A woman had called in about that ebola incident, and — as Rush put it:
"[W]hat she thought was that since he made a big deal out of not kissing the doctors, that he wanted to make everybody aware that he wasn't gay. And her point was, what's wrong with being gay?My point would be that he used the stereotype that doctors are male and nurses are female. But, yeah, on top of that, what's wrong — within his world view — with men kissing men?
Well, he is married. If he was gay, that would be a problem....Wait! If he's distinguishing kissing males and females, he's specifying that kissing is sexual, and kissing the women should be a problem for a man married to a woman. If it's not sexual, he should kiss both sexes indiscriminately (which would work to deny the sexuality of kissing unless he's bisexual).
... so he's going out of his way to say he's not gay. That's her interpretation.If that's correct, then Obama made a homophobia faux pas. Rush connects that incident to the "don't touch my girlfriend" scene that I wrote about — here — yesterday. Rush describes what happened and says that some people think the scene was scripted. His theory — which is nothing like mine — is that it was supposed to make Obama seem attractive and supportive to women, to counteract Tina Brown's recent statement: "I don't think [Obama] makes [women] feel safe." Whether the Chicago incident was scripted or not, I didn't read it as a demonstration of making women feel safe. I thought it was an intrusion on the woman. But Rush proceeds to quote me:
Like Ann Althouse on her blog said, "Wait a second, I thought men weren't supposed to --" You know, you have to get consent to do this now on every college campus. You can't just kiss a woman without her permission, and you can't approach her and put your arm around without her permission, without her consent. Obama just forced his way on that woman. And she looked like she wanted it, by the way. She looked like she didn't mind, honored to be given a hug and a smooch by the president, cocksman A.In my book, it doesn't matter how she acted. He didn't know in advance how she would feel. Even if she loved it, he assumed he was welcome to impose on her body. And her reaction doesn't convince me that she loved it. She was on camera, overwhelmed by the most powerful man in the world, and forced to think quickly about what might be in her interest. How was rejecting him or acting offended even an option?
Rush continues:
So that happens, and everybody's laughing and Obama walks out around her and he's looking like he's pulled off some major score here. Talks about this guy, why would a brother want to embarrass me like this and so forth. So people are wondering if the whole thing was scripted since it followed, by one day, Tina Brown saying that Obama makes women feel unsafe.I don't think that's clear. She was put on the spot... by the President of the United States. She might be laughing out of sheer emotional overload, confusion, and the weirdness of it all. Are you allowed to fight off the advances of The Leader? Droit du seigneur?? Is there some core of personal autonomy and rectitude that I can voice right now? The safe bet is to let it all roll over you. Pretend you're into it. Safe bet. Women want to be safe. Tina says. Safety is one way to play the game of life. But the other players should not assume that your silence means consent. If they do, they don't really care about women. Yes mean yes. Silence does not mean yes. Silence may mean: I am subordinated.
Clearly this woman was not feeling unsafe. She's laughing. She's all excited.
Rush finishing the segment, trying — I think — to pick up on what I'd said:
But it's very clear that she did not sign a consent form before he embraced her. It wasn't an embrace. He put his arm around her shoulder. But there was no consent form. She didn't sign a consent form before he embraced her and kissed her. And that's illegal in many places in America now and on college campi. Just did it.
Posts
65 comments:
Lord. I was running errands, in and out of the truck. I heard this come on and thought, "Hey, this sounds like Althouse. I hope she gets credit this time."
The Althouse take is too dismissive of women, for Rush in particular.
If you can't think in your feet, it's your problem, not a gender problem.
At the Washington Post they have degendered and deprofessionalized the nurses with this headline:
Obama: ‘I hugged and kissed’ medical staff treating an Ebola patient — and ‘felt perfectly safe doing so’
Rush reads althouse.com, but does he buy anything on the Amazon portal?
Woo hoo! Althouse has been trolling for a mention on Rush Limbaugh's show for years.
Hillbillies unite!
Is this your birthday twin's first mention of you?
"Woo hoo! Althouse has been trolling for a mention on Rush Limbaugh's show for years."
