Fox News reports.
"Male feminist" wasn't Myers's label for himself. In fact, no one at GQ ever uses the term "male feminist"...
... if I can trust the search function at the website.
Which I can't....
But I think conservative media came up with that descriptor to revel in the hypocrisy of a liberal.
Daily Caller reporter Ian Miles Cheong had harsh words for Myers, tweeting, “Male feminists who claim the moral high ground, who turn their noses up at the ‘misogynists’ below, are the very demons they claim to fight.”Yes, of course, that's fun to do — and liberals often deserve it — but Myers seems to have written mainly about British politics, not gender. There is at least one Myers article in the gender category: "Men’s Rights Activists are cave dwelling idiots."
MRAs routinely deny the existence of what many feminists call "rape culture" by suggesting that failures to prosecute sexual violence are the result of endemic false rape allegations, rather than societal attitudes towards consent. When the founder of MRA site "A Voice For Men" Paul Elam wrote a piece entitled "Bill Cosby's victims? Or just a bunch of drug whoring star fuckers?" he was displaying an overt hostility towards women that characterises the movement. Over 50 women have accused Bill Cosby of sexual assault. Yet Elam goes to bat for Cosby.But who will go to bat for Myers? Any Men's Rights cavemen want to step up for this guy? He's all alone now. Sad!
What are the rules for going out for drinks with a co-worker? If they say they just want to be your mate, when is it okay to quip "I’ve got enough mates, I’d rather fuck you"?
Yesterday, in the context of discussing allegations against the film director James Toback, I put up this image from what seemed to me to be his most significant film:
That inspired the commenter tim in vermont to write:
Robert Downy doesn't need techniques to pick up women, a simple "wanna fuck" would probably work at least half the time for him. In Wedding Crashers, the PUA was Will Ferrel, that was more believable.If you look like like Robert Downey Jr. in 1987, go ahead and quip "I’ve got enough mates, I’d rather fuck you," and I suspect the worst you'd get is a laugh and a no from a woman who feels flattered and still hopes to be friends. But here's Rupert Myers:
He does not have the looks privilege to say things like "I’ve got enough mates, I’d rather fuck you." Now, I think the woman could have briskly gotten the upper hand with the comeback "Rupert, you are not cute enough to work a line like that" and laughed at him. Maybe if she had, they could have been mates. I wish more guys had girl friends who can laugh and keep up with the jokes, including dirty jokes, if they're out having a drink after work.
I'm afraid too many women will recoil at sexual expression and hide too much away and nurture the notion that they are "broken" and "violated" (to use the words of one of Toback's accusers). Let's not fling ourselves headlong into a new era of sexual repression. There's a big difference between the unsuccessful pick-up line "I’ve got enough mates, I’d rather fuck you" and taking a physical action.
I don't know the details that made Kate Leaver write "He... forced himself on me outside a pub in Fitzrovia." This was on a public street, so I'm picturing something like an awkward, resisted hug. Without knowing more, I can't think of what else to say except that conservatives who've been crying out about the lack of due process for men accused of sexual assault should not be gleefully enjoying this man's loss of a job. That would be hypocritical, and your glee is based on the notion that Myers is a hypocrite. That's double hypocrisy!
Posts
233 comments:
1 – 200 of 233 Newer› Newest»Remember how we were advising our children to avoid women at college so as not to be tarred with the moniker "sexual assaulter" by an aggressive SJW-feminist? Looks like they are going to spread EVERYWHERE.
Joe Biden is the next to fall. It is only a matter of time.
One of my favorite passages from Jane Austen is this from Emma:
..scarcely had they passed the sweep-gate and joined
the other carriage, than she found her subject cut up — her
hand seized — her attention demanded, and Mr. Elton actually
making violent love to her : availing himself of the precious
opportunity, declaring sentiments which must be already well
known, hoping — fearing — adoring — ready to die if she refused
him ; but flattering himself that his ardent attachment and
unequalled love and unexampled passion could not fail of having
some effect, and, in short, very much resolved on being seriously
accepted as soon as possible. It really was so. Without
scruple — without apology — without much apparent diffidence,
Mr. Elton, the lover of Harriet, was professing himself her
lover.
Violent love had a slightly different meaning back then.
But "Without scruple — without apology — without much apparent diffidence" seems to be the same -- as do the effects of alcohol.
The short sentence: It really was so is perfect Austen.
On my first job after college, I worked with a very attractive woman. And while I didn't overtly flirt with her, I think she picked up something in my behavior. For my birthday she gave me a card that said, "I know what you want for your birthday." On the inside it said, "Forget It!"
The words don't matter--it's the "and forced himself on me outside a pub in Fitzrovia" part that does.
Help Wanted: Oxymoron. White Hispanic Male Feminists need not apply.
If he was woke, he would have masturbated on her--under the pants or Weinstein-style.
Since victim is the new currency, women everywhere are jumping on the bandwagon.
So the Puritan Morality is back. Now, a man daring to ask a woman at a bar who is there drinking with you to go to your place and fuck, is a firing offense. The age of childhood , which was once 14, has been effectively raised from 18 to 68.
