrat side of the aisle were hopelessly divided and confused of sexual harassment for decades.
The behaviour of partisan Republicans (which is to say most of those active in national politics) was, and is unconscionable. That really doesn’t change the fact that the evidence for Clinton being a serial abuser, or worse, is overwhelming.
That any number of politicians across the aisle were just that doesn’t change the matter.
This is not, and should not be, a party political matter – and there are examples of highly partisan Republicans, whhose attitudes I would otherwise abhor, who recognise that.
(I also recognise it is perhaps a little different in the UK, where both sides of the political divide seem now pretty well equally implicated, and also equally committed, insofar as they are, to change.)
This long Rebeca Traister piece is popular.
“As others have observed, it matters that the most public complaints so far have come from relatively affluent white women in elite professions, women who’ve worked closely enough with powerful white men to be available for harassment. Racism and class discrimination determine whose stories get picked up and which women are readily believed.”
And Barabara Ehrenreich was interviewed at Slate
“Our current sex harassment discussion is woefully class-skewed. Too much about actresses and not enough about hotel housekeepers.”
These questions of power and privilege are not abstractions or (partial) “dismissal of women’s concerns”, but are being played out as we speak, in newsrooms where decisions are made about how many minutes, reporters, resources are dedicated to this story over Syria, the tax bill, Brexit.
I mention this not to assert my own priorities over others or to criticize the choices of others but “merely” to note that we are seeing instances of power and struggle and the attempt to add moral weight to particular interests and pluralize and universalize sectional struggles is how ideology works. Every inclusion is an exclusion.
The weaponization of narratives of oppression include the delusion that “The master’s tools will [never] dismantle the master’s house.” Audre Lorde.
Sacked Labour minister Carl Sargeant found dead
The Brits have been forced to a more nuanced discussion; I expect Americans to be similarly forced quite soon, and wonder if compassion and empathy will be shown to be universal or merely instrumental.
This long Rebeca Traister piece is popular.
“As others have observed, it matters that the most public complaints so far have come from relatively affluent white women in elite professions, women who’ve worked closely enough with powerful white men to be available for harassment. Racism and class discrimination determine whose stories get picked up and which women are readily believed.”
And Barabara Ehrenreich was interviewed at Slate
“Our current sex harassment discussion is woefully class-skewed. Too much about actresses and not enough about hotel housekeepers.”
These questions of power and privilege are not abstractions or (partial) “dismissal of women’s concerns”, but are being played out as we speak, in newsrooms where decisions are made about how many minutes, reporters, resources are dedicated to this story over Syria, the tax bill, Brexit.
I mention this not to assert my own priorities over others or to criticize the choices of others but “merely” to note that we are seeing instances of power and struggle and the attempt to add moral weight to particular interests and pluralize and universalize sectional struggles is how ideology works. Every inclusion is an exclusion.
The weaponization of narratives of oppression include the delusion that “The master’s tools will [never] dismantle the master’s house.” Audre Lorde.
Sacked Labour minister Carl Sargeant found dead
The Brits have been forced to a more nuanced discussion; I expect Americans to be similarly forced quite soon, and wonder if compassion and empathy will be shown to be universal or merely instrumental.
Nigel:
“The behaviour of partisan Republicans (which is to say most of those active in national politics) was, and is unconscionable. That really doesn’t change the fact that the evidence for Clinton being a serial abuser, or worse, is overwhelming.”
Both can be true.
Bob:
“The Brits have been forced to a more nuanced discussion; I expect Americans to be similarly forced quite soon, and wonder if compassion and empathy will be shown to be universal or merely instrumental.”
Human frailty is universal and I have empathy for nearly all of it.
I’ll have empathy for Roy Moore when it is time.
The man is against birth control, as he diddles. He needs to be kept out of government at all costs and for many reasons.
If he commits the sin of suicide as well (he won’t; too arrogant), then he will have countermanded another of God’s suggestions for himself that he posits as commandments for everyone else.
Nigel:
“The behaviour of partisan Republicans (which is to say most of those active in national politics) was, and is unconscionable. That really doesn’t change the fact that the evidence for Clinton being a serial abuser, or worse, is overwhelming.”
Both can be true.
Bob:
“The Brits have been forced to a more nuanced discussion; I expect Americans to be similarly forced quite soon, and wonder if compassion and empathy will be shown to be universal or merely instrumental.”
Human frailty is universal and I have empathy for nearly all of it.
I’ll have empathy for Roy Moore when it is time.
The man is against birth control, as he diddles. He needs to be kept out of government at all costs and for many reasons.
If he commits the sin of suicide as well (he won’t; too arrogant), then he will have countermanded another of God’s suggestions for himself that he posits as commandments for everyone else.
Jordyn N. Rivera
Jordyn N. Rivera
sapient: In the case of unwanted sexual overtures in the workplace, whether verbal or touching, that’s well understood problematic behavior.
Actually (as the rest of your comment reflects), that is NOT “well understood.” Indeed, I’m not sure I would agree that verbal overtures per se, wanted or otherwise, are problematic. IF, and I admit it’s a substantial if, the individual making the overture is willing to take “No” for an answer.
Physical “overtures,” insistence, holding position or advancement hostage — not to mention physical assault — I’d agree that those being problematic are well understood. At least outside the circle of powerful individuals who indulge.
So I think, as noted above, we need to prioritize. Publicize, yes, all the things that we think are problematic. But start our more vigorous criminal enforcement efforts on the worst behavior. What we do not want to do is follow the drug wars approach of spending lots of effort on punishing low level offenders while doing not much effective about those at the extreme end of the spectrum.
sapient: In the case of unwanted sexual overtures in the workplace, whether verbal or touching, that’s well understood problematic behavior.
Actually (as the rest of your comment reflects), that is NOT “well understood.” Indeed, I’m not sure I would agree that verbal overtures per se, wanted or otherwise, are problematic. IF, and I admit it’s a substantial if, the individual making the overture is willing to take “No” for an answer.
Physical “overtures,” insistence, holding position or advancement hostage — not to mention physical assault — I’d agree that those being problematic are well understood. At least outside the circle of powerful individuals who indulge.
So I think, as noted above, we need to prioritize. Publicize, yes, all the things that we think are problematic. But start our more vigorous criminal enforcement efforts on the worst behavior. What we do not want to do is follow the drug wars approach of spending lots of effort on punishing low level offenders while doing not much effective about those at the extreme end of the spectrum.
McManus: “Our current sex harassment discussion is woefully class-skewed. Too much about actresses and not enough about hotel housekeepers.”
True. But realistically that’s how things get changed. You start with cases that grab people’s attention. Then, once the ball gets rolling, you expand the discussion. That’s not so much ideology as human nature. (For which ideology is not a cure, however much you might wish it to be.)
McManus: “Our current sex harassment discussion is woefully class-skewed. Too much about actresses and not enough about hotel housekeepers.”
True. But realistically that’s how things get changed. You start with cases that grab people’s attention. Then, once the ball gets rolling, you expand the discussion. That’s not so much ideology as human nature. (For which ideology is not a cure, however much you might wish it to be.)
Our current sex harassment discussion is woefully class-skewed. Too much about actresses and not enough about hotel housekeepers.
eh…
Roy Moore’s accusers/victims aren’t actresses.
most of the actresses coming out are not Paltrow-level privileged. ex, the four named Louis CK’s accusers/victims have a total of four IMDB credits among them.
Anthony Edwards and Corey Feldman aren’t even women.
Jerry Sandusky’s and Dennis Hastert’s victims don’t even work in show biz.
what gets attention is not the status of the victims, it’s the status of the perpetrators.
Our current sex harassment discussion is woefully class-skewed. Too much about actresses and not enough about hotel housekeepers.
eh…
Roy Moore’s accusers/victims aren’t actresses.
most of the actresses coming out are not Paltrow-level privileged. ex, the four named Louis CK’s accusers/victims have a total of four IMDB credits among them.
Anthony Edwards and Corey Feldman aren’t even women.
Jerry Sandusky’s and Dennis Hastert’s victims don’t even work in show biz.
what gets attention is not the status of the victims, it’s the status of the perpetrators.
The point of the article I posted was surely that it was precisely because of this that the Democrat side of the aisle were hopelessly divided and confused of sexual harassment for decades.
This is a bit of an overstatement, nigel, but this ground has been covered elsewhere.
But I am hopelessly divided on the assault on small kitchen appliances. I mean really, willful destruction of private property? Engaging in boycotts? Have these RWNJ’s lost their self righteously conservative moral bearings?
On the other hand, the Keurig machines make the worst coffee I have ever imbibed. Destroying them would be a boon to western civilization.
The point of the article I posted was surely that it was precisely because of this that the Democrat side of the aisle were hopelessly divided and confused of sexual harassment for decades.
This is a bit of an overstatement, nigel, but this ground has been covered elsewhere.
But I am hopelessly divided on the assault on small kitchen appliances. I mean really, willful destruction of private property? Engaging in boycotts? Have these RWNJ’s lost their self righteously conservative moral bearings?
On the other hand, the Keurig machines make the worst coffee I have ever imbibed. Destroying them would be a boon to western civilization.
they can pry my coffee maker from my cold, dead hands
they can pry my coffee maker from my cold, dead hands
turns out there is no statute of limitations in AL when the victim is under 16.
and, people have gone to jail in AL for much less than what Moore did.
turns out there is no statute of limitations in AL when the victim is under 16.
and, people have gone to jail in AL for much less than what Moore did.
Regarding Moore, here is my analysis:
The AL (R)’s are hosed because the man is legitimately on the ballot. Maybe there is some wiggle room to cut him loose, I don’t know.
A quite large proportion of the people of AL, when given the choice of sending either Moore or any (D) to the Senate, will pull the lever for Moore, come what may.
They will not by god be the state that tips the Senate toward (D) control, regardless of Moore’s history. See also, Doc’s OP.
Regarding Moore, here is my analysis:
The AL (R)’s are hosed because the man is legitimately on the ballot. Maybe there is some wiggle room to cut him loose, I don’t know.
A quite large proportion of the people of AL, when given the choice of sending either Moore or any (D) to the Senate, will pull the lever for Moore, come what may.
They will not by god be the state that tips the Senate toward (D) control, regardless of Moore’s history. See also, Doc’s OP.
i’m sure you’re 100% correct, russell.
and this will be item #∞-1 in the list of reasons “Why Don’t Women Come Forward When This Stuff Happens ?”
i’m sure you’re 100% correct, russell.
and this will be item #∞-1 in the list of reasons “Why Don’t Women Come Forward When This Stuff Happens ?”
Regarding Moore
1) No they can’t take him off the ballot. Some are working on a write-in campaign
2) I never thought AL Repubs would vote for Jones. The question is about turnout, will enough disgusted Repubs stay home to put Jones over the top, I can’t say how this would effect Dem turnout.
3) AFAIK, Moore can serve from a prison cell, though probably not make absentee votes
4) I have little doubt the McConnell* would move to expel Moore immediately. That might make Moore ineligible to cast votes etc, but I don’t think they can actually take away his seat, IOW, force a new election*. If they can, that would be ideal for them, Moore elected, resigning or getting impeached, govnr appointing a new Senator.
*Not sure why, but I am convinced that McConnell is dead serious. Not that he cares about the abuse, some other reasons. If Moore gets seated and Trump resigns or 25th, a Pence/Moore team would screw the R Party into the ground.
**Yes, impeachment does involve legal removal. It would as usual have to start in the House.
Regarding Moore
1) No they can’t take him off the ballot. Some are working on a write-in campaign
2) I never thought AL Repubs would vote for Jones. The question is about turnout, will enough disgusted Repubs stay home to put Jones over the top, I can’t say how this would effect Dem turnout.
3) AFAIK, Moore can serve from a prison cell, though probably not make absentee votes
4) I have little doubt the McConnell* would move to expel Moore immediately. That might make Moore ineligible to cast votes etc, but I don’t think they can actually take away his seat, IOW, force a new election*. If they can, that would be ideal for them, Moore elected, resigning or getting impeached, govnr appointing a new Senator.
*Not sure why, but I am convinced that McConnell is dead serious. Not that he cares about the abuse, some other reasons. If Moore gets seated and Trump resigns or 25th, a Pence/Moore team would screw the R Party into the ground.
**Yes, impeachment does involve legal removal. It would as usual have to start in the House.
Like I’ve said, with a 52-47 Senate, for people like McConnell or Cornyn to demand Moore drop out is absolutely astonishing cause that would guarantee a Jones win.
I can only guess that McConnell is scared that Moore in the Senate would lead to a brutal split between Dominionist Christers in the party and the Money part of the Party, perhaps even leading to a Christian Third Party.
Something like that, something that bad.
Repubs don’t care about Dems, they will never get fired up enough to threaten power in Red States. Repubs are apparently terrified of splits in their own camp.
Like I’ve said, with a 52-47 Senate, for people like McConnell or Cornyn to demand Moore drop out is absolutely astonishing cause that would guarantee a Jones win.
I can only guess that McConnell is scared that Moore in the Senate would lead to a brutal split between Dominionist Christers in the party and the Money part of the Party, perhaps even leading to a Christian Third Party.
Something like that, something that bad.
Repubs don’t care about Dems, they will never get fired up enough to threaten power in Red States. Repubs are apparently terrified of splits in their own camp.
cleek: i’m sure you’re 100% correct, russell.
and this will be item #∞-1 in the list of reasons “Why Don’t Women Come Forward When This Stuff Happens ?”
It may also be item #1 on the list of reasons “Why women are abandoning the Republican Party”. Which they are, to a noticeable degree.
That also answers McManus’ question about why McConnell would be dead serious about booting Moore out again once he is seated. It’s not that he cares about what Moore did. But he does care about losing a big pool of voters in future elections, and showing something that can be spun as sympathy could help there.
cleek: i’m sure you’re 100% correct, russell.
and this will be item #∞-1 in the list of reasons “Why Don’t Women Come Forward When This Stuff Happens ?”
It may also be item #1 on the list of reasons “Why women are abandoning the Republican Party”. Which they are, to a noticeable degree.
That also answers McManus’ question about why McConnell would be dead serious about booting Moore out again once he is seated. It’s not that he cares about what Moore did. But he does care about losing a big pool of voters in future elections, and showing something that can be spun as sympathy could help there.
bit of an overstatement, nigel
Not really, when you consider his defender in chief was the Democrats’ last presidential candidate.
(Which is not to say that Democrat policy has tended to be more on the side of the angels than that of the Republicans.)
On the subject of criminalising sexual harassment itself, that debate is ongoing over here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41828881
Given our policies on incarceration, that does not mean imprisoning 10% of the population, as much as sending a signal. On this, I disagree with the header – I think that there are enough irreconcilables, as far as reform on this issue is concerned, for a change in the law to be of some use.
If nothing else, it is, arguably, one way of equalising the stakes between men and women when it comes to social interactions.
bit of an overstatement, nigel
Not really, when you consider his defender in chief was the Democrats’ last presidential candidate.
(Which is not to say that Democrat policy has tended to be more on the side of the angels than that of the Republicans.)
On the subject of criminalising sexual harassment itself, that debate is ongoing over here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41828881
Given our policies on incarceration, that does not mean imprisoning 10% of the population, as much as sending a signal. On this, I disagree with the header – I think that there are enough irreconcilables, as far as reform on this issue is concerned, for a change in the law to be of some use.
If nothing else, it is, arguably, one way of equalising the stakes between men and women when it comes to social interactions.
(above 12.55 should have read “has not tended to be”… got mixed up with my double negatives.)
(above 12.55 should have read “has not tended to be”… got mixed up with my double negatives.)
Excellent piece by Peter Beinart, facing up to how he was an “Affirmative Action baby” at the New Republic, getting special preference because he’s a white man who went to an Ivy.
Excellent piece by Peter Beinart, facing up to how he was an “Affirmative Action baby” at the New Republic, getting special preference because he’s a white man who went to an Ivy.
bobM: Moore wouldn’t be “impeached”; that’s a procedure that Congress uses on executive or judicial officials.
Each House of Congress can expel their own members, with a simple 2/3 vote. So all it would take is the Senate voting, (presumably) all of the D’s, plus McConnell and ~ 18 R senators; and McConnell only to put the expulsion on the calendar.
bobM: Moore wouldn’t be “impeached”; that’s a procedure that Congress uses on executive or judicial officials.
Each House of Congress can expel their own members, with a simple 2/3 vote. So all it would take is the Senate voting, (presumably) all of the D’s, plus McConnell and ~ 18 R senators; and McConnell only to put the expulsion on the calendar.
even if 10 more “children” come out. Anything is better than a Democrat
actual comment defending Roy Moore, on Politico article defending Roy Moore.
the GOP is morally bankrupt.
even if 10 more “children” come out. Anything is better than a Democrat
actual comment defending Roy Moore, on Politico article defending Roy Moore.
the GOP is morally bankrupt.
on Politico article defending Roy Moore
on Politico article about Breitbart defending Roy Moore.
use/mention distinction trouble.
on Politico article defending Roy Moore
on Politico article about Breitbart defending Roy Moore.
use/mention distinction trouble.
“even if 10 more “children” come out. Anything is better than a Democrat”
actual comment defending Roy Moore, on Politico article defending Roy Moore.
the GOP is morally bankrupt.
Certainty evidence that the commenter is morally bankrupt. But extrapolating from one individual to a whole party is a bit of a stretch.
Now if Moore wins, that would demonstrate that the GOP in Alabama is morally bankrupt. But that hasn’t happened yet. Not saying that it isn’t likely to happen, just that we await the actual returns.
“even if 10 more “children” come out. Anything is better than a Democrat”
actual comment defending Roy Moore, on Politico article defending Roy Moore.
the GOP is morally bankrupt.
Certainty evidence that the commenter is morally bankrupt. But extrapolating from one individual to a whole party is a bit of a stretch.
Now if Moore wins, that would demonstrate that the GOP in Alabama is morally bankrupt. But that hasn’t happened yet. Not saying that it isn’t likely to happen, just that we await the actual returns.
from cleek’s link:
Breitbart has gone to such lengths to defend Moore that some of its writers have even declined to pass judgment on a man in his 30s having a relationship with a teenager.
My general impression of the Breitbart readership is that it is made up in no small part of men in their 30’s who only wish they could have a relationship with a teenager.
Decline to pass judgement? Moore may be something of an aspirational role model.
from cleek’s link:
Breitbart has gone to such lengths to defend Moore that some of its writers have even declined to pass judgment on a man in his 30s having a relationship with a teenager.
My general impression of the Breitbart readership is that it is made up in no small part of men in their 30’s who only wish they could have a relationship with a teenager.
Decline to pass judgement? Moore may be something of an aspirational role model.
“Decline to pass judgement? Moore may be something of an aspirational role model.”
Depending on age, they may be wondering if they might be next to be called out. 20 somethings dating teenage women in Alabama, and much of the south, was far from unusual in the 60’s and 70’s. Getting less normal in the early 80’s. That has little to do with sexually assaulting them, but my Mom got married at 14 with parental consent a few decades before this.
So, no defense of a 30 year old cruising the mall, that’s creepy, certainly no defense of sexual assault, but just dating teenagers probably would not have turned the tide.
“Decline to pass judgement? Moore may be something of an aspirational role model.”
Depending on age, they may be wondering if they might be next to be called out. 20 somethings dating teenage women in Alabama, and much of the south, was far from unusual in the 60’s and 70’s. Getting less normal in the early 80’s. That has little to do with sexually assaulting them, but my Mom got married at 14 with parental consent a few decades before this.
So, no defense of a 30 year old cruising the mall, that’s creepy, certainly no defense of sexual assault, but just dating teenagers probably would not have turned the tide.
But extrapolating from one individual to a whole party is a bit of a stretch.
then let’s extrapolate to Breitbart, which routinely gets, literally, 10,000+ comments on Roy Moore stories. and from what i’ve seen in my browsing, the only people not supporting him on those stories are liberal trolls who get piled-on (usually with much racism and homophobia).
or, let’s extrapolate to The Entire State Of Alabama, in which Moore still holds a ten point lead.
and… Trump.
face it, the GOP is A.OK with child molesters, diaper-wearing-prostitute frequenters, and admitted sexual predators – as long as they aren’t liberals.
this is the GOP’s image now. nobody is going to forget it.
But extrapolating from one individual to a whole party is a bit of a stretch.
then let’s extrapolate to Breitbart, which routinely gets, literally, 10,000+ comments on Roy Moore stories. and from what i’ve seen in my browsing, the only people not supporting him on those stories are liberal trolls who get piled-on (usually with much racism and homophobia).
or, let’s extrapolate to The Entire State Of Alabama, in which Moore still holds a ten point lead.
and… Trump.
face it, the GOP is A.OK with child molesters, diaper-wearing-prostitute frequenters, and admitted sexual predators – as long as they aren’t liberals.
this is the GOP’s image now. nobody is going to forget it.
but, let’s see how he handles forging a letter from 50 pastors. maybe that’s a step too far.
but, let’s see how he handles forging a letter from 50 pastors. maybe that’s a step too far.
but just dating teenagers probably would not have turned the tide.
Is that an Alabama Crimson Tide joke? If so, well played.
Sorry if the levity is felt to be inappropriate, but if I don’t laugh, I’d probably hang myself…
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/banned-at-the-mall
but just dating teenagers probably would not have turned the tide.
Is that an Alabama Crimson Tide joke? If so, well played.
Sorry if the levity is felt to be inappropriate, but if I don’t laugh, I’d probably hang myself…
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/banned-at-the-mall
I keep going back to the painting, and trying to remember a Victorian painting about an older guy visiting his young mistress. There’s a piano.
The young lady in the OP painting is looking at us and crying. She is traveling alone, with a fairly large bag that might contain all her possessions. She is in mourning, with a full set of mourning clothes, indicating not horrible original circumstances. The rake is not dressed like a gentleman, but full of confidence and opportunity.
I think we are seeing an orphan, possibly headed off to “service” being recruited for prostitution.
I keep going back to the painting, and trying to remember a Victorian painting about an older guy visiting his young mistress. There’s a piano.
The young lady in the OP painting is looking at us and crying. She is traveling alone, with a fairly large bag that might contain all her possessions. She is in mourning, with a full set of mourning clothes, indicating not horrible original circumstances. The rake is not dressed like a gentleman, but full of confidence and opportunity.
I think we are seeing an orphan, possibly headed off to “service” being recruited for prostitution.
but, let’s see how he handles forging a letter from 50 pastors. maybe that’s a step too far.
The level of stupidity required to even consider trying this is simply awesome!
but, let’s see how he handles forging a letter from 50 pastors. maybe that’s a step too far.
The level of stupidity required to even consider trying this is simply awesome!
i do agree with bob m: that last painting is astounding.
i do agree with bob m: that last painting is astounding.
20 somethings dating teenage women in Alabama, and much of the south, was far from unusual in the 60’s and 70’s.
I get that, and I personally don’t have much of a problem with it, for certain definitions of “teenager”. I have my own complement of family members who married before the age of 20.
As you note, in Moore’s case we’re not talking about a guy in his 20’s dating women who are 16, 17 or 18 years old. We’re talking about a guy in his 30’s assaulting teenagers down to the age of 14. Which I think we all agree is not acceptable.
Mostly I just wanted to mock Breitbart readers, who famously include, in large numbers, post-adolescent guys plotting world domination from their bedrooms in mom’s basement.
20 somethings dating teenage women in Alabama, and much of the south, was far from unusual in the 60’s and 70’s.
I get that, and I personally don’t have much of a problem with it, for certain definitions of “teenager”. I have my own complement of family members who married before the age of 20.
As you note, in Moore’s case we’re not talking about a guy in his 20’s dating women who are 16, 17 or 18 years old. We’re talking about a guy in his 30’s assaulting teenagers down to the age of 14. Which I think we all agree is not acceptable.
Mostly I just wanted to mock Breitbart readers, who famously include, in large numbers, post-adolescent guys plotting world domination from their bedrooms in mom’s basement.
“…post-adolescent guys plotting world domination from their bedrooms in mom’s basement.”
A somewhat troubling trend, a growing number of people in this cohort.
“…post-adolescent guys plotting world domination from their bedrooms in mom’s basement.”
A somewhat troubling trend, a growing number of people in this cohort.
I’m still on the painting, but as metaphor, as allegory relating to the op. I’m writing stories. I could go last as some sort of climax and solution, but I will go first instead.
1) What do I see? A young Victorian woman traveling to or from a funeral by herself. Unheard of in those times I think, had she no one to care for her? Her father died, she didn’t inherit. She is economically and socially abandoned.
So I guess as a Marxist, I see the outside of the picture, what’s outside the frame. But the outside of this picture, not just any picture, I do not deny or ignore what is in the frame. I see history, hers and society’s. We the social have created this picture, we should have and can create a different one. I would like a sister, a mother, a brother, friends, a community of women to have always already been in the picture.
2) Perhaps (some) feminists see themselves there, outside of history. I mean, why can’t she like me travel safely alone? It’s about freedom and independence, and the restrictions and dangers of patriarchy.
IOW, they don’t see that concrete historicized woman at all. She isn’t like the modern woman. They objectify her and make her a symbol. She just wants to be left alone. The hell with links to society, nothing but patriarchal chains.
They see the cad instead, and wish he wasn’t there.
3) The worst is the dudes. They see the lady crying and looking at them and think she is asking for help. They see the concrete situation in the picture…and want to rescue her from the competitive male. They see themselves punching the cad, sitting next to the woman, and protecting her. She will be so grateful.
I’m still on the painting, but as metaphor, as allegory relating to the op. I’m writing stories. I could go last as some sort of climax and solution, but I will go first instead.
1) What do I see? A young Victorian woman traveling to or from a funeral by herself. Unheard of in those times I think, had she no one to care for her? Her father died, she didn’t inherit. She is economically and socially abandoned.
So I guess as a Marxist, I see the outside of the picture, what’s outside the frame. But the outside of this picture, not just any picture, I do not deny or ignore what is in the frame. I see history, hers and society’s. We the social have created this picture, we should have and can create a different one. I would like a sister, a mother, a brother, friends, a community of women to have always already been in the picture.
2) Perhaps (some) feminists see themselves there, outside of history. I mean, why can’t she like me travel safely alone? It’s about freedom and independence, and the restrictions and dangers of patriarchy.
IOW, they don’t see that concrete historicized woman at all. She isn’t like the modern woman. They objectify her and make her a symbol. She just wants to be left alone. The hell with links to society, nothing but patriarchal chains.
They see the cad instead, and wish he wasn’t there.
3) The worst is the dudes. They see the lady crying and looking at them and think she is asking for help. They see the concrete situation in the picture…and want to rescue her from the competitive male. They see themselves punching the cad, sitting next to the woman, and protecting her. She will be so grateful.
Moore is only 36% to win the election on the betting market I just looked at. (Which is not to say that Jones is odds on – the price includes the possibility that the election will not take place).
Moore is only 36% to win the election on the betting market I just looked at. (Which is not to say that Jones is odds on – the price includes the possibility that the election will not take place).
bob mcmanus, the last suggestion may be what the painter is mocking as the name of the painting is Der lästige Kavalier. Perhaps the man in the painting sees himself as saving the woman, but it’s clear that image is only in his head.
bob mcmanus, the last suggestion may be what the painter is mocking as the name of the painting is Der lästige Kavalier. Perhaps the man in the painting sees himself as saving the woman, but it’s clear that image is only in his head.
Derrick Dean Taylor
Derrick Dean Taylor
Instead of talking about Clinton’s consensual sex with an adult, shouldn’t we be talking aobut the fourteen women who accused Trump of behavior sexual misbehavior including rape of a teenager?
And why they were not believed? And why his boasting about using sex aggressively did not deter Republican voters?
I don’t know if ther are more Dem harassers than R harassers or the other way around, but it does seem that R voters despite all the shit they have talked for years about family values and being all moral and responsible and better and the only real true Americans unlike the rest of us bum, can be pretty glib about voting for abusers.
Instead of talking about Clinton’s consensual sex with an adult, shouldn’t we be talking aobut the fourteen women who accused Trump of behavior sexual misbehavior including rape of a teenager?
And why they were not believed? And why his boasting about using sex aggressively did not deter Republican voters?
I don’t know if ther are more Dem harassers than R harassers or the other way around, but it does seem that R voters despite all the shit they have talked for years about family values and being all moral and responsible and better and the only real true Americans unlike the rest of us bum, can be pretty glib about voting for abusers.
but it does seem that R voters despite all the shit they have talked for years about family values and being all moral and responsible and better and the only real true Americans unlike the rest of us bum, can be pretty glib about voting for abusers.
out of all this horror, i have been happy to learn that what everyone suspected all along was actually true: their moral posturing was entirely fake.
but it does seem that R voters despite all the shit they have talked for years about family values and being all moral and responsible and better and the only real true Americans unlike the rest of us bum, can be pretty glib about voting for abusers.
out of all this horror, i have been happy to learn that what everyone suspected all along was actually true: their moral posturing was entirely fake.
the fourteen women who accused Trump of behavior sexual misbehavior including rape of a teenager?
And why they were not believed? And why his boasting about using sex aggressively did not deter Republican voters?
I think (or perhaps I would like to believe) that what this indicates is that the ground has shifted in the past year. Then again, it may just be that Trump is a far better conman than Moore.
the fourteen women who accused Trump of behavior sexual misbehavior including rape of a teenager?
And why they were not believed? And why his boasting about using sex aggressively did not deter Republican voters?
I think (or perhaps I would like to believe) that what this indicates is that the ground has shifted in the past year. Then again, it may just be that Trump is a far better conman than Moore.
As republicans jerk off their fake orgasms over Moore’ s predations, they leave one hand free to insert language into the fuck you tax bill to commit cold-blooded mass murder against Obamacare recipients and utterly destroy the private health insurance market.
As republicans jerk off their fake orgasms over Moore’ s predations, they leave one hand free to insert language into the fuck you tax bill to commit cold-blooded mass murder against Obamacare recipients and utterly destroy the private health insurance market.
to insert language into the fuck you tax bill to commit cold-blooded mass murder against Obamacare recipients and utterly destroy the private health insurance market.
No, no, no. The last thing that they want is to destroy the private health insurance market. After all, that just guarantees we go to full out public (i.e., oh the horror!, government-run) health insurance.
What they appear to want is to destroy the private health insurance market for the poor. And, to some degree, middle class. While simultaneously crippling Medicaid. But still, they want to keep the private health insurance market for their donors.
Which is damn stupid, if you realize that those people buy stuff from big donor’s businesses. Dead customers hurts the bottom line. And even if you don’t sell direct to (non-super-rich) consumers, the businesses that you do sell to do. Short-sighted doesn’t begin to cover it.
to insert language into the fuck you tax bill to commit cold-blooded mass murder against Obamacare recipients and utterly destroy the private health insurance market.
No, no, no. The last thing that they want is to destroy the private health insurance market. After all, that just guarantees we go to full out public (i.e., oh the horror!, government-run) health insurance.
What they appear to want is to destroy the private health insurance market for the poor. And, to some degree, middle class. While simultaneously crippling Medicaid. But still, they want to keep the private health insurance market for their donors.
Which is damn stupid, if you realize that those people buy stuff from big donor’s businesses. Dead customers hurts the bottom line. And even if you don’t sell direct to (non-super-rich) consumers, the businesses that you do sell to do. Short-sighted doesn’t begin to cover it.
Orrin Hatch says he will shut down all debate on the tax bill if Democrats dare to talk about the amendment abolishing the individual mandate.
Even if it’s fake news, there’s gotta be a young boy somewhere who Hatch raped.
The faker the better, to destroy the Republican Party.
Anything to forestall murder.
Orrin Hatch says he will shut down all debate on the tax bill if Democrats dare to talk about the amendment abolishing the individual mandate.
Even if it’s fake news, there’s gotta be a young boy somewhere who Hatch raped.
The faker the better, to destroy the Republican Party.
Anything to forestall murder.
13M people lose health insurance so that rich kids can avoid paying taxes on their parent’s money? in an election year?
the GOP is so fncking stupid and evil.
13M people lose health insurance so that rich kids can avoid paying taxes on their parent’s money? in an election year?
the GOP is so fncking stupid and evil.
“American society can’t yet treat rape, sexual abuse, and sexual harassment as crimes, because they are too common.”
This reminds me of something a medical student who was contemplating going into general practice told me a long time ago. He was advised that the battered housewife in many parts of the country was the bread and butter of the general practitioner.
“American society can’t yet treat rape, sexual abuse, and sexual harassment as crimes, because they are too common.”
This reminds me of something a medical student who was contemplating going into general practice told me a long time ago. He was advised that the battered housewife in many parts of the country was the bread and butter of the general practitioner.
Or maybe I read that in a Thomas McGuane novel.
His fiction always rang true to me.
Or maybe I read that in a Thomas McGuane novel.
His fiction always rang true to me.
ObWi’s slogan put to good use on BJ.
ObWi’s slogan put to good use on BJ.
If you were trying to click on cleek’s link earlier, it should be fixed now. (href works ever so much better than hred 😉
If you were trying to click on cleek’s link earlier, it should be fixed now. (href works ever so much better than hred 😉
hred because the link’s red!
hred because the link’s red!
Well, it’s a story anyway. 😕
Well, it’s a story anyway. 😕
Quite a relief Moore got dragged into this mess. Was a little dull with just the conservative rags piling on.
Quite a relief Moore got dragged into this mess. Was a little dull with just the conservative rags piling on.
What rather boggles the mind is trying to guess:
Whatever insanity will turn up next?
And will it just be in the Alabama special election, or some other bit of the political scene? My guess — the tax bill manages to go thru versions that succeed in infuriating pretty much everybody, before failing ignominiously. Leaving only the question of whether the predictions of electoral disaster if nothing is passed prove accurate.
What rather boggles the mind is trying to guess:
Whatever insanity will turn up next?
And will it just be in the Alabama special election, or some other bit of the political scene? My guess — the tax bill manages to go thru versions that succeed in infuriating pretty much everybody, before failing ignominiously. Leaving only the question of whether the predictions of electoral disaster if nothing is passed prove accurate.
i think the obamacare mandate thing in the tax proposal is at least nominally about making the numbers work so they can pass it via reconciliation. although i’m also sure that gutting the ACA is a bonus.
a two-fer, as it were. BOGO legislation.
as far as Bill Clinton, I think it’s plainly true that he was given a pass by many who you might expect to be critical of someone with his personal history. the affair with Lewinsky was consensual if inappropriate, other situations were apparently less so.
overlooking flaws in people who otherwise advance things you find to be important is not uncommon. overlooking flaws in people who are unusually gifted in other ways is not uncommon.
i guess you could call that hypocrisy, if so we’re all hypocrites. which, to some degree, we all are.
i think the obamacare mandate thing in the tax proposal is at least nominally about making the numbers work so they can pass it via reconciliation. although i’m also sure that gutting the ACA is a bonus.
a two-fer, as it were. BOGO legislation.
as far as Bill Clinton, I think it’s plainly true that he was given a pass by many who you might expect to be critical of someone with his personal history. the affair with Lewinsky was consensual if inappropriate, other situations were apparently less so.
overlooking flaws in people who otherwise advance things you find to be important is not uncommon. overlooking flaws in people who are unusually gifted in other ways is not uncommon.
i guess you could call that hypocrisy, if so we’re all hypocrites. which, to some degree, we all are.
I was slightly boggled by this:
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/15/roy-moore-republicans-alabama-senate-244961
…Some of Moore’s detractors in Alabama are struck by how loyal Moore’s supporters have been.
Alabama radio show host Leland Whaley, who has criticized the candidate on air, said he’s gotten an earful from listeners in return.