Oh, bullshit. I've been mentioned a number of times and I don't do a damned thing toward anybody to get attention.
Obama thinks (or is made to think) he is boyfriend material for every Democratic leaning woman.
If Obama, or anyone else for that matter, presumed to kiss me like he did with that woman, he'd get his face slapped for his trouble.
I'd haul off and slap him.
Obama is so second rate at being a masher. While he was President, Bill Clinton could get a woman
to gleefully kiss more than his cheek.
"and I don't do a damned thing toward anybody to get attention."
Meade?
I wonder if Obama is feeling any Clinton envy ?
Silence does not mean yes.
As the man's kissing you and looking into your eyes and unbuttoning your shirt and taking off your bra and licking your nipples and helping you take your panties off and then he's making sure you are moist and then he says "cowgirl" and you get on top and you both have orgasms...
I think silence means yes. At least if you're going to charge him with rape. For fuck's sake.
Note that either person could be charged with rape in the above hypothetical, since neither person vocalized consent.
Of course consent is often non-vocal. Feminism is retarded.
But what's truly dangerous is redefining rape away from a crime of violence. That's what the crime has been for a few thousand years. Men are the rapists because we are bigger and stronger than women.
As feminism tries to redefine rape into a non-consent crime that both genders do to each other, you might want to think about...
the women who are violently attacked (are you helping them?)
the men who are falsely accused of a rape (are you helping them?)
Well, how can you say you will, when you won't
You tell me you do, baby, when you don't?
Let me know, honey, how you feel
Tell the truth how is love real
Carl Perkins - Honey Don't
you know, I'm getting a bit tired of everyone throwing out droit du seigneur and jus primae noctis in any context.
Just because it was in Braveheart doesn't necessarily mean it's true. There's scant evidence that it was ever a custom in Europe.
I thought you raised a very interesting and worthwhile point in an Alinsky's 4th Rule sort of way.
Hold Obama to his own ridiculous progressive Standards of behavior.
Saint Croix said...
"As feminism tries to redefine rape into a non-consent crime that both genders do to each other, you might want to think about...
the women who are violently attacked (are you helping them?)
the men who are falsely accused of a rape (are you helping them?)"
You know the feminists goal is not to help. There is no good faith here. They want women to feel victimized. They want men to feel victimized.
But most importantly they want them divided. The left owns blacks because they are angry and victimized. Of course it is the left that victimizes them. But broken eggs and omelets you know.
They have been trying to do the same thing with women for a while now. This will make sure a generation of college women and men are distrustful of each other and vote accordingly.
You cannot logically do all the following
1 blog
2 get upset at your provider for outages because you have built up a readership over years and don't want to use them
3 say bullshit I don't do a damn thing to get noticed,
Professor,
You wrote a book? Can I buy it on Amazon?
Funny thing is that when I read your first post about this, I thought (and almost commented but didn't get around to it) that the post was written in Limbaugh's style, I thought it was tongue in cheek, and using the logic of the left to skewer them. Rush does this all the time, and then liberals think he is serious and a brouhaha develops.
I saw commenters at that post taking it seriously and thought they were missing the point.
Then I read your second post on the incident and went "Whoa, wait, she actually meant the first post!?!"
I don't think 1 in 10 college age girls buys into this crap for a second. As the father of a college student (female) I have asked about how she and her friends feel about this and other pieties of the University. Short answer, they think it is all crap. My girl is a free thinking adult. She is not sucked into the pop-culture scene and she is nobody's fool. She and her circle think the new campus inquisition is just a club to beat men by the radfem crowd, and a crutch for weak women to use as an excuse for their own bad behavior. Note how many of these rape allegations are day, weeks, sometimes months after the fact. They think that if it takes you that long to decide you were raped, you weren't.
King Putt presses flesh:
DNC SOP:
Bad press: Change the subject.
Bad poll: Change the subject.
Bad Pres: Change the subject.
Rush isn't doing a very good job of using their own rules against them.
Re: the bodily autonomy issue...I agree with rhhardin:
If you can't think in (sic) your feet, it's your problem, not a gender problem.
People do things that may offend us. We have voices and can tell people that we would like them to alter their behavior to avoid offending us. This applies to a wide array of interpersonal interactions, including the cheek kiss. Likening this in any way to rape is just beyond ridiculous. It's a minor thing- objectively, regardless of whether or not this one woman liked it or disliked it.
And as far as the authority gap with a powerful person like POTUS...that also applies to a wide array of behaviors, like when POtUS comes to town and completely disrupts traffic. Or if your boss asks you to attend an event, or whatever....
" I'm getting a bit tired of everyone throwing out droit du seigneur and jus primae noctis in any context."
I'm not sure Obama and Clinton know it's not real. Jack Kennedy sure didn't. And the girls who were jumping to see him at rallies didn't say much about it.
You know the feminists goal is not to help. There is no good faith here.
I think there are a lot of feminists who are in good faith. Althouse, for instance. And I think equality is a very important concept. It just doesn't work very well in terms of sex, pregnancy, abortion, or rape.
It's rather absurd trying to define women as rapists, as the CDC is trying to do.
There is no danger in a woman trying to rape me. The whole thing is absurd. But there is a danger in a woman making a false claim of rape. That's the female equivalent of a rape.
A rapist hates an entire gender, and all his anger and hatred come down on one innocent woman.
A woman who makes a false rape claim hates an entire gender, and all her anger and hatred come down on one innocent man.
I see the two actions as very similar. Both are motivated by hatred and anger. The man is using force. The woman is manipulating people and getting the state to commit the violence.
He kissed me in a way
That I've never been kissed before
He kissed me in a way
That I wanna be kissed forever more
RecChief said...
"and I don't do a damned thing toward anybody to get attention."
Meade?
-------------------------
It's true. She's an artist, a thinker, a scholar, a writer, an educator, a wife, a mother... Her work gets attention but I've never seen her seek attention for herself even though she gets a lot of pleasure from people who are respectful and nice to her.
I, on the other hand, am a HUGE attention seeker. Hey, everyone, come over to my blog. I HAVE PUPPIES!!!
At no time in Europe during the Dark Age following the break-up of the Roman imperium or in the succeeding Medieval period was droit du seigneur sanctioned either in ecclesiastical or civil law. But as is the case with many legends this one might contain a kernel of truth. It is quite possible that powerful feudal lords exercised jus primae noctis during times when central authority was weak or nonexistent and the lord of the manor was effectively a law unto himself. In doing so he would have acted illegally by the laws of both Church and king but since neither had the means to enforce their writ he was free to do as he pleased.
The Warlord, an excellent but obscure 1965 film directed by Franklin J. Schaffner and starring Charleton Heston and Rosemary Forsyth, covers this subject in compelling fashion. It takes place in what is now Flanders sometime during the Dark Age, probably during the 8th century (i.e. before the reign of Charlemange), when the Franks were still consolidating their hold on the region and clashing frequently with Frisian raiders from the east. The Duke of Ghent has made an impoverished and war-weary Frankish knight (Heston) the overlord of a decrepit castle-keep and its proximate lands on the coast, where the inhabitants are pagan Celts who practice a druidic religion centered on the worship of a sacred oak tree in the forest outside their village. Shortly after arriving to take possession his newly acquired domain he meets and is filled with lust for a beautiful Celt girl. Subsequently he forcibly takes her, on the night of her wedding to a local boy, to his bed. The villagers are unhappy about this but they recognize that, according to their custom (a crucial point in the plot), the lord has the right to do so, but only if he gives her up at dawn of the next day.
It so happens, however, that the girl is equally smitten with the knight, and decides to stay with him. This provokes a rebellion by the villagers, who join with Frisian raiders to besiege the knight and his retainers--along with his lady-love--in the castle-keep. Throughout the course of the plot’s unfolding it is made clear that the knight, in exercising jus primae noctis, is acting illegally, breaking the tenants of Frankish law. Then he violates Celtic custom by not returning the girl after he has had his way with her, which places him outside both pagan and Christian law. Further, he is informed that the Duke of Ghent, who is displeased that his actions have provoked the natives to revolt, has resolved to seize his lands. This decision by the duke is further indication that even in the 9th century the exercise of jus prima noctis is impermissible and immoral.