“I have been looking over my shoulder because these people are really, really intense right now. It’s a charged environment, a little more than usual right now,” he said. “I have to watch my back in the parking lot, because these people do take it seriously.”…
It would be utterly inconceivable for a candidate still to be running in these circumstances over here.
I was slightly boggled by this:
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/15/roy-moore-republicans-alabama-senate-244961
…Some of Moore’s detractors in Alabama are struck by how loyal Moore’s supporters have been.
Alabama radio show host Leland Whaley, who has criticized the candidate on air, said he’s gotten an earful from listeners in return.
“I have been looking over my shoulder because these people are really, really intense right now. It’s a charged environment, a little more than usual right now,” he said. “I have to watch my back in the parking lot, because these people do take it seriously.”…
It would be utterly inconceivable for a candidate still to be running in these circumstances over here.
the Guardian has a big article on The Steele Dossier.
yeesh
the Guardian has a big article on The Steele Dossier.
yeesh
“I have to watch my back in the parking lot, because these [Moore supporter] people do take it seriously.”…
Tell me again how Democrats staunchly defend “their” child-rapists. I love that story. Especially the part about flying unicorns.
“I have to watch my back in the parking lot, because these [Moore supporter] people do take it seriously.”…
Tell me again how Democrats staunchly defend “their” child-rapists. I love that story. Especially the part about flying unicorns.
It would be utterly inconceivable for a candidate still to be running in these circumstances over here.
it’s baffling that he’s still on his feet over here, too.
or, it would have been, had the GOP not fully embraced the equally-scummy Donald Trump last year.
Moore is following Trump’s M.O. exactly be a scumbag, but be their scumbag. deny, deny, deny, discredit, distract, deflect, deny. Trump proved that the media is powerless no matter what they report, and fighting the media makes your base like you even more. it’s perverse and nihilist and destructive, but it’s what the GOP has embraced.
It would be utterly inconceivable for a candidate still to be running in these circumstances over here.
it’s baffling that he’s still on his feet over here, too.
or, it would have been, had the GOP not fully embraced the equally-scummy Donald Trump last year.
Moore is following Trump’s M.O. exactly be a scumbag, but be their scumbag. deny, deny, deny, discredit, distract, deflect, deny. Trump proved that the media is powerless no matter what they report, and fighting the media makes your base like you even more. it’s perverse and nihilist and destructive, but it’s what the GOP has embraced.
I suspect the news that rump and his Russian prostitutes pissed the bed the uppity niggers slept in provided the margin of victory for the Republican Party last November.
I suspect the news that rump and his Russian prostitutes pissed the bed the uppity niggers slept in provided the margin of victory for the Republican Party last November.
Nigel, I was less boggled by the paragraphs that you quoted than by the fact that the Republicans in the Senate are actually considering the idea of having Strange resign in order to trigger a new special election. (Which I’m less than convinced that it would.) That would pretty much guarantee that Moore would win their nomination again, and arrive (if he did) even more of a loose cannon than they are already looking at.
It really says something about how horrible they find all of their available options at this point. I’m betting that secretly, or even not so secretly, they are praying hard for Jones to win. Yes, it makes getting anything passed on a straight partisan basis even more difficult. Not to mention the increased threat of losing their majority altogether next year. But the alternatives they are seeing look to be much worse for them — and clearly they know it.
Nigel, I was less boggled by the paragraphs that you quoted than by the fact that the Republicans in the Senate are actually considering the idea of having Strange resign in order to trigger a new special election. (Which I’m less than convinced that it would.) That would pretty much guarantee that Moore would win their nomination again, and arrive (if he did) even more of a loose cannon than they are already looking at.
It really says something about how horrible they find all of their available options at this point. I’m betting that secretly, or even not so secretly, they are praying hard for Jones to win. Yes, it makes getting anything passed on a straight partisan basis even more difficult. Not to mention the increased threat of losing their majority altogether next year. But the alternatives they are seeing look to be much worse for them — and clearly they know it.
McConnell and associated ratfuckers, with the exception of ratfuckers Bannon, Hannity and their ratfucking mothers, trying to convince sessions to run for Alabama senate seat.
If successful, expect rump to nominate Moore for attorney general. Jeff flake, whose votIng record is pretty much Moore incarnate, despite his fake piety, will be on board.
Then expect the arrest, indictment and the imprisonment of Hillary Clinton for not selling enough uranium to the Russians.
Or maybe Moore stays in, wins the seat, and in a middle of the night election next year, he’d deposes McConnell as majority leader.
School prayer then mandated as national policy so that kids across the nation can send their thoughts and prayers while in school to the kids down the hall being mass murdered by gunmen carrying NRA approved weaponry.
Senate leader Moore will visit the shot up school and have private lap prayer sessions with the traumatized cheerleader squads.
He will suffer the little children to come unto him.
But the first scandal Moore will survive as senate leader will be when he is accused of killing a guy dressed in ladies evening wear in the ladies bathroom at a local Washington, D.C. Park and will be exonerated by a rump Judge because Moore claims his motive in the killing was to preserve his stalking turf from liberal predators.
In Alabama, real men dress like real men when accosting women in the ladies’ loo.
McConnell and associated ratfuckers, with the exception of ratfuckers Bannon, Hannity and their ratfucking mothers, trying to convince sessions to run for Alabama senate seat.
If successful, expect rump to nominate Moore for attorney general. Jeff flake, whose votIng record is pretty much Moore incarnate, despite his fake piety, will be on board.
Then expect the arrest, indictment and the imprisonment of Hillary Clinton for not selling enough uranium to the Russians.
Or maybe Moore stays in, wins the seat, and in a middle of the night election next year, he’d deposes McConnell as majority leader.
School prayer then mandated as national policy so that kids across the nation can send their thoughts and prayers while in school to the kids down the hall being mass murdered by gunmen carrying NRA approved weaponry.
Senate leader Moore will visit the shot up school and have private lap prayer sessions with the traumatized cheerleader squads.
He will suffer the little children to come unto him.
But the first scandal Moore will survive as senate leader will be when he is accused of killing a guy dressed in ladies evening wear in the ladies bathroom at a local Washington, D.C. Park and will be exonerated by a rump Judge because Moore claims his motive in the killing was to preserve his stalking turf from liberal predators.
In Alabama, real men dress like real men when accosting women in the ladies’ loo.
Here is my question: what are they willing to break to avoid the embarrassment of Senator Moore?
If Moore broke the law, and the statute of limitations has not passed, it’s appropriate for charges to be brought against him and for the process of justice to proceed from there.
That said, (R) voters in AL picked him. If there is no actual legal impediment to somebody running for US Senate while actual or potential criminal charges are pending, then it looks like they have to let him run. All of the alternatives basically amount to disenfranchising the folks who voted in the (R) primary.
If he wins, he wins. The Senate may then decide to chuck him out, but I think that’s only ever been done for actual acts of treason. Folks have resigned from the Senate under pressure when they’ve been caught out in bad behavior, but I don’t see Moore going that way.
What precedents are set if the (R)’s – national or state level – horse around with the process enough to bar him from running or taking office if elected?
Are they worse than just living with Senator Moore?
If you are a (R) in AL, and have cast / do cast your vote for Moore, what do you make of all of this?
It’s a freaking mess, but in general I suspect AL (R)’s are more than fine with it. It’s a poke in the eye to that damned elitist establishment, what could be better.
Here is my question: what are they willing to break to avoid the embarrassment of Senator Moore?
If Moore broke the law, and the statute of limitations has not passed, it’s appropriate for charges to be brought against him and for the process of justice to proceed from there.
That said, (R) voters in AL picked him. If there is no actual legal impediment to somebody running for US Senate while actual or potential criminal charges are pending, then it looks like they have to let him run. All of the alternatives basically amount to disenfranchising the folks who voted in the (R) primary.
If he wins, he wins. The Senate may then decide to chuck him out, but I think that’s only ever been done for actual acts of treason. Folks have resigned from the Senate under pressure when they’ve been caught out in bad behavior, but I don’t see Moore going that way.
What precedents are set if the (R)’s – national or state level – horse around with the process enough to bar him from running or taking office if elected?
Are they worse than just living with Senator Moore?
If you are a (R) in AL, and have cast / do cast your vote for Moore, what do you make of all of this?
It’s a freaking mess, but in general I suspect AL (R)’s are more than fine with it. It’s a poke in the eye to that damned elitist establishment, what could be better.
the affair with Lewinsky was consensual if inappropriate, other situations were apparently less so.
There’s an interesting comment thread on LGM that, in part, is relitigating the Clinton allegations. I’m remembering a lot of stuff that I’d forgotten. Highly recommmended.
the affair with Lewinsky was consensual if inappropriate, other situations were apparently less so.
There’s an interesting comment thread on LGM that, in part, is relitigating the Clinton allegations. I’m remembering a lot of stuff that I’d forgotten. Highly recommmended.
oh crap… Franken, too?.
wtf
oh crap… Franken, too?.
wtf
It’s a freaking mess, but in general I suspect AL (R)’s are more than fine with it. It’s a poke in the eye to that damned elitist establishment, what could be better.
Like I say, the Republican establishment is praying hard for Jones to win. If nothing else, at least it is a return poke in the eye for Bannon — which McConnell has to think of as a big plus. Maybe even big enough to be worth losing his majority.
It’s a freaking mess, but in general I suspect AL (R)’s are more than fine with it. It’s a poke in the eye to that damned elitist establishment, what could be better.
Like I say, the Republican establishment is praying hard for Jones to win. If nothing else, at least it is a return poke in the eye for Bannon — which McConnell has to think of as a big plus. Maybe even big enough to be worth losing his majority.
“The republican establishment is praying hard for Jones to win.”
How confusing that must be for God, that his pets are so wily.
Then again, the Holy Spirit had its way with the Virgin Mary in such a way that Mary Magdalene had to find new work.
If Jones wins, the republican establishment’s plan on is to force the resignation of Al Franken.
“The republican establishment is praying hard for Jones to win.”
How confusing that must be for God, that his pets are so wily.
Then again, the Holy Spirit had its way with the Virgin Mary in such a way that Mary Magdalene had to find new work.
If Jones wins, the republican establishment’s plan on is to force the resignation of Al Franken.
oh crap… Franken, too?.
wtf
This, to me, is the whole point of Doc’s post. If all the stories were to come out, we’d find that a dismaying percentage of powerful men [sic, for now] have done something like this at one time or another.
It’s a mess.
oh crap… Franken, too?.
wtf
This, to me, is the whole point of Doc’s post. If all the stories were to come out, we’d find that a dismaying percentage of powerful men [sic, for now] have done something like this at one time or another.
It’s a mess.
If all the stories were to come out, we’d find that a dismaying percentage of powerful men [sic, for now] have done something like this at one time or another.
OK, but we have to start sooner or later. So why not make a beginning? It’s not like it’s a better option to wait until a couple of generations die off, in the hopes that the next generation is better behaved.
Will it be a mess? No question. But either we start now, and clean up the mess as we go, or we decide we are OK with selective enforcement for political (or economic) advantage. I, for one, am not comfortable with the latter . . . no matter who ends up with the (temporary) political advantage from the former.
If all the stories were to come out, we’d find that a dismaying percentage of powerful men [sic, for now] have done something like this at one time or another.
OK, but we have to start sooner or later. So why not make a beginning? It’s not like it’s a better option to wait until a couple of generations die off, in the hopes that the next generation is better behaved.
Will it be a mess? No question. But either we start now, and clean up the mess as we go, or we decide we are OK with selective enforcement for political (or economic) advantage. I, for one, am not comfortable with the latter . . . no matter who ends up with the (temporary) political advantage from the former.
or we decide we are OK with selective enforcement for political (or economic) advantage
i think this is where we are.
so now the question is: will the Dems volunteer to start cleaning up first? the GOP will be more than happy to let them.
or we decide we are OK with selective enforcement for political (or economic) advantage
i think this is where we are.
so now the question is: will the Dems volunteer to start cleaning up first? the GOP will be more than happy to let them.
wj, I agree with you, I didn’t at all mean to imply that we shouldn’t start.
I was more just surprised that cleek seemed to be surprised. We are just a few baby steps into the list that we’re going to have eventually, was my point, and the list is going not just going to consist of sanctimonious bible-thumping right-wing criminal hypocritics like Moore.
However: start on exactly what is the messy question, about which I’ve been finding it hard to frame thoughts suitable for a blog comment.
I don’t think what Franken is accused of doing is in the same ball park as what Moore is accused of, so I guess that’s a hint about where I’d start. Predation on children is pretty far toward one end of a spectrum.
wj, I agree with you, I didn’t at all mean to imply that we shouldn’t start.
I was more just surprised that cleek seemed to be surprised. We are just a few baby steps into the list that we’re going to have eventually, was my point, and the list is going not just going to consist of sanctimonious bible-thumping right-wing criminal hypocritics like Moore.
However: start on exactly what is the messy question, about which I’ve been finding it hard to frame thoughts suitable for a blog comment.
I don’t think what Franken is accused of doing is in the same ball park as what Moore is accused of, so I guess that’s a hint about where I’d start. Predation on children is pretty far toward one end of a spectrum.
Janie, I’d say start with those who have engage in activities which are clearly criminal. Whether or not the statue of limitations has elapsed; if it hasn’t, file charges as well. That means those preying on children or engaging in felony sexual assault (i.e. rape).
We can (and should) get to sexual harassment later, once the worst offenders have been eliminated.
Janie, I’d say start with those who have engage in activities which are clearly criminal. Whether or not the statue of limitations has elapsed; if it hasn’t, file charges as well. That means those preying on children or engaging in felony sexual assault (i.e. rape).
We can (and should) get to sexual harassment later, once the worst offenders have been eliminated.
That said, (R) voters in AL picked him. If there is no actual legal impediment to somebody running for US Senate while actual or potential criminal charges are pending, then it looks like they have to let him run. All of the alternatives basically amount to disenfranchising the folks who voted in the (R) primary.
Sorry about bringing up prior history, but if I’m not mistaken, didn’t the Dems in NJ pull a US Senate candidate (who had won the primary) off the ballot when something came up post-primary that seemed certain to cause him to lose? The Repubs, IIRC, had a lock on that senate seat until the Dems did the switch.
That said, (R) voters in AL picked him. If there is no actual legal impediment to somebody running for US Senate while actual or potential criminal charges are pending, then it looks like they have to let him run. All of the alternatives basically amount to disenfranchising the folks who voted in the (R) primary.
Sorry about bringing up prior history, but if I’m not mistaken, didn’t the Dems in NJ pull a US Senate candidate (who had won the primary) off the ballot when something came up post-primary that seemed certain to cause him to lose? The Repubs, IIRC, had a lock on that senate seat until the Dems did the switch.
yes.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2002/10/03/new-jersey-supreme-court-rules-in-favor-dems-replacing-torch-on-ballot.html
yes.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2002/10/03/new-jersey-supreme-court-rules-in-favor-dems-replacing-torch-on-ballot.html
More trolling:
But either we start now, and clean up the mess as we go, or we decide we are OK with selective enforcement for political (or economic) advantage.
JFK, then Teddy, then William Jefferson Clinton, than all the rest. When it comes to selectivity in modern times, it’s not hard to know where to start.
What remains interesting, in light of the *very* recent calls for reassessing HRC’s husband–but not HRC–is the very delicate, ‘well, he was awesome at everything else, but yes, maybe it was disturbing’ spin we are seeing 25 years after the fact. This is a man with 25 plus rides on Jeffrey Eppstein’s “Lolita Express” jet. Cattle futures, the Marc Rich pardon, Jeffrey Eppstein–do you really think *everything* is out, that this is all there is?
Your moral high horses know no bounds when it comes to the other side, when all the while the biggest offenders have been right there at the top of your party–although in the last year, between Trump and Moore, the scum level is starting to even out. Seriously Cleek, can you possibly be more of a hypocrite? Just because your idols are smarter and better at lying, denying and delaying, doesn’t make them better people.
They are all human filth. Quit the moral preening. Your own house is covered in dirt. Own it and quit throwing stones at your neighbor’s glass house.
The poor ObWi shark has been jumped so many times since Trump took office, it has to have drowned by now. Jesus.
More trolling:
But either we start now, and clean up the mess as we go, or we decide we are OK with selective enforcement for political (or economic) advantage.
JFK, then Teddy, then William Jefferson Clinton, than all the rest. When it comes to selectivity in modern times, it’s not hard to know where to start.
What remains interesting, in light of the *very* recent calls for reassessing HRC’s husband–but not HRC–is the very delicate, ‘well, he was awesome at everything else, but yes, maybe it was disturbing’ spin we are seeing 25 years after the fact. This is a man with 25 plus rides on Jeffrey Eppstein’s “Lolita Express” jet. Cattle futures, the Marc Rich pardon, Jeffrey Eppstein–do you really think *everything* is out, that this is all there is?
Your moral high horses know no bounds when it comes to the other side, when all the while the biggest offenders have been right there at the top of your party–although in the last year, between Trump and Moore, the scum level is starting to even out. Seriously Cleek, can you possibly be more of a hypocrite? Just because your idols are smarter and better at lying, denying and delaying, doesn’t make them better people.
They are all human filth. Quit the moral preening. Your own house is covered in dirt. Own it and quit throwing stones at your neighbor’s glass house.
The poor ObWi shark has been jumped so many times since Trump took office, it has to have drowned by now. Jesus.
So, my question again:
What do we expect of political representatives by way of squeaky clean personal lives?
Lots of (D) creeps, lots of (R) creeps.
It all goes back to (at least) Hamilton and Jefferson.
Is being a creep disqualifying for national office? If so, where do we start applying that rule?
Expand it beyond politics and even more entertainment will ensue.
See also – Doc S’s original post.
Your moral high horses know no bounds
You got one of your own, dude.
So, my question again:
What do we expect of political representatives by way of squeaky clean personal lives?
Lots of (D) creeps, lots of (R) creeps.
It all goes back to (at least) Hamilton and Jefferson.
Is being a creep disqualifying for national office? If so, where do we start applying that rule?
Expand it beyond politics and even more entertainment will ensue.
See also – Doc S’s original post.
Your moral high horses know no bounds
You got one of your own, dude.
McKTX-
If you are referring to the NJ switch from Torricelli to Lautenberg, there are some important differences. First, Torricelli withdrew from the ballot (Moore won’t do that). Second, the NJSC specifically found that the withdrawal occurred soon enough for the ballots to be reprinted:
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/torricelli/njdpsmsn100202scord.pdf
whereas AL has a specific statute precluding reprinting ballots at this late date:
http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/alison/codeofalabama/1975/17-6-21.htm
The NJ court’s analysis is interesting re: the disenfranchising issue:
So you see, not allowing folks to choose a Dem = disenfranchisement.
The more you know …. /rainbow
McKTX-
If you are referring to the NJ switch from Torricelli to Lautenberg, there are some important differences. First, Torricelli withdrew from the ballot (Moore won’t do that). Second, the NJSC specifically found that the withdrawal occurred soon enough for the ballots to be reprinted:
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/torricelli/njdpsmsn100202scord.pdf
whereas AL has a specific statute precluding reprinting ballots at this late date:
http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/alison/codeofalabama/1975/17-6-21.htm
The NJ court’s analysis is interesting re: the disenfranchising issue:
So you see, not allowing folks to choose a Dem = disenfranchisement.
The more you know …. /rainbow
Strange, it would seem to me that pulling someone off the ballot would be considered a return to sanity, but McT feels it is evidence that everyone has done it. Like a Sisyphus Fonzie, McT is destined to jump that shark again and again.. At least he is acknowledging it is trolling.
Strange, it would seem to me that pulling someone off the ballot would be considered a return to sanity, but McT feels it is evidence that everyone has done it. Like a Sisyphus Fonzie, McT is destined to jump that shark again and again.. At least he is acknowledging it is trolling.
McTX: The Repubs, IIRC, had a lock on that senate seat until the Dems did the switch.
Do you mean they “had a lock on” it based on Torricelli staying on the ballot?
IIRC, the Dems replaced Torricelli with Frank Lautenberg and the voters of New Jersey turned out to prefer Lautenberg over the Republican Forrester. I remember the GOP arguments at the time: that democracy is less about what the voters want than about a strict observance of “the rules”, a la hopscotch. The voters of NJ, the GOP argued, should be forced to choose between a Democrat who nobody wanted and a Republican who less-than-a-majority did.
The difference between NJ then and AL now is that back then the D’s were afraid their ill-advisedly-chosen nominee would lose, and the R’s now are afraid their nominee will win. I think this says something about which side respects voters more.
–TP
McTX: The Repubs, IIRC, had a lock on that senate seat until the Dems did the switch.
Do you mean they “had a lock on” it based on Torricelli staying on the ballot?
IIRC, the Dems replaced Torricelli with Frank Lautenberg and the voters of New Jersey turned out to prefer Lautenberg over the Republican Forrester. I remember the GOP arguments at the time: that democracy is less about what the voters want than about a strict observance of “the rules”, a la hopscotch. The voters of NJ, the GOP argued, should be forced to choose between a Democrat who nobody wanted and a Republican who less-than-a-majority did.
The difference between NJ then and AL now is that back then the D’s were afraid their ill-advisedly-chosen nominee would lose, and the R’s now are afraid their nominee will win. I think this says something about which side respects voters more.
–TP
The poor ObWi shark has been jumped so many times since Trump took office…
If it’s only been since Trump took office, is it really jumping the shark?
The poor ObWi shark has been jumped so many times since Trump took office…
If it’s only been since Trump took office, is it really jumping the shark?
As far as the outrage about the Clintons – either one – I can’t think of a single thing anyone can pin on them that isn’t dead normal for American political life at the national level.
Rides on Eppstein’s jet? As far as I can tell, getting laid is seen as one of the perks of holding positions of national responsibility. I’m sure it’s not universal, I’m also sure it’s widespread. DC is, famously, called Hollywood for ugly people. It ain’t because of the movies.
Cattle futures? HRC did some day trading and made a lot of money. $100K over several months.
She lost some, she won more. A lot of folks day trade, but she did it with the assistance of the outside counsel at Tyson Foods, at that time the largest employer in AR. So, ethically smelly. That puts her in good company with a fairly large number of folks in Congress, who quite often trade based on privileged information. They tried to put a stop to it back in 2012, then basically gutted that law a year later. Check out what Congresspeople were worth upon taking office, compared to either now or upon leaving office.
Denise Rich gave a crapload of money to the (D)’s, her ex got a pardon. Wealthy and powerful people get favors.
I think all of that sucks. And, I think Bill Clinton is no better or worse a human being than quite a number of folks holding public office, and as an effective public servant he was much much better than most. My opinion about Hillary is basically the same, except I think she’s actually a better person than the run of the mill public office holder, including her husband.
For every (D) you want to name, past present or future, with a shady if not criminal personal life, I can name you a (R). It doesn’t freaking matter what letter follows these people’s names.
If you actually do want to improve the moral and ethical quality of folks holding public office, you will need to make crimes of a lot of what is currently normal operating procedure.
You will have to get the fucking boatloads of private money out of governance. Lobbyists, PACs, insider deals, sweetheart private gigs in industries they have spent years overseeing. All of it.
Stop rewarding politicians for being crooks, and fewer crooks will look at politics as an attractive path.
I’m all for it. Not many folks are, so it ain’t gonna happen.
As far as the outrage about the Clintons – either one – I can’t think of a single thing anyone can pin on them that isn’t dead normal for American political life at the national level.
Rides on Eppstein’s jet? As far as I can tell, getting laid is seen as one of the perks of holding positions of national responsibility. I’m sure it’s not universal, I’m also sure it’s widespread. DC is, famously, called Hollywood for ugly people. It ain’t because of the movies.
Cattle futures? HRC did some day trading and made a lot of money. $100K over several months.
She lost some, she won more. A lot of folks day trade, but she did it with the assistance of the outside counsel at Tyson Foods, at that time the largest employer in AR. So, ethically smelly. That puts her in good company with a fairly large number of folks in Congress, who quite often trade based on privileged information. They tried to put a stop to it back in 2012, then basically gutted that law a year later. Check out what Congresspeople were worth upon taking office, compared to either now or upon leaving office.
Denise Rich gave a crapload of money to the (D)’s, her ex got a pardon. Wealthy and powerful people get favors.
I think all of that sucks. And, I think Bill Clinton is no better or worse a human being than quite a number of folks holding public office, and as an effective public servant he was much much better than most. My opinion about Hillary is basically the same, except I think she’s actually a better person than the run of the mill public office holder, including her husband.
For every (D) you want to name, past present or future, with a shady if not criminal personal life, I can name you a (R). It doesn’t freaking matter what letter follows these people’s names.
If you actually do want to improve the moral and ethical quality of folks holding public office, you will need to make crimes of a lot of what is currently normal operating procedure.
You will have to get the fucking boatloads of private money out of governance. Lobbyists, PACs, insider deals, sweetheart private gigs in industries they have spent years overseeing. All of it.
Stop rewarding politicians for being crooks, and fewer crooks will look at politics as an attractive path.
I’m all for it. Not many folks are, so it ain’t gonna happen.
Not many folks are, so it ain’t gonna happen.
Maybe it will under the strong ethical leadership of our current president.
Not many folks are, so it ain’t gonna happen.
Maybe it will under the strong ethical leadership of our current president.
McTX: JFK, then Teddy, then William Jefferson Clinton …
You forgot FDR. But maybe FDR gets cancelled out by Ike.
There’s one Republican who I never heard accused of infidelity or sexual harassment: Richard M. Nixon. He was too moral for that sort of thing.
As far as Roy Moore goes, I’m with Josh Marshall. I have long held that a government of The People, by The People, and for The People can’t be any better than The People are.
–TP
McTX: JFK, then Teddy, then William Jefferson Clinton …
You forgot FDR. But maybe FDR gets cancelled out by Ike.
There’s one Republican who I never heard accused of infidelity or sexual harassment: Richard M. Nixon. He was too moral for that sort of thing.
As far as Roy Moore goes, I’m with Josh Marshall. I have long held that a government of The People, by The People, and for The People can’t be any better than The People are.
–TP
Denise Rich gave a crapload of money to the (D)’s, her ex got a pardon.
Robert Mercer’s hedge fund apparently owes something like $7 billion-with-a-b in back taxes. We’ll see what he gets for his money.
Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson. Hey, let’s be even-handed – George Soros, too.
Everybody with a big checkbook has their calls returned, gets the ear of the big shots, gets favors.
To be completely honest, I’m just not that freaking worked up about Mark Rich.
Denise Rich gave a crapload of money to the (D)’s, her ex got a pardon.
Robert Mercer’s hedge fund apparently owes something like $7 billion-with-a-b in back taxes. We’ll see what he gets for his money.
Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson. Hey, let’s be even-handed – George Soros, too.
Everybody with a big checkbook has their calls returned, gets the ear of the big shots, gets favors.
To be completely honest, I’m just not that freaking worked up about Mark Rich.
As far as Roy Moore goes, I’m with Josh Marshall.
Same here.
If the people of AL want Moore, let them have Moore. And best of luck to them.
If he ends up in jail, they’ll have a Senator in jail. Don’t know what precedent there is for that, maybe we’ll get to make one.
As far as Roy Moore goes, I’m with Josh Marshall.
Same here.
If the people of AL want Moore, let them have Moore. And best of luck to them.
If he ends up in jail, they’ll have a Senator in jail. Don’t know what precedent there is for that, maybe we’ll get to make one.
Prior history is the only kind we have.
Are you referencing Torricelli in New Jersey? I can’t link on my IPad. In fact, I can hardly post on my IPad.
Aside from that, I do believe we need to upgrade from “it’s a mess” to a “fucking partisan free-for-all”.
I’m all for airing this stuff out. Let the chips fall where they may.
But, some predictions, given the current state of things in America. This could be a witch hunt in which the witches outnumber the non-witches by some very spooky margin.
I predict that once this thing really breaks loose, any attempt to develop a heirarchy of “crimes” to face up to and rectify will crash and burn and the individual who uttered an off-color joke to a woman years ago will be facing public shame and all that comes with along the same lines as Weinstein and Moore should and will face.
Further, do we really think that with crypto-religious nutcakes and their enablers populating legislatures and courthouses across the country at every level of government, that any legislative action to address this issue will not include efforts to sharply curtail the freedoms women have gained in recent years in the areas of birth control, controlling their own bodies, and having the open agency to engage in sexual relations without shame and the benefit of marriage, because after all, to uptight conservatives, come hither makes we men do the dastardly stuff.
We could end up with Roy Moore’s biblical view of these matters prevailing and hurting us more than Roy Moore’s personal view (basically dropping his pencil at the mall food court and peeking up the teenaged girls’ skirts) and behavior prevailing, though some men have the will to find the way.
I would add that none of this is going to further the cause of LGBT rights either. What, you think heterosexual crypto religious men in this country are going to give up their presumed sexual privileges and let gays and lesbians continue to make progress unmolested.
We live in a country (and who doesn’t) wherein it is politically correct to mention in school that the first acts, besides building a fire, by Columbus and John Smith were rape.
We live in a country where John Smith rapes Pocahontas and where in 2017 rump and Hensarling rape the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to punish the woman they call Pocahontas.
We live in a country where settlement occurred in much of the western states in this order: explorers, killing the native inhabitants, miners and trappers, the prostitutes to follow, and the preachers in hot pursuit.
I forgot the surveyors. They probably had the most fun.
The preachers converted some of the prostitutes to the former’s God and the prostitutes converted some of the preachers to gonnorhea and syphillis while the rest of the men managed to partake of both without batting an eye because both were lubricants to the money shot called called commerce at any cost.
American history in basically a long-running porn movie with the Bill of Rights, the Civil War, Hiroshima, and vanguishing polio as connective foreplay plot developments for which the fast forward button was invented.
At any rate, conservatives will figure out a way to turn this whole deal against women, the LGBT community and innocent guys who ask politely to get laid.
I mean, when this is all said and done, am I going have to apologize the next time I’m guffawing when Groucho is interrupted batting his eyes at Margaret Dumont to get at her money and influence by Harpo chasing a pretty girl across the set, honking all the way, with Chico in hot pursuit?
Prior history is the only kind we have.
Are you referencing Torricelli in New Jersey? I can’t link on my IPad. In fact, I can hardly post on my IPad.
Aside from that, I do believe we need to upgrade from “it’s a mess” to a “fucking partisan free-for-all”.
I’m all for airing this stuff out. Let the chips fall where they may.
But, some predictions, given the current state of things in America. This could be a witch hunt in which the witches outnumber the non-witches by some very spooky margin.
I predict that once this thing really breaks loose, any attempt to develop a heirarchy of “crimes” to face up to and rectify will crash and burn and the individual who uttered an off-color joke to a woman years ago will be facing public shame and all that comes with along the same lines as Weinstein and Moore should and will face.
Further, do we really think that with crypto-religious nutcakes and their enablers populating legislatures and courthouses across the country at every level of government, that any legislative action to address this issue will not include efforts to sharply curtail the freedoms women have gained in recent years in the areas of birth control, controlling their own bodies, and having the open agency to engage in sexual relations without shame and the benefit of marriage, because after all, to uptight conservatives, come hither makes we men do the dastardly stuff.
We could end up with Roy Moore’s biblical view of these matters prevailing and hurting us more than Roy Moore’s personal view (basically dropping his pencil at the mall food court and peeking up the teenaged girls’ skirts) and behavior prevailing, though some men have the will to find the way.
I would add that none of this is going to further the cause of LGBT rights either. What, you think heterosexual crypto religious men in this country are going to give up their presumed sexual privileges and let gays and lesbians continue to make progress unmolested.
We live in a country (and who doesn’t) wherein it is politically correct to mention in school that the first acts, besides building a fire, by Columbus and John Smith were rape.
We live in a country where John Smith rapes Pocahontas and where in 2017 rump and Hensarling rape the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to punish the woman they call Pocahontas.
We live in a country where settlement occurred in much of the western states in this order: explorers, killing the native inhabitants, miners and trappers, the prostitutes to follow, and the preachers in hot pursuit.
I forgot the surveyors. They probably had the most fun.
The preachers converted some of the prostitutes to the former’s God and the prostitutes converted some of the preachers to gonnorhea and syphillis while the rest of the men managed to partake of both without batting an eye because both were lubricants to the money shot called called commerce at any cost.
American history in basically a long-running porn movie with the Bill of Rights, the Civil War, Hiroshima, and vanguishing polio as connective foreplay plot developments for which the fast forward button was invented.
At any rate, conservatives will figure out a way to turn this whole deal against women, the LGBT community and innocent guys who ask politely to get laid.
I mean, when this is all said and done, am I going have to apologize the next time I’m guffawing when Groucho is interrupted batting his eyes at Margaret Dumont to get at her money and influence by Harpo chasing a pretty girl across the set, honking all the way, with Chico in hot pursuit?
Rump jumped the shark.
All else is the wading pool at Seaworld..
Rump jumped the shark.
All else is the wading pool at Seaworld..
We can (and should) get to sexual harassment later, once the worst offenders have been eliminated..
I profoundly disagree with this. It’s not one thing or the other – it is about changing the attitudes of men towards women, and saying let’s just worry about the actual criminals isn’t going to do anything about that.
I appreciate that this is at odds with pretty well,all,of history up until now, but that does not make it wrong.
Conclusive evidence of sexual harassment ought to be diqualificatory for public office. Period. Whichever side of the aisle.
We can (and should) get to sexual harassment later, once the worst offenders have been eliminated..
I profoundly disagree with this. It’s not one thing or the other – it is about changing the attitudes of men towards women, and saying let’s just worry about the actual criminals isn’t going to do anything about that.
I appreciate that this is at odds with pretty well,all,of history up until now, but that does not make it wrong.
Conclusive evidence of sexual harassment ought to be diqualificatory for public office. Period. Whichever side of the aisle.
A few rules going forward:
Ask. Enjoy the yes with respect and doubly respect the no from a human being with agency.
Cut the crap at work. Plain abusive if not consensual and too complicated for everyone if consensual, though I’m a realist in the latter case.
But so is a younger female friend, who had this to say, if unfelicitously, about a past consensual sexual escapade she was involved in at work. “Tried that. No more. I don’t shit and eat in the same place.”
Try to life backwards. You’ll get in less trouble. Though I’m not sure Merlin saw Mordred coming.
A few rules going forward:
Ask. Enjoy the yes with respect and doubly respect the no from a human being with agency.
Cut the crap at work. Plain abusive if not consensual and too complicated for everyone if consensual, though I’m a realist in the latter case.
But so is a younger female friend, who had this to say, if unfelicitously, about a past consensual sexual escapade she was involved in at work. “Tried that. No more. I don’t shit and eat in the same place.”
Try to life backwards. You’ll get in less trouble. Though I’m not sure Merlin saw Mordred coming.
Nigel: Conclusive evidence of sexual harassment ought to be diqualificatory for public office. Period. Whichever side of the aisle.
I don’t disagree with you. But I have what I fondly believe is a realistic view that we can’t solve the entire problem all at once — maybe we should, but it ain’t going to happen. Which, I think, means we have to prioritize.
Yes, we should get there. Yes, the sooner the better. But I don’t want to try to do everything at once, and so end up doing nothing. Or, to put it another way, I don’t want the perfect to become the enemy of the good.
Nigel: Conclusive evidence of sexual harassment ought to be diqualificatory for public office. Period. Whichever side of the aisle.
I don’t disagree with you. But I have what I fondly believe is a realistic view that we can’t solve the entire problem all at once — maybe we should, but it ain’t going to happen. Which, I think, means we have to prioritize.
Yes, we should get there. Yes, the sooner the better. But I don’t want to try to do everything at once, and so end up doing nothing. Or, to put it another way, I don’t want the perfect to become the enemy of the good.
wj, I appreciate what you’re trying to say, but I think you’re simply wrong.
Not accepting harassment means not accepting harassment – of course it’s not ‘going to solve the entire problem at once’.
A change of attitude is just that; it’s not going to change society overnight but without it nothing changes.
This short piece puts it quite well:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2017/11/16/no-man-accused-of-sexually-harassing-a-woman-is-irreplaceable-not-even-al-franken/
wj, I appreciate what you’re trying to say, but I think you’re simply wrong.
Not accepting harassment means not accepting harassment – of course it’s not ‘going to solve the entire problem at once’.
A change of attitude is just that; it’s not going to change society overnight but without it nothing changes.
This short piece puts it quite well:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2017/11/16/no-man-accused-of-sexually-harassing-a-woman-is-irreplaceable-not-even-al-franken/
Seriously Cleek, can you possibly be more of a hypocrite?
until you spend half as much time bitching about the plague that’s eating your party, you can take your phony outrage and shove it right up your ass.
Seriously Cleek, can you possibly be more of a hypocrite?
until you spend half as much time bitching about the plague that’s eating your party, you can take your phony outrage and shove it right up your ass.
sigh
…. that’s eating your party… as you do complaining about the fucking Dems…
sigh
…. that’s eating your party… as you do complaining about the fucking Dems…
no-man-accused-of-sexually-harassing-a-woman-is-irreplaceable-not-even-al-franken
Whatever the body of the piece says, the headline is absurd. I once had a front row seat to an incident of false accusation (of physical violence, not sexual harassment), and to base anything at all on one accusation is over any line I would be willing to cross.
I’d love to see a change in attitudes, and I’m not defending Franken. (Though he has at least had the decency to admit what he did, unlike Moore, and not to glorify it, unlike President Clickbait.)
But I’m curious to know what we’re going to do in the meantime (while we wait generations for a change in attitudes, in the way we teach young people to treat each other, etc. etc.) when we get to the point where twenty-five or thirty percent of the people in Congress have been accused of harassment a la Franken. Throw them all out and start over? (I’m not sure that’s a bad idea, except for the bloodshed. I’m not The Count, for better and worse.)
no-man-accused-of-sexually-harassing-a-woman-is-irreplaceable-not-even-al-franken
Whatever the body of the piece says, the headline is absurd. I once had a front row seat to an incident of false accusation (of physical violence, not sexual harassment), and to base anything at all on one accusation is over any line I would be willing to cross.
I’d love to see a change in attitudes, and I’m not defending Franken. (Though he has at least had the decency to admit what he did, unlike Moore, and not to glorify it, unlike President Clickbait.)
But I’m curious to know what we’re going to do in the meantime (while we wait generations for a change in attitudes, in the way we teach young people to treat each other, etc. etc.) when we get to the point where twenty-five or thirty percent of the people in Congress have been accused of harassment a la Franken. Throw them all out and start over? (I’m not sure that’s a bad idea, except for the bloodshed. I’m not The Count, for better and worse.)
Throw them all out and start over?
ain’t gonna happen. not in one shot, anyway.
half the country doesn’t care about sexual harassment. they won’t even admit it’s a crime, or that it can be proved or that it’s worth caring about (locker room talk, boys being boys).
it’s going to take generations to change attitudes.
Throw them all out and start over?
ain’t gonna happen. not in one shot, anyway.
half the country doesn’t care about sexual harassment. they won’t even admit it’s a crime, or that it can be proved or that it’s worth caring about (locker room talk, boys being boys).
it’s going to take generations to change attitudes.
and, people like McTrollX here, who see every new accusation against someone his team as a reason to talk about Bill Clinton instead of addressing the actual problem just make things worse. they don’t actually care about the problem. they just want to defend their team.
and, people like McTrollX here, who see every new accusation against someone his team as a reason to talk about Bill Clinton instead of addressing the actual problem just make things worse. they don’t actually care about the problem. they just want to defend their team.
half the country doesn’t care about sexual harassment. they won’t even admit it’s a crime, or that it can be proved or that it’s worth caring about (locker room talk, boys being boys).
I’m not sure I’m buying “half the country.” A quarter, maybe — say, to be generous, something like half the men. But definitely not all of us.
half the country doesn’t care about sexual harassment. they won’t even admit it’s a crime, or that it can be proved or that it’s worth caring about (locker room talk, boys being boys).
I’m not sure I’m buying “half the country.” A quarter, maybe — say, to be generous, something like half the men. But definitely not all of us.
Nigel:
“It’s about changing the attitudes of men towards women.”
Absolutely.
It needs to start early and good luck with porn available willy nilly to both the boys and the girls.
As with national security and gun control, the Bill of Rights will need to be abridged.
Nigel:
“It’s about changing the attitudes of men towards women.”
Absolutely.
It needs to start early and good luck with porn available willy nilly to both the boys and the girls.
As with national security and gun control, the Bill of Rights will need to be abridged.
If Jonas Salk had sexually harassed or even raped his secretary, was he a dispensable man?
If Jonas Salk had sexually harassed or even raped his secretary, was he a dispensable man?
Well, The best thing is bob does bitch about both parties almost equally. So we really are fully diverse across the political spectrum. Does that make bob the center of political thought?
Well, The best thing is bob does bitch about both parties almost equally. So we really are fully diverse across the political spectrum. Does that make bob the center of political thought?
We need to figure out a meaningful remedy for something as pervasive as this. And, although Franken was 55 when it occurred, and his behavior was deplorable, I think his record in the Senate has earned him some redemption points.
Men were persuaded that they were okay people even though they did things like this. I’m glad that they are being disabused of that notion, but the Chinese Cultural Revolution isn’t a good model for how we should proceed to right these wrongs.
We need to figure out a meaningful remedy for something as pervasive as this. And, although Franken was 55 when it occurred, and his behavior was deplorable, I think his record in the Senate has earned him some redemption points.
Men were persuaded that they were okay people even though they did things like this. I’m glad that they are being disabused of that notion, but the Chinese Cultural Revolution isn’t a good model for how we should proceed to right these wrongs.
Oh yeah. Note: the woman who accused Franken is a regular on Sean Hannity. Is she a Republican? Course she had some evidence.
So we always believe women? Republicans will definitely be able to use that, and will be able to find corroborating witnesses if needed.
I’m popping popcorn. Democratic Party committed suicide in 2016, if not 2010. Just zombies eating each other’s brains.
Oh yeah. Note: the woman who accused Franken is a regular on Sean Hannity. Is she a Republican? Course she had some evidence.
So we always believe women? Republicans will definitely be able to use that, and will be able to find corroborating witnesses if needed.
I’m popping popcorn. Democratic Party committed suicide in 2016, if not 2010. Just zombies eating each other’s brains.
” And, although Franken was 55 when it occurred, and his behavior was deplorable, I think his record in the Senate has earned him some redemption points.”
What is the statute of limitations? How are these redemption points earned? No one has accused Roy Moore of doing anything in the last 30 years, does that mean he’s ok now? So should people who support his works as a conservative grant him redemption points?
” And, although Franken was 55 when it occurred, and his behavior was deplorable, I think his record in the Senate has earned him some redemption points.”
What is the statute of limitations? How are these redemption points earned? No one has accused Roy Moore of doing anything in the last 30 years, does that mean he’s ok now? So should people who support his works as a conservative grant him redemption points?
Winning isn’t everything.
Winning is the only thing.
Does that make bob the center of political thought?
It’s a quantum entanglement thing. Even I don’t understand it.
Started one of my kind of books, Georg Lukacs The Destruction of Reason 1952. Lukacs was politically complicated, but Stalinist when it was necessary, on the good side in 1956.
Only thing I might mention for now.
Lukacs says the irrationalism unique to capitalism always takes the form of evasion, of seeing the right questions but avoiding the necessary answers. Because the bourgeois don’t want to give up private property for instance.
Evasion, distraction, dissemblance, obfuscation. Useful in thinking about Trump, global warming, inequality, many things.
Winning isn’t everything.
Winning is the only thing.
Does that make bob the center of political thought?
It’s a quantum entanglement thing. Even I don’t understand it.
Started one of my kind of books, Georg Lukacs The Destruction of Reason 1952. Lukacs was politically complicated, but Stalinist when it was necessary, on the good side in 1956.
Only thing I might mention for now.
Lukacs says the irrationalism unique to capitalism always takes the form of evasion, of seeing the right questions but avoiding the necessary answers. Because the bourgeois don’t want to give up private property for instance.
Evasion, distraction, dissemblance, obfuscation. Useful in thinking about Trump, global warming, inequality, many things.
So should people who support his works as a conservative grant him redemption points?
Sure.
Equating the two behaviors really says something about you, Marty, but, sure – people who are judging (me, you, Alabama voters, Minnesota voters, everyone else) can award whatever redemption points they want. I’m letting you know where my redemption points will be awarded.
So should people who support his works as a conservative grant him redemption points?
Sure.
Equating the two behaviors really says something about you, Marty, but, sure – people who are judging (me, you, Alabama voters, Minnesota voters, everyone else) can award whatever redemption points they want. I’m letting you know where my redemption points will be awarded.
She was a regular on Hannity?
Was the woman who led the charge against Moore a part of the echo chamber here?
See, we’re outgunned and outnumbered. It’s war.
She was a regular on Hannity?
Was the woman who led the charge against Moore a part of the echo chamber here?
See, we’re outgunned and outnumbered. It’s war.
“Equating the two behaviors really says something about you, Marty, but, sure ”
I didn’t equate anything. I was asking how it worked. You didn’t specify the full range of “unacceptable” behavior that could achieve redemption points, or how they were earned, or if there should be some standard for them.
So I was just asking, thanks.
“Equating the two behaviors really says something about you, Marty, but, sure ”
I didn’t equate anything. I was asking how it worked. You didn’t specify the full range of “unacceptable” behavior that could achieve redemption points, or how they were earned, or if there should be some standard for them.
So I was just asking, thanks.
Does that make bob the center of political thought?
Works for me. At least as an Overton Window kind of thing.
WTF, we’ve lived in Nixonland, lived through Morning In America, tried the Kinder Gentler Thousand Points of Light, sampled the Bush Doctrine and the Ownership Society (featuring widespread bankruptcies and destruction of lifetimes of carefully accumulated wealth).
I’m up for giving President Lacan a spin.
Note: the woman who accused Franken is a regular on Sean Hannity
LOL. Woodwork squeaks, out come the freaks.
How are these redemption points earned?
Don’t disrobe and grope 14 year olds. Don’t cruise the mall for high school kids. Don’t call kids at school and hit on them.
Do apologize and invite an investigation into the incident, and your own behavior in general.
So should people who support his works as a conservative grant him redemption points?
LOL, literally.
Have you been watching the election in AL?
I’m letting you know where my redemption points will be awarded.
Also works for me.
Does that make bob the center of political thought?
Works for me. At least as an Overton Window kind of thing.
WTF, we’ve lived in Nixonland, lived through Morning In America, tried the Kinder Gentler Thousand Points of Light, sampled the Bush Doctrine and the Ownership Society (featuring widespread bankruptcies and destruction of lifetimes of carefully accumulated wealth).
I’m up for giving President Lacan a spin.
Note: the woman who accused Franken is a regular on Sean Hannity
LOL. Woodwork squeaks, out come the freaks.
How are these redemption points earned?
Don’t disrobe and grope 14 year olds. Don’t cruise the mall for high school kids. Don’t call kids at school and hit on them.
Do apologize and invite an investigation into the incident, and your own behavior in general.
So should people who support his works as a conservative grant him redemption points?
LOL, literally.
Have you been watching the election in AL?
I’m letting you know where my redemption points will be awarded.
Also works for me.
See, we’re outgunned and outnumbered.
Personally, I count myself, and pretty much anybody who hangs out here, as worth at least 10 of anybody who shows up on Hannity.
I’m not afraid of these folks, and I don’t need a gun to feel that way.
See, we’re outgunned and outnumbered.
Personally, I count myself, and pretty much anybody who hangs out here, as worth at least 10 of anybody who shows up on Hannity.
I’m not afraid of these folks, and I don’t need a gun to feel that way.
Well, I’ll answer from my place in the cheap seats. I think that redemption is available for all human beings.
Roy Moore is a shameful p.o.s. without even considering recent accusations of child molestation and stalking.
Al Franken is a national treasure, a Senator seriously committed to human welfare, and did something that was deeply disrespectful and wrong (if we believe the account of someone who has a partisan ax to grind)), for which he immediately apologized.
That’s me playing God. You can make up your own rules.
Well, I’ll answer from my place in the cheap seats. I think that redemption is available for all human beings.
Roy Moore is a shameful p.o.s. without even considering recent accusations of child molestation and stalking.
Al Franken is a national treasure, a Senator seriously committed to human welfare, and did something that was deeply disrespectful and wrong (if we believe the account of someone who has a partisan ax to grind)), for which he immediately apologized.
That’s me playing God. You can make up your own rules.
“Don’t call kids at school and hit on them.”
The weirdest thing I heard today? She then actually went out with him. Really?
“Don’t call kids at school and hit on them.”
The weirdest thing I heard today? She then actually went out with him. Really?
Oh, I see, the victim on Fox is lying as opposed to the victim on CNN? Although the victim on Fox had a F%^&ing picture?
Oh, I see, the victim on Fox is lying as opposed to the victim on CNN? Although the victim on Fox had a F%^&ing picture?
I accused no one of lying.
I accused no one of lying.
Was it today I saw Caribou Barbie being asked if she ever experienced sexual harassment? I think it was. It’s possible I only dreamed it, because her answer was so surreal: not really, she replied with a giggle, because most men know I’m likely to be packing.
–TP
Was it today I saw Caribou Barbie being asked if she ever experienced sexual harassment? I think it was. It’s possible I only dreamed it, because her answer was so surreal: not really, she replied with a giggle, because most men know I’m likely to be packing.
–TP
Does that make bob the center of political thought?
As a bob, i would say, “Whoa, not so much!”
But there is something to be said about swinging them all from lamp-posts and starting over. But the Left wants to save theirs, and the right likewise.
Leaving most of them unscathed.
The parallels of this discussion to discussions about racism are haunting. Can we shoot all the racists, too?
Let me know. Thanks.
Does that make bob the center of political thought?
As a bob, i would say, “Whoa, not so much!”
But there is something to be said about swinging them all from lamp-posts and starting over. But the Left wants to save theirs, and the right likewise.
Leaving most of them unscathed.
The parallels of this discussion to discussions about racism are haunting. Can we shoot all the racists, too?
Let me know. Thanks.
Franken screwed up.
i can think of charitable interpretations of the kiss (misinterpretation of signals, he took a chance that didn’t pan out, etc.). or maybe he’s a lech – need more info. the picture is weird and gross; but it was also done in public and it kindof looks like an attempt at some kind of joke or prank or whatever. so, definitely unacceptable, line crossed.
i did like his statement. i’m glad she accepted his apology. it sounds like she’s not losing any sleep over it.
what Franken did isn’t even close to the same category as Moore.
Franken deserves some kind of reprimand – i don’t know what. Moore needs to be in court.
if Franken has to leave the Senate, Moore shouldn’t ever be allowed on Senate property.
if you want a Democratic analogue of Moore, maybe Anthony Weiner would do. he didn’t get much support from anyone once the details came out.
Franken screwed up.
i can think of charitable interpretations of the kiss (misinterpretation of signals, he took a chance that didn’t pan out, etc.). or maybe he’s a lech – need more info. the picture is weird and gross; but it was also done in public and it kindof looks like an attempt at some kind of joke or prank or whatever. so, definitely unacceptable, line crossed.
i did like his statement. i’m glad she accepted his apology. it sounds like she’s not losing any sleep over it.
what Franken did isn’t even close to the same category as Moore.
Franken deserves some kind of reprimand – i don’t know what. Moore needs to be in court.
if Franken has to leave the Senate, Moore shouldn’t ever be allowed on Senate property.
if you want a Democratic analogue of Moore, maybe Anthony Weiner would do. he didn’t get much support from anyone once the details came out.
“Does that make Bob the center of political thought?”
I’d say it’s more like he has all of us surrounded.
“Does that make Bob the center of political thought?”
I’d say it’s more like he has all of us surrounded.
She then actually went out with him. Really?
I have no idea if she went out with him. I don’t care if she went out with him. Maybe he had a nice car and took her to nice restaurants. Teenagers can be impressionable. Whether she went out with him has no bearing whatsoever on anything we are talking about.
It could very well be that both the woman accusing Moore is lying, and the woman accusing Franken is lying. Much more likely, both are telling the truth.
Maybe Franken was a total asshole. It makes no difference to me either way.
I don’t expect people holding political office to be paragons of virtue. It doesn’t freak me out if Franken laid an unwelcome kiss on a fellow comedian and took a snap of himself pretending to grab her boobs a couple of decades ago. I’d say it was bad form in hindsight. People do stupid stuff. It doesn’t appear that he tried it on again, and it doesn’t appear at this point to be part of a pattern of abusive behavior.
If it turns out that it is, different story.
What would bug me is if he was hitting on his interns. It would bug me if he was sleeping with people working in industries he has some oversight over. It would bug me if he was sleeping with reporters and using that relationship to get information advantageous to him, personally, in print.
I frankly don’t really care all that much if Roy Moore has a thing for young girls, as long as he leaves them the hell alone. If he assaulted a 14 year old and the statute of limitations hasn’t expired, he is and damn well ought to be liable for prosecution. If he was a sufficiently obvious creep to get banned from a mall, I’d say he was probably not a good candidate for the various positions of public responsibility that he’s held. But I don’t live in AL, so that specific thing is not my hash to settle.
Personally, I wouldn’t let the guy walk my dog. But that’s just me.
And hell yeah, however you want to slice it, Franken is not comparable to Moore. As cleek notes, Weiner is a better comparison, and Weiner is all done. He’s been cut loose. Not that anybody needs to keep score, but if you insist, advantage (D)’s.
What strikes me in all of this is that Doc S is 100% on the money. Not only is this crap too common to be a crime, you can pull this stuff and find yourself in the US Senate. It might even provide you with expanded opportunities.
I think that redemption is available for all human beings.
I’ll chime in from the cheap seats as well.
Redemption begins with acknowledging your own wrong-doing.
She then actually went out with him. Really?
I have no idea if she went out with him. I don’t care if she went out with him. Maybe he had a nice car and took her to nice restaurants. Teenagers can be impressionable. Whether she went out with him has no bearing whatsoever on anything we are talking about.
It could very well be that both the woman accusing Moore is lying, and the woman accusing Franken is lying. Much more likely, both are telling the truth.
Maybe Franken was a total asshole. It makes no difference to me either way.
I don’t expect people holding political office to be paragons of virtue. It doesn’t freak me out if Franken laid an unwelcome kiss on a fellow comedian and took a snap of himself pretending to grab her boobs a couple of decades ago. I’d say it was bad form in hindsight. People do stupid stuff. It doesn’t appear that he tried it on again, and it doesn’t appear at this point to be part of a pattern of abusive behavior.
If it turns out that it is, different story.
What would bug me is if he was hitting on his interns. It would bug me if he was sleeping with people working in industries he has some oversight over. It would bug me if he was sleeping with reporters and using that relationship to get information advantageous to him, personally, in print.
I frankly don’t really care all that much if Roy Moore has a thing for young girls, as long as he leaves them the hell alone. If he assaulted a 14 year old and the statute of limitations hasn’t expired, he is and damn well ought to be liable for prosecution. If he was a sufficiently obvious creep to get banned from a mall, I’d say he was probably not a good candidate for the various positions of public responsibility that he’s held. But I don’t live in AL, so that specific thing is not my hash to settle.
Personally, I wouldn’t let the guy walk my dog. But that’s just me.
And hell yeah, however you want to slice it, Franken is not comparable to Moore. As cleek notes, Weiner is a better comparison, and Weiner is all done. He’s been cut loose. Not that anybody needs to keep score, but if you insist, advantage (D)’s.
What strikes me in all of this is that Doc S is 100% on the money. Not only is this crap too common to be a crime, you can pull this stuff and find yourself in the US Senate. It might even provide you with expanded opportunities.
I think that redemption is available for all human beings.
I’ll chime in from the cheap seats as well.
Redemption begins with acknowledging your own wrong-doing.
Incidentally:
We hear a nearly-unanimous, bipartisan call for the Senate Ethics Committee to “investigate” Al Franken — so unanimous that Franken himself agrees. But what’s to “investigate”?
I can think of two main questions for “investigation”:
1) Is Al Franken an unreconstructed lecher?
2) Are the accusations against him true?
Those are two very different subjects. And both are distinct from the question of what to do about or to him.
Now, anybody born before last Tuesday must agree that any serious investigation of the 2nd question would be politically incorrect as far as Democrats are concerned and politically inconvenient as far as Republicans go.
So the Ethics Committee can only investigate (fish for?) other accusers in order to answer the 1st question. I for one will be interested to know what will turn up on that score.
Assume for the sake of argument that the “investigation” finds Franken grabbed a pussy or two in his pre-Senator days. What exactly should the Senate do about it?
I would not object, myself, to a Constitutional amendment changing the qualifications for Senator: citizen, at least 35, and female. It might be the only way to rid the Senate of men who have treated women badly.
Short of that, though, all I have to say is that if I lived in some preposterous State where Roy Moore and Al Franken were running against each other for a Senate seat, I would not hesitate to vote for Franken. Knee-jerk tribalism? Maybe. But I have nieces who are both bright, attractive young women. It may be that both Moore in his dotage and Franken in his contrition would behave impeccably towards either of them in any private setting. OTOH, Franken would neither forbid them an abortion if they needed one nor disparage them for failing to attend church on Sunday; Franken would not vote to pollute their air or raise their taxes in order to preserve loopholes for billionaires; and Franken would most likely not brandish his tiny little lady-like pistol at a campaign rally. That last part is important, because I would not want my nieces to get the idea that “packing” is the best way to ward off sexual harassment.
–TP
Incidentally:
We hear a nearly-unanimous, bipartisan call for the Senate Ethics Committee to “investigate” Al Franken — so unanimous that Franken himself agrees. But what’s to “investigate”?
I can think of two main questions for “investigation”:
1) Is Al Franken an unreconstructed lecher?
2) Are the accusations against him true?
Those are two very different subjects. And both are distinct from the question of what to do about or to him.
Now, anybody born before last Tuesday must agree that any serious investigation of the 2nd question would be politically incorrect as far as Democrats are concerned and politically inconvenient as far as Republicans go.
So the Ethics Committee can only investigate (fish for?) other accusers in order to answer the 1st question. I for one will be interested to know what will turn up on that score.
Assume for the sake of argument that the “investigation” finds Franken grabbed a pussy or two in his pre-Senator days. What exactly should the Senate do about it?
I would not object, myself, to a Constitutional amendment changing the qualifications for Senator: citizen, at least 35, and female. It might be the only way to rid the Senate of men who have treated women badly.
Short of that, though, all I have to say is that if I lived in some preposterous State where Roy Moore and Al Franken were running against each other for a Senate seat, I would not hesitate to vote for Franken. Knee-jerk tribalism? Maybe. But I have nieces who are both bright, attractive young women. It may be that both Moore in his dotage and Franken in his contrition would behave impeccably towards either of them in any private setting. OTOH, Franken would neither forbid them an abortion if they needed one nor disparage them for failing to attend church on Sunday; Franken would not vote to pollute their air or raise their taxes in order to preserve loopholes for billionaires; and Franken would most likely not brandish his tiny little lady-like pistol at a campaign rally. That last part is important, because I would not want my nieces to get the idea that “packing” is the best way to ward off sexual harassment.
–TP
We hear a nearly-unanimous, bipartisan call for the Senate Ethics Committee to “investigate” Al Franken — so unanimous that Franken himself agrees. But what’s to “investigate”?
I’d say the obvious thing to investigate is whether his misbehavior has continued. And whether it has involved people who work for him in the Senate, people in industries which his committees have oversight of, etc.
If so, he should go. If not, he’s a guy who misbehaved, and apparently stopped doing so. Reprehensible, but not disqualifying, absent criminal behavior — which, so far, has not come to light.
We hear a nearly-unanimous, bipartisan call for the Senate Ethics Committee to “investigate” Al Franken — so unanimous that Franken himself agrees. But what’s to “investigate”?
I’d say the obvious thing to investigate is whether his misbehavior has continued. And whether it has involved people who work for him in the Senate, people in industries which his committees have oversight of, etc.
If so, he should go. If not, he’s a guy who misbehaved, and apparently stopped doing so. Reprehensible, but not disqualifying, absent criminal behavior — which, so far, has not come to light.
the flying monkeys have been released: apparently roger stone is on it now.
look for a couple of weeks of illustrated tales of lurid decadence among the Franken era SNL cast.
the flying monkeys have been released: apparently roger stone is on it now.
look for a couple of weeks of illustrated tales of lurid decadence among the Franken era SNL cast.
wj: If so, he should go.
What if the voters of MN then re-elect him?
–TP
wj: If so, he should go.
What if the voters of MN then re-elect him?
–TP
He should. Which is not to say that he will. But that’s go, not necessarily be booted out if the people of his state are daft enough to reelect him. (Remember, this is assuming more damning revelations come out.)
Similarly with Moore. I definitely hope he loses. But if the (sorry, I just can’t say “good”, considering) people of Alabama elect him, I think the Senate should endure him . . . until and unless he abuses his new position. He’ll be an embarrassment, to the Senate, to Alabama, and to his party for as long as he remains. C’est la guerre.
He should. Which is not to say that he will. But that’s go, not necessarily be booted out if the people of his state are daft enough to reelect him. (Remember, this is assuming more damning revelations come out.)
Similarly with Moore. I definitely hope he loses. But if the (sorry, I just can’t say “good”, considering) people of Alabama elect him, I think the Senate should endure him . . . until and unless he abuses his new position. He’ll be an embarrassment, to the Senate, to Alabama, and to his party for as long as he remains. C’est la guerre.
Second in every respect what TonyP said in the last paragraph of his 11.22.
Second in every respect what TonyP said in the last paragraph of his 11.22.
Sorry, have no idea where the italics came from! And have tried, and can’t seem to get rid of them…
wj: That was my screw-up in my previous post. Sorry Fixed now.
Sorry, have no idea where the italics came from! And have tried, and can’t seem to get rid of them…
wj: That was my screw-up in my previous post. Sorry Fixed now.
Further on the painting:
1) Have to disagree with lj. We, outside the painting, are not supposed to identify with the cad leaning over the seat. He is decidedly and deliberately made unattractive in every way. One could imagine a more challenging interrogation of “white knightism” if the male “rescuer” in the painting was handsome, younger, well-dressed, kind and gentle in approach, seated across and diagonally from the woman, etc.
The young lady is looking outside the painting. The “rescuer” is not in the painting.
2) If I could sum up one feminist response to the painting it might be “Why Can’t I Be Left Alone.” Why isn’t the world a place wherein I am safe by myself? This should be taken very seriously in our current discussion of harassment and abuse. We hear this about catcalls, workplace harassment, walking home from school and work etc. I suppose I mostly support this demand.
But to analogize, it also has a form similar to the older demand “why can’t I have rights and protection at work” and the answer to that was “unions”
The answer to the oppression and exploitation by bosses, owners, and capital was unions. (Not sure such a solution to patriarchy, racism and workplaces is available anymore, but leave that aside.
But the protections of collectivism and solidarity always had its costs as much as its advantages. The worker was not free to go to Weinstein’s suite and negotiate a separate contract. Rowling would have made much much less money in a writer’s union. Basketball players face severe restrictions on movement and salary cap.
No, unions and collectives, in return for protection, demand that you not be left alone. They get to sometimes tell you what to do, tell you where you can go.
In the context of the paiting, I can imagine other women on the train surrounding her with protection. I can imagine the young lady moving down the aisle to sit with unfamiliar women. In her state of grief, this will perhaps not be ideal. She wants to be alone. But this is not an option.
Further on the painting:
1) Have to disagree with lj. We, outside the painting, are not supposed to identify with the cad leaning over the seat. He is decidedly and deliberately made unattractive in every way. One could imagine a more challenging interrogation of “white knightism” if the male “rescuer” in the painting was handsome, younger, well-dressed, kind and gentle in approach, seated across and diagonally from the woman, etc.
The young lady is looking outside the painting. The “rescuer” is not in the painting.
2) If I could sum up one feminist response to the painting it might be “Why Can’t I Be Left Alone.” Why isn’t the world a place wherein I am safe by myself? This should be taken very seriously in our current discussion of harassment and abuse. We hear this about catcalls, workplace harassment, walking home from school and work etc. I suppose I mostly support this demand.
But to analogize, it also has a form similar to the older demand “why can’t I have rights and protection at work” and the answer to that was “unions”
The answer to the oppression and exploitation by bosses, owners, and capital was unions. (Not sure such a solution to patriarchy, racism and workplaces is available anymore, but leave that aside.
But the protections of collectivism and solidarity always had its costs as much as its advantages. The worker was not free to go to Weinstein’s suite and negotiate a separate contract. Rowling would have made much much less money in a writer’s union. Basketball players face severe restrictions on movement and salary cap.
No, unions and collectives, in return for protection, demand that you not be left alone. They get to sometimes tell you what to do, tell you where you can go.
In the context of the paiting, I can imagine other women on the train surrounding her with protection. I can imagine the young lady moving down the aisle to sit with unfamiliar women. In her state of grief, this will perhaps not be ideal. She wants to be alone. But this is not an option.
TP:”I would not object, myself, to a Constitutional amendment changing the qualifications for Senator: citizen, at least 35, and female. It might be the only way to rid the Senate of men who have treated women badly.”
And immediately put the GOP in the “okay with Trans people” bandwagon also, too.
TP:”I would not object, myself, to a Constitutional amendment changing the qualifications for Senator: citizen, at least 35, and female. It might be the only way to rid the Senate of men who have treated women badly.”
And immediately put the GOP in the “okay with Trans people” bandwagon also, too.
It seems not to be hard to agree on how we want people to behave in sexual matters:
– all activity must be fully consensual
– children are off limits
– anyone beholden to you at work or study is off limits
– no flirting unless it’s welcome (I assume we can all tell if we try). Because that’s harassment.
– respect privacy.
– no joking about anything rapey.
But what are we to do about politicians who fall short of those standards? I say prosecute them if we legally can, but otherwise it’s up to the electorate. If Moore gets elected, then he should be seated in the senate. That’s democracy.
And now for the difficult part. I think we should be wary of allegations over things which may have happened 10, 20, or 30 years ago. Very few of the alleged victims will be lying, but the truth they tell will be what they remember, not what actually happened. We don’t remember actual events from long ago, we remember our memory of them, edited in the telling and retelling to ourselves and others.
According to Leeann Tweeden, Al Franken stuck his tongue in her mouth eleven years ago, without her consent and against his wishes. According to him, he remembers it differently: who’s right we have no way of knowing. She also says he grabbed her breasts while he was sleeping, but that’s based on a photograph of him not actually grabbing her breasts. He’s right to apologise for the photograph, because it’s a flagrant breach of my “no joking about…” rule, but it’s not evidence of the assault she alleges.
The allegations against Roy Moore concern events nearly 40 years ago. Leigh Corfman says he touched her sexually when she was 14, he says he never met her. If neither of them is intentionally lying, he’s forgotten because he dated a lot of young girls. But it can’t be beyond reasonable doubt that she’s remembered accurately how far things went with him. Based on the known facts, it’s up to the electorate whether they’ll vote for a creep who in his thirties dated young girls.
Finally, whereas almost all allegations now are likely to be honest, there are a lot of very wealthy sponsors in politics, and no obvious limits to how far some people will go to win. If it becomes the case that unverifiable allegations of long-ago misconduct become disqualifying, allegations will appear even if they have to be wholly fabricated.
We want this sort of wrongdoing to stop now, so we should concentrate on fixing the present not the past. Potential perpetrators should be well aware of what’s unacceptable. Their colleagues should hold them to account. And their victims should be able to report them without fear. I hope that in the current climate these things are getting better.
It seems not to be hard to agree on how we want people to behave in sexual matters:
– all activity must be fully consensual
– children are off limits
– anyone beholden to you at work or study is off limits
– no flirting unless it’s welcome (I assume we can all tell if we try). Because that’s harassment.
– respect privacy.
– no joking about anything rapey.
But what are we to do about politicians who fall short of those standards? I say prosecute them if we legally can, but otherwise it’s up to the electorate. If Moore gets elected, then he should be seated in the senate. That’s democracy.
And now for the difficult part. I think we should be wary of allegations over things which may have happened 10, 20, or 30 years ago. Very few of the alleged victims will be lying, but the truth they tell will be what they remember, not what actually happened. We don’t remember actual events from long ago, we remember our memory of them, edited in the telling and retelling to ourselves and others.
According to Leeann Tweeden, Al Franken stuck his tongue in her mouth eleven years ago, without her consent and against his wishes. According to him, he remembers it differently: who’s right we have no way of knowing. She also says he grabbed her breasts while he was sleeping, but that’s based on a photograph of him not actually grabbing her breasts. He’s right to apologise for the photograph, because it’s a flagrant breach of my “no joking about…” rule, but it’s not evidence of the assault she alleges.
The allegations against Roy Moore concern events nearly 40 years ago. Leigh Corfman says he touched her sexually when she was 14, he says he never met her. If neither of them is intentionally lying, he’s forgotten because he dated a lot of young girls. But it can’t be beyond reasonable doubt that she’s remembered accurately how far things went with him. Based on the known facts, it’s up to the electorate whether they’ll vote for a creep who in his thirties dated young girls.
Finally, whereas almost all allegations now are likely to be honest, there are a lot of very wealthy sponsors in politics, and no obvious limits to how far some people will go to win. If it becomes the case that unverifiable allegations of long-ago misconduct become disqualifying, allegations will appear even if they have to be wholly fabricated.
We want this sort of wrongdoing to stop now, so we should concentrate on fixing the present not the past. Potential perpetrators should be well aware of what’s unacceptable. Their colleagues should hold them to account. And their victims should be able to report them without fear. I hope that in the current climate these things are getting better.
I’m with Pro-Bono. It seems to me that there is a continuum of behavior, from the mildly not good to the horrifically bad and in the explosion of accusations it seems like every kind of inappropriate behavior is being treated as if it was of the same seriousness as every other And now apparenlty there are some House Republicans who ant to investigate Bill Clinton’s affairs with adult women (but not Bush’s affairs, or Kennedy’s or Eisenhower’s) and certainly do not want to investigate trump’s behavior which includes rape. So the whole discussion has gotten political, too.
I agree with Trump tha tnow that there is an election underway in Alabama,everyone needs to butt out and let the voters choose. In Third WOrld psuedo democracies, central authorities intervene to ge the elction resuclts they want or to avoid the ones they dont want.
Meanwhile in COngress I thin there should bea proces for people of any gender who feel that their careers or jobs are being threatened for any reason excpet failure to perform the job adequately. And if one party makes unwanted advances to another, I think it shoule be understaoond tha the victim can hit the aggressor over the head with whatever heavy object is handy with no fall out afterwards.
ANd let the voters decide how much they care about accusations and behavior.
If this barrage of accusations continues everyone is going to get burnt out and indifference will set in.
I’m with Pro-Bono. It seems to me that there is a continuum of behavior, from the mildly not good to the horrifically bad and in the explosion of accusations it seems like every kind of inappropriate behavior is being treated as if it was of the same seriousness as every other And now apparenlty there are some House Republicans who ant to investigate Bill Clinton’s affairs with adult women (but not Bush’s affairs, or Kennedy’s or Eisenhower’s) and certainly do not want to investigate trump’s behavior which includes rape. So the whole discussion has gotten political, too.