I have one deerhound. If I got another would I also get le droit du seigneur (a.k.a. jus primae noctis) like the guy in the painting? Or do I need the second hound and the hat?
I want to to add that The Warlord was adapted by from The Lovers, a play by someone named Leslie Stevens. It really is a love story, but it has plenty of blood and thunder (with clanging broadswords) too, plus a terrific soundtrack. And it provides the most realistic and accurate3 depiction in film of life in the period in question. Much better than historiographical travesties such as Braveheart and Kingdom of Heaven.
I don't think Obama can conceive of a young black woman who wouldn't want to be hugged by him. It's theoretically possible that such a woman exists but, surely, not within the city limits of Chicago. Check out those women in the background when he gives a speech. Eat your heart out Elvis. They're completely enraptured........I think there were things going on just under the surface of this incident that were not so jocular, but Obama looked good natured and charming. The charm is far more apparent than the subtext. If you spend too much time analyzing the subtext, then you've missed his point--which was to be charming.
Tolstoy had his way with hundreds of peasant women. I don't think he invested much time in the courtship ritual, but it wasn't droit du seigneur either. For rich powerful men silence is consent, and who's going to voice an objection.......You can say something similar happened in the Obama incident, but, for God's sake, it was a peck on the cheek.
Re: The Warlord
It takes place in what is now Flanders sometime during the Dark Age, probably during the 8th century (i.e. before the reign of Charlemange), when the Franks were still consolidating their hold on the region and clashing frequently with Frisian raiders from the east.
The 8th century would be reckoned from 701 AD to 800 AD. The Viking chieftain Rolf the Ganger (a.k.a. Rollo) was baptized as Robert I, Duke of Normandy on All Saints Day, 911 AD. He and his followers became Frenchmen and subjects of Charles the Simple thereafter. Since Chrysagon de la Cruex and his brother Drago are described as Normans, the setting of The Warlord must be 10th century, or perhaps the early decades of the 11th. The late 10th century makes sense to me since there were isolated pockets of Frisian paganism (worshipers of Woden, Twi, Tur and Frick) among the islands of the Waddenzee until 1000 AD when a suffragan bishop was appointed for Terschelling.
Quastor:
Late 10th century is possible. I meant to say 9th or 10th century (i.e. 800s). Placing the events depicted in the film in the 8th century was my mistake. I don't recall Chrysagon and his retainers being identified as Normans--it's been long while since I've seen the film and I'm writing from memory. If it was 11th century he would certainly have been Norman. But the villagers were most certainly not Frisians: they were Celts. The film is quite clear in distinguishing them from the Frisians. The fact that they practiced a druidic religion and that there was no strong central authority in the region inclines me to think that the film takes place in the 9th century not the 10th and certainly not the 11th. It may be that the author of the play, Leslie Steven, mixed aspect of the historical eras for the sake of crafting his story. I don't know; I haven't read the play.
I guess I'm happy to be reminded that Barack Obama is still the most powerful man in the world.
I have an AVI of the film that film which I acquired "somewhere". I briefly scanned it and there are at least two pieces of dialogue that identify Chrysagon de la Cruex and his followers as Normans.
Rush is a shameless name-dropper. He is just trying to court the conscientious feminists.
Are you allowed to fight off the advances of The Leader?
Hee...she should have slapped his face. What's he going to do, sic the SS on her? There are cameras everywhere. Sometimes the POTUS is the least powerful man in the world.
My initial reaction while watching the video was that the very act of voting was not being taken seriously by anyone involved--and, in fact, the voting action itself ended up being depicted (then, in the moment, as well as later, far and wide) as very much quite beside the point, on account of the other points so pointedly being made as asides. How delightful, how entertaining, all of that!
Silence does not mean yes.