I agree with Trump tha tnow that there is an election underway in Alabama,everyone needs to butt out and let the voters choose. In Third WOrld psuedo democracies, central authorities intervene to ge the elction resuclts they want or to avoid the ones they dont want.
Meanwhile in COngress I thin there should bea proces for people of any gender who feel that their careers or jobs are being threatened for any reason excpet failure to perform the job adequately. And if one party makes unwanted advances to another, I think it shoule be understaoond tha the victim can hit the aggressor over the head with whatever heavy object is handy with no fall out afterwards.
ANd let the voters decide how much they care about accusations and behavior.
If this barrage of accusations continues everyone is going to get burnt out and indifference will set in.
Here’s an interesting take:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democrats-missed-a-chance-to-draw-a-line-in-the-sand-on-sexual-misconduct/
Here’s an interesting take:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democrats-missed-a-chance-to-draw-a-line-in-the-sand-on-sexual-misconduct/
Meanwhile in COngress I thin there should bea proces for people of any gender who feel that their careers or jobs are being threatened
There is such a process, an office. It consistently fails. In the cases of Senators and Congresspersons, some are around for 30-40 years, and are very powerful.
If this barrage of accusations continues everyone is going to get burnt out and indifference will set in.
Or we could sharpen the contradictions until the system breaks. I recommend women go all-in on this stuff, until for a while higher office is not available to men.
I have no justice objections to a 100% Black Lesbian Senate, and in fact it would make my class criticisms considerably easier as it becomes obvious that economic corruption is intersectional as hell.
Meanwhile in COngress I thin there should bea proces for people of any gender who feel that their careers or jobs are being threatened
There is such a process, an office. It consistently fails. In the cases of Senators and Congresspersons, some are around for 30-40 years, and are very powerful.
If this barrage of accusations continues everyone is going to get burnt out and indifference will set in.
Or we could sharpen the contradictions until the system breaks. I recommend women go all-in on this stuff, until for a while higher office is not available to men.
I have no justice objections to a 100% Black Lesbian Senate, and in fact it would make my class criticisms considerably easier as it becomes obvious that economic corruption is intersectional as hell.
Can they be Muslim black lesbians?
Can they be Muslim black lesbians?
whereas almost all allegations now are likely to be honest, there are a lot of very wealthy sponsors in politics, and no obvious limits to how far some people will go to win. If it becomes the case that unverifiable allegations of long-ago misconduct become disqualifying, allegations will appear even if they have to be wholly fabricated.
Indeed, it is rather a wonder that it hasn’t (IF it hasn’t) been tried already. After all, we have fabricated allegations on all sorts of other things in politics these days.
whereas almost all allegations now are likely to be honest, there are a lot of very wealthy sponsors in politics, and no obvious limits to how far some people will go to win. If it becomes the case that unverifiable allegations of long-ago misconduct become disqualifying, allegations will appear even if they have to be wholly fabricated.
Indeed, it is rather a wonder that it hasn’t (IF it hasn’t) been tried already. After all, we have fabricated allegations on all sorts of other things in politics these days.
Or we could sharpen the contradictions until the system breaks. I recommend women go all-in on this stuff, until for a while higher office is not available to men.
Bob, do you realize that this would be more persuasive if “smash the system” wasn’t your first choice reaction to everything?
Which has the same problem as wonkie is talking about when she says “every kind of inappropriate behavior is being treated as if it was of the same seriousness as every other.” That is, if you want to get something smashed, you would have a better shot at persuasion if you had a fix-not-smash approach a significant portion of the time. Even if you think that smash is always the right answer, calling for it every time is counterproductive. Just sayin’….
Or we could sharpen the contradictions until the system breaks. I recommend women go all-in on this stuff, until for a while higher office is not available to men.
Bob, do you realize that this would be more persuasive if “smash the system” wasn’t your first choice reaction to everything?
Which has the same problem as wonkie is talking about when she says “every kind of inappropriate behavior is being treated as if it was of the same seriousness as every other.” That is, if you want to get something smashed, you would have a better shot at persuasion if you had a fix-not-smash approach a significant portion of the time. Even if you think that smash is always the right answer, calling for it every time is counterproductive. Just sayin’….
Indeed, it is rather a wonder that it hasn’t (IF it hasn’t) been tried already.
reminds me of this classic from Fear and Loathing…
Indeed, it is rather a wonder that it hasn’t (IF it hasn’t) been tried already.
reminds me of this classic from Fear and Loathing…
“I know,” Johnson replied. “But let’s make the sonofabitch deny it.””
Then they swapped out the ballot boxes and the election wasn’t close. No Russians involved.
“I know,” Johnson replied. “But let’s make the sonofabitch deny it.””
Then they swapped out the ballot boxes and the election wasn’t close. No Russians involved.
No Russians involved.
it was a simpler time
No Russians involved.
it was a simpler time
If this barrage of accusations continues everyone is going to get burnt out and indifference will set in.
14x the number of women have accused Trump of sexual assault / harassment as have accused Franken. Trump even has one (admittedly very sketchy) rape accusation against him. Trump has been known to make lewd comments about his daughter. he’s known to have walked into the dressing room where teenage women where changing. he’s explicitly bragged about sexual assault.
the indifference is already very very strong.
If this barrage of accusations continues everyone is going to get burnt out and indifference will set in.
14x the number of women have accused Trump of sexual assault / harassment as have accused Franken. Trump even has one (admittedly very sketchy) rape accusation against him. Trump has been known to make lewd comments about his daughter. he’s known to have walked into the dressing room where teenage women where changing. he’s explicitly bragged about sexual assault.
the indifference is already very very strong.
Then they swapped out the ballot boxes and the election wasn’t close.
This was the 1948 primary run-off against Coke Stevenson. LBJ won the count by 87 votes.
Then they swapped out the ballot boxes and the election wasn’t close.
This was the 1948 primary run-off against Coke Stevenson. LBJ won the count by 87 votes.
So I’ve read three articles in the last hour or so, to add to the rancid sexual assault news of these last days …. regarding the brutal gang rape of a female sex robot at an electronics show (look up Samantha, I believe it was a Guardian article), the renewed importation of slaughtered lion and elephant body parts into the country at the behest of the bed pissing serial sex assault anti science pigfucker in the White House, and the latest on our genocide in Yemen.
I’m in a generalizing mood so I want to cut my dick off and blow up all things human and especially American.
I don’t like us anymore so I’ll be taking a few days off. We’re just fucking predators.
Maybe over the weekend we’ll learn that the NRA has influenced rump to permit the duty-free, tax deductible export of human remains parts from mass shootings like Las Vegas to lighten the regulatory burden on gun owners and funeral homes.
So I’ve read three articles in the last hour or so, to add to the rancid sexual assault news of these last days …. regarding the brutal gang rape of a female sex robot at an electronics show (look up Samantha, I believe it was a Guardian article), the renewed importation of slaughtered lion and elephant body parts into the country at the behest of the bed pissing serial sex assault anti science pigfucker in the White House, and the latest on our genocide in Yemen.
I’m in a generalizing mood so I want to cut my dick off and blow up all things human and especially American.
I don’t like us anymore so I’ll be taking a few days off. We’re just fucking predators.
Maybe over the weekend we’ll learn that the NRA has influenced rump to permit the duty-free, tax deductible export of human remains parts from mass shootings like Las Vegas to lighten the regulatory burden on gun owners and funeral homes.
if “smash the system” wasn’t your first choice reaction to everything?
Perhaps it is only my rhetoric?
I certainly would be very pleased, actually am pleased if there were ten more women Senators, but i feel that claiming as a goal “Ten more Women Senators” while practically on the political ground an admirable project, is, as programmatic rhetoric, along with other such meliorist, incrementalist, gradualist and moderate proposals, so banal, trite and obvious that it serves as political kitsch; the liberal equivalent of Soviet Realist portrayals of Stalin and workers. Or Thomas Kincaid landscapes: sentimental, soporific, the opiate of activists.
Rhetoric should be utopian, revolutionary and catastrophic so that we do not negotiate with ourselves or preemptively cede ground to the inevitable reaction. I don’t want 7% less racism over the next 11 years. I want to end racism now.
if “smash the system” wasn’t your first choice reaction to everything?
Perhaps it is only my rhetoric?
I certainly would be very pleased, actually am pleased if there were ten more women Senators, but i feel that claiming as a goal “Ten more Women Senators” while practically on the political ground an admirable project, is, as programmatic rhetoric, along with other such meliorist, incrementalist, gradualist and moderate proposals, so banal, trite and obvious that it serves as political kitsch; the liberal equivalent of Soviet Realist portrayals of Stalin and workers. Or Thomas Kincaid landscapes: sentimental, soporific, the opiate of activists.
Rhetoric should be utopian, revolutionary and catastrophic so that we do not negotiate with ourselves or preemptively cede ground to the inevitable reaction. I don’t want 7% less racism over the next 11 years. I want to end racism now.
Have to disagree with lj. We, outside the painting, are not supposed to identify with the cad leaning over the seat.
I didn’t mean that the viewer was supposed to identify with the cad, I suggested that the viewer was supposed to see the title of the painting ironically. That means that we are supposed to see the behavior for what it is, predation which is masked by chivalry.
Have to disagree with lj. We, outside the painting, are not supposed to identify with the cad leaning over the seat.
I didn’t mean that the viewer was supposed to identify with the cad, I suggested that the viewer was supposed to see the title of the painting ironically. That means that we are supposed to see the behavior for what it is, predation which is masked by chivalry.
I believe your interpretation is absolutely correct, lj.
I believe your interpretation is absolutely correct, lj.
I believe your interpretation is absolutely correct, lj.
I believe your interpretation is absolutely correct, lj.
Again!
Again!
The photo is DAMNING evidence!!!
… of a juvenile sense of humor.
It is deplorable if it was done to humiliate a woman.
If it is a pattern of behavior it merits government sanction.
IMHO
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/17/us/politics/franken-sexual-abuse-mistake-apology.html?_r=0
The photo is DAMNING evidence!!!
… of a juvenile sense of humor.
It is deplorable if it was done to humiliate a woman.
If it is a pattern of behavior it merits government sanction.
IMHO
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/17/us/politics/franken-sexual-abuse-mistake-apology.html?_r=0
Boys will be boys…..
Boys will be boys…..
I don’t want 7% less racism over the next 11 years.
Actuarial civil-rights activism.
I don’t want 7% less racism over the next 11 years.
Actuarial civil-rights activism.
Is that 7% fewer racist people or all people to be 7% less racist?
Is that 7% fewer racist people or all people to be 7% less racist?
if we could actually reduce racism by 7% every 11 years, in 100 years we would reduce it by about half.
i’d take that in a heartbeat.
if we could actually reduce racism by 7% every 11 years, in 100 years we would reduce it by about half.
i’d take that in a heartbeat.
Boys will be boys…..
The trouble with that position is that it locks in the assumption that change is impossible.
What constitutes “boys being boys” is cultural, not biological. That is, the culture determines what kinds of behavior will be sanctioned (and therefore mostly gets avoided) and what will be shrugged off.
Part of what we are seeing this past week is our culture adjusting where the boundaries of acceptable behavior are. As we have seen, a lot of stuff we individually found beyond the pale was accepted by our culture. Which is, I suspect, a significant part of the reason more women have not come forward sooner.
The good news is, a very real problem is starting to be addressed. The bad news is, there is a tendency to come down on people who were not doing anything particularly exceptional in the culture they were raised in. In short, they (the guys telling crude jokes or patting a woman on the butt, not the rapists!) see themselves on the receiving end of what amounts to an ex post facto standard.
Boys will be boys…..
The trouble with that position is that it locks in the assumption that change is impossible.
What constitutes “boys being boys” is cultural, not biological. That is, the culture determines what kinds of behavior will be sanctioned (and therefore mostly gets avoided) and what will be shrugged off.
Part of what we are seeing this past week is our culture adjusting where the boundaries of acceptable behavior are. As we have seen, a lot of stuff we individually found beyond the pale was accepted by our culture. Which is, I suspect, a significant part of the reason more women have not come forward sooner.
The good news is, a very real problem is starting to be addressed. The bad news is, there is a tendency to come down on people who were not doing anything particularly exceptional in the culture they were raised in. In short, they (the guys telling crude jokes or patting a woman on the butt, not the rapists!) see themselves on the receiving end of what amounts to an ex post facto standard.
MMoore is a theocrat and the reason his supporters continue to support him is they see him as a vehicle for imposing their theology on the rest of hte nation via the Supreme Court. They are probably confused and concerned about why God gave them such a defective vehicle–perhaps to test their faith? but, he is the vehicle, so as God’s soldiers they have to keep marching along with him
MMoore is a theocrat and the reason his supporters continue to support him is they see him as a vehicle for imposing their theology on the rest of hte nation via the Supreme Court. They are probably confused and concerned about why God gave them such a defective vehicle–perhaps to test their faith? but, he is the vehicle, so as God’s soldiers they have to keep marching along with him
what wj said
what wj said
Pro Bono:
– no flirting unless it’s welcome (I assume we can all tell if we try). Because that’s harassment.
I completely agree with your whole comment, even as I’m still mulling over the above bit.
First, I have to confess that I’ve never been any good at flirting, being something of a pompous bore. Also kind of a wimp: even in my hormone-addled youth, I tended to be a bit timid about flirting with girls for the same reason sane Republicans are currently worried about flirting with bible-thumping right-wing “populists”, namely fear of what relationship I might be jumping into. And, since flirting goes both ways, I confess to having felt uncomfortable once or twice about being flirted with.
All that said, I tend to agree that normal, sentient people can generally tell when they’re crossing the line from flirtation to harassment. By “normal, sentient people” I mean “a little brighter than Barney Fife, a lot brighter than He, Trump”, and by “flirtation” I specifically mean the sort of sexual sighting shot that must be the ultimate cause of your existence and mine. Short of arranged marriages, I have to believe the human species would soon die off if flirtation (by either sex) were to become taboo.
Given minimal self-awareness, the flirter knows whether he (or she, for that matter) is courting or bullying the flirtee. And I do mean self-awareness. Courtship — even at its most sincere — can be “unwelcome”. Bullying — sexual or not — is ugly even if the target laughs it off. My distinction is based on the perpetrator’s state of mind, and prior to (even independent of) the victim’s reaction.
Practically nothing is binary, of course. And yet general labels like “flirtation” and “harassment” are fairly useless unless we can confidently apply them to specific acts. The sentient among us can do our best to classify our own acts; only the omniscient among us can be sure of their effects.
–TP
Pro Bono:
– no flirting unless it’s welcome (I assume we can all tell if we try). Because that’s harassment.
I completely agree with your whole comment, even as I’m still mulling over the above bit.
First, I have to confess that I’ve never been any good at flirting, being something of a pompous bore. Also kind of a wimp: even in my hormone-addled youth, I tended to be a bit timid about flirting with girls for the same reason sane Republicans are currently worried about flirting with bible-thumping right-wing “populists”, namely fear of what relationship I might be jumping into. And, since flirting goes both ways, I confess to having felt uncomfortable once or twice about being flirted with.
All that said, I tend to agree that normal, sentient people can generally tell when they’re crossing the line from flirtation to harassment. By “normal, sentient people” I mean “a little brighter than Barney Fife, a lot brighter than He, Trump”, and by “flirtation” I specifically mean the sort of sexual sighting shot that must be the ultimate cause of your existence and mine. Short of arranged marriages, I have to believe the human species would soon die off if flirtation (by either sex) were to become taboo.
Given minimal self-awareness, the flirter knows whether he (or she, for that matter) is courting or bullying the flirtee. And I do mean self-awareness. Courtship — even at its most sincere — can be “unwelcome”. Bullying — sexual or not — is ugly even if the target laughs it off. My distinction is based on the perpetrator’s state of mind, and prior to (even independent of) the victim’s reaction.
Practically nothing is binary, of course. And yet general labels like “flirtation” and “harassment” are fairly useless unless we can confidently apply them to specific acts. The sentient among us can do our best to classify our own acts; only the omniscient among us can be sure of their effects.
–TP
Given minimal self-awareness, the flirter knows whether he (or she, for that matter) is courting or bullying the flirtee.
Actually, I wouldn’t be so sure. In extreme cases, sure. But what we are seeing today is the boundary between the two, as it is generally understood (at least by men) is moving.
Agreed, it needs to move — we need a different understanding. But that doesn’t change the fact that the understanding we had as a culture was different. Specifically, it was both different between men and women, and different across different parts of our culture. You can see that, to some extent, in these graphs
https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/11/daily-chart-14
by age of what behavior is considered acceptable/unacceptable.
The goal posts are moving. That’s a good thing. But it doesn’t change the fact that it is what is happening.
Given minimal self-awareness, the flirter knows whether he (or she, for that matter) is courting or bullying the flirtee.
Actually, I wouldn’t be so sure. In extreme cases, sure. But what we are seeing today is the boundary between the two, as it is generally understood (at least by men) is moving.
Agreed, it needs to move — we need a different understanding. But that doesn’t change the fact that the understanding we had as a culture was different. Specifically, it was both different between men and women, and different across different parts of our culture. You can see that, to some extent, in these graphs
https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/11/daily-chart-14
by age of what behavior is considered acceptable/unacceptable.
The goal posts are moving. That’s a good thing. But it doesn’t change the fact that it is what is happening.
“The bad news is, there is a tendency to come down on people who were not doing anything particularly exceptional in the culture they were raised in.”
Oh, certainly, which is one (of many) reasons that the bitching* from the right about “absolute morality” is so very very stupid.
Slavery was kinda okay in 1860, certainly okay in 860, definitely NOT in 2017.
Things change, hopefully for the better; admit mistakes, learn and grow.
(*this particularly sexist word is NOT okay to use as a noun or adjective, NOT okay to DO as a verb, but if you do, I don’t see why you shouldn’t be called on it, and no gender has a monopoly on bitching about sh!t)
“The bad news is, there is a tendency to come down on people who were not doing anything particularly exceptional in the culture they were raised in.”
Oh, certainly, which is one (of many) reasons that the bitching* from the right about “absolute morality” is so very very stupid.
Slavery was kinda okay in 1860, certainly okay in 860, definitely NOT in 2017.
Things change, hopefully for the better; admit mistakes, learn and grow.
(*this particularly sexist word is NOT okay to use as a noun or adjective, NOT okay to DO as a verb, but if you do, I don’t see why you shouldn’t be called on it, and no gender has a monopoly on bitching about sh!t)
The goal posts are moving.
People are moving the goalposts.
I don’t know how much values and standards are changing. I think in a sense it has always been “wrong” to touch someone’s ass without permission. I think the football coach with his players and the parent with his child on some level recognize that.
Do they have social “permission” or can they get away with it? I don’t think permission works very well, lj can give me permission to fannypat a stranger…won’t work, either internally or externally.
So it’s getting away with it, permission only works, not merely with authority (see war crimes trials or community censure) but with actual on the ground power and privilege.
The structures of social power are changing, as we should expect. And in my Marxian way, it isn’t that women are changing them so much as finding that they fit in a different way now and the social economic political forms find granting them power more useful and efficient than in the past.
This is awkwardly phrased, agency is hard here and abstractions don’t have agency, let us say that the new social forms get internalized and are felt as agency.
“And what is the name of your act?”
“The
aristocratsdialectic”The goal posts are moving.
People are moving the goalposts.
I don’t know how much values and standards are changing. I think in a sense it has always been “wrong” to touch someone’s ass without permission. I think the football coach with his players and the parent with his child on some level recognize that.
Do they have social “permission” or can they get away with it? I don’t think permission works very well, lj can give me permission to fannypat a stranger…won’t work, either internally or externally.
So it’s getting away with it, permission only works, not merely with authority (see war crimes trials or community censure) but with actual on the ground power and privilege.
The structures of social power are changing, as we should expect. And in my Marxian way, it isn’t that women are changing them so much as finding that they fit in a different way now and the social economic political forms find granting them power more useful and efficient than in the past.
This is awkwardly phrased, agency is hard here and abstractions don’t have agency, let us say that the new social forms get internalized and are felt as agency.
“And what is the name of your act?”
“The
aristocratsdialectic”There was something I read, now close to 20 years ago; a result from a survey that something like 70%? 80%? of men would rape an attractive woman if it was sure that there would be “absolutely zero consequences”.
That bothered me a LOT. Not sure if it was some sort of fake-survey result, but it would be bothersome even if someone thought that it would be a result worth faking.
There was something I read, now close to 20 years ago; a result from a survey that something like 70%? 80%? of men would rape an attractive woman if it was sure that there would be “absolutely zero consequences”.
That bothered me a LOT. Not sure if it was some sort of fake-survey result, but it would be bothersome even if someone thought that it would be a result worth faking.
It gets weird.
When I was young, there were times like the one at a party with lots of underage drinking going on when a male friend suddenly showed up and said, “The party got too loud; the police are on their way; please take my gorgeous 17-year-old cousin to my parents’ house in a couple hours.” (Plausible deniability that he’d taken her to that party, and I found out later that his parents assured her parents that “She’s with Mike, it’s cool.”)
There were also things that, looking back from now, I feel bad about.
It gets weird.
When I was young, there were times like the one at a party with lots of underage drinking going on when a male friend suddenly showed up and said, “The party got too loud; the police are on their way; please take my gorgeous 17-year-old cousin to my parents’ house in a couple hours.” (Plausible deniability that he’d taken her to that party, and I found out later that his parents assured her parents that “She’s with Mike, it’s cool.”)
There were also things that, looking back from now, I feel bad about.
he bad news is, there is a tendency to come down on people who were not doing anything particularly exceptional in the culture they were raised in. In short, they (the guys telling crude jokes or patting a woman on the butt, not the rapists!) see themselves on the receiving end of what amounts to an ex post facto standard …
The problem for me with this argument is that it pretty well ignores the half of the population who have seen themselves on the receiving end of this kind of shit for just about forever…
That’s where my sympathy lies.
he bad news is, there is a tendency to come down on people who were not doing anything particularly exceptional in the culture they were raised in. In short, they (the guys telling crude jokes or patting a woman on the butt, not the rapists!) see themselves on the receiving end of what amounts to an ex post facto standard …
The problem for me with this argument is that it pretty well ignores the half of the population who have seen themselves on the receiving end of this kind of shit for just about forever…
That’s where my sympathy lies.
Another interesting article on the Democrat’s reaction to problems in their own party:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/27/liberals-and-sexual-harassment
I’m in accord with the author’s impatience over the whataboutery used to shrug off behaviour which is unacceptable.
Another interesting article on the Democrat’s reaction to problems in their own party:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/27/liberals-and-sexual-harassment
I’m in accord with the author’s impatience over the whataboutery used to shrug off behaviour which is unacceptable.
I’m in accord with the author’s impatience over the whataboutery used to shrug off behaviour which is unacceptable.
Frankin’s behavior demanded a public apology. That happened.
What does “unacceptable” mean, in practice? The electoral system has a built-in mechanism for making that judgment manifest.
I’m in accord with the author’s impatience over the whataboutery used to shrug off behaviour which is unacceptable.
Frankin’s behavior demanded a public apology. That happened.
What does “unacceptable” mean, in practice? The electoral system has a built-in mechanism for making that judgment manifest.
Copying my comment (on the same subject) from LGM:
“This is about whether someone should occupy high political office.”
Okay, then is it better to have someone who has LEARNED a difficult, harsh and important lesson, or one who has NOT?
No evidence so far that Moore or Trump have learned a damned thing, ever.
Copying my comment (on the same subject) from LGM:
“This is about whether someone should occupy high political office.”
Okay, then is it better to have someone who has LEARNED a difficult, harsh and important lesson, or one who has NOT?
No evidence so far that Moore or Trump have learned a damned thing, ever.
also, Franken didn’t attempt to diddle 14 year olds.
also, Franken didn’t attempt to diddle 14 year olds.
No evidence so far that Moore or Trump have learned a damned thing, ever.
……
also, Franken didn’t attempt to diddle 14 year olds
Absolutely correct, on both counts, and necessary to remember.
No evidence so far that Moore or Trump have learned a damned thing, ever.
……
also, Franken didn’t attempt to diddle 14 year olds
Absolutely correct, on both counts, and necessary to remember.
Roy Moore is a christianist mullah. Al Franken isn’t.
That’s all you need to know to decide which of them belongs in the US senate and which doesn’t. It really depends on whether you think Jehovah wrote the Declaration of Indpendence and Jesus was a delegate at the Constitutional Convention, or not.
Even if Franken were accused of exactly the same behavior toward women as Moore, and reacted exactly the same way as Moore, I for one would back Franken over Moore — and defend my choice to all my female friends and relatives.
While the GOP is attempting to rape women and men financially, focusing on individual politicians’ sexual offenses is distraction at best and collaboration at worst.
–TP
Roy Moore is a christianist mullah. Al Franken isn’t.
That’s all you need to know to decide which of them belongs in the US senate and which doesn’t. It really depends on whether you think Jehovah wrote the Declaration of Indpendence and Jesus was a delegate at the Constitutional Convention, or not.
Even if Franken were accused of exactly the same behavior toward women as Moore, and reacted exactly the same way as Moore, I for one would back Franken over Moore — and defend my choice to all my female friends and relatives.
While the GOP is attempting to rape women and men financially, focusing on individual politicians’ sexual offenses is distraction at best and collaboration at worst.
–TP
Someone took a picture of Franken he really couldn’t even get sued for, so yes it isn’t in the same category of the other allegations. But let’s not paint him a saint. He “remembered differently”,denied, the unwanted kiss, which was the worst part of what he did.
So his apology rings hollow to me. But yes, it’s not on the same part of the spectrum as Moore.
Someone took a picture of Franken he really couldn’t even get sued for, so yes it isn’t in the same category of the other allegations. But let’s not paint him a saint. He “remembered differently”,denied, the unwanted kiss, which was the worst part of what he did.
So his apology rings hollow to me. But yes, it’s not on the same part of the spectrum as Moore.
Sorry to change the subject, but bob mcmanus wrote lj can give me permission to fannypat a stranger
I’m not sure why I’d be giving him permission to do that, though I seem to remember that when I was HS, fannypatting in sports was pretty common. I also read an article about Jordan and Scottie Pippen that said that they knew not to fannypat each other because often on their dunks, they landed on their backsides, so they were bruised.
If my memory of fannypatting is correct, and it’s no longer au courant, it’s interesting to wonder why. A first pass might be as homosexuality is more (or less) considered to be acceptable, the fannypat then carries the possibility of sexual meaning, whereas back when I was a kid, to suggest that someone was gay was essentially to book a fight. If this is the case, it’s interesting how the liberalization of some aspect of sexual identity creates a situation that makes other behavior problematic.
Sorry to change the subject, but bob mcmanus wrote lj can give me permission to fannypat a stranger
I’m not sure why I’d be giving him permission to do that, though I seem to remember that when I was HS, fannypatting in sports was pretty common. I also read an article about Jordan and Scottie Pippen that said that they knew not to fannypat each other because often on their dunks, they landed on their backsides, so they were bruised.
If my memory of fannypatting is correct, and it’s no longer au courant, it’s interesting to wonder why. A first pass might be as homosexuality is more (or less) considered to be acceptable, the fannypat then carries the possibility of sexual meaning, whereas back when I was a kid, to suggest that someone was gay was essentially to book a fight. If this is the case, it’s interesting how the liberalization of some aspect of sexual identity creates a situation that makes other behavior problematic.
I’m not sure why I’d be giving him permission to do that
Just random permitter, point being that permission has to come from authority. I hesitated.
Idk, it still seems to me that fannypatting is still and always kinda trangressive, but such a common transgression that interpretations have gotten complicated. I think it works precisely because it is transgressive, like guys punching each other in the shoulder.
It’s transgressive but shows mutual trust, and the trust can’t be there without the transgression. Or with a coach, it shows that the acceptance of the hierarchy marks the personal over the social.
When I was writing about I thought an analogy might be talking about tv shows on company time (or sports, or surfing the net, etc). You’re stealing from the company, everybody does it, there is a mutual complicity.
I’m not sure why I’d be giving him permission to do that
Just random permitter, point being that permission has to come from authority. I hesitated.
Idk, it still seems to me that fannypatting is still and always kinda trangressive, but such a common transgression that interpretations have gotten complicated. I think it works precisely because it is transgressive, like guys punching each other in the shoulder.
It’s transgressive but shows mutual trust, and the trust can’t be there without the transgression. Or with a coach, it shows that the acceptance of the hierarchy marks the personal over the social.
When I was writing about I thought an analogy might be talking about tv shows on company time (or sports, or surfing the net, etc). You’re stealing from the company, everybody does it, there is a mutual complicity.
While in the military, I once had some beers with some British marines at an NCO club. As they were trying to get loaded on 3.2 beer, they spent a lot of time in the heads. While therein, they would fanny pat each other. The American marines thought they were all gay.
While in the military, I once had some beers with some British marines at an NCO club. As they were trying to get loaded on 3.2 beer, they spent a lot of time in the heads. While therein, they would fanny pat each other. The American marines thought they were all gay.
as unsatisfying as it is, i think we’re going to end up with some kind of Dirty Grandpa Exemption (trade; cleek, 2017) where men who clearly sexually abused women in the distant past will be pardoned because things were different then.
we already see this with GHWB and others.
it’s the same kind of thing that lets us revere Washington et al even though they owned salves (and were probably terrible to women, by today’s standards)
as unsatisfying as it is, i think we’re going to end up with some kind of Dirty Grandpa Exemption (trade; cleek, 2017) where men who clearly sexually abused women in the distant past will be pardoned because things were different then.
we already see this with GHWB and others.
it’s the same kind of thing that lets us revere Washington et al even though they owned salves (and were probably terrible to women, by today’s standards)
as unsatisfying as it is, i think we’re going to end up with some kind of Dirty Grandpa Exemption
Less than ideal. But if we manage to get current behavior modified, that would be an enormous step forward.
The last thing we want is to let the (lack of an) ideal solution become an excuse to do nothing. “They did it then, so I should be OK doing it now!” just doesn’t work for me. Even if it means giving some guys a break on some past behavior.
as unsatisfying as it is, i think we’re going to end up with some kind of Dirty Grandpa Exemption
Less than ideal. But if we manage to get current behavior modified, that would be an enormous step forward.
The last thing we want is to let the (lack of an) ideal solution become an excuse to do nothing. “They did it then, so I should be OK doing it now!” just doesn’t work for me. Even if it means giving some guys a break on some past behavior.
The good news is, a very real problem is starting to be addressed. The bad news is, there is a tendency to come down on people who were not doing anything particularly exceptional in the culture they were raised in
besides culture, there is also a question of socialization and maturity.
wj’s comment here makes me think of a friend of mine, a young man who is also the son of friends. he is 26, and is on the asperger’s spectrum. he is very “highly functioning”, which I guess means you wouldn’t really notice he has asperger’s if you didn’ know him well. but, he does.
he’s not socially adept. whether due to asperger’s, or just personal immaturity, he doesn’t always appear to understand what’s appropriate.
long story short, my friend isn’t really good at talking to young women. he’d love to be in a relationship, but doesn’t have much success with it.
a year or so ago, this became an issue. he began approaching younger girls – he’s mid-20’s, the girls he was approaching were as much as 10 years younger – and basically creeped them out and frankly scared them. he’s a physically big guy, which no doubt made things worse.
the parents of the girls were, rightly, disturbed by this. who’s this adult guy making awkward approaches to their high-school age daughters?
he was asked to stop. he stopped for a while, then started again.
it became kind of a thing. an intense, fraught thing. friendships were strained, in some cases ended. a small number of folks, perhaps motivated by issues of their own, accused the young man of planning rape, or worse.
looked at in a certain way, my young friend is arguably guilty of, minimally, being a weird creepy adult man who is hitting on teenaged girls.
looked at another way, he’s an immature and awkward young man who doesn’t really have the social skills to be successful at making good connections with women who are, age-wise, his peers, and who ends up trying to connect with girls who are not appropriate for him to try to connect with.
the end result of this was my friend being basically banned from a community that had been an important part of his life. it was, and continues to be, a source of real pain to him and his family.
i don’t know what the right answer here is. in a perfect world, my young friend would have the social skills to successfully engage with his peers. he doesn’t have them, at least now.
my friend’s issues are largely a function of his neurologocal wiring. for other people, poor socialization and plain old immaturity come into it.
the phenomenon of harassment seems to occur on a spectrum. from rape and assault, to stalking, to creepy and threatening behavior, to inappropriate behavior that makes people uncomfortable.
rape and physical assault is obviously wrong, and should never be tolerated, anyplace or anytime.
what do we do with inappropriate behavior – behavior that makes people uncomfortable, behavior that seems off and weirdly out of context? what do we do with the people who, for whatever reason, engage in it?
can we find a way to give women (or whoever) who are made uncomfortable by some folks’ behavior the sense of safety they deserve, without demonizing people who are, for whatever reason, prone to behaving in inappropriate ways?
The good news is, a very real problem is starting to be addressed. The bad news is, there is a tendency to come down on people who were not doing anything particularly exceptional in the culture they were raised in
besides culture, there is also a question of socialization and maturity.
wj’s comment here makes me think of a friend of mine, a young man who is also the son of friends. he is 26, and is on the asperger’s spectrum. he is very “highly functioning”, which I guess means you wouldn’t really notice he has asperger’s if you didn’ know him well. but, he does.
he’s not socially adept. whether due to asperger’s, or just personal immaturity, he doesn’t always appear to understand what’s appropriate.
long story short, my friend isn’t really good at talking to young women. he’d love to be in a relationship, but doesn’t have much success with it.
a year or so ago, this became an issue. he began approaching younger girls – he’s mid-20’s, the girls he was approaching were as much as 10 years younger – and basically creeped them out and frankly scared them. he’s a physically big guy, which no doubt made things worse.
the parents of the girls were, rightly, disturbed by this. who’s this adult guy making awkward approaches to their high-school age daughters?
he was asked to stop. he stopped for a while, then started again.
it became kind of a thing. an intense, fraught thing. friendships were strained, in some cases ended. a small number of folks, perhaps motivated by issues of their own, accused the young man of planning rape, or worse.
looked at in a certain way, my young friend is arguably guilty of, minimally, being a weird creepy adult man who is hitting on teenaged girls.
looked at another way, he’s an immature and awkward young man who doesn’t really have the social skills to be successful at making good connections with women who are, age-wise, his peers, and who ends up trying to connect with girls who are not appropriate for him to try to connect with.
the end result of this was my friend being basically banned from a community that had been an important part of his life. it was, and continues to be, a source of real pain to him and his family.
i don’t know what the right answer here is. in a perfect world, my young friend would have the social skills to successfully engage with his peers. he doesn’t have them, at least now.
my friend’s issues are largely a function of his neurologocal wiring. for other people, poor socialization and plain old immaturity come into it.
the phenomenon of harassment seems to occur on a spectrum. from rape and assault, to stalking, to creepy and threatening behavior, to inappropriate behavior that makes people uncomfortable.
rape and physical assault is obviously wrong, and should never be tolerated, anyplace or anytime.
what do we do with inappropriate behavior – behavior that makes people uncomfortable, behavior that seems off and weirdly out of context? what do we do with the people who, for whatever reason, engage in it?
can we find a way to give women (or whoever) who are made uncomfortable by some folks’ behavior the sense of safety they deserve, without demonizing people who are, for whatever reason, prone to behaving in inappropriate ways?
can we find a way to give women (or whoever) who are made uncomfortable by some folks’ behavior the sense of safety they deserve, without demonizing people who are, for whatever reason, prone to behaving in inappropriate ways?