And it's beyond unfair for me to take one sentence out of Althouse's post and harp on it.
My take on this is that Althouse does not like the California law. But she's very respectful to law-as-law. Does this work? Is it good? She's trying to get into the mindset of people who say things. And the point of this post is her observation that the law will not be applied fairly.
In essence, the California law is criminalizing a tremendous amount of innocent conduct. Like the scenario I outlined at 7:22. So just imagine some student body made up of 22-year-olds banging their gavels and saying, "Silence is not consent!" And the man sitting there going, what the fuck?
My free-and-unlicensed legal advice for any student who is charged with rape under "yes means yes" is to file rape charges right back. Chances are you didn't say yes either, dummy. She raped you. And abandon your knowledge and certainty that this is a lie. Of course it's a lie. The whole stupid construct is a lie.
Again, rape is a horrific crime, a crime of violence. To make a joke out of it, as feminism has done, is awful. But hey, Joe McCarthy made a joke out of anti-Communism. When you have a disregard for innocence, when you see evil under every bed, people start mocking you.
Of course there really are rapists, just like there really were Commie spies in the U.S.
It wasn't McCarthy's motives that were bad. It was his tactics. I think the people who wrote this law mean well. But it's really no excuse. Defining 99% of sexual activity as rape is rather insane, don't you think?
Again, are you helping actual victims of rape (i.e. the violent assault) when you do this? And are you helping the people who are falsely accused of rape when you do this? Or are you turning a massive amount of sexual behavior into joke-rape?
Remember how hard it was to accuse anybody of being a Communist after McCarthy. And Communism, like rape, was not a joke.
Woman are hypergamous. Dirtbags have been taking advantage of this fact to get laid out of their league for a long time.
It's evolution. Let's all pretend evolution never happened.
Now that Meade is a blogger, you would think he would learn how to link to his own blog.
LOL. Ann is all hot and bothered to be recognized by has-been Limbaugh? You can only imagine the excitement that Ann would experience if she was similarly validated by Rush's predecessor, the late Morton Downey, Jr. It would be cream city for Ann!
Given that Ann was barely published in the field of law, I guess being quote by the blovaitor will have to suffice as personal validation.
The "kissing nurses" thing came out completely weird, though you can imagine what Obama's thought process was when saying it:
"I want to make clear that we have Ebola under control, and demonstrate that you cannot catch Ebola just from hugging someone or kissing them on the cheek. Of course, if they cough on you and get spittle in your mouth, that's a different story, but mainly I need to make sure people see that 'I got this'. Coolbama! So I'll tell them that I hugged the doctors who treated the Ebola patients--sure, I don't hug just anyone, but I have a point to make! In fact, I'll take it a step further, and tell them I kissed them too! But I don't want anyone to think I'm gay, so I'll make clear I hugged doctors, but kissed nurses! Sure, there are male nurses and female dcotors, but if I go out of my way to say I only hugged the guys and kissed the gals, my gay panic might show a lot more. So better to let them think nurses get kisses and doctors get hugs because of their different professional credentials."
Another thing about Obama's weird "gay panic"--Bush never had that problem. He even wore Crocs in public.
No need to be insecure--own the fact that you're a bit effete. You have an attractive wife who is fine with it.
The whole analysis is built around doctors = men and nurses = women.
That may be right, but when I read the excerpt, I thought doctors = privileged class and nurses = working stiffs. By making sure we know he kissed the nurses and not the doctors, he's aligning himself with the regular folk, the front line people who take the real risks (both people infected in the U.S. were nurses, not doctors).
As for the woman he sexually assaulted, I have no idea which explanation is true. Any one of them may be.
Keep saying Rush is a has been, one day it will be true.
@tim maguire
doctors = privileged class and nurses = working stiffs
That may be a popular perception but it is false. Nurses are not the front line in treatment; like doctors their time is consumed by paperwork and while they don't have the privileges, salaries, and education that doctors do, they have a great deal more than the "working stiffs" in healthcare who do the actual bedside care--the CNAs and such.