There must be a lot of people in this situation, and I can’t imagine how heartbreaking it would be to have a family member who couldn’t manage relationships in this basic way. Even if services are available to help people navigate these issues, I’m sure that there are a lot of people, especially older folks, who are undiagnosed, and possibly reluctant to seek assistance. Thanks for reminding us to think about this.
can we find a way to give women (or whoever) who are made uncomfortable by some folks’ behavior the sense of safety they deserve, without demonizing people who are, for whatever reason, prone to behaving in inappropriate ways?
There must be a lot of people in this situation, and I can’t imagine how heartbreaking it would be to have a family member who couldn’t manage relationships in this basic way. Even if services are available to help people navigate these issues, I’m sure that there are a lot of people, especially older folks, who are undiagnosed, and possibly reluctant to seek assistance. Thanks for reminding us to think about this.
A very good post. I’m reluctant to sign on only because I feel like there is a whole continuum of behavior that is inappropriate but we aren’t able to distinguish between say Franken and Weinstein while it seems that their behavior, what we want out of talking about their behavior, and the penalties for their behavior might all appear on radically different scales.
But on the other hand, it is an important enough problem, too long buried, that insisting on fine distinctions seems like a distraction so I’m loathe to do that too.
But I can answer the coffee question.
“if I was in the business of selling coffee makers, and a bunch of those coffee makers got smashed beyond repair by an earthquake, a hurricane, or a herd of yaks, wouldn’t that increase my sales next month?”
You aren’t understanding the market. Keurig is in the business of selling millions of tiny coffee capsules that get used on a daily basis by their machine. The machine is important mostly because it takes their capsules. If the machine is destroyed, they have lost the lock in for their brand of coffee capsules.
A very good post. I’m reluctant to sign on only because I feel like there is a whole continuum of behavior that is inappropriate but we aren’t able to distinguish between say Franken and Weinstein while it seems that their behavior, what we want out of talking about their behavior, and the penalties for their behavior might all appear on radically different scales.
But on the other hand, it is an important enough problem, too long buried, that insisting on fine distinctions seems like a distraction so I’m loathe to do that too.
But I can answer the coffee question.
“if I was in the business of selling coffee makers, and a bunch of those coffee makers got smashed beyond repair by an earthquake, a hurricane, or a herd of yaks, wouldn’t that increase my sales next month?”
You aren’t understanding the market. Keurig is in the business of selling millions of tiny coffee capsules that get used on a daily basis by their machine. The machine is important mostly because it takes their capsules. If the machine is destroyed, they have lost the lock in for their brand of coffee capsules.
Brennan Lee Stewart
Brennan Lee Stewart
I agree with Seb. Its been frustrating to watch coverage or hear commentary or read articles that treat fratboy clowning as if it was the equivalent of pedophilia or sexual assault, Particularly when the “victim ” of the clowning made it clear by her own behavior (dry humping a soldier, climbing all over Robin Williams, and running on stage to run her butt up against the guitarist’s thigh during a performance I suppose the next claim out of her will be that she didnt want to do any of that, that it was all scripted ans she had to do it etc etc False claims or exaggerated claims are attacks on the real thing. I can see the whole discussion descending into ta welther of argument that just foes on until everyone burns out on it with no real subsgtantive change excep maybe temporary paranoia about touching each other.
I agree with Seb. Its been frustrating to watch coverage or hear commentary or read articles that treat fratboy clowning as if it was the equivalent of pedophilia or sexual assault, Particularly when the “victim ” of the clowning made it clear by her own behavior (dry humping a soldier, climbing all over Robin Williams, and running on stage to run her butt up against the guitarist’s thigh during a performance I suppose the next claim out of her will be that she didnt want to do any of that, that it was all scripted ans she had to do it etc etc False claims or exaggerated claims are attacks on the real thing. I can see the whole discussion descending into ta welther of argument that just foes on until everyone burns out on it with no real subsgtantive change excep maybe temporary paranoia about touching each other.
I do know this: Every single sexual abuser is 100% responsible for their actions and there is nobody else to blame than the person who is choosing to violate another person.
I can agree with that sentiment–but only if the term “sexual assault” is defined to leave out clueless immature behavior that arises from lack of experience, or reciprocal behavior such as is becoming apparent in the Franken situation (she enjoyed sexual teasing in public and initiated behavior that could have been called sexual assault but is now objecting to being on the receiving end herself).
There needs to be room for misunderstandings and poor socialization, and there needs to be an understanding that there is no double standard Behavior that is obnoxious when a man does it is obnoxious when a woman does it
One of my concerns about this topic is the assumption some people have that the female accuser much be believed because anything else is acting on behalf of the patriarchy and shifting responsibility for the event onto the victim. That;s going too far. I have no desire to go back the days when the woman was always wrong, but I think we do need to remember that human affairs are often messy and complicated and sometimes the “victim” was not a victim
I do know this: Every single sexual abuser is 100% responsible for their actions and there is nobody else to blame than the person who is choosing to violate another person.
I can agree with that sentiment–but only if the term “sexual assault” is defined to leave out clueless immature behavior that arises from lack of experience, or reciprocal behavior such as is becoming apparent in the Franken situation (she enjoyed sexual teasing in public and initiated behavior that could have been called sexual assault but is now objecting to being on the receiving end herself).
There needs to be room for misunderstandings and poor socialization, and there needs to be an understanding that there is no double standard Behavior that is obnoxious when a man does it is obnoxious when a woman does it
One of my concerns about this topic is the assumption some people have that the female accuser much be believed because anything else is acting on behalf of the patriarchy and shifting responsibility for the event onto the victim. That;s going too far. I have no desire to go back the days when the woman was always wrong, but I think we do need to remember that human affairs are often messy and complicated and sometimes the “victim” was not a victim
add Jeffrey Tambor and Glenn Thrush to the list of the accused.
add Jeffrey Tambor and Glenn Thrush to the list of the accused.
I can agree with that sentiment–but only if the term “sexual assault” is defined to leave out clueless immature behavior that arises from lack of experience, or reciprocal behavior such as is becoming apparent in the Franken situation (she enjoyed sexual teasing in public and initiated behavior that could have been called sexual assault but is now objecting to being on the receiving end herself).
I apparently haven’t been following all the developments in the Franken saga, but I’m having trouble distinguishing what you’re relaying here from victim blaming crap like, “what did she expect dressed like that.”
The basic problem is that dancing suggestively with the bass player on stage, for example, doesn’t actually imply that you’re consenting to whatever the drummer wants to do to you in the dressing room later.
There needs to be room for misunderstandings and poor socialization,
Not that much room. Distinguished pedigrees aside, these are both actually pretty shit excuses for sticking your tongue down someone’s throat when when they don’t want you to.
and there needs to be an understanding that there is no double standard Behavior that is obnoxious when a man does it is obnoxious when a woman does it
There *is* necessarily a double standard though. A female performer’s butt being rubbed against a male performers crotch has entirely different contexts depending on who is doing the rubbing. That is simply a fact of our society, and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future — it could possibly change, but only after we have put the specter of (overwhelmingly male-perpetrated) sexual assault far enough in the rearview to fade from living memory.
Are both obnoxious? Possibly. But equally obnoxious, or at all equivalent? Nope.
I can agree with that sentiment–but only if the term “sexual assault” is defined to leave out clueless immature behavior that arises from lack of experience, or reciprocal behavior such as is becoming apparent in the Franken situation (she enjoyed sexual teasing in public and initiated behavior that could have been called sexual assault but is now objecting to being on the receiving end herself).
I apparently haven’t been following all the developments in the Franken saga, but I’m having trouble distinguishing what you’re relaying here from victim blaming crap like, “what did she expect dressed like that.”
The basic problem is that dancing suggestively with the bass player on stage, for example, doesn’t actually imply that you’re consenting to whatever the drummer wants to do to you in the dressing room later.
There needs to be room for misunderstandings and poor socialization,
Not that much room. Distinguished pedigrees aside, these are both actually pretty shit excuses for sticking your tongue down someone’s throat when when they don’t want you to.
and there needs to be an understanding that there is no double standard Behavior that is obnoxious when a man does it is obnoxious when a woman does it
There *is* necessarily a double standard though. A female performer’s butt being rubbed against a male performers crotch has entirely different contexts depending on who is doing the rubbing. That is simply a fact of our society, and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future — it could possibly change, but only after we have put the specter of (overwhelmingly male-perpetrated) sexual assault far enough in the rearview to fade from living memory.
Are both obnoxious? Possibly. But equally obnoxious, or at all equivalent? Nope.
There *is* necessarily a double standard though.
I disagree, but think it’s more complicated than a double standard. Nancy LeTourneau has an excellent piece today, with a clip of Rebecca Traister. Although calling out some particularly egregious behavior is appropriate, we also have to look at ourselves (including women) to see where we fit into the cultural picture.
It’s not victim blaming to say that humor based on titties (and Tweeden’s role in enabling that) is furthering the kind of culture that makes it hilarious to pretend to grab breasts. If this kind of humor is so wrong, or if these kinds of values are wrong, we’re all adults, and we’re all taking part. We all need to look in the mirror.
There *is* necessarily a double standard though.
I disagree, but think it’s more complicated than a double standard. Nancy LeTourneau has an excellent piece today, with a clip of Rebecca Traister. Although calling out some particularly egregious behavior is appropriate, we also have to look at ourselves (including women) to see where we fit into the cultural picture.
It’s not victim blaming to say that humor based on titties (and Tweeden’s role in enabling that) is furthering the kind of culture that makes it hilarious to pretend to grab breasts. If this kind of humor is so wrong, or if these kinds of values are wrong, we’re all adults, and we’re all taking part. We all need to look in the mirror.
As a parent I am a total and, if need be, militant anti-sexism/harassment Nazi.
And yet I have to ask: how bloody narcissistic and parochial can we get?
Since the Weinstein revelations 300 people have been killed by a truck bomb in Mogadishu, 450 have died in an earthquake in Iran/Iraq and people are dying like flies in Yemen.
For one article about any of the latter there are 100 about Weinstein et al.
As a parent I am a total and, if need be, militant anti-sexism/harassment Nazi.
And yet I have to ask: how bloody narcissistic and parochial can we get?
Since the Weinstein revelations 300 people have been killed by a truck bomb in Mogadishu, 450 have died in an earthquake in Iran/Iraq and people are dying like flies in Yemen.
For one article about any of the latter there are 100 about Weinstein et al.
And yet I have to ask: how bloody narcissistic and parochial can we get?
Agree.
And yet I have to ask: how bloody narcissistic and parochial can we get?
Agree.
sapient:”It’s about the culture that empowers white men to abuse their power in a million ways”
I watched that clip the other day, and suspending the main discussion, this by Traister (who is pretty good) is of a interesting pattern that has become more pronounced since 2016.
It’s about the culture that empowers white men to abuse their power in a million ways
Well, I’m glad Mugabe or R. Kelly never abused their power.
This has to do with I think a tension between white women/feminists/Democrats and their black counterparts women/feminists/Democrats that has existed since the 1970s. Donna Brazille may be connected to it. Basically I think the unwritten rule in those circles is that white liberal women don’t criticize black men or include them in these discussions.
sapient:”It’s about the culture that empowers white men to abuse their power in a million ways”
I watched that clip the other day, and suspending the main discussion, this by Traister (who is pretty good) is of a interesting pattern that has become more pronounced since 2016.
It’s about the culture that empowers white men to abuse their power in a million ways
Well, I’m glad Mugabe or R. Kelly never abused their power.
This has to do with I think a tension between white women/feminists/Democrats and their black counterparts women/feminists/Democrats that has existed since the 1970s. Donna Brazille may be connected to it. Basically I think the unwritten rule in those circles is that white liberal women don’t criticize black men or include them in these discussions.
It’s not victim blaming to say that humor based on titties (and Tweeden’s role in enabling that) is furthering the kind of culture that makes it hilarious to pretend to grab breasts. If this kind of humor is so wrong, or if these kinds of values are wrong, we’re all adults, and we’re all taking part.
The logical flow here is giving me whiplash. Just to make sure we’re on the same page–
a. Making dumb jokes about breasts (especially one’s own): Mostly OK, at least in the right context.
b. Touching other people’s breasts without their permission, even as a joke: Not OK, ever.
Agreed?
I mean, I get that in some sense these are part of the same general adolescent humor oeuvre. Nevertheless, it seems like there’s a pretty clear line in there that adults can be expected to figure out how not to cross.
We all need to look in the mirror.
That much I’ll agree with.
It’s not victim blaming to say that humor based on titties (and Tweeden’s role in enabling that) is furthering the kind of culture that makes it hilarious to pretend to grab breasts. If this kind of humor is so wrong, or if these kinds of values are wrong, we’re all adults, and we’re all taking part.
The logical flow here is giving me whiplash. Just to make sure we’re on the same page–
a. Making dumb jokes about breasts (especially one’s own): Mostly OK, at least in the right context.
b. Touching other people’s breasts without their permission, even as a joke: Not OK, ever.
Agreed?
I mean, I get that in some sense these are part of the same general adolescent humor oeuvre. Nevertheless, it seems like there’s a pretty clear line in there that adults can be expected to figure out how not to cross.
We all need to look in the mirror.
That much I’ll agree with.
Insufficiently attributed: the italized quote is from Traister in sapient’s clip.
Insufficiently attributed: the italized quote is from Traister in sapient’s clip.
And yet I have to ask: how bloody narcissistic and parochial can we get?
This is an ineffective argument, answered by why are you minimizing women’s concerns, pushing them to the back of the bus, practicing whataboutism, etc.
And I have to somewhat agree, the Mogadishu truck bomb doesn’t affect me or women in any serious everyday way. Sorry.
And yet I have to ask: how bloody narcissistic and parochial can we get?
This is an ineffective argument, answered by why are you minimizing women’s concerns, pushing them to the back of the bus, practicing whataboutism, etc.
And I have to somewhat agree, the Mogadishu truck bomb doesn’t affect me or women in any serious everyday way. Sorry.
It’s about the culture that empowers white men to abuse their power in a million ways
Well, I’m glad Mugabe or R. Kelly never abused their power.
Well, the reality is that some people abuse power. (A depressingly large portion of them, actually.) And, in Western Civilization, those have historically tended to be a) white, and b) male. Other places have other groups . . . behaving the same way. It gains nothing to focus on the differences — no matter the ideological attraction.
Not only do members of other racial/ethnic groups abuse their position when they have a position. I have also observed women doing so as well, when the opportunity arises. They may, perhaps, be a little more restrained; perhaps because of having been on the receiving end in their own past. On the other hand, they (like some members of other racial/ethnic groups) may simply see their new situation a chance to get some of their own back — albeit virtually never against the specific individuals who harassed them.
It’s about the culture that empowers white men to abuse their power in a million ways
Well, I’m glad Mugabe or R. Kelly never abused their power.
Well, the reality is that some people abuse power. (A depressingly large portion of them, actually.) And, in Western Civilization, those have historically tended to be a) white, and b) male. Other places have other groups . . . behaving the same way. It gains nothing to focus on the differences — no matter the ideological attraction.
Not only do members of other racial/ethnic groups abuse their position when they have a position. I have also observed women doing so as well, when the opportunity arises. They may, perhaps, be a little more restrained; perhaps because of having been on the receiving end in their own past. On the other hand, they (like some members of other racial/ethnic groups) may simply see their new situation a chance to get some of their own back — albeit virtually never against the specific individuals who harassed them.
Since the Weinstein revelations 300 people have been killed by a truck bomb in Mogadishu, 450 have died in an earthquake in Iran/Iraq and people are dying like flies in Yemen.
True. I am totally sure that in the absence of the Weinstein stuff, the media would at this time be exhibiting a non-stop outpouring of useful concern for the human suffering in and around Mesopotamia and the Gulf of Aden.
Totally, totally sure.
Back in the real world, I’m just glad that our celebrity gossip receptors appear to have been temporarily hijacked by a meaningful conversation that could lead to some much-needed self-reflection, and hopefully, a few permanent changes.
Since the Weinstein revelations 300 people have been killed by a truck bomb in Mogadishu, 450 have died in an earthquake in Iran/Iraq and people are dying like flies in Yemen.
True. I am totally sure that in the absence of the Weinstein stuff, the media would at this time be exhibiting a non-stop outpouring of useful concern for the human suffering in and around Mesopotamia and the Gulf of Aden.
Totally, totally sure.
Back in the real world, I’m just glad that our celebrity gossip receptors appear to have been temporarily hijacked by a meaningful conversation that could lead to some much-needed self-reflection, and hopefully, a few permanent changes.
So the media should only report and we should only care about things that affect us in a “serious everyday way”?
Jesus Bob, that’s rather weak tea, especially coming from you.
BTW, as I tried to make clear I’m not minimizing anything here, but whatever.
So the media should only report and we should only care about things that affect us in a “serious everyday way”?
Jesus Bob, that’s rather weak tea, especially coming from you.
BTW, as I tried to make clear I’m not minimizing anything here, but whatever.
Making dumb jokes about breasts (especially one’s own): Mostly OK, at least in the right context
If you’ve seen any of the USO clips, they revolve around a woman allowing her body to be ogled and objectified [her choice, obviously, and consensual and fine]. The photograph of Franken pretending to grab the objects [her breasts] is just a riff on that theme, and was apparently intended to be funny.
Sure, I recognize that she didn’t consent to that photograph, which is why I called it “deplorable” earlier. But why was it even imagined to have been funny? What is the cultural context? It’s that her breasts are seen as objects to be grabbed. She participated in reinforcing that concept.
Blaming women (or men) for participating in sex work isn’t my point. Sure, she has a right to do that with her own body, but I think it’s worth talking about how that affects the larger culture. Yes, it’s consensual, but it also feeds an underlying notion that women’s bodies are something for men to evaluate, leer at and grab.
Is there anything wrong with that? Like most people, I’m quite conflicted. I don’t think we should deny our own participation though.
Making dumb jokes about breasts (especially one’s own): Mostly OK, at least in the right context
If you’ve seen any of the USO clips, they revolve around a woman allowing her body to be ogled and objectified [her choice, obviously, and consensual and fine]. The photograph of Franken pretending to grab the objects [her breasts] is just a riff on that theme, and was apparently intended to be funny.
Sure, I recognize that she didn’t consent to that photograph, which is why I called it “deplorable” earlier. But why was it even imagined to have been funny? What is the cultural context? It’s that her breasts are seen as objects to be grabbed. She participated in reinforcing that concept.
Blaming women (or men) for participating in sex work isn’t my point. Sure, she has a right to do that with her own body, but I think it’s worth talking about how that affects the larger culture. Yes, it’s consensual, but it also feeds an underlying notion that women’s bodies are something for men to evaluate, leer at and grab.
Is there anything wrong with that? Like most people, I’m quite conflicted. I don’t think we should deny our own participation though.
Well, the reality is that some people abuse power.
Well, I am not arguing the truth or fairness or privilege and power here, or with Traister on the matter. I may later.
I am just trying to watch some internal dynamics and coalition building and relative power within, say as shorthand the Democratic Party.
Two other places this kind of thing turned up were the Cali gay marriage initiative and the older white feminists (Steinem) attacking the young black women who supported Sanders. We olds can also remember the split in the party during the Thomas hearings, and that Senators like Biden faced pressure from blacks in the party to confirm.
Probably not very important.
Making dumb jokes about breasts (especially one’s own): Mostly OK, at least in the right context
Women and their male and LGBTQ allies get to make that call, and make it retroactively. Deal.
This is about power and privilege and politics and the forces are shifting. Justice, reason, fairness, truth has little to do with it.
For the record, I am skeptical about the most recent accusation against Franken, the ass grabbing at the fair, the one where she says “But the Republican was so nice that day.”
My guess is that as usual, Republicans will play this harder meaner and better than Democrats. Moore will get seated, or replaced by a Republican, and we will lose Franken’s seat in 2018.
Do not for God’s sake nominate a man in 2020, especially Booker. There will be headlines in October.
Well, the reality is that some people abuse power.
Well, I am not arguing the truth or fairness or privilege and power here, or with Traister on the matter. I may later.
I am just trying to watch some internal dynamics and coalition building and relative power within, say as shorthand the Democratic Party.
Two other places this kind of thing turned up were the Cali gay marriage initiative and the older white feminists (Steinem) attacking the young black women who supported Sanders. We olds can also remember the split in the party during the Thomas hearings, and that Senators like Biden faced pressure from blacks in the party to confirm.
Probably not very important.
Making dumb jokes about breasts (especially one’s own): Mostly OK, at least in the right context
Women and their male and LGBTQ allies get to make that call, and make it retroactively. Deal.
This is about power and privilege and politics and the forces are shifting. Justice, reason, fairness, truth has little to do with it.
For the record, I am skeptical about the most recent accusation against Franken, the ass grabbing at the fair, the one where she says “But the Republican was so nice that day.”
My guess is that as usual, Republicans will play this harder meaner and better than Democrats. Moore will get seated, or replaced by a Republican, and we will lose Franken’s seat in 2018.
Do not for God’s sake nominate a man in 2020, especially Booker. There will be headlines in October.
Has anybody taken a look at the wonderful matrix of graphs in wj’s Economist link? Whoever created it knows how to present information visually. (Tony’s 2nd Law: raw data != useful information.) The consistent downward slopes with age certainly show a cultural evolution. The general match between men’s and women’s responses shows that “culture” is made up of both sexes.
Curiously, and a propos recent comments, the biggest consistent spread I see between men and women is in the “Looking at breasts” column. (What, legs don’t matter?) I’m old enough to remember the “lifts and separates” commercials for bras, which I always assumed were aimed at women — but were no doubt (in retrospect) created mostly by ad men.
On the beach of a Greek island, some years ago, I had a pleasant half-hour conversation with a beautiful French woman who was watching over her 3-4 year old son as he played with a couple of my cousin’s little kids. She was topless — not unusual on Mediterranean beaches — and completely not self-conscious about it. She started chatting with me when she heard me speak to her little boy in French. I enjoyed our talk for the opportunity to practice my then-not-so-rusty French skills, but spent the whole of it consciously trying to both avoid looking at her chest and avoid being obvious about it. I must have succeeded both ways, for we carried on as pleasantly as a pair of casual acquaintances at a cocktail party, until the kids went their separate ways.
Was she “flirting” with me? Of course not. Was I “flirting” with her? No. Did she feel “harassed”? No sign of it. Did I feel embarrassed? Maybe, but only to the extent of feeling that I had to be careful not to seem either a lecher or a prude. Was the Mediterranean beach unique and separate from all other settings? I don’t know: would either of us have felt differently if we were at a cocktail party and she was wearing a strapless dress with a plunging neckline?
(This walking-a-fine-line thing reminds of what Voltaire supposedly said when he was invited to a second orgy after having participated in a first one: “No, thank you, my dear. Once, a philosopher. Twice, a pervert.”)
Anyway, I just want to say that women’s breasts seem, universally, to be a touchy subject.
–TP
Has anybody taken a look at the wonderful matrix of graphs in wj’s Economist link? Whoever created it knows how to present information visually. (Tony’s 2nd Law: raw data != useful information.) The consistent downward slopes with age certainly show a cultural evolution. The general match between men’s and women’s responses shows that “culture” is made up of both sexes.
Curiously, and a propos recent comments, the biggest consistent spread I see between men and women is in the “Looking at breasts” column. (What, legs don’t matter?) I’m old enough to remember the “lifts and separates” commercials for bras, which I always assumed were aimed at women — but were no doubt (in retrospect) created mostly by ad men.
On the beach of a Greek island, some years ago, I had a pleasant half-hour conversation with a beautiful French woman who was watching over her 3-4 year old son as he played with a couple of my cousin’s little kids. She was topless — not unusual on Mediterranean beaches — and completely not self-conscious about it. She started chatting with me when she heard me speak to her little boy in French. I enjoyed our talk for the opportunity to practice my then-not-so-rusty French skills, but spent the whole of it consciously trying to both avoid looking at her chest and avoid being obvious about it. I must have succeeded both ways, for we carried on as pleasantly as a pair of casual acquaintances at a cocktail party, until the kids went their separate ways.
Was she “flirting” with me? Of course not. Was I “flirting” with her? No. Did she feel “harassed”? No sign of it. Did I feel embarrassed? Maybe, but only to the extent of feeling that I had to be careful not to seem either a lecher or a prude. Was the Mediterranean beach unique and separate from all other settings? I don’t know: would either of us have felt differently if we were at a cocktail party and she was wearing a strapless dress with a plunging neckline?
(This walking-a-fine-line thing reminds of what Voltaire supposedly said when he was invited to a second orgy after having participated in a first one: “No, thank you, my dear. Once, a philosopher. Twice, a pervert.”)
Anyway, I just want to say that women’s breasts seem, universally, to be a touchy subject.
–TP
But why was it even imagined to have been funny? What is the cultural context? It’s that her breasts are seen as objects to be grabbed. She participated in reinforcing that concept.
Obviously there’s a cultural context here, but I stop short of seeing how it’s relevant or meaningful to say that “she participated”, or that she managed to reinforce that context in any significant way, particularly as an individual.
Women who get up on stages in skimpy outfits are doing so in part because our culture is that way, they’re not in any meaningful sense causing it. Consider a counterfactual cultural universe where women were indeed fully appreciated as human beings, never simply bodies for men to ‘evaluate, leer at, and grab’. I don’t think we’d expect women getting up on stages in skimpy outfits if they chose would alter that society’s fundamental views of women’s value.
No, causality runs almost entirely one direction here.
Even if that weren’t so, suggesting that the women who participate in this system are (partly) responsible for it is at least impractical. What’s the solution? Are we suggesting that all present and future performers whose business involves showing cleavage simply turn down work in some kind of mass boycott? That’s just not reasonable. Many of them may well enjoy it on the merits. Almost all of them probably need the work. Not going to happen.
Now, should comedians, etc. avoid making jokes that excuse or otherwise make light of sexual assault? Yeah, that’s a pretty good minimum standard to hold them to. Should they avoid making jokes that implicitly rely on retrograde cultural contexts where consent or female personhood aren’t things? Also yeah, because, at minimum, just not funny anymore.
Stepping back, should entertainment producers like, e.g., the USO organizers try to raise the standards a little bit all around? Sure. Do we as audiences have a responsibility to raise our own standards and hold all of the above to it? Yep.
But should no one ever joke about sex and sexy bits at all out of fear that someone might get all cloudy and confused and then touch them without consent?
Does not compute.
I don’t care if Franken was sharing the stage with performers doing a straight up live sex show, it would still be entirely on him if he grabbed their boobs later.
But why was it even imagined to have been funny? What is the cultural context? It’s that her breasts are seen as objects to be grabbed. She participated in reinforcing that concept.
Obviously there’s a cultural context here, but I stop short of seeing how it’s relevant or meaningful to say that “she participated”, or that she managed to reinforce that context in any significant way, particularly as an individual.
Women who get up on stages in skimpy outfits are doing so in part because our culture is that way, they’re not in any meaningful sense causing it. Consider a counterfactual cultural universe where women were indeed fully appreciated as human beings, never simply bodies for men to ‘evaluate, leer at, and grab’. I don’t think we’d expect women getting up on stages in skimpy outfits if they chose would alter that society’s fundamental views of women’s value.
No, causality runs almost entirely one direction here.
Even if that weren’t so, suggesting that the women who participate in this system are (partly) responsible for it is at least impractical. What’s the solution? Are we suggesting that all present and future performers whose business involves showing cleavage simply turn down work in some kind of mass boycott? That’s just not reasonable. Many of them may well enjoy it on the merits. Almost all of them probably need the work. Not going to happen.
Now, should comedians, etc. avoid making jokes that excuse or otherwise make light of sexual assault? Yeah, that’s a pretty good minimum standard to hold them to. Should they avoid making jokes that implicitly rely on retrograde cultural contexts where consent or female personhood aren’t things? Also yeah, because, at minimum, just not funny anymore.
Stepping back, should entertainment producers like, e.g., the USO organizers try to raise the standards a little bit all around? Sure. Do we as audiences have a responsibility to raise our own standards and hold all of the above to it? Yep.
But should no one ever joke about sex and sexy bits at all out of fear that someone might get all cloudy and confused and then touch them without consent?
Does not compute.
I don’t care if Franken was sharing the stage with performers doing a straight up live sex show, it would still be entirely on him if he grabbed their boobs later.
I was watching La La Land last night and there is a scene at the movies, spoiler alert I guess, where they position their hands to touch like I remember doing a few times in my youth. It brought to mind that there were other scenes much like that: should I put my hand on her leg, so on. First base, second base, and yes she was always complicit in the game knowing I would stop when she created a barrier or just said no.
Now I was, and am, a socially awkward guy completely mystified by any positive signals I might have been getting. But some of the activities that get described I feel like were some guy waiting to be told no. Or if not, sweet!
Sex is complex, it was more complex thirty or forty years ago. Back then if a guy didn’t try then no one had sex. Well, not really but that was the cultural norm. I don’t believe I ever scared a woman, if I did I can assure you I was more scared than she. But you know, I roaming hands a few times that I got told no.
I was watching La La Land last night and there is a scene at the movies, spoiler alert I guess, where they position their hands to touch like I remember doing a few times in my youth. It brought to mind that there were other scenes much like that: should I put my hand on her leg, so on. First base, second base, and yes she was always complicit in the game knowing I would stop when she created a barrier or just said no.
Now I was, and am, a socially awkward guy completely mystified by any positive signals I might have been getting. But some of the activities that get described I feel like were some guy waiting to be told no. Or if not, sweet!
Sex is complex, it was more complex thirty or forty years ago. Back then if a guy didn’t try then no one had sex. Well, not really but that was the cultural norm. I don’t believe I ever scared a woman, if I did I can assure you I was more scared than she. But you know, I roaming hands a few times that I got told no.
Jack,
Is there a difference between a woman pretending to grab a man’s butt and a man pretending to grab a woman’s breasts? On-stage? Off-stage?
–TP
Jack,
Is there a difference between a woman pretending to grab a man’s butt and a man pretending to grab a woman’s breasts? On-stage? Off-stage?
–TP
Is there a difference between a woman pretending to grab a man’s butt and a man pretending to grab a woman’s breasts?
Are we sure she isn’t just “being on of the guys” while they are playing “grab-ass”?
Seriously, where do we draw the line between genders here. Especially now that we can accept that there are homosexuals among us. (And without the world, or even Western Civilization, ending.)
Is there a difference between a woman pretending to grab a man’s butt and a man pretending to grab a woman’s breasts?
Are we sure she isn’t just “being on of the guys” while they are playing “grab-ass”?
Seriously, where do we draw the line between genders here. Especially now that we can accept that there are homosexuals among us. (And without the world, or even Western Civilization, ending.)
If you grab my ass I better like you or like the way you look or you’re in trouble. No matter which sex you are.
That’s my line in the sand.
If you grab my ass I better like you or like the way you look or you’re in trouble. No matter which sex you are.
That’s my line in the sand.
Is there a difference between a woman pretending to grab a man’s butt and a man pretending to grab a woman’s breasts? On-stage? Off-stage?
You know that thing where you point your index finger at someone and bring your thumb down, like it’s the hammer of a gun you’re shooting at them?
If you’re sitting across the dinner table with someone and they do that to you, does it make a difference whether it’s your kid brother or Kim Jong Un?
Is there a difference between a woman pretending to grab a man’s butt and a man pretending to grab a woman’s breasts? On-stage? Off-stage?
You know that thing where you point your index finger at someone and bring your thumb down, like it’s the hammer of a gun you’re shooting at them?
If you’re sitting across the dinner table with someone and they do that to you, does it make a difference whether it’s your kid brother or Kim Jong Un?
Seriously, Jack, I’m missing the analogy between my question and yours. I can think of scenarios in which I’d feel more threatened by my kid brother (or my kid sister, for that matter), than by Kim Jong Un, “pretending” to shoot me.
–TP
Seriously, Jack, I’m missing the analogy between my question and yours. I can think of scenarios in which I’d feel more threatened by my kid brother (or my kid sister, for that matter), than by Kim Jong Un, “pretending” to shoot me.
–TP
As a good liberal, I submit we create and empower a Department of Double Standards (DDS).
Do not for God’s sake nominate a man in 2020, especially Booker.
I stab pins in my Booker doll every other Sunday. But if he is the Dem candidate in ’20 going up against either Pence or Trump, he gets my vote, or as many as I can get away with casting.
Anyway, I just want to say that women’s breasts seem, universally, to be a touchy subject.
I saw what you did there.
As a good liberal, I submit we create and empower a Department of Double Standards (DDS).
Do not for God’s sake nominate a man in 2020, especially Booker.
I stab pins in my Booker doll every other Sunday. But if he is the Dem candidate in ’20 going up against either Pence or Trump, he gets my vote, or as many as I can get away with casting.
Anyway, I just want to say that women’s breasts seem, universally, to be a touchy subject.
I saw what you did there.
Seriously, Jack, I’m missing the analogy between my question and yours. I can think of scenarios in which I’d feel more threatened by my kid brother (or my kid sister, for that matter), than by Kim Jong Un, “pretending” to shoot me.
Sure. And there are a handful of (mostly carefully crafted) scenarios where a woman pretending to grab someone’s butt would be scary or threatening for the recipient.
And of course there are a metric ton of scenarios where either version could be totally ok with both of them, depending on the particulars of their relationship, camaraderie, etc.
But, being, say, an audience member not privy to those particulars, are you trying to say that one of those doesn’t tend to make you a little more uncomfortable then the other?
What about being on the receiving end, sharing the stage with another performer you barely know? Whose shoes would rather be in?
Are you trying to say there’s no difference in context here?
Maybe it’d help if we made a list of all the abusive show biz relationships, all the serial harassers and sex offenders. Then let’s tally up the ‘male victim/female perpretator’ vs. ‘female victim/male perpetrator’ columns. Should be interesting. I have no idea what to expect!
Seriously, Jack, I’m missing the analogy between my question and yours. I can think of scenarios in which I’d feel more threatened by my kid brother (or my kid sister, for that matter), than by Kim Jong Un, “pretending” to shoot me.
Sure. And there are a handful of (mostly carefully crafted) scenarios where a woman pretending to grab someone’s butt would be scary or threatening for the recipient.
And of course there are a metric ton of scenarios where either version could be totally ok with both of them, depending on the particulars of their relationship, camaraderie, etc.
But, being, say, an audience member not privy to those particulars, are you trying to say that one of those doesn’t tend to make you a little more uncomfortable then the other?
What about being on the receiving end, sharing the stage with another performer you barely know? Whose shoes would rather be in?
Are you trying to say there’s no difference in context here?
Maybe it’d help if we made a list of all the abusive show biz relationships, all the serial harassers and sex offenders. Then let’s tally up the ‘male victim/female perpretator’ vs. ‘female victim/male perpetrator’ columns. Should be interesting. I have no idea what to expect!
Charlie Rose, too.
The flood gates are open.
Charlie Rose, too.
The flood gates are open.
Sure. And there are a handful of (mostly carefully crafted) scenarios where a woman pretending to grab someone’s butt would be scary or threatening for the recipient.
Whether it’s scary or threatening is determined by culture. We need to think about our culture.
Sure. And there are a handful of (mostly carefully crafted) scenarios where a woman pretending to grab someone’s butt would be scary or threatening for the recipient.
Whether it’s scary or threatening is determined by culture. We need to think about our culture.
Whether it’s scary or threatening is determined by culture. We need to think about our culture.
I believe that’s exactly what I’m saying.
Whether it’s scary or threatening is determined by culture. We need to think about our culture.
I believe that’s exactly what I’m saying.
I believe that’s exactly what I’m saying.
I don’t read what you’re saying as that. I read what you’re saying as “Men can easily avoid all of these problems by keeping their hands to themselves.”
And, yes, individual male perpetrators would certainly help a lot of people by doing just that. But they won’t as long as they have the key to power by objectifying women, and seeing them as body parts, Everyone, including women, has to help figure out how that’s done.
Some of this is happening already, because women make more money and are less dependent on men, which is why we’re seeing people called out. Maybe we can sit back and watch the culture change, because it’s changing already. I have a feeling though that life isn’t going to be fair to a lot of folks who are caught in the crosshairs.
I believe that’s exactly what I’m saying.
I don’t read what you’re saying as that. I read what you’re saying as “Men can easily avoid all of these problems by keeping their hands to themselves.”
And, yes, individual male perpetrators would certainly help a lot of people by doing just that. But they won’t as long as they have the key to power by objectifying women, and seeing them as body parts, Everyone, including women, has to help figure out how that’s done.
Some of this is happening already, because women make more money and are less dependent on men, which is why we’re seeing people called out. Maybe we can sit back and watch the culture change, because it’s changing already. I have a feeling though that life isn’t going to be fair to a lot of folks who are caught in the crosshairs.
But they won’t as long as they have the key to power by objectifying women, and seeing them as body parts, Everyone, including women, has to help figure out how that’s done.
Edited to read:
But they won’t as long as they have the key to power by objectifying women, and seeing them as body parts. Everyone, including women, should help to change that.
But they won’t as long as they have the key to power by objectifying women, and seeing them as body parts, Everyone, including women, has to help figure out how that’s done.
Edited to read:
But they won’t as long as they have the key to power by objectifying women, and seeing them as body parts. Everyone, including women, should help to change that.
Objectifying women is pretty much meats favorite phrase as I watch the late night commercials for six pack and and hair replacement and huge chest muscles and penile enhancement.
That’s just crap. Societal definition of attractiveness crossed with individual taste will always be first indicator of overall attractiveness. And big hands.
Objectifying women is pretty much meats favorite phrase as I watch the late night commercials for six pack and and hair replacement and huge chest muscles and penile enhancement.
That’s just crap. Societal definition of attractiveness crossed with individual taste will always be first indicator of overall attractiveness. And big hands.
Meats = my least
Meats = my least
It might also make a difference if it is an actor pretending to do something unacceptable, and a non-actor doing the same.
Other than the (most likely) higher level of skill and craft involved.
It might also make a difference if it is an actor pretending to do something unacceptable, and a non-actor doing the same.
Other than the (most likely) higher level of skill and craft involved.
Marty, presumably you’re not saying that men are objectified as much as women? You can’t believe that, surely?
Marty, presumably you’re not saying that men are objectified as much as women? You can’t believe that, surely?
“I don’t care if Franken was sharing the stage with performers doing a straight up live sex show, it would still be entirely on him if he grabbed their boobs later.”
Can we at least be clear of the facts. Franken did not grab her boobs later.
He made a publicly comical parody of pretending to grab her boobs.
We can decide that is, or is not horrible or maybe somewhere else on the scale between is or is not horrible.
But whatever it is, it isn’t the same as “Franken grabbed her boobs later”.
“I don’t care if Franken was sharing the stage with performers doing a straight up live sex show, it would still be entirely on him if he grabbed their boobs later.”
Can we at least be clear of the facts. Franken did not grab her boobs later.
He made a publicly comical parody of pretending to grab her boobs.
We can decide that is, or is not horrible or maybe somewhere else on the scale between is or is not horrible.
But whatever it is, it isn’t the same as “Franken grabbed her boobs later”.
But whatever it is, it isn’t the same as “Franken grabbed her boobs later”.
Thank you.
But whatever it is, it isn’t the same as “Franken grabbed her boobs later”.
Thank you.
Objectifying women is pretty much meats(sic) favorite phrase as I watch the late night commercials for six pack and and hair replacement and huge chest muscles and penile enhancement.
I am curious. What channels do you watch late at night?
Objectifying women is pretty much meats(sic) favorite phrase as I watch the late night commercials for six pack and and hair replacement and huge chest muscles and penile enhancement.
I am curious. What channels do you watch late at night?
So, somewhat OT, we are apparently planning to deport 50,000 Haitians pretty soon.
Although it’s not really OT. What happens to people who have less power is that they get screwed. Without their consent.
So, somewhat OT, we are apparently planning to deport 50,000 Haitians pretty soon.
Although it’s not really OT. What happens to people who have less power is that they get screwed. Without their consent.
Link fixed.
Link fixed.
So, somewhat OT, we are apparently planning to deport 50,000 Haitians pretty soon.
One of the areas where much of what government does causes more harm than good. And some of it, from my point of view, is straight up out and out evil.
“The war on immigration has taken a great toll on unauthorized aliens, its targets. But it is also badly affecting Americans themselves, its intended beneficiaries. Those who think they can escape the crossfire because they are authorized, naturalized, or native-born, with American ancestors going back generations, are simply fooling themselves.
There are already many ways for American citizens to lose when the government can detain and deport citizens without due process, shut down and criminally penalize businesses that don’t hire from a preapproved pool of workers, treat border towns like they are enemy territory, and raid humanitarian outfits for simply pursuing their missions. If the Trump administration keeps ramping up its crackdown, there will be even more. No one will be safe.”
How Immigration Crackdowns Screw Up Americans’ Lives: The war on immigration has taken a great toll on unauthorized aliens, its targets. But it is also badly affecting Americans themselves, its intended beneficiaries.
So, somewhat OT, we are apparently planning to deport 50,000 Haitians pretty soon.
One of the areas where much of what government does causes more harm than good. And some of it, from my point of view, is straight up out and out evil.
“The war on immigration has taken a great toll on unauthorized aliens, its targets. But it is also badly affecting Americans themselves, its intended beneficiaries. Those who think they can escape the crossfire because they are authorized, naturalized, or native-born, with American ancestors going back generations, are simply fooling themselves.
There are already many ways for American citizens to lose when the government can detain and deport citizens without due process, shut down and criminally penalize businesses that don’t hire from a preapproved pool of workers, treat border towns like they are enemy territory, and raid humanitarian outfits for simply pursuing their missions. If the Trump administration keeps ramping up its crackdown, there will be even more. No one will be safe.”
How Immigration Crackdowns Screw Up Americans’ Lives: The war on immigration has taken a great toll on unauthorized aliens, its targets. But it is also badly affecting Americans themselves, its intended beneficiaries.
My link fixed too. :}
How Immigration Crackdowns Screw Up Americans’ Lives
My link fixed too. :}
How Immigration Crackdowns Screw Up Americans’ Lives
“I don’t care if Franken was sharing the stage with performers doing a straight up live sex show, it would still be entirely on him if he grabbed their boobs later.”
I wont care either. But I do care that the “victim” showed her enjoyment of public sexualized teasing over and over. And if a person enjoys a certain kind of activity three times, it is logical to think that person will enjoy it the fourth time, I do not think that anyone gets to dry hump over people, rub their butt against another person, and to a full on whole body grabbing kiss to a person they are not emotionally connected to and then go oh poor me! Someone groped me! I didnt want it! What Franken did to her was less than what she was doing to other people. He hade absolutley no way of knowing that she would not think it funny to be treated herself the way she treated others. You cant always tell when people are assholes until too late.
“I don’t care if Franken was sharing the stage with performers doing a straight up live sex show, it would still be entirely on him if he grabbed their boobs later.”
I wont care either. But I do care that the “victim” showed her enjoyment of public sexualized teasing over and over. And if a person enjoys a certain kind of activity three times, it is logical to think that person will enjoy it the fourth time, I do not think that anyone gets to dry hump over people, rub their butt against another person, and to a full on whole body grabbing kiss to a person they are not emotionally connected to and then go oh poor me! Someone groped me! I didnt want it! What Franken did to her was less than what she was doing to other people. He hade absolutley no way of knowing that she would not think it funny to be treated herself the way she treated others. You cant always tell when people are assholes until too late.
1) Charlie Rose
tweetstorm:
“A lot going on here: 1) John Conyers settled a serious sex harassment claim and taxpayers are kept in the dark 2) Buzzfeed got the documents from Mike Cernovich.”
Cernovich one fugly Rethuglican. Enjoy your righteousness in Salvation, Laydeeeez. Enjoy ten more years of Trump/Pence.
1) Charlie Rose
tweetstorm:
“A lot going on here: 1) John Conyers settled a serious sex harassment claim and taxpayers are kept in the dark 2) Buzzfeed got the documents from Mike Cernovich.”
Cernovich one fugly Rethuglican. Enjoy your righteousness in Salvation, Laydeeeez. Enjoy ten more years of Trump/Pence.
Delurking to say I was really surprised by Charlie Rose. No great fondness for the guy or his show. However, I guess I am showing my naïveté, because I would not have expected this from him. That soft spoken southern gentleman act was quite effective on me.
Franken I am not sure about. Maybe his show business background coarsened him. But then so far from what I have read it seems the women who have worked with him seem to defend him, so maybe he had one moment of really bad behavior. ( Yes, I have heard of the second accusation. Withholding judgment for the moment, if it is true I expect more women will come forward, since I gather men who squeeze the butts of strange women probably don’t just do this once. Or maybe they do it just twice. Hell, I don’t know.)
Bill Clinton’s scumminess is something I suspect no one really disbelieves. It corrupted the Democrats making excuses for him.
Just read the Buzzfeed story about Conyers. It doesn’t matter that Cernovich is the source— no wait, it does matter because Buzzfeed confirmed the four women exist and do accuse Conyers of nasty things. So why was it Cernovich who found out? There are two interesting questions there— first, are people going after Democrats, but second, has the press been covering this stuff up until now?
One other thing interests me. It seems that our society is a lot sleazier and more corrupt and dishonest than was openly admitted just a month or two ago or else we mostly agreed to look the other way and now, on this one topic, a lot of the sleaze is coming out and the ground is crumbling beneath various abusers and even rapists who had expected the unwritten rules to protect them. I doubt it is the only part of our culture where terrible things happen and for various reasons people in both parties agree to look away.
As for people without power getting screwed by people with it, the NYT Sunday Times magazine just ran a piece saying we are killing far more civilians than our military admits. I expect this story will receive almost no attention. But yes, this is off topic except in a broad sense. As is Yemen, where the Saudis with our help are passing the war crimes stage and are on the verge of committing full fledged genocide. Hell, why not? If we had objections we could cut the military assistance we provide. Will the ground crumble underneath people responsible for these kinds of policies? I would like to see it happen.
Delurking to say I was really surprised by Charlie Rose. No great fondness for the guy or his show. However, I guess I am showing my naïveté, because I would not have expected this from him. That soft spoken southern gentleman act was quite effective on me.
Franken I am not sure about. Maybe his show business background coarsened him. But then so far from what I have read it seems the women who have worked with him seem to defend him, so maybe he had one moment of really bad behavior. ( Yes, I have heard of the second accusation. Withholding judgment for the moment, if it is true I expect more women will come forward, since I gather men who squeeze the butts of strange women probably don’t just do this once. Or maybe they do it just twice. Hell, I don’t know.)
Bill Clinton’s scumminess is something I suspect no one really disbelieves. It corrupted the Democrats making excuses for him.
Just read the Buzzfeed story about Conyers. It doesn’t matter that Cernovich is the source— no wait, it does matter because Buzzfeed confirmed the four women exist and do accuse Conyers of nasty things. So why was it Cernovich who found out? There are two interesting questions there— first, are people going after Democrats, but second, has the press been covering this stuff up until now?
One other thing interests me. It seems that our society is a lot sleazier and more corrupt and dishonest than was openly admitted just a month or two ago or else we mostly agreed to look the other way and now, on this one topic, a lot of the sleaze is coming out and the ground is crumbling beneath various abusers and even rapists who had expected the unwritten rules to protect them. I doubt it is the only part of our culture where terrible things happen and for various reasons people in both parties agree to look away.
As for people without power getting screwed by people with it, the NYT Sunday Times magazine just ran a piece saying we are killing far more civilians than our military admits. I expect this story will receive almost no attention. But yes, this is off topic except in a broad sense. As is Yemen, where the Saudis with our help are passing the war crimes stage and are on the verge of committing full fledged genocide. Hell, why not? If we had objections we could cut the military assistance we provide. Will the ground crumble underneath people responsible for these kinds of policies? I would like to see it happen.
1) Charlie Rose
With there be a clay feet bubble?
1) Charlie Rose
With there be a clay feet bubble?
LJ, I read Donald’s post and asked myself, how much have we looked, shrugged our shoulders, and in effect said, “shikataganai”?
Saying things cannot be changed is how you guarantee that they won’t change. Until someone comes along and you discover otherwise.
LJ, I read Donald’s post and asked myself, how much have we looked, shrugged our shoulders, and in effect said, “shikataganai”?
Saying things cannot be changed is how you guarantee that they won’t change. Until someone comes along and you discover otherwise.
Hi wj, I’m not sure why I was invoked. I’m actually currently involved in a situation where I’m trying to change something that a number of people who I respect are saying it is not a big thing, but I can’t believe that it isn’t.
Also, there was an astonishing incident on Sat, I was out with some people and a person who came along who was totally inappropriate. He came along because one person thought another person knew him and vice versa. Though he wasn’t grabbing breasts, but he was behaving in a totally creepy manner, so much so that when I was with two of the women from the previous nite at breakfast and saw him, I immediately grabbed another person I knew and said ‘ok, you have to sit with us’ because I did not want to possibility of this creep asking to sit down with us. Would we have turned him down? Yes, but I didn’t even want to possibility of him coming up to ask.
It is difficult to explain how he did what he did, but we were at a restaurant that was a ways away and we couldn’t simply get up and leave, we couldn’t move to avoid him and we couldn’t get him to stop behaving in an inappropriate way, he was impervious to any kind of suggestions, all the way up to ‘please stop that’. One thing he did was, when someone was talking, especially one of the women, to loudly say ‘can I tell you a story’ or interrupt and say ‘excuse me, I have something to say’. He was drunk, and an explanation or a request asking him to stop would just have him sit for a moment, nod his head and then start up again.
I’m not sure if this is related to what you ask, but there is something there. The most effective scammers are not those who break norms, they are those who use the norms in a way to extract what they want. The answer is not to break and discard those norms, but to clearly understand the situation. We’ve already seen how Franken’s act, in the space of a handful of comments, has moved from “publicly comical parody of pretending to grab her boobs” to “Franken grabbed her boobs later”. This is why I think it is important to be very accurate about our descriptions, and discuss them clearly. If we don’t, it becomes easy to demonize. Not sure if this makes any sense, so apologies if I’m missing your point.
Hi wj, I’m not sure why I was invoked. I’m actually currently involved in a situation where I’m trying to change something that a number of people who I respect are saying it is not a big thing, but I can’t believe that it isn’t.
Also, there was an astonishing incident on Sat, I was out with some people and a person who came along who was totally inappropriate. He came along because one person thought another person knew him and vice versa. Though he wasn’t grabbing breasts, but he was behaving in a totally creepy manner, so much so that when I was with two of the women from the previous nite at breakfast and saw him, I immediately grabbed another person I knew and said ‘ok, you have to sit with us’ because I did not want to possibility of this creep asking to sit down with us. Would we have turned him down? Yes, but I didn’t even want to possibility of him coming up to ask.
It is difficult to explain how he did what he did, but we were at a restaurant that was a ways away and we couldn’t simply get up and leave, we couldn’t move to avoid him and we couldn’t get him to stop behaving in an inappropriate way, he was impervious to any kind of suggestions, all the way up to ‘please stop that’. One thing he did was, when someone was talking, especially one of the women, to loudly say ‘can I tell you a story’ or interrupt and say ‘excuse me, I have something to say’. He was drunk, and an explanation or a request asking him to stop would just have him sit for a moment, nod his head and then start up again.
I’m not sure if this is related to what you ask, but there is something there. The most effective scammers are not those who break norms, they are those who use the norms in a way to extract what they want. The answer is not to break and discard those norms, but to clearly understand the situation. We’ve already seen how Franken’s act, in the space of a handful of comments, has moved from “publicly comical parody of pretending to grab her boobs” to “Franken grabbed her boobs later”. This is why I think it is important to be very accurate about our descriptions, and discuss them clearly. If we don’t, it becomes easy to demonize. Not sure if this makes any sense, so apologies if I’m missing your point.
That the Republican Party would have the edge in a war of attrition over this abuse issue is no surprise to me. They have much more practiced and ruthless dishers of dirt who know how and are happy to politically weaponize this stuff to the advantage of their party.
They have and eat their cake and won’t share it with gay nuptials.
I’m also certain that liberals do not realize the fucking Civil War with this corrupt grasping republican monstrosity we are on the cusp of.
I’m also quite certain that the Cernovitches of the world and the rump White House would be happy to add pussy grabbing in the name of their God to the list of genocidal depredations we as a country are bestowing upon the Yemeni people.
This morning I read at Kevin Drum that the entire California republican congressional delegation, save one, refused to request federal disaster aid for the coming fires destroyed in the recent fires. Further, Democratic requests for aid are being ignored by the republican junta in Washington, the filth who stole the 2016 presidential election.
Meanwhile, Houston and Florida choke on my tax dollars. Puerto Rico has no power or water.
No country survives this conservative cocksucking bullshit. This one hasn’t the character to survive it either without door-to-door street fighting world-ending calamity.
I
That the Republican Party would have the edge in a war of attrition over this abuse issue is no surprise to me. They have much more practiced and ruthless dishers of dirt who know how and are happy to politically weaponize this stuff to the advantage of their party.
They have and eat their cake and won’t share it with gay nuptials.
I’m also certain that liberals do not realize the fucking Civil War with this corrupt grasping republican monstrosity we are on the cusp of.
I’m also quite certain that the Cernovitches of the world and the rump White House would be happy to add pussy grabbing in the name of their God to the list of genocidal depredations we as a country are bestowing upon the Yemeni people.
This morning I read at Kevin Drum that the entire California republican congressional delegation, save one, refused to request federal disaster aid for the coming fires destroyed in the recent fires. Further, Democratic requests for aid are being ignored by the republican junta in Washington, the filth who stole the 2016 presidential election.
Meanwhile, Houston and Florida choke on my tax dollars. Puerto Rico has no power or water.
No country survives this conservative cocksucking bullshit. This one hasn’t the character to survive it either without door-to-door street fighting world-ending calamity.
I
There are coming fires, but not in that paragraph. Should read “communities”.
Make note to self that auto correct wil perish along with the Republican Party.
If it was up to Kelly Ann Conway, all of Roy Moore’s gropings of teenyboppers would have come with tax cuts.
There are coming fires, but not in that paragraph. Should read “communities”.
Make note to self that auto correct wil perish along with the Republican Party.
If it was up to Kelly Ann Conway, all of Roy Moore’s gropings of teenyboppers would have come with tax cuts.
“They have much more practiced and ruthless dishers of dirt who know how and are happy to politically weaponize this stuff to the advantage of their party.”
There is not an inch of space between the two parties in this regard.
To pretend there is only to make you feel better.
“They have much more practiced and ruthless dishers of dirt who know how and are happy to politically weaponize this stuff to the advantage of their party.”
There is not an inch of space between the two parties in this regard.
To pretend there is only to make you feel better.
Democrats try as hard as Repubs, but as is obvious with say Trump p-grabbing, project too much and are much less competent.
Democrats try as hard as Repubs, but as is obvious with say Trump p-grabbing, project too much and are much less competent.
No, I’ll feel better when liberals. … I don’t give a crap about the Democratic Party …. are exponentially more ruthless on the partisan playing field than the conservative machine.
I don’t want things to resolve to mutual niceness on the political level. I want a partisan Godzilla with snapping jaws of vengeance to eat Kelly Ann Conway.
When Conway applies for Medicare in a decade or so, I want laws in place that say she must show her voter registration card and if there is an “r” on it, she will do without. Her pay stub contributions will be confiscated and distributed to the Other.
No, I’ll feel better when liberals. … I don’t give a crap about the Democratic Party …. are exponentially more ruthless on the partisan playing field than the conservative machine.
I don’t want things to resolve to mutual niceness on the political level. I want a partisan Godzilla with snapping jaws of vengeance to eat Kelly Ann Conway.
When Conway applies for Medicare in a decade or so, I want laws in place that say she must show her voter registration card and if there is an “r” on it, she will do without. Her pay stub contributions will be confiscated and distributed to the Other.
“rape” ? what’s that? it used to mean something. now we just don’t know.
https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2017/11/21/breitbart-editor-chief-word-rape-now-means-any-sex-woman-ends-regretting-she-had/218618
“rape” ? what’s that? it used to mean something. now we just don’t know.
https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2017/11/21/breitbart-editor-chief-word-rape-now-means-any-sex-woman-ends-regretting-she-had/218618
Franken may be a sexist creep with uncontrollable wandering appendages, what do I know, but am I the only one who see that photo as sarcasm poking fun at male obsessions more than poking fun at a sexy woman who sells her wares on stage and keeps them secured behind kevlar when down?
Franken may be a sexist creep with uncontrollable wandering appendages, what do I know, but am I the only one who see that photo as sarcasm poking fun at male obsessions more than poking fun at a sexy woman who sells her wares on stage and keeps them secured behind kevlar when down?
1) Charlie Rose
There is something bandwagon-y about events of the last couple of weeks, and it makes me somewhat hesitant to pile on.
But who the hell walks around co-workers with no clothes on? WTF?
There is not an inch of space between the two parties in this regard.
To pretend there is only to make you feel better.
First, who the hell feels better? Quit trying to read everybody else’s mind.
But I have a question: who is the (D) Roger Stone? Or the (D) Lee Atwater? Or whoever the hell it was who (for example) spread the rumors of McCain’s illegitimate black daughter? I’ll stop there, the list of (R) ratfuckers is really, really long.
I’m not saying such persons don’t exist, I just can’t think of one. Maybe you can.
LBJ is dead. Joe Kennedy Sr. is dead. Total pricks, both of them, although I’d say LBJ had numerous redeeming features. But they’re dead.
Who are you talking about?
1) Charlie Rose
There is something bandwagon-y about events of the last couple of weeks, and it makes me somewhat hesitant to pile on.
But who the hell walks around co-workers with no clothes on? WTF?
There is not an inch of space between the two parties in this regard.
To pretend there is only to make you feel better.
First, who the hell feels better? Quit trying to read everybody else’s mind.
But I have a question: who is the (D) Roger Stone? Or the (D) Lee Atwater? Or whoever the hell it was who (for example) spread the rumors of McCain’s illegitimate black daughter? I’ll stop there, the list of (R) ratfuckers is really, really long.
I’m not saying such persons don’t exist, I just can’t think of one. Maybe you can.
LBJ is dead. Joe Kennedy Sr. is dead. Total pricks, both of them, although I’d say LBJ had numerous redeeming features. But they’re dead.
Who are you talking about?
No, jeff, you’re not alone.
You may be right about what was going trough Al’s mind in that photo, or you may be wrong, but what it shows is Franken NOT groping a woman.
If that woman was a comely but entirely straight-laced reporter, say, the photo might be telling a different story about Franken, but it STILL shows him NOT groping her.
Except in the lecherous imagination of He, Trump of course. But a man who faithfully watches Babes on a Couch every morning on Fox News is likely to get all sorts of ideas in his head.
–TP
No, jeff, you’re not alone.
You may be right about what was going trough Al’s mind in that photo, or you may be wrong, but what it shows is Franken NOT groping a woman.
If that woman was a comely but entirely straight-laced reporter, say, the photo might be telling a different story about Franken, but it STILL shows him NOT groping her.
Except in the lecherous imagination of He, Trump of course. But a man who faithfully watches Babes on a Couch every morning on Fox News is likely to get all sorts of ideas in his head.
–TP
Who are you talking about?
i’ll tell you who we’re not talking about: pedophile Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore.
success.
Who are you talking about?
i’ll tell you who we’re not talking about: pedophile Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore.
success.
Dick Cavett’s big break in show biz happened when he sold a joke to the Jack Paar show, to be used as an introduction to Jayne Mansfield’s appearance on the show: “And here they are, Jayne Mansfield.”
Mansfield’s career was not hurt either. She wasn’t a teenager and she wasn’t a god-botherer. If she had lived and changed careers, say, to chief of staff for John Conyers, I’d have been pleased to hear that she kicked him in the nuts and reported him to the Congressional Quarterly for similar behavior in a different and inappropriate context.
All of these things can co-exist in a society not fraught with sexual and religious denial, confliction, and equivocation.
Priapic humans screw and humans say the Eucharist, and you can do both, but not at the same time, though some give it the old college try.
Men are afraid women are going to laugh at them, but women are afraid men are going to kill them.
Figure it out, fellas.
My late mother would relate a story in which at a party at our house when we were kids, consisting of high level execs and their wives, including my Dad, a guest with a reputation for hands-on drinking got a bit fresh with my mother and she slapped his face and he went on his way into the night.
I don’t believe there was any Marxist analysis going thru her mind at that moment, unless it was the thought of Margaret Dumont pushing Groucho down an elevator shaft, but just a summons to good manners and propriety.
I happen to like bawdy humor, so to me fairness in these matters would be for a female comedy writer to sell a joke to Paar: “And here it is, Milton Berle” or “His reputation precedes him, say hello to Forrest Tucker.” and be named chief of the writing staff with pay higher than the male writers
Look it up.
Bob Hope was described as a “satyr” by anyone who knew him.
June Allyson, the plain but cute girl next door was the horniest female adulteress in Hollywood at the time.
The actress Gloria Graham, who played the small town tarty but oddly virginal Violet Bick, in “It’s a Wonderful Life” was a cradle robber late in life, but unlike her male counterparts, her career suffered, because Hollywood, as a reflection of America, despite conservative claptrap to the contrary, was and is full of shit, just like the shoe industry and the Church.
Dick Cavett’s big break in show biz happened when he sold a joke to the Jack Paar show, to be used as an introduction to Jayne Mansfield’s appearance on the show: “And here they are, Jayne Mansfield.”
Mansfield’s career was not hurt either. She wasn’t a teenager and she wasn’t a god-botherer. If she had lived and changed careers, say, to chief of staff for John Conyers, I’d have been pleased to hear that she kicked him in the nuts and reported him to the Congressional Quarterly for similar behavior in a different and inappropriate context.
All of these things can co-exist in a society not fraught with sexual and religious denial, confliction, and equivocation.
Priapic humans screw and humans say the Eucharist, and you can do both, but not at the same time, though some give it the old college try.
Men are afraid women are going to laugh at them, but women are afraid men are going to kill them.
Figure it out, fellas.
My late mother would relate a story in which at a party at our house when we were kids, consisting of high level execs and their wives, including my Dad, a guest with a reputation for hands-on drinking got a bit fresh with my mother and she slapped his face and he went on his way into the night.
I don’t believe there was any Marxist analysis going thru her mind at that moment, unless it was the thought of Margaret Dumont pushing Groucho down an elevator shaft, but just a summons to good manners and propriety.
I happen to like bawdy humor, so to me fairness in these matters would be for a female comedy writer to sell a joke to Paar: “And here it is, Milton Berle” or “His reputation precedes him, say hello to Forrest Tucker.” and be named chief of the writing staff with pay higher than the male writers
Look it up.
Bob Hope was described as a “satyr” by anyone who knew him.
June Allyson, the plain but cute girl next door was the horniest female adulteress in Hollywood at the time.
The actress Gloria Graham, who played the small town tarty but oddly virginal Violet Bick, in “It’s a Wonderful Life” was a cradle robber late in life, but unlike her male counterparts, her career suffered, because Hollywood, as a reflection of America, despite conservative claptrap to the contrary, was and is full of shit, just like the shoe industry and the Church.
My fury at Leeann Tweeden is because ehe initiated and enjoyed sexually-related groping type behaviors which were NOT part of a skit, just part of how she related to men during that trip. The butt rubbing was not part of a performance–it was just her. The dryhumping, the climbing up Robin WIliiams as if he was a Christmas tree—
ANd it turns out she is a pal of Hannity and has been a Fox employee. And she went to an award ceremony with Franken several years go which she did not have to attend ans was all smiles there NOw suddenly she has been mad at him for years–says so on her “Look at me ” tour of TV news. Mad about what? That he did to her a milder version of what she did to men? .
Leeann is a Republican hit jib, like the Swift Boat Liars. That makes her a threat to every woman who ever experienced real harassment.
And that includes the second woman who a= has accused Franklin. I know the gist of it but I am waiting for details before deciding to believe her or not because of fucking Leeann.
My fury at Leeann Tweeden is because ehe initiated and enjoyed sexually-related groping type behaviors which were NOT part of a skit, just part of how she related to men during that trip. The butt rubbing was not part of a performance–it was just her. The dryhumping, the climbing up Robin WIliiams as if he was a Christmas tree—
ANd it turns out she is a pal of Hannity and has been a Fox employee. And she went to an award ceremony with Franken several years go which she did not have to attend ans was all smiles there NOw suddenly she has been mad at him for years–says so on her “Look at me ” tour of TV news. Mad about what? That he did to her a milder version of what she did to men? .
Leeann is a Republican hit jib, like the Swift Boat Liars. That makes her a threat to every woman who ever experienced real harassment.
And that includes the second woman who a= has accused Franklin. I know the gist of it but I am waiting for details before deciding to believe her or not because of fucking Leeann.
Gloria Grahame, Woody Allen.
Compare and contrast.
Gloria Grahame, Woody Allen.
Compare and contrast.
“But who the hell walks around coworkers with no clothes on!”
Men who didn’t get the memo that they are supposed to be afraid women are going to laugh at them.
Obviously,, there is some other reaction, probably dominating and chimp-like, while simultaneously pathetic, in Rose’s mind, that he is angling for or signaling. He’s getting the male excitement with the visual confused with what is going on in female minds, which are much more compartamentalized on these matters.
As Elaine Benes said in Seinfeld in response to one of the guys joking that what would she think if men just walked around naked: “hmmm, no. That’s just not a good look.”
“But who the hell walks around coworkers with no clothes on!”
Men who didn’t get the memo that they are supposed to be afraid women are going to laugh at them.
Obviously,, there is some other reaction, probably dominating and chimp-like, while simultaneously pathetic, in Rose’s mind, that he is angling for or signaling. He’s getting the male excitement with the visual confused with what is going on in female minds, which are much more compartamentalized on these matters.
As Elaine Benes said in Seinfeld in response to one of the guys joking that what would she think if men just walked around naked: “hmmm, no. That’s just not a good look.”
The Count mentioned Jayne Mansfield, reminding me that back in the day when I used to actually watch TV, Law and Order: Special Victims Unit was a favorite. Mariska Hargitay, who played Olivia Benson, was the daughter of people whose names were big in gossipy headlines when I was a child: Jayne Mansfield and Mickey Hargitay.
Mariska Hargitay’s major charity work is with Joyful Heart Foundation, an organization [she] established in 2004 to provide support to survivors of sexual assault, domestic violence, and child abuse
The Count mentioned Jayne Mansfield, reminding me that back in the day when I used to actually watch TV, Law and Order: Special Victims Unit was a favorite. Mariska Hargitay, who played Olivia Benson, was the daughter of people whose names were big in gossipy headlines when I was a child: Jayne Mansfield and Mickey Hargitay.
Mariska Hargitay’s major charity work is with Joyful Heart Foundation, an organization [she] established in 2004 to provide support to survivors of sexual assault, domestic violence, and child abuse
Maybe this stuff is related to the male attitude exemplified by the Koch Brothers, who said, when asked what they thought they were doing stealing oil out from under Indian Reservations, “I want my share, and by share, I mean all of it.”
Patty fingers by other means.
Maybe this stuff is related to the male attitude exemplified by the Koch Brothers, who said, when asked what they thought they were doing stealing oil out from under Indian Reservations, “I want my share, and by share, I mean all of it.”
Patty fingers by other means.
If any Republican ever wrote what wonkie wrote at 10:39 the response would be immediate and overwhelming. Even if I kind of agree with her on motive, questioning the integrity of the accuser is just blaming the victim. Ask anyone.
Because Roy Moore, as creepy as he is, went out with 14 year old girls, with there parents permission and theirs. He didn’t kidnap anyone, he didn’t actually pick anyone up at the mall, when he called the school, creepy as that is, the girl said yes she would like to go out with him.
She was 16, age of consent. There is only one account of him forcibly attacking someone, and it is the Gloria Allred represented person that came late to the party.
So should we excuse him.
Well no, certainly not, but a tale can be spun to justify anything. That’s what is happening with Franken. The picture really doesn’t show him touching her, she participated in sluttyy behavior, he didn’t really force the kiss on her.
If any Republican ever wrote what wonkie wrote at 10:39 the response would be immediate and overwhelming. Even if I kind of agree with her on motive, questioning the integrity of the accuser is just blaming the victim. Ask anyone.
Because Roy Moore, as creepy as he is, went out with 14 year old girls, with there parents permission and theirs. He didn’t kidnap anyone, he didn’t actually pick anyone up at the mall, when he called the school, creepy as that is, the girl said yes she would like to go out with him.
She was 16, age of consent. There is only one account of him forcibly attacking someone, and it is the Gloria Allred represented person that came late to the party.
So should we excuse him.
Well no, certainly not, but a tale can be spun to justify anything. That’s what is happening with Franken. The picture really doesn’t show him touching her, she participated in sluttyy behavior, he didn’t really force the kiss on her.
I don’t read what you’re saying as that. I read what you’re saying as “Men can easily avoid all of these problems by keeping their hands to themselves.”
I’m not even sure how to parse that. If by “all of these problems” you mean “being personally accused of sexual assault”, then yes. In part I am saying that. Or was upthread.
Now, obviously, in the context of practical solutions to the systemic problems of misogyny, rape culture and abuse of power, “keep your hands to yourself” is a solution in the same way that “don’t do drugs” is a cure for substance abuse. The real change does have to come from somewhere else. It’s important to keep straight what and where the actual problem is though,
But they won’t as long as they have the key to power by objectifying women, and seeing them as body parts, Everyone, including women, has to help figure out how that’s done.
Let’s back up a bit.
This digression started with the comment where you linked to the Traister video. That’s a solid clip, and I appreciate the pointer. I took her thesis to be 1) that the simplistic media focus on punishment of individuals is often misplaced — recognition, apology and reconciliation are at least as as important, and 2) that all of us are on the front lines of this; yelling back and forth about which public figures heads to chop off is easy, but examining the ways we might be enabling or encouraging this stuff in our actual daily lives is much more difficult.
Both of those are excellent points, and a big part of that ‘real change’ up above.
And if you’d stopped there, that would have been great. But then there was this:
It’s not victim blaming to say that humor based on titties (and Tweeden’s role in enabling that) is furthering the kind of culture that makes it hilarious to pretend to grab breasts. If this kind of humor is so wrong, or if these kinds of values are wrong, we’re all adults, and we’re all taking part. We all need to look in the mirror.
Even leaving the parenthetical aside for the moment, that strikes me as kind of a weird comment.
Traister’s point was (AFAICT) highly concrete: she talked about the problem with culture generally, but then mapped that straight onto the personal level, “our husbands, our friends, ourselves.” That makes a ton of sense, as that level is ultimately the only place we as individuals actually have any power over culture. Everything else is jeering from the sidelines.
Your paragraph doesn’t sound very self reflective in that way though. You remind us to look in the mirror at the end, but the rest is about the harm possibly caused by making and laughing at titty jokes.
Ok, I mean, maybe your personal environment has a lot more titty jokes than mine does, and you’ve decided you need to stop enabling them. I dunno. Good on you.
Except… There’s that oddly specific calling out of Tweeden. And “it’s not victim blaming to say” looks an awful lot like “I’m not a racist, but” in this instance. I mean, that is quite literally victim blaming. And you went out of your way to jeer from the sidelines at Tweeden’s supposed faults in a context that was supposed to be about reflecting on what we ourselves can do.