In my limited romantic experience, asking a woman to say yes to anything except a date or marriage is a bad move. As a man, you try to read signals, take action and prepare yourself for rejection. When a woman says stop or even resists, you stop.
I think woman get a beta vibe from men who constantly ask for their approval, especially in matters of sex. Also, whether it's due to how they're raised or their intrinsic nature, many women fear coming off as a slut and would rather have the man make the moves.
But the liberals will fix us.
Again, are you helping actual victims of rape (i.e. the violent assault) when you do this? And are you helping the people who are falsely accused of rape when you do this? Or are you turning a massive amount of sexual behavior into joke-rape?
Remember how hard it was to accuse anybody of being a Communist after McCarthy. And Communism, like rape, was not a joke.
They have done this with everything. What the hell are 'microagressions' beyond mild rudeness? So, you have real rape, sexual harrassment and racism being trivialized.
I don't think most women are in agreement with this sort of law making, and I don't think most women lie about rape, but there is a very vocal, public subset who do these things and it should be treated as the evil that it actually is.
On the doctors/nurses thing, Obama is not a feminist at heart. He does not thing women and men are equal. This slips out periodically.
College campi? Srsly?
Wherever it's rooted, the word campus is English. The plural is campuses.
"College campi? Srsly? Wherever it's rooted, the word campus is English. The plural is campuses."
Rush has a bunch of things that he consistently puts a certain way for humorous effect. That's one of them. There's nothing to correct.
"Now that Meade is a blogger, you would think he would learn how to link to his own blog."
His quote is funnier unlinked…
Sexism is a hard accusation to prevent since it means never saying men and women are different. Never saying men and women are different requires a total remake of human civilization. Good luck.
Once written, twice...: "LOL. Ann is all hot and bothered to be recognized by has-been Limbaugh?"
LOL
The marketplace has determined that you are an idiot.
But only a complete idiot.
Back in ad revenue land, Limbaugh is far, far from "has been" status.
I don't think most women lie about rape
Right. And most men aren't rapists. For almost all of us, this will not be an issue in our own lives.
But there's a subset of men who will rape. And a subset of women who will lie about rape. And it's really important to avoid these people.
One awful thing about rape, I think, is that it confuses sex and rape in the minds of people. And they are more likely to say they were raped in the future.
For instance this woman made five false rape claims. I was thinking about this, and it occurred to me that maybe something happened to her in her past, and she was assaulted. And now, when she has any conflict with a man, she cries rape.
It's kind of like pedophiles were often molested as children.
I think women who have been assaulted or who have had horrible things happen to them need a lot of counseling. And getting involved with political movements is maybe the worst thing you can do in that situation. Because there's a lot of hate and anger that can build through politics. And they might have a problem separating out sex from rape. And they might also have a tendency to want to define more and more sexual activities as rape so they don't feel isolated.
It's important to think about hate and anger towards men, and false rape claims. If we're not careful, victims can become perps. They can become angry and awful people who want to lash out and hurt the innocent. In fact they don't see innocence anymore, that's one of the problems.
Once written, twice... said...
Given that Ann was barely published in the field of law, I guess being quote by the blovaitor will have to suffice as personal validation.
What's the name of your blog?
And I cannot have enough criticisms of the CDC. Rape is not a disease. It's a crime. Why are you treating rape like a disease?
Why is the CDC trying to spread hysteria about rape? Are you practicing medicine? Are you healing anybody? What the hell are you doing?
Obama's idea of a wet dream is figuratively exercising the "droit de seigneur" on every taxpayer in the United States (because, as you know, "wealth is better when you spread it around"). Uncle Crack's idea of a wet dream is probably Michelle with a whip and wearing an "Ilse She-Wolf of the IRS" leather outfit.
Warlord is indeed a very good if not a great movie. James Farentino, Guy Stockwell, and Richard Boone in the supporting cast. The depiction of the period is so good you can almost feel the grit and grime.
I saw in the theater and have since obtained a copy of it and watched it a couple of times. A pity it seemed to sink pretty much without a trace. It deserved an audience.
Post a Comment