Traister’s points are great. Coming up with other ways to move forward is great. Implying that Tweeden was in any way complicit merely by being professionally sexy on stage is neither coherent nor helpful.
I don’t read what you’re saying as that. I read what you’re saying as “Men can easily avoid all of these problems by keeping their hands to themselves.”
I’m not even sure how to parse that. If by “all of these problems” you mean “being personally accused of sexual assault”, then yes. In part I am saying that. Or was upthread.
Now, obviously, in the context of practical solutions to the systemic problems of misogyny, rape culture and abuse of power, “keep your hands to yourself” is a solution in the same way that “don’t do drugs” is a cure for substance abuse. The real change does have to come from somewhere else. It’s important to keep straight what and where the actual problem is though,
But they won’t as long as they have the key to power by objectifying women, and seeing them as body parts, Everyone, including women, has to help figure out how that’s done.
Let’s back up a bit.
This digression started with the comment where you linked to the Traister video. That’s a solid clip, and I appreciate the pointer. I took her thesis to be 1) that the simplistic media focus on punishment of individuals is often misplaced — recognition, apology and reconciliation are at least as as important, and 2) that all of us are on the front lines of this; yelling back and forth about which public figures heads to chop off is easy, but examining the ways we might be enabling or encouraging this stuff in our actual daily lives is much more difficult.
Both of those are excellent points, and a big part of that ‘real change’ up above.
And if you’d stopped there, that would have been great. But then there was this:
It’s not victim blaming to say that humor based on titties (and Tweeden’s role in enabling that) is furthering the kind of culture that makes it hilarious to pretend to grab breasts. If this kind of humor is so wrong, or if these kinds of values are wrong, we’re all adults, and we’re all taking part. We all need to look in the mirror.
Even leaving the parenthetical aside for the moment, that strikes me as kind of a weird comment.
Traister’s point was (AFAICT) highly concrete: she talked about the problem with culture generally, but then mapped that straight onto the personal level, “our husbands, our friends, ourselves.” That makes a ton of sense, as that level is ultimately the only place we as individuals actually have any power over culture. Everything else is jeering from the sidelines.
Your paragraph doesn’t sound very self reflective in that way though. You remind us to look in the mirror at the end, but the rest is about the harm possibly caused by making and laughing at titty jokes.
Ok, I mean, maybe your personal environment has a lot more titty jokes than mine does, and you’ve decided you need to stop enabling them. I dunno. Good on you.
Except… There’s that oddly specific calling out of Tweeden. And “it’s not victim blaming to say” looks an awful lot like “I’m not a racist, but” in this instance. I mean, that is quite literally victim blaming. And you went out of your way to jeer from the sidelines at Tweeden’s supposed faults in a context that was supposed to be about reflecting on what we ourselves can do.
Traister’s points are great. Coming up with other ways to move forward is great. Implying that Tweeden was in any way complicit merely by being professionally sexy on stage is neither coherent nor helpful.
Because Roy Moore, as creepy as he is, went out with 14 year old girls, with there parents permission and theirs.
14 year old girls can’t give permission: they’re minors.
and it’s illegal regardless of parental permission – and according to current law there is no statue of limitations on what he did.
and Moore’s 14 year old target seems pretty upset about it, still. and she’s been telling anyone who would listen about the incident, for the past 40 years.
Because Roy Moore, as creepy as he is, went out with 14 year old girls, with there parents permission and theirs.
14 year old girls can’t give permission: they’re minors.
and it’s illegal regardless of parental permission – and according to current law there is no statue of limitations on what he did.
and Moore’s 14 year old target seems pretty upset about it, still. and she’s been telling anyone who would listen about the incident, for the past 40 years.
Woody Allen is funnier.
But this raises another sideboard. I’m not going to stop watching and enjoying Allen’s or Graham’s entertainments because of their private behaviors. I won’t stop watching Franken SNL skits. I’m not going to avoid Weinstein produced movies, or Polanski films or Kevin Spacey movies.
I can still enjoy Rock Hudson romps with Doris Day.
I’ll not twirl the dial because the Phil Spector produced Ronettes are on.
Unlike some, such as Roy Moore and his God botherers, I can spend a long time gazing at and appreciating the gay artist Leonardo da Vinci’s epicene John the Baptist and his glorious “Last Supper” in the Louvre, despite the fact that da Vinci was arrested for soliciting/committing sodomy in, was it Florence?
If Roy Moore becomes an accomplished tap dancer, I’ll take a look, but I wouldn’t vote for him, nor would I invite him to the girl’ swim meet at the country club.
Woody Allen is funnier.
But this raises another sideboard. I’m not going to stop watching and enjoying Allen’s or Graham’s entertainments because of their private behaviors. I won’t stop watching Franken SNL skits. I’m not going to avoid Weinstein produced movies, or Polanski films or Kevin Spacey movies.
I can still enjoy Rock Hudson romps with Doris Day.
I’ll not twirl the dial because the Phil Spector produced Ronettes are on.
Unlike some, such as Roy Moore and his God botherers, I can spend a long time gazing at and appreciating the gay artist Leonardo da Vinci’s epicene John the Baptist and his glorious “Last Supper” in the Louvre, despite the fact that da Vinci was arrested for soliciting/committing sodomy in, was it Florence?
If Roy Moore becomes an accomplished tap dancer, I’ll take a look, but I wouldn’t vote for him, nor would I invite him to the girl’ swim meet at the country club.
If Moore broke the law and the statue of limitations hasn’t passed, he’s liable to be charged. By “liable” I mean just that, not that he necessarily will be, but that he could be.
Whether someone would want to take that on or not is another question. I think DA’s are generally disinclined to pursue things that can be seen as politically motivated, which I think is laudable.
If the voters of AL want Roy Moore as their US Senator, then they should by god have him as their US Senator. If the Senate then wants to chuck him out, they should feel free to do so, although I’m not sure that’s a precedent that they will want to live with.
Moore is an embarrassment to the national (R) party, so they want to hold him at arm’s length. They also want his vote for the tax bill, so if he’s elected I doubt they will do anything about chucking him out until after that vote happens.
Politics is not a virtuous endeavor. Nobody should mistake it for one.
Personally, I don’t really give a damn who Moore dated. If a law was broken, prosecute it. If not, it ain’t my business. I don’t live in AL, and it wasn’t my daughter. I won’t be inviting him over to dinner, but beyond that I’m just not losing sleep over it.
I don’t really give a damn if Al Franken tried to lay an unwanted smooch on Tweeden. If the voters of MN think that means he should go, then he should go. He should have minded his manners.
I actually do kind of give a damn if Bill Clinton raped Broderick. If he did, he should be prosecuted, assuming statutes of limitations etc. allow.
There is a widespread cultural tolerance of men harassing women, assaulting women, even raping women. That should be exposed and the folks who engage in it deserve to be shamed or worse.
The noise about Roy Moore / Bill Clinton / Al Franken, specifically, is political gamesmanship. To the degree that it shines a light on the crap that women live with every day, it’s useful. But mostly I think it’s a distraction.
If we want to prosecute Bill Clinton, or Roy Moore, or chuck Al Franken out of the Senate, fine with me. Go for it.
But then I want GWBush and Dick Cheney and their entire cohort prosecuted for war crimes and for the establishment of a deliberate regime of torture.
Then I want DJTrump impeached for obvious self-dealing and violations of the emoluments clause.
Then I want every MF’er in Congress who has enriched him or herself by exploiting privileged information to engage in insider trading to be exposed and prosecuted.
Then I want every MF’er in Congress or any arm of government who has exploited their position of oversight over any industry or resource to enrich themselves or their family to be exposed and prosecuted.
Wrap it all up. Clean house. I’m not only fine with it, I applaud it. I’ll provide the pitchforks and torches.
I have some agreement with Marty that a lot of the outrage is selective. I’d agree more strongly if he wasn’t so freaking selective in his own tolerance for outrageous behavior.
But Roy Moore and his weird theistic obsessions and taste for young girls is a freaking gnat in the big picture. Maybe we should be looking at the camels.
If Moore broke the law and the statue of limitations hasn’t passed, he’s liable to be charged. By “liable” I mean just that, not that he necessarily will be, but that he could be.
Whether someone would want to take that on or not is another question. I think DA’s are generally disinclined to pursue things that can be seen as politically motivated, which I think is laudable.
If the voters of AL want Roy Moore as their US Senator, then they should by god have him as their US Senator. If the Senate then wants to chuck him out, they should feel free to do so, although I’m not sure that’s a precedent that they will want to live with.
Moore is an embarrassment to the national (R) party, so they want to hold him at arm’s length. They also want his vote for the tax bill, so if he’s elected I doubt they will do anything about chucking him out until after that vote happens.
Politics is not a virtuous endeavor. Nobody should mistake it for one.
Personally, I don’t really give a damn who Moore dated. If a law was broken, prosecute it. If not, it ain’t my business. I don’t live in AL, and it wasn’t my daughter. I won’t be inviting him over to dinner, but beyond that I’m just not losing sleep over it.
I don’t really give a damn if Al Franken tried to lay an unwanted smooch on Tweeden. If the voters of MN think that means he should go, then he should go. He should have minded his manners.
I actually do kind of give a damn if Bill Clinton raped Broderick. If he did, he should be prosecuted, assuming statutes of limitations etc. allow.
There is a widespread cultural tolerance of men harassing women, assaulting women, even raping women. That should be exposed and the folks who engage in it deserve to be shamed or worse.
The noise about Roy Moore / Bill Clinton / Al Franken, specifically, is political gamesmanship. To the degree that it shines a light on the crap that women live with every day, it’s useful. But mostly I think it’s a distraction.
If we want to prosecute Bill Clinton, or Roy Moore, or chuck Al Franken out of the Senate, fine with me. Go for it.
But then I want GWBush and Dick Cheney and their entire cohort prosecuted for war crimes and for the establishment of a deliberate regime of torture.
Then I want DJTrump impeached for obvious self-dealing and violations of the emoluments clause.
Then I want every MF’er in Congress who has enriched him or herself by exploiting privileged information to engage in insider trading to be exposed and prosecuted.
Then I want every MF’er in Congress or any arm of government who has exploited their position of oversight over any industry or resource to enrich themselves or their family to be exposed and prosecuted.
Wrap it all up. Clean house. I’m not only fine with it, I applaud it. I’ll provide the pitchforks and torches.
I have some agreement with Marty that a lot of the outrage is selective. I’d agree more strongly if he wasn’t so freaking selective in his own tolerance for outrageous behavior.
But Roy Moore and his weird theistic obsessions and taste for young girls is a freaking gnat in the big picture. Maybe we should be looking at the camels.
russell for Attorney General!
russell for Attorney General!
If any Republican ever wrote what wonkie wrote at 10:39 the response would be immediate and overwhelming. Even if I kind of agree with her on motive, questioning the integrity of the accuser is just blaming the victim. Ask anyone.
Agreeing with Marty feels weird, but here we are.
Documenting any connections from Tweeden to the right wing chum machine is probably apropos — though we should be careful, because that is not actually prima facie evidence that nothing happened to her. But the stuff about acting out on stage seems totally uncalled for. It is absolutely classic victim blaming. (Even assuming it’s exactly the same thing, one assault does not deserve another.)
If any Republican ever wrote what wonkie wrote at 10:39 the response would be immediate and overwhelming. Even if I kind of agree with her on motive, questioning the integrity of the accuser is just blaming the victim. Ask anyone.
Agreeing with Marty feels weird, but here we are.
Documenting any connections from Tweeden to the right wing chum machine is probably apropos — though we should be careful, because that is not actually prima facie evidence that nothing happened to her. But the stuff about acting out on stage seems totally uncalled for. It is absolutely classic victim blaming. (Even assuming it’s exactly the same thing, one assault does not deserve another.)
though we should be careful, because that is not actually prima facie evidence that nothing happened to her.
indeed. we should probably assume that any attractive woman who has spent time working with Fox News people has been a victim of sexual harassment.
though we should be careful, because that is not actually prima facie evidence that nothing happened to her.
indeed. we should probably assume that any attractive woman who has spent time working with Fox News people has been a victim of sexual harassment.
Except… There’s that oddly specific calling out of Tweeden. And “it’s not victim blaming to say” looks an awful lot like “I’m not a racist, but” in this instance. I mean, that is quite literally victim blaming. And you went out of your way to jeer from the sidelines at Tweeden’s supposed faults in a context that was supposed to be about reflecting on what we ourselves can do.
The reason that I have been specific about Tweeden is because she fits into the conversation as an example of how we need to remember that not all accusers are actually victims and not all accused are actually guilty NO it is not victim blaming. I dislike people who fake victimization just as much as I dislike people who fake being the target of victim blaming. Both threaten the people who are targets of real abuse and find themselves under attack, blamed for the situation.
I also object to the conceptualization of women as humans who are in a special category along with minors and people with mental disabilities as automatically assumed to be exempt from responsibility for the consequences of our own behavior.
Leeann Tweeden indicated through her behavior an enjoyment of sexually loaded play in public. I an not condemning her for that.She was young and having fun. But I am saying that any responsible adult woman who exhibits behavior A three times with three different men is responsible if a fourth man thinks she likes that kind of behavior She was not wearing a sweatshirt that said “I get to grope men, and I like being groped by them, except for Al Franken”.
Victim-blaming is when the victim exhibits one type of behavior which is later sued to justify very persistant behavior back or to justify a different and more aggressive behavior. For example, is a woman flirts with a man or several men that is not permission to rape her. It is only an indication that she is open to flirting and that only lasts as long as the woman likes it.
SO it would be victim blaming to say that a rape victim or a sexual assault victim is responsible because of how she ws dressed or becuase she did some flirting
ON the other hand if she flirts with three guys and a fourth flirts with her, she can of course let him know that she does not what to flirt with him, but she is not in a position to complain of harassment (unless he keeps it up persistently or , escalates)
Human affairs are not simple. And and all sexual harassment is not the same ANd us women are not brainless victims unable to think about an d take responsibility for our own behavior.
The article was about examine ourselves to see what we can do. I am a veteran of many workshops and classes about various kinds of abuse: sexual harassment, child abuse, elder abuse because of my job. We all got run through everything, so these are topics Ihave thought about a lot.
And with sexual harassment of adult women there are many many factors to consider including the situation (because the behavioral expectations of a party are different than a job), credibility, responsibility, whether or not the target’s future prospects were threatened or harm, whether the behavior was a one-off or repeated, whether violence was part of it or threatened, and probably more. It is not simply men bad, keep your hands off woman always the victim and all victimhood is alike.
I htink we have a responsibity to think all this through, diffecult as that may be, especailly in a highly partisan politica envornoment
Except… There’s that oddly specific calling out of Tweeden. And “it’s not victim blaming to say” looks an awful lot like “I’m not a racist, but” in this instance. I mean, that is quite literally victim blaming. And you went out of your way to jeer from the sidelines at Tweeden’s supposed faults in a context that was supposed to be about reflecting on what we ourselves can do.
The reason that I have been specific about Tweeden is because she fits into the conversation as an example of how we need to remember that not all accusers are actually victims and not all accused are actually guilty NO it is not victim blaming. I dislike people who fake victimization just as much as I dislike people who fake being the target of victim blaming. Both threaten the people who are targets of real abuse and find themselves under attack, blamed for the situation.
I also object to the conceptualization of women as humans who are in a special category along with minors and people with mental disabilities as automatically assumed to be exempt from responsibility for the consequences of our own behavior.
Leeann Tweeden indicated through her behavior an enjoyment of sexually loaded play in public. I an not condemning her for that.She was young and having fun. But I am saying that any responsible adult woman who exhibits behavior A three times with three different men is responsible if a fourth man thinks she likes that kind of behavior She was not wearing a sweatshirt that said “I get to grope men, and I like being groped by them, except for Al Franken”.
Victim-blaming is when the victim exhibits one type of behavior which is later sued to justify very persistant behavior back or to justify a different and more aggressive behavior. For example, is a woman flirts with a man or several men that is not permission to rape her. It is only an indication that she is open to flirting and that only lasts as long as the woman likes it.
SO it would be victim blaming to say that a rape victim or a sexual assault victim is responsible because of how she ws dressed or becuase she did some flirting
ON the other hand if she flirts with three guys and a fourth flirts with her, she can of course let him know that she does not what to flirt with him, but she is not in a position to complain of harassment (unless he keeps it up persistently or , escalates)
Human affairs are not simple. And and all sexual harassment is not the same ANd us women are not brainless victims unable to think about an d take responsibility for our own behavior.
The article was about examine ourselves to see what we can do. I am a veteran of many workshops and classes about various kinds of abuse: sexual harassment, child abuse, elder abuse because of my job. We all got run through everything, so these are topics Ihave thought about a lot.
And with sexual harassment of adult women there are many many factors to consider including the situation (because the behavioral expectations of a party are different than a job), credibility, responsibility, whether or not the target’s future prospects were threatened or harm, whether the behavior was a one-off or repeated, whether violence was part of it or threatened, and probably more. It is not simply men bad, keep your hands off woman always the victim and all victimhood is alike.
I htink we have a responsibity to think all this through, diffecult as that may be, especailly in a highly partisan politica envornoment
But the stuff about acting out on stage seems totally uncalled for. It is absolutely classic victim blaming. (Even assuming it’s exactly the same thing, one assault does not deserve another.)
It’s called context, which is relevant to determining whether Franken’s conduct was “assault”. If everyone in the vicinity is clowning around in a sexual way, Franken’s clowning is not any more assault than Tweeden’s. Pretending that her conduct has no relevance whatsoever to the atmosphere surrounding the allegations seems to me to be an overcorrection.
But the stuff about acting out on stage seems totally uncalled for. It is absolutely classic victim blaming. (Even assuming it’s exactly the same thing, one assault does not deserve another.)
It’s called context, which is relevant to determining whether Franken’s conduct was “assault”. If everyone in the vicinity is clowning around in a sexual way, Franken’s clowning is not any more assault than Tweeden’s. Pretending that her conduct has no relevance whatsoever to the atmosphere surrounding the allegations seems to me to be an overcorrection.
Also, wonkie’s points are well taken.
Also, wonkie’s points are well taken.
Implying that Tweeden was in any way complicit merely by being professionally sexy on stage is neither coherent nor helpful.Implying that Tweeden was in any way complicit merely by being professionally sexy on stage is neither coherent nor helpful.
It also reveals an enormous lack of awareness of what the acting profession entails. As the Count noted (10:20), lots of folks in Hollywood had real personalities very different from their stage persona. In a variety of directions. (And we haven’t even gotten into the male leads who turned out to be gay.)
In short, assuming someone who is “professionally sexy on stage” is somehow like that off stage is wrong. As anyone who has ever worked in the theater (even community theater!) or movies is aware.
Implying that Tweeden was in any way complicit merely by being professionally sexy on stage is neither coherent nor helpful.Implying that Tweeden was in any way complicit merely by being professionally sexy on stage is neither coherent nor helpful.
It also reveals an enormous lack of awareness of what the acting profession entails. As the Count noted (10:20), lots of folks in Hollywood had real personalities very different from their stage persona. In a variety of directions. (And we haven’t even gotten into the male leads who turned out to be gay.)
In short, assuming someone who is “professionally sexy on stage” is somehow like that off stage is wrong. As anyone who has ever worked in the theater (even community theater!) or movies is aware.
I can’t link on the MEpad, but it looks like the rump administration and the Republican Party just stuck their gang-raping diseased members up the ass of the Census Bureau in order to forever steal elections and let 14 year old cracker white republicans vote in exchange for no sex whatsoever.
I can’t link on the MEpad, but it looks like the rump administration and the Republican Party just stuck their gang-raping diseased members up the ass of the Census Bureau in order to forever steal elections and let 14 year old cracker white republicans vote in exchange for no sex whatsoever.
Link to an article about the Census Bureau.
Link to an article about the Census Bureau.
In short, assuming someone who is “professionally sexy on stage” is somehow like that off stage is wrong.
Maybe, but if they are so puritanical in real life that a bawdy photo of someone pretending to grab their breasts is going to set them over the edge, then they should probably rethink their career.
In short, assuming someone who is “professionally sexy on stage” is somehow like that off stage is wrong.
Maybe, but if they are so puritanical in real life that a bawdy photo of someone pretending to grab their breasts is going to set them over the edge, then they should probably rethink their career.
Here is the thing.
I believe that in the course of everyday existence people do things that are inappropriate. Sexual interaction is a part of our lives and unlikely to become less. Men have been tasked, culturally, with being the aggressors in sexual affairs for a long time. That is and has been changing but, it is still largely true.
In that environment men need to know how to instantly take no for an answer, but women need to understand that certain things, (a pat on the butt, an innuendo misplaced, an over aggressive kiss) may or may not be from a misinterpreted signal even if they never gave one. Most important, no is a definitive line that once crossed invalidates all excuses or need for understanding.
I suspect from my limited understanding that many of the perpetrators on the scale from Franken to Trump, short of Moore, thought they had or were seeking permission, and were being granted it by silence.
So, yes, women don’t get to act any way they want without potentially being misinterpreted, that misinterpretation does not last beyond no.
And the line will be grey in the everyday interactions between even normally aware and conscientious people so some amount of leeway for the initial action should be granted.
Here is the thing.
I believe that in the course of everyday existence people do things that are inappropriate. Sexual interaction is a part of our lives and unlikely to become less. Men have been tasked, culturally, with being the aggressors in sexual affairs for a long time. That is and has been changing but, it is still largely true.
In that environment men need to know how to instantly take no for an answer, but women need to understand that certain things, (a pat on the butt, an innuendo misplaced, an over aggressive kiss) may or may not be from a misinterpreted signal even if they never gave one. Most important, no is a definitive line that once crossed invalidates all excuses or need for understanding.
I suspect from my limited understanding that many of the perpetrators on the scale from Franken to Trump, short of Moore, thought they had or were seeking permission, and were being granted it by silence.
So, yes, women don’t get to act any way they want without potentially being misinterpreted, that misinterpretation does not last beyond no.
And the line will be grey in the everyday interactions between even normally aware and conscientious people so some amount of leeway for the initial action should be granted.
Well Shit
Just kinda idly searching for some of the freelance writers I follow intermittently and who move from outlet to outlet I see that Sam Kriss, a British socialist I liked a lot has f’d up and been nailed. I expect very few of you would recognize the name. Damn.
Here’s a sample from his blog. Iron Law of Online Abuse
In other news of pervert people obscure, the mangaka of Rurouni Kenshin has been arrested in Japan for picture of real live little kids on harddrives. The manga/anime fandom is aghast.
Well Shit
Just kinda idly searching for some of the freelance writers I follow intermittently and who move from outlet to outlet I see that Sam Kriss, a British socialist I liked a lot has f’d up and been nailed. I expect very few of you would recognize the name. Damn.
Here’s a sample from his blog. Iron Law of Online Abuse
In other news of pervert people obscure, the mangaka of Rurouni Kenshin has been arrested in Japan for picture of real live little kids on harddrives. The manga/anime fandom is aghast.
In short, assuming someone who is “professionally sexy on stage” is somehow like that off stage is wrong. As anyone who has ever worked in the theater (even community theater!) or movies is aware.
Or as I think anyone ought to be able to infer from common sense. Thank you.
Take that clip with Tweeden and Robin Williams, part and parcel of Tweeden’s ‘enjoyment of sexually loaded play’ if we are being led true.
Except here’s what I actually saw: It cuts in with Tweeden and and Williams already on stage together, extremely close, with Williams’ arm looped all the way around Tweedens waist in a very…friendly manner, his head almost resting on her shoulder, while Tweeden stands straight. As she finishes her introduction, and starts to step back, Williams appears to initiate a parting hug, and goes for a kiss on her cheek. Tweeden rolls with that, stepping in and wrapping her leg around while they embrace.
This last move is a good show, and clearly plays very well with the audience, despite looking a little bit awkward.
But how either of them felt about it, if anything, or what happened before or after, if anything, is, AFAIK, anyone’s guess. I don’t think we’ve heard any accounts of that, or even the general back stage atmosphere*. For all we know she waited for Williams to come back and then cussed him out for being too handsy. (Or wanted to but didn’t — because Robin Williams.) Or maybe he cussed her out for crawling all over him. Or maybe it was all real, and as soon as she got Williams alone, she slammed him up against a wall and finished that kiss properly. Or maybe it was all just acting on all sides, forgotten almost as soon as it happened. Any of this is perfectly consistent with the documentary evidence available.
So who knows? Not us. Which is kind of the point.
—
* I actually tend to view the airplane photo as a better point of departure for imagining whatever behind the scenes clowning might have been going on. Much better than anything on stage, which by its nature offers very little insight. Strictly speaking though, it’s only evidence of Franken clowning.
In short, assuming someone who is “professionally sexy on stage” is somehow like that off stage is wrong. As anyone who has ever worked in the theater (even community theater!) or movies is aware.
Or as I think anyone ought to be able to infer from common sense. Thank you.
Take that clip with Tweeden and Robin Williams, part and parcel of Tweeden’s ‘enjoyment of sexually loaded play’ if we are being led true.
Except here’s what I actually saw: It cuts in with Tweeden and and Williams already on stage together, extremely close, with Williams’ arm looped all the way around Tweedens waist in a very…friendly manner, his head almost resting on her shoulder, while Tweeden stands straight. As she finishes her introduction, and starts to step back, Williams appears to initiate a parting hug, and goes for a kiss on her cheek. Tweeden rolls with that, stepping in and wrapping her leg around while they embrace.
This last move is a good show, and clearly plays very well with the audience, despite looking a little bit awkward.
But how either of them felt about it, if anything, or what happened before or after, if anything, is, AFAIK, anyone’s guess. I don’t think we’ve heard any accounts of that, or even the general back stage atmosphere*. For all we know she waited for Williams to come back and then cussed him out for being too handsy. (Or wanted to but didn’t — because Robin Williams.) Or maybe he cussed her out for crawling all over him. Or maybe it was all real, and as soon as she got Williams alone, she slammed him up against a wall and finished that kiss properly. Or maybe it was all just acting on all sides, forgotten almost as soon as it happened. Any of this is perfectly consistent with the documentary evidence available.
So who knows? Not us. Which is kind of the point.
—
* I actually tend to view the airplane photo as a better point of departure for imagining whatever behind the scenes clowning might have been going on. Much better than anything on stage, which by its nature offers very little insight. Strictly speaking though, it’s only evidence of Franken clowning.
ON the other hand if she flirts with three guys and a fourth flirts with her, she can of course let him know that she does not what to flirt with him, but she is not in a position to complain of harassment (unless he keeps it up persistently or , escalates)
Which, I believe, between the kiss and subsequent petty retaliations, is exactly what Tweeden has alleged. The chest touching being something of a final insult.
I htink we have a responsibity to think all this through, diffecult as that may be, especailly in a highly partisan politica envornoment
Which we don’t seem to be doing here.
The thing is, I think there is a strong argument —
especially as long as it looks like this lapse in judgement isn’t a pattern — for not pillorying Franken too much, and for moving on. Tweeden herself seems to be on board with that.
But I think that case can definitely be made in a classier way, without either excusing what he did, or stooping to shitty victim questioning/blaming tactics*.
—
* And maybe it’s not technically victim blaming. Not you know, technically technically. Maybe. But c’mon – that’s pretty weaselly. They sure do look and smell pretty similar from over here where I’m standing.
ON the other hand if she flirts with three guys and a fourth flirts with her, she can of course let him know that she does not what to flirt with him, but she is not in a position to complain of harassment (unless he keeps it up persistently or , escalates)
Which, I believe, between the kiss and subsequent petty retaliations, is exactly what Tweeden has alleged. The chest touching being something of a final insult.
I htink we have a responsibity to think all this through, diffecult as that may be, especailly in a highly partisan politica envornoment
Which we don’t seem to be doing here.
The thing is, I think there is a strong argument —
especially as long as it looks like this lapse in judgement isn’t a pattern — for not pillorying Franken too much, and for moving on. Tweeden herself seems to be on board with that.
But I think that case can definitely be made in a classier way, without either excusing what he did, or stooping to shitty victim questioning/blaming tactics*.
—
* And maybe it’s not technically victim blaming. Not you know, technically technically. Maybe. But c’mon – that’s pretty weaselly. They sure do look and smell pretty similar from over here where I’m standing.
Maybe, but if they are so puritanical in real life that a bawdy photo of someone pretending to grab their breasts is going to set them over the edge, then they should probably rethink their career.
Absolutely. What did she expect in her line of work anyway…You can’t possibly be serious, right?
I really don’t think this is the kind of change we want to be or whatever.
Maybe, but if they are so puritanical in real life that a bawdy photo of someone pretending to grab their breasts is going to set them over the edge, then they should probably rethink their career.
Absolutely. What did she expect in her line of work anyway…You can’t possibly be serious, right?
I really don’t think this is the kind of change we want to be or whatever.
For the record, I watch a lot of anime, and by Western standards (and by Japanese standards too) a whole lot of it is questionable at best and outrageous at worst.
Example near topic: a common joke is main character slipping and falling into a breast grabbing position.
This is considered funny, but also considered wrong, is considered funny because it is wrong, and the audience is supposed to be somewhat ashamed of finding it funny. The trangression and complicity of the audience is a key part of the humour.
“Take my wife. Please.”
I not only go so far as to posit that this trangression and complicity is at the center of humor, but I wonder if it is the core of all human interaction. All of it.
Sometimes I observe the most banal conversations for exchanges in which a value is put forth by A and and then countered or criticized by B.
“Vanilla ice cream is best”
“But I like chocolate.”
I see transgressions here, the attempt to persuade or proselytize your values onto another. I see Nietzsche’s Will to Power, a basic biological urge to control our environment and reproduce ourselves.
“Damn, I use to like chocolate but now I like vanilla.”
Do we really have the right, is it really right to change people? Isn’t this viewing them as objects to be manipulated, rather than subjects to accept as their autonomous selves?
For the record, I watch a lot of anime, and by Western standards (and by Japanese standards too) a whole lot of it is questionable at best and outrageous at worst.
Example near topic: a common joke is main character slipping and falling into a breast grabbing position.
This is considered funny, but also considered wrong, is considered funny because it is wrong, and the audience is supposed to be somewhat ashamed of finding it funny. The trangression and complicity of the audience is a key part of the humour.
“Take my wife. Please.”
I not only go so far as to posit that this trangression and complicity is at the center of humor, but I wonder if it is the core of all human interaction. All of it.
Sometimes I observe the most banal conversations for exchanges in which a value is put forth by A and and then countered or criticized by B.
“Vanilla ice cream is best”
“But I like chocolate.”
I see transgressions here, the attempt to persuade or proselytize your values onto another. I see Nietzsche’s Will to Power, a basic biological urge to control our environment and reproduce ourselves.
“Damn, I use to like chocolate but now I like vanilla.”
Do we really have the right, is it really right to change people? Isn’t this viewing them as objects to be manipulated, rather than subjects to accept as their autonomous selves?
And with that I will link to this terrific piece by Claire Dederer on Polanski, Woody Allen, and Manhattan …there is a metric f-ton of honest brilliance here. Long, so a long quote that is only a small portion of the article
And with that I will link to this terrific piece by Claire Dederer on Polanski, Woody Allen, and Manhattan …there is a metric f-ton of honest brilliance here. Long, so a long quote that is only a small portion of the article
shite indeed….
Back in the day*, it was those young women of my cohort (you know, those bra burners) that kicked all this feminist shit up into a higher gear** because as radicals they understood all too well the misogyny of most male leaders in “the movement” (SDS/New Left) just wanting lots of easy sex and somebody to run the mimeograph machine.
*Yes, I know. A long time ago.
**Never take anything away from the early feminists fighting for the right to vote. They kicked ass. Sometimes literally.
shite indeed….
Back in the day*, it was those young women of my cohort (you know, those bra burners) that kicked all this feminist shit up into a higher gear** because as radicals they understood all too well the misogyny of most male leaders in “the movement” (SDS/New Left) just wanting lots of easy sex and somebody to run the mimeograph machine.
*Yes, I know. A long time ago.
**Never take anything away from the early feminists fighting for the right to vote. They kicked ass. Sometimes literally.
I really don’t think this is the kind of change we want to be or whatever.
The change I don’t want to be is to turn into an enabler of lying, scheming Trump hit squads who save up the opportunity to use an instance of slightly over-the-line humor to distract people from the real abuse that women are reporting every day (including against other liberal icons, the veracity of which I don’t dispute), and to take advantage of liberal over-scrupulousness in matters like this against an important advocate for women, and a key opponent of lying Jeff Sessions.
Spend some time, please, comparing various other allegations to this one. Tweeden was not beholden to Franken – she had an independent career, and had every opportunity to demand an apology (which I would have done, privately first). This was a political hit job, orchestrated by Roger Stone, etc. You should ask yourself exactly how naive you think we should be.
I really don’t think this is the kind of change we want to be or whatever.
The change I don’t want to be is to turn into an enabler of lying, scheming Trump hit squads who save up the opportunity to use an instance of slightly over-the-line humor to distract people from the real abuse that women are reporting every day (including against other liberal icons, the veracity of which I don’t dispute), and to take advantage of liberal over-scrupulousness in matters like this against an important advocate for women, and a key opponent of lying Jeff Sessions.
Spend some time, please, comparing various other allegations to this one. Tweeden was not beholden to Franken – she had an independent career, and had every opportunity to demand an apology (which I would have done, privately first). This was a political hit job, orchestrated by Roger Stone, etc. You should ask yourself exactly how naive you think we should be.
“Women are special,” our pussy-grabbing Birther-in-Chief announced today.
Never mind the irony. Can the sarcasm. Let’s just discuss amongst ourselves: how “special” is 51% of the population?
I’m serious. “Special” can mean a lot of things. The “Special” Olympics are called that for a reason. A cynic might say the reason is political correctness; a pedant might counter that the word simply connotes a specific subset of a wider construct, as in “Special” Theory of Relativity. Either way, “special” Olympians are defined by their difference from the larger population of Olympic athletes.
When an Archie Bunker type calls you “special”, should you feel supported, or offended?
Those of me who look forward to real equality between men and women (not to mention between other slices of humanity) are implicitly looking forward to a day when calling women “special” will be considered … icky.
That day is still far off, alas, but we can take note of the sorts of linguistic tricks that keep it far off.
–TP
“Women are special,” our pussy-grabbing Birther-in-Chief announced today.
Never mind the irony. Can the sarcasm. Let’s just discuss amongst ourselves: how “special” is 51% of the population?
I’m serious. “Special” can mean a lot of things. The “Special” Olympics are called that for a reason. A cynic might say the reason is political correctness; a pedant might counter that the word simply connotes a specific subset of a wider construct, as in “Special” Theory of Relativity. Either way, “special” Olympians are defined by their difference from the larger population of Olympic athletes.
When an Archie Bunker type calls you “special”, should you feel supported, or offended?
Those of me who look forward to real equality between men and women (not to mention between other slices of humanity) are implicitly looking forward to a day when calling women “special” will be considered … icky.
That day is still far off, alas, but we can take note of the sorts of linguistic tricks that keep it far off.
–TP
bob mcmanus, I’ve peeked behind my pie filter, and have discovered some interesting insights here. Thanks.
bob mcmanus, I’ve peeked behind my pie filter, and have discovered some interesting insights here. Thanks.
Clarence Thomas needs to resign from the Supreme Court.
Time to have a Coke without the pubic hair between our teeth.
But only after rump is replaced by Hillary Clinton, recently broken out of jail by patriots, and moved into the Presidency she won, but later to be shot in the head by the republican base.
Some of them conservative women who don’t know whether to mourn Charlie Manson’s death … He hated those loose Hollywood blondes … Or vote for Roy Moore, who would have brought Sqeaky Fromme into the harem too.
Modernity, the scourge of ISIS and Rod Dreher, with opposite prescriptions.
A few years ago, conservatives were condemning Rousseau and declaring Voltaire the winner. Now, a few minutes later conservatives the world over have embraced Rousseau’s savageness against modernity, from Syria to Alabama to the briefing room in the fucking White House.
Clarence Thomas needs to resign from the Supreme Court.
Time to have a Coke without the pubic hair between our teeth.
But only after rump is replaced by Hillary Clinton, recently broken out of jail by patriots, and moved into the Presidency she won, but later to be shot in the head by the republican base.
Some of them conservative women who don’t know whether to mourn Charlie Manson’s death … He hated those loose Hollywood blondes … Or vote for Roy Moore, who would have brought Sqeaky Fromme into the harem too.
Modernity, the scourge of ISIS and Rod Dreher, with opposite prescriptions.
A few years ago, conservatives were condemning Rousseau and declaring Voltaire the winner. Now, a few minutes later conservatives the world over have embraced Rousseau’s savageness against modernity, from Syria to Alabama to the briefing room in the fucking White House.
Countme – a – Dem
Awww!
Countme – a – Dem
Awww!
Another one of my “surely this is obvious” posts.
Franken is not entitled to stick his tongue uninvited in a woman’s mouth. No matter how she may have behaved with other men.
Perhaps the complaint is a Republican plot against him. I don’t know and I don’t much care. I want there to be at least one side which knows right from wrong, and if there’s only one I want it to be my side.
“I didn’t do it” is a valid defence, if true. “She did the same with other men” is not, whether or not it’s true.
Another one of my “surely this is obvious” posts.
Franken is not entitled to stick his tongue uninvited in a woman’s mouth. No matter how she may have behaved with other men.
Perhaps the complaint is a Republican plot against him. I don’t know and I don’t much care. I want there to be at least one side which knows right from wrong, and if there’s only one I want it to be my side.
“I didn’t do it” is a valid defence, if true. “She did the same with other men” is not, whether or not it’s true.
bob mcmanus, that dederer article is great. I was looking for a font designer whose fonts are considered the apex of design, but he was a really nasty piece of work as a person, but couldn’t find it. However, this article and the comments may be of interest.
http://typographica.org/on-typography/sexism-and-fonts/
bob mcmanus, that dederer article is great. I was looking for a font designer whose fonts are considered the apex of design, but he was a really nasty piece of work as a person, but couldn’t find it. However, this article and the comments may be of interest.
http://typographica.org/on-typography/sexism-and-fonts/
lj, I think the font designer you’re thinking of is Eric Gill.
lj, I think the font designer you’re thinking of is Eric Gill.
Pro Bono: I want there to be at least one side which knows right from wrong, and if there’s only one I want it to be my side.
Me too.
Now, how should our side deal with Franken in the following cases:
1) He says “I didn’t”, the accuser says “Yes, you did”, and the Ethics Committee “investigation” can’t find forensic evidence either way.
2) He says “I did do it, and shame on me for doing it.”
What the Other Side will do is demand that Franken resign in either case, of course. The Other Side will probably include Senator Roy Moore, I betcha. But that’s not relevant to your position or my question.
–TP
Pro Bono: I want there to be at least one side which knows right from wrong, and if there’s only one I want it to be my side.
Me too.
Now, how should our side deal with Franken in the following cases:
1) He says “I didn’t”, the accuser says “Yes, you did”, and the Ethics Committee “investigation” can’t find forensic evidence either way.
2) He says “I did do it, and shame on me for doing it.”
What the Other Side will do is demand that Franken resign in either case, of course. The Other Side will probably include Senator Roy Moore, I betcha. But that’s not relevant to your position or my question.
–TP
I’d like to see Franken survive and Moore elected and watch the former greet the latter into the Senate with a big wet French kiss, and we can judge who is joking around and who is not.
I’d like to see Franken survive and Moore elected and watch the former greet the latter into the Senate with a big wet French kiss, and we can judge who is joking around and who is not.
yep, that’s the one. Thanks Janie
yep, that’s the one. Thanks Janie
“I didn’t do it” is a valid defense, if true. “She did the same with other men” is not, whether or not it’s true.
yes it is unless she says she has changed her mind and let people know that her previous willingness is now gone.
“I didn’t do it” is a valid defense, if true. “She did the same with other men” is not, whether or not it’s true.
yes it is unless she says she has changed her mind and let people know that her previous willingness is now gone.
I don’t think I’d agree with that. “She did the same with other men” is not a defense. “She did it routinely with most guys” might be. But not just the fact that she had done whatever it is before.
I’ve got several activities that I’ll participate with in the right company. (Some of them I’ll even perform in public. And I’m not an exhibitionist.) But that’s not an invitation to the world. And it is irritating, at absolute minimum, when someone else assumes it is.**
** People who assume that, because I have been seen to hug (close) friends, I would love to hug them are a particular personal irritation.
I don’t think I’d agree with that. “She did the same with other men” is not a defense. “She did it routinely with most guys” might be. But not just the fact that she had done whatever it is before.
I’ve got several activities that I’ll participate with in the right company. (Some of them I’ll even perform in public. And I’m not an exhibitionist.) But that’s not an invitation to the world. And it is irritating, at absolute minimum, when someone else assumes it is.**
** People who assume that, because I have been seen to hug (close) friends, I would love to hug them are a particular personal irritation.
“I didn’t do it” is a valid defense, if true.
It is, but that’s not what any of these guys are saying.
Pretty well all of them have adopted the fairly obnoxious trope of the half apology – “if anyone was offended by my behaviour…” etc, which both makes it sound a bit like an accident, and also tends to thrown the responsibility back on the offended party.
Lasseter’s statement in which he talks of his ‘missteps’ is a classic of the genre:
It’s been brought to my attention that I have made some of you feel disrespected or uncomfortable. That was never my intent. Collectively, you mean the world to me, and I deeply apologize if I have let you down. I especially want to apologize to anyone who has ever been on the receiving end of an unwanted hug or any other gesture they felt crossed the line in any way, shape, or form. No matter how benign my intent, everyone has the right to set their own boundaries and have them respected….
And it goes on to adopt another trope – that the alleged offender need to “start taking better care of myself”… as he announces a six month sabbatical “to recharge and be inspired, and ultimately return with the insight and perspective I need to be the leader you deserve.”
Of course Lasseter’s apparent behaviour does not begint to approach anything like what Weinstein is accused of, he adopts exactly the same apology/self-justification technique.
“I didn’t do it” is a valid defense, if true.
It is, but that’s not what any of these guys are saying.
Pretty well all of them have adopted the fairly obnoxious trope of the half apology – “if anyone was offended by my behaviour…” etc, which both makes it sound a bit like an accident, and also tends to thrown the responsibility back on the offended party.
Lasseter’s statement in which he talks of his ‘missteps’ is a classic of the genre:
It’s been brought to my attention that I have made some of you feel disrespected or uncomfortable. That was never my intent. Collectively, you mean the world to me, and I deeply apologize if I have let you down. I especially want to apologize to anyone who has ever been on the receiving end of an unwanted hug or any other gesture they felt crossed the line in any way, shape, or form. No matter how benign my intent, everyone has the right to set their own boundaries and have them respected….
And it goes on to adopt another trope – that the alleged offender need to “start taking better care of myself”… as he announces a six month sabbatical “to recharge and be inspired, and ultimately return with the insight and perspective I need to be the leader you deserve.”
Of course Lasseter’s apparent behaviour does not begint to approach anything like what Weinstein is accused of, he adopts exactly the same apology/self-justification technique.
A real apology would be something along the lines of “I’m sorry, I was wrong”.
A real apology would be something along the lines of “I’m sorry, I was wrong”.
TP: the issue of acknowledging what’s right and what’s wrong, which I wrote about, is different from the question of decided whether wrongdoing occurred, or how to deal with it.
As I wrote previously, we should not convict anyone on the basis of a single uncorroborated accusation of something which may have happened a decade or more ago. Votes can decide who to believe. Or if Franken admits conduct which is wrong but not criminal, it’s up to him and the voters what to do about it.
TP: the issue of acknowledging what’s right and what’s wrong, which I wrote about, is different from the question of decided whether wrongdoing occurred, or how to deal with it.
As I wrote previously, we should not convict anyone on the basis of a single uncorroborated accusation of something which may have happened a decade or more ago. Votes can decide who to believe. Or if Franken admits conduct which is wrong but not criminal, it’s up to him and the voters what to do about it.
“I didn’t do it” is a valid defense, if true. “She did the same with other men” is not, whether or not it’s true.
yes it is unless she says she has changed her mind and let people know that her previous willingness is now gone.
You can’t mean that can you? We’re entitled to be selective in our choice of sexual partners.
“I didn’t do it” is a valid defense, if true. “She did the same with other men” is not, whether or not it’s true.
yes it is unless she says she has changed her mind and let people know that her previous willingness is now gone.
You can’t mean that can you? We’re entitled to be selective in our choice of sexual partners.
Yes, the Dederer article was chock full of insight.
Yes, the Dederer article was chock full of insight.
In the case of Leeann , we aren;t talking about sexual partners. We are talking about a willingess to engage in sexually charged joking. And yes of course people have a right to choose, but they also have a responsibility to let people around them know that the choice is. And if the light is green for teasing with sexual connotations, then it is green for teasing with sexual connotations and teasing with sexual connotations is likely to happen.
It isn’t fair to intitiate and enjoy (ie give permission) a certain kind of behavior and then get mad when it happens.
In the case of Leeann , we aren;t talking about sexual partners. We are talking about a willingess to engage in sexually charged joking. And yes of course people have a right to choose, but they also have a responsibility to let people around them know that the choice is. And if the light is green for teasing with sexual connotations, then it is green for teasing with sexual connotations and teasing with sexual connotations is likely to happen.
It isn’t fair to intitiate and enjoy (ie give permission) a certain kind of behavior and then get mad when it happens.
We are talking about a willingess to engage in sexually charged joking.
1. You are still flapping your arms really hard to elide the difference between events within the context of a performance and actions between people in real life. This is not a trivial distinction.
2. A tongue kiss, esp. between two people (effectively) alone together, is stretching the limits of “sexually charged joking”.
3. Taking the allegations at face value, she did make her choice known – first in her reluctance to “rehearse” the kiss in the first place, tongue or no; then, after it occurred, in no uncertain terms. Everything that followed, at least, must be considered on notice.
4. It is very difficult to tease someone or give them the opportunity to express displeasure while they are asleep.
5. What the hell are you actually trying to do here? There are ways to defend Franken from the wolves without resorting to victim blaming or dismissing the allegations (and if there weren’t, we shouldn’t be). Is this the response we want to model as acceptable? “Victim blaming is ok if you do it in technically correct way — stand back, I’m an expert!”
Is it only ok if an ally is accused, or would this be an ok tactic for, say, Trump to use too? “I didn’t do anything wrong! Miss America just smiled a little wider when I squeezed her up on stage, so clearly she was into more sexually charged play back in her trailer!” Maybe your expertise can save him the trouble!
WITAF?
We are talking about a willingess to engage in sexually charged joking.
1. You are still flapping your arms really hard to elide the difference between events within the context of a performance and actions between people in real life. This is not a trivial distinction.
2. A tongue kiss, esp. between two people (effectively) alone together, is stretching the limits of “sexually charged joking”.
3. Taking the allegations at face value, she did make her choice known – first in her reluctance to “rehearse” the kiss in the first place, tongue or no; then, after it occurred, in no uncertain terms. Everything that followed, at least, must be considered on notice.
4. It is very difficult to tease someone or give them the opportunity to express displeasure while they are asleep.
5. What the hell are you actually trying to do here? There are ways to defend Franken from the wolves without resorting to victim blaming or dismissing the allegations (and if there weren’t, we shouldn’t be). Is this the response we want to model as acceptable? “Victim blaming is ok if you do it in technically correct way — stand back, I’m an expert!”
Is it only ok if an ally is accused, or would this be an ok tactic for, say, Trump to use too? “I didn’t do anything wrong! Miss America just smiled a little wider when I squeezed her up on stage, so clearly she was into more sexually charged play back in her trailer!” Maybe your expertise can save him the trouble!
WITAF?
what happens when you try to get sexual with a 14-year old outside of AL ?
https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/sex-crimes/las-vegas-school-coach-tried-to-kiss-14-year-old-girl-police-say/
you get arrested.
too bad, for him, that he’s not a Republican Thought Leader.
what happens when you try to get sexual with a 14-year old outside of AL ?
https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/sex-crimes/las-vegas-school-coach-tried-to-kiss-14-year-old-girl-police-say/
you get arrested.
too bad, for him, that he’s not a Republican Thought Leader.
“too bad, for him, that he’s not a Republican Thought Leader.”
Or that it’s not 40 years ago.
“too bad, for him, that he’s not a Republican Thought Leader.”
Or that it’s not 40 years ago.
there is no statute of limitations for abusing 14 yr olds in AL.
there is no statute of limitations for abusing 14 yr olds in AL.
there is no statute of limitations for abusing 14 yr olds in AL.
Well, not anymore, IIRC at the time it was 3 years, and also IIRC that’s what matters from a legal/criminal standpoint.
From a moral/do what’s right standpoint, fnck that guy and his GOP supporters/voters.
there is no statute of limitations for abusing 14 yr olds in AL.
Well, not anymore, IIRC at the time it was 3 years, and also IIRC that’s what matters from a legal/criminal standpoint.
From a moral/do what’s right standpoint, fnck that guy and his GOP supporters/voters.
I’d say him and his supporters/voters — regardless of party or lack of same. We already knew the guy was scum, and this has only reinforced that. Anyone who votes for him has to abandon permanently any claim to care about the values/morals of candidates.
I’d say him and his supporters/voters — regardless of party or lack of same. We already knew the guy was scum, and this has only reinforced that. Anyone who votes for him has to abandon permanently any claim to care about the values/morals of candidates.
What jack lecou said.
(Though autocorrect wants to call him loco…)
One thing I’d add, to those who ask ‘why didn’t she say something at the time’, it ought to be remembered that even in the most egregious cases, up until now it can have taken decades, and multiple victims coming forward, for complainants not to be ignored…
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/11/22/larry_nassar_has_confessed_to_sexually_assaulting_children_michigan_state.html
I think there is at least something to be said for the pendulum to have swung a little in the opposite direction.
What jack lecou said.
(Though autocorrect wants to call him loco…)
One thing I’d add, to those who ask ‘why didn’t she say something at the time’, it ought to be remembered that even in the most egregious cases, up until now it can have taken decades, and multiple victims coming forward, for complainants not to be ignored…
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/11/22/larry_nassar_has_confessed_to_sexually_assaulting_children_michigan_state.html
I think there is at least something to be said for the pendulum to have swung a little in the opposite direction.
The “it’s-OK-when-our-guy-does-it” fallacy rears it’s ugly head again – not really the way to go when discussing ethics …
The “it’s-OK-when-our-guy-does-it” fallacy rears it’s ugly head again – not really the way to go when discussing ethics …
Well, not anymore, IIRC at the time it was 3 years,
do you have a cite? everything i’ve read said there wasn’t any.
Well, not anymore, IIRC at the time it was 3 years,
do you have a cite? everything i’ve read said there wasn’t any.
At the risk of re-igniting the All Clinton All The Time flame wars, I thought this was pretty accurate regarding the Clinton/Lewinsky affair.
I was unaware that she was not on White House staff for most of their relationship. Which, to me, makes a difference.
It can be difficult to find a bright line between innocuous and unwelcome, and between unwelcome and threatening, and between threatening and actually dangerous. I would say in most cases it’s better to err on the side of prudence.
But sometimes people have affairs, and in and of itself that’s really nobody’s business but their own.
At the risk of re-igniting the All Clinton All The Time flame wars, I thought this was pretty accurate regarding the Clinton/Lewinsky affair.
I was unaware that she was not on White House staff for most of their relationship. Which, to me, makes a difference.
It can be difficult to find a bright line between innocuous and unwelcome, and between unwelcome and threatening, and between threatening and actually dangerous. I would say in most cases it’s better to err on the side of prudence.
But sometimes people have affairs, and in and of itself that’s really nobody’s business but their own.
On the other hand, imagining the vivesected death’s heads of Earth’s creatures gazing down from his office walls at ruthless pigfucker Joe Barton’s pasty white over-ripe naked carcass as he selfie’s his shriveled privates to his probably Christian female conquests does provide one a partisan frisson up the spine.
On the other hand, imagining the vivesected death’s heads of Earth’s creatures gazing down from his office walls at ruthless pigfucker Joe Barton’s pasty white over-ripe naked carcass as he selfie’s his shriveled privates to his probably Christian female conquests does provide one a partisan frisson up the spine.
sometimes people have affairs, and in and of itself that’s really nobody’s business but their own.
Well, theirs and those (if any) with whom one or the other (or both) of them are supposed to be in an exclusive relationship with. (And, unfortunately, the children of all involved.)
sometimes people have affairs, and in and of itself that’s really nobody’s business but their own.
Well, theirs and those (if any) with whom one or the other (or both) of them are supposed to be in an exclusive relationship with. (And, unfortunately, the children of all involved.)
for cleek:
The state’s statute of limitations for bringing felony charges involving sexual abuse of a minor in 1979 would have run out three years later. Corfman never filed a police report or a civil suit, the Post said.
From this article. Could be “fake news,” I suppose, but no retraction was made.
for cleek:
The state’s statute of limitations for bringing felony charges involving sexual abuse of a minor in 1979 would have run out three years later. Corfman never filed a police report or a civil suit, the Post said.
From this article. Could be “fake news,” I suppose, but no retraction was made.
Well, theirs and those (if any) with whom one or the other (or both) of them are supposed to be in an exclusive relationship with. (And, unfortunately, the children of all involved.)
Yes.
I’m not, and won’t, excuse hurtful behavior, I’m just making a comment about the scope of the audience who have an interest in it.
Well, theirs and those (if any) with whom one or the other (or both) of them are supposed to be in an exclusive relationship with. (And, unfortunately, the children of all involved.)
Yes.
I’m not, and won’t, excuse hurtful behavior, I’m just making a comment about the scope of the audience who have an interest in it.
From this article.
hmm. ok. guess i’ll stop saying that.
From this article.
hmm. ok. guess i’ll stop saying that.
Certainty it is the legitimate business of far fewer people than seem obsessively interested. I just don’t want to lose track of the fact that the principals are not the only ones potentially impacted. I’ve heard that kind of stupidity too often to doubt it gets repeated a lot as defense.
Certainty it is the legitimate business of far fewer people than seem obsessively interested. I just don’t want to lose track of the fact that the principals are not the only ones potentially impacted. I’ve heard that kind of stupidity too often to doubt it gets repeated a lot as defense.
Interestingly, from a criminal lawyer in Alabama, in a blog post dated June 15, 2014:
In recent years, other states have dropped their statute-of limitations, including Illinois and Florida. Under Alabama law, there is a three year statute of limitations for felony sex abuse and for misdemeanor sexual abuse; however, there is no statute of limitations on rape cases in Alabama.
That seems to contradict what I, like cleek, feel like I’ve read a bunch of times in the past couple of weeks (i.e. that there is currently no statute of limitations). But then, I skim a lot, and I’m not a lawyer, so I’ll leave it at that.
Interestingly, from a criminal lawyer in Alabama, in a blog post dated June 15, 2014:
In recent years, other states have dropped their statute-of limitations, including Illinois and Florida. Under Alabama law, there is a three year statute of limitations for felony sex abuse and for misdemeanor sexual abuse; however, there is no statute of limitations on rape cases in Alabama.
That seems to contradict what I, like cleek, feel like I’ve read a bunch of times in the past couple of weeks (i.e. that there is currently no statute of limitations). But then, I skim a lot, and I’m not a lawyer, so I’ll leave it at that.
In the vein of not wanting do al Clinton all the time, I saw this the other day and let it go but..
What if Ken Starr was right? By that right wing warrior Douthat
https://nyti.ms/2hKdjHR
In the vein of not wanting do al Clinton all the time, I saw this the other day and let it go but..
What if Ken Starr was right? By that right wing warrior Douthat
https://nyti.ms/2hKdjHR
I’ll trade you Bill Clinton’s scalp for Clarence Thomas’ .
As the player to be named later, I’ll select moderate Merrick Garland to replace Thomas on the Court.
I’ll trade you Bill Clinton’s scalp for Clarence Thomas’ .
As the player to be named later, I’ll select moderate Merrick Garland to replace Thomas on the Court.
A different take on the Clinton-Lewinsky affair.
Not long. Worth a read.
A different take on the Clinton-Lewinsky affair.
Not long. Worth a read.
novakant: The “it’s-OK-when-our-guy-does-it” fallacy rears it’s ugly head again
It’s not clear who you’re talking about (or to), novakant, but it’s even less clear what the “it” is that’s “OK” when “our” guy does it.
How wide a range of actions do you classify as “it”?
How narrow a range of reactions to “it” would be acceptable to you?
I mean, we could impose the death penalty (political or actual) for everything from fanny-patting to forcible rape, whether habitual or one-time, regardless of which “side” the perp is on or whether he fesses up.
That would be the most unambiguously moral and irreproachably non-partisan thing to do, right?
Alternatively, we could be rank hypocrites and note that some offenses are more egregious than others; we could be shameless partisans and decide that disgust with and mortal hatred of need not always go hand in hand.
I’m happy to be a hypocritical partisan, myself.
–TP
novakant: The “it’s-OK-when-our-guy-does-it” fallacy rears it’s ugly head again
It’s not clear who you’re talking about (or to), novakant, but it’s even less clear what the “it” is that’s “OK” when “our” guy does it.
How wide a range of actions do you classify as “it”?
How narrow a range of reactions to “it” would be acceptable to you?
I mean, we could impose the death penalty (political or actual) for everything from fanny-patting to forcible rape, whether habitual or one-time, regardless of which “side” the perp is on or whether he fesses up.
That would be the most unambiguously moral and irreproachably non-partisan thing to do, right?
Alternatively, we could be rank hypocrites and note that some offenses are more egregious than others; we could be shameless partisans and decide that disgust with and mortal hatred of need not always go hand in hand.
I’m happy to be a hypocritical partisan, myself.
–TP
Frankentoast
I don’t get it, but then I am a million miles away from that kind of social.
Frankentoast
I don’t get it, but then I am a million miles away from that kind of social.
What if Ken Starr was right?
to be honest, I don’t look to politicians for examples of moral virtue. I want them to do their jobs. being a moral exemplar is just not part of their brief, as far as I’m concerned.
don’t abuse your office, don’t put yourself in a position where your ability to do your job is compromised, those are my expectations.
i’ve often thought that the tragedy of bill clinton was what he could have achieved, had he not had the bimbo eruption baggage.
but then i see the way that obama – squeaky clean family man obama – was treated, and i recognize that it wouldn’t have made a difference.
cleek’s law. it’s like freaking gravity.
What if Ken Starr was right?
to be honest, I don’t look to politicians for examples of moral virtue. I want them to do their jobs. being a moral exemplar is just not part of their brief, as far as I’m concerned.
don’t abuse your office, don’t put yourself in a position where your ability to do your job is compromised, those are my expectations.
i’ve often thought that the tragedy of bill clinton was what he could have achieved, had he not had the bimbo eruption baggage.
but then i see the way that obama – squeaky clean family man obama – was treated, and i recognize that it wouldn’t have made a difference.
cleek’s law. it’s like freaking gravity.
Of course it would have made a difference! Clinton didn’t have that permanent suntan. And anyone who doesn’t realize that that was at the root of how he was treated is delusional.
Not that it wasn’t possible to disagree with him. But the way he was approached from day one? Suntan.
Of course it would have made a difference! Clinton didn’t have that permanent suntan. And anyone who doesn’t realize that that was at the root of how he was treated is delusional.
Not that it wasn’t possible to disagree with him. But the way he was approached from day one? Suntan.
…how he, Obama was treated…
…how he, Obama was treated…
Watch out wj, that wji guy is nym-jacking you.
Re: Clinton and Lewinsky, the ultimate judgment on whether the ‘relationship’ was abusive or not is what Lewinsky has to say about it: twenty years later, and with zero prospect of retaliation from Clinton.
As skeevy as Moore and (IMO, to a much lesser extent) Clinton’s dalliances might be, they are still INFINITELY preferable to the torture perversion demonstrated by Cheney et al.
Downright normal and healthy, by comparison, I’d say.
Watch out wj, that wji guy is nym-jacking you.
Re: Clinton and Lewinsky, the ultimate judgment on whether the ‘relationship’ was abusive or not is what Lewinsky has to say about it: twenty years later, and with zero prospect of retaliation from Clinton.
As skeevy as Moore and (IMO, to a much lesser extent) Clinton’s dalliances might be, they are still INFINITELY preferable to the torture perversion demonstrated by Cheney et al.
Downright normal and healthy, by comparison, I’d say.
wji = wj + fat finger (the tablet seems to do that a lot.)
Plus too lazy to go up to the laptop and do an edit right now….
wji = wj + fat finger (the tablet seems to do that a lot.)
Plus too lazy to go up to the laptop and do an edit right now….
still INFINITELY preferable to the torture perversion
If anyone argues, just ask them which they would prefer to have their daughter (or themselves) on the receiving end of. Suddenly, the significance of the distinction becomes stunningly obvious.
still INFINITELY preferable to the torture perversion
If anyone argues, just ask them which they would prefer to have their daughter (or themselves) on the receiving end of. Suddenly, the significance of the distinction becomes stunningly obvious.
Frankentoast
Goddammit.
The problem is that gropers are like bed bugs.
Back when the conspiracy of silence was operating etter, we would only ever see one bite at a time. And with just one bite, you can always convince yourself that it’s really just a mosquito. Or a spider. Or maybe a weird little hive. Anything but the other thing.
But now the blinders are off. And unfortunately, seeing all the bites at once laid in neat little rows is far more diagnostic…
Frankentoast
Goddammit.
The problem is that gropers are like bed bugs.
Back when the conspiracy of silence was operating etter, we would only ever see one bite at a time. And with just one bite, you can always convince yourself that it’s really just a mosquito. Or a spider. Or maybe a weird little hive. Anything but the other thing.
But now the blinders are off. And unfortunately, seeing all the bites at once laid in neat little rows is far more diagnostic…
This is a relevant conversation well worth reading – whether or not one agrees with everything in it…
https://www.thecut.com/2017/11/rebecca-traister-ross-douthat-post-weinstein-lessons.html
But I have to say, this part of the news cycle — where everyone is obsessing over whether Al Franken should resign and whether Bill Clinton should have or not — is wearing on me. I’m sure a cynic could read this as being defensive about fellow liberals. But I promise you it’s not that. I am all for reevaluating Bill and for hearing more about Franken, but I worry that the drive to render sentence is pulling focus from what should be being revealed here, which is the pervasiveness of the behavior, the way that the whole culture tells us that jokes about grabbing women’s breasts are funny, the way that a comedian who builds his career in part on telling those jokes can become a trusted public and political figure to begin with.
Which is not to say that Franken shouldn’t be trusted, and I happen to think he’s a great senator. But you know, Gilda Radner might have also been a great senator, but can we imagine the scenario in which she’d have been granted comparable public authority?…
This is a relevant conversation well worth reading – whether or not one agrees with everything in it…
https://www.thecut.com/2017/11/rebecca-traister-ross-douthat-post-weinstein-lessons.html
But I have to say, this part of the news cycle — where everyone is obsessing over whether Al Franken should resign and whether Bill Clinton should have or not — is wearing on me. I’m sure a cynic could read this as being defensive about fellow liberals. But I promise you it’s not that. I am all for reevaluating Bill and for hearing more about Franken, but I worry that the drive to render sentence is pulling focus from what should be being revealed here, which is the pervasiveness of the behavior, the way that the whole culture tells us that jokes about grabbing women’s breasts are funny, the way that a comedian who builds his career in part on telling those jokes can become a trusted public and political figure to begin with.
Which is not to say that Franken shouldn’t be trusted, and I happen to think he’s a great senator. But you know, Gilda Radner might have also been a great senator, but can we imagine the scenario in which she’d have been granted comparable public authority?…
Happy Turkey Day! In celebration, the OECD has once again confirmed the US is a low tax country (31st out of 35 OECD countries in taxes as a % of GDP, which includes state and local taxes).
There is plenty of $$ to spend on infrastructure, healthcare, etc., we just refuse to do so. Plus out military budget is disgusting.
That is all.
Happy Turkey Day! In celebration, the OECD has once again confirmed the US is a low tax country (31st out of 35 OECD countries in taxes as a % of GDP, which includes state and local taxes).
There is plenty of $$ to spend on infrastructure, healthcare, etc., we just refuse to do so. Plus out military budget is disgusting.
That is all.
This is a relevant conversation well worth reading…
i continue to wonder about the relevance of Bill Clinton.
he’s not in office or running for office. and he was already impeached – twenty years ago.
This is a relevant conversation well worth reading…
i continue to wonder about the relevance of Bill Clinton.
he’s not in office or running for office. and he was already impeached – twenty years ago.
Today’s Prime Directive: Gobble, gobble, gobble!
Have a good one.
Today’s Prime Directive: Gobble, gobble, gobble!
Have a good one.
It’s a day to, for the sheer novelty if nothing else, focus on what’s right in our world. Give thanks for that, and let the rest wait until tomorrow.
It’s a day to, for the sheer novelty if nothing else, focus on what’s right in our world. Give thanks for that, and let the rest wait until tomorrow.
Late night thoughts, buried way down here to be maybe retrieved if and when appropriate
This LGM Post wherein Lemieux proves Zizek wrong about oligarchic Democrats by reference to statements. Pelosi says she is opposed to these tax cuts, and that’s that. Not that Zizek, whom I don’t read is right, but…
This is how the tag-team, goodcop-badcop works:Democrats make left-populist statements, so the conservative things that happen are not their fault.
Example: Obama preserving 80-90% of the Bush taxcuts in 2012. Specifically, the exemption for inheritance taxes went from 500k in 2001 to 5 million in 2012. Obama may have raised the rate, but kept the exemption. Course, not his fault, right? Had to do health care in 2009, and raising taxes would have gotten in the way.
Same thing, subtle and in different forms, happened to the treatment of capital in the Clinton administration.
And the same thing will happen with these current tax cuts in the Gillibrand/Harris/whomever administration in 2021.
Democrat-Republican tag-team. Two steps backward, one step forward. And never Democrat’s fault.
Late night thoughts, buried way down here to be maybe retrieved if and when appropriate
This LGM Post wherein Lemieux proves Zizek wrong about oligarchic Democrats by reference to statements. Pelosi says she is opposed to these tax cuts, and that’s that. Not that Zizek, whom I don’t read is right, but…
This is how the tag-team, goodcop-badcop works:Democrats make left-populist statements, so the conservative things that happen are not their fault.
Example: Obama preserving 80-90% of the Bush taxcuts in 2012. Specifically, the exemption for inheritance taxes went from 500k in 2001 to 5 million in 2012. Obama may have raised the rate, but kept the exemption. Course, not his fault, right? Had to do health care in 2009, and raising taxes would have gotten in the way.
Same thing, subtle and in different forms, happened to the treatment of capital in the Clinton administration.
And the same thing will happen with these current tax cuts in the Gillibrand/Harris/whomever administration in 2021.
Democrat-Republican tag-team. Two steps backward, one step forward. And never Democrat’s fault.
Ctrl-F “congress” : “Phrase not found”
Ctrl-F “congress” : “Phrase not found”
Oh, I mention Pelosi and Democrats plural often enough. I am not in the LGM #nothingeverneverObamaClintonfault crowd, but I recognize constraints
Obama preserving 80-90% of the Bush taxcuts in 2012.
Obama had to work Congress very hard to get this passed, and still only managed 85 Republicans and 165 class traitors. The millionaires club in the Senate was easy.
But generally I don’t waste my time apportioning responsibility in fair measure.
Watch not what they say, or even what they do because a) they are smarter than you, and b) they know to make legislation and policy like ACA and tax reform incomprehensible to amateurs…
…watch what happens.
Oh, I mention Pelosi and Democrats plural often enough. I am not in the LGM #nothingeverneverObamaClintonfault crowd, but I recognize constraints
Obama preserving 80-90% of the Bush taxcuts in 2012.
Obama had to work Congress very hard to get this passed, and still only managed 85 Republicans and 165 class traitors. The millionaires club in the Senate was easy.
But generally I don’t waste my time apportioning responsibility in fair measure.
Watch not what they say, or even what they do because a) they are smarter than you, and b) they know to make legislation and policy like ACA and tax reform incomprehensible to amateurs…
…watch what happens.
Obama preserving 80-90% of the Bush taxcuts in 2012.
that didn’t happen in a vacuum.
Obama preserving 80-90% of the Bush taxcuts in 2012.
that didn’t happen in a vacuum.
…the exemption for inheritance taxes went from 500k in 2001 to 5 million in 2012.
Tangentially, this is what allows people to now say, “But it’s no big deal to get rid of it! It’s not that much revenue, anyway!” (Also, it’s the estate tax, right?)
What we should be doing is lowering the exemption back to something sane.
…the exemption for inheritance taxes went from 500k in 2001 to 5 million in 2012.
Tangentially, this is what allows people to now say, “But it’s no big deal to get rid of it! It’s not that much revenue, anyway!” (Also, it’s the estate tax, right?)
What we should be doing is lowering the exemption back to something sane.
Obama may have raised the rate, but kept the exemption. Course, not his fault, right? Had to do health care in 2009, and raising taxes would have gotten in the way.
So are you saying that you think it would have been possible to do both? I get that you think it should have been possible, but do you really think it was? And if so, based on what?
Obama may have raised the rate, but kept the exemption. Course, not his fault, right? Had to do health care in 2009, and raising taxes would have gotten in the way.
So are you saying that you think it would have been possible to do both? I get that you think it should have been possible, but do you really think it was? And if so, based on what?
speaking of taxes and how Dems and Republicans are identical…
http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/29/news/economy/tax-reform-puerto-rico/
speaking of taxes and how Dems and Republicans are identical…
http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/29/news/economy/tax-reform-puerto-rico/
Well since their constituents don’t think Puerto Rico is really part of the United States, that makes a sort of sense. Starting from false assumptions will do that to you.
Well since their constituents don’t think Puerto Rico is really part of the United States, that makes a sort of sense. Starting from false assumptions will do that to you.
That many more Puerto Ricans will be *incentivized* to move to the mainland. Since Florida is a close-by and already-popular destination for people leaving the island, as well as being a large swing-state, this piece of policy should appropriately bite them square in the ass if enacted.
That many more Puerto Ricans will be *incentivized* to move to the mainland. Since Florida is a close-by and already-popular destination for people leaving the island, as well as being a large swing-state, this piece of policy should appropriately bite them square in the ass if enacted.
I saw someone with a “Republicans for Voldemort” bumper sticker last weekend. That’s what it’s like. I can’t wrap my head around it.
I saw someone with a “Republicans for Voldemort” bumper sticker last weekend. That’s what it’s like. I can’t wrap my head around it.
Puerto Ricans are already handicapped by the Jones Act.
Puerto Ricans are already handicapped by the Jones Act.
Not just Puerto Ricans. Hawaiians, Alaskans, and, to some degree all the rest of us as well. Someday Congress will figure out that it’s not 1920 any more.
Not just Puerto Ricans. Hawaiians, Alaskans, and, to some degree all the rest of us as well. Someday Congress will figure out that it’s not 1920 any more.