> In fact, no one at GQ ever uses the term "male feminist"...
They don't need too, it's GQ. Think of Occupy Wall Street gone glossy...
"He does not have the looks privilege..."
Lol.
The last time I read GQ was in 1996. They had a profile of Phil Gramm who was running for President. The premise of the article was that since Gramm is a Republican he is, of course, a racist. But then there was the inconvenient problem of Gramm's inter-racial marriage. The writer went on and on for page after page trying to square the circle. He finally gave up and basically threw up his hands and said "Fuck it, he's a Republican and therefore is a racist."
If the woman did not file a complaint with the police or with GQ at the time, I'm not that interested in her story today.
It is kind of amusing to see all of these Leftwing beta males being attacked by Leftwing women.
Althouse did a splendid job of differentiating between silly words ('Grab 'em by the Pussy") and actual abusive conduct.
Even with Harvey, there are levels of differentiation.
1. Whacking off into potted plant (weird, but not violent, maybe indecent exposure?)
2. Casting Couch 1 - girl accepts the bargain (unhealthy, but likely not criminal).
3. Casting Couch 2 - girl rejects Harvey's pass, runs from him (unhealthy, may hurt her career, but likely not criminal).
4. Casting Couch 3 - girl rejects Harvey's pass, Harvey forces himself on her (Rape or assault, criminal).
So, Yes, there are commonalities between Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and Bill O'Reilly. There is a common theme of enablers and protectors and ostriches, who act a certain way, depending on whose ox is being gored.
And, we have to sift thru gradations of tawdry behavior to really assess what happened.
There are credible accusers who say Harvey raped them. Ditto for Cosby. And, at least 1 (Juanita Broaderick) for Clinton.
Those should be the priority.
"Darrell said...
The words don't matter--it's the "and forced himself on me outside a pub in Fitzrovia" part that does.
10/23/17, 11:00 AM"
And the evidence that he said or did ANYTHING is what? She said so. No security camera footage (in England?), no recording from her (which at least one of Weinstein's accusers had), no criminal charges at the time (unlike Weinstein, again), no nothing.
How many hoaxes have we seen? This guy's life is ruined, he can't fight it, and there's no way to prove a negative.
Any Men's Rights cavemen want to step up for this guy? He's all alone now. Sad!
It might be sad but that was funny!
As a public service, all males should be frequently reminded that, while a good-looking female seeking friendship may look and sound like a potential bedmate, any false move can get the male moved into the "perve" category. They should also be reminded that women never forget and never forgive.
Too much alcohol tends to erase the above warnings.
If you watched The Red Pill like a nice liberal feminist you would know that many of the people fighting for men's rights are women! And not cavemen at all.
"When I moved to London, I wanted to make friends. I met @RupertMyers on Twitter and agreed to go for what I thought was a friendly drink... I was very clear about not being romantically or sexually interested in him, once the subject was raised. I suggested we be mates … He said "I’ve got enough mates, I’d rather f--k you" and forced himself on me outside a pub in Fitzrovia. It really was so."
I added "It really was so" at the end to see if the Austen effect might work.
Part of the new morality is the fact that the working class has been erased from the culture. From Balzac to Jack Kerouac there was a good century or more when crude men and angry women were presented in full, with no apologies. Now they must apologize fro their very existence.
Let's not fling ourselves headlong into a new era of sexual repression.
It's probably too late. "Sex positive" feminism has been the minority position among feminists for a long time. The hard Left has always been into sexual prudery, with, of course, the proper moral exemptions for the peccadilloes of the Party leadership.
It's going to slip back into the old standards of sexual repression, just like it has time & time again in history. Sexual liberation doesn't work for families, & women end up bearing the brunt of that burden. It also doesn't seem to work for women in general, who prefer their sexual relations confined to situations with socially defined commitments of some sort.
I think we're coming to an end of this cycle of sexual liberation. Strangely enough, the social & legal acceptance of gay marriage can be seen, not as an act of sexual openness, but as an attempt to set strong social boundaries on the most rollicking of sexual markets, gay male sexuality. Today, gay men are able to marry. In twenty years, it'll be gay men must get married.
To quote the fabulous Moldbug on AGW science but it works here as well. "It walks like Puritan hysteria, it talks like Puritan hysteria, and it smells like the Devil himself."
"Myers. 'Ok, here goes. I haven’t told this story because I listened to the voice that told me it ‘wasn’t that bad’ or ‘worth talking about,' Leaver wrote."
So I guess everything's gonna be coming out. All of this reminds me of the beach after a wild storm. With all the swirling water and waves crashing, all the seaweed gets churned up and thrown onto the beach, making an unsightly mess.
I agree with several of the commenters: What in the world does "forced himself on me" mean? To me it sounds like rape rape, but "I listened to the voice that told me it ‘wasn’t that bad’ or ‘worth talking about,'" makes it hard to read it that way. This is the only important part of the story and she left it out.
At some point in the past three years I was gifted with subscriptions to GQ and ESPN the magazine. It had to be one of those instances when it's offered and either through a misunderstanding or hitting the wrong key my no was transmogrified into yes.
ESPN arrives without a plastic cover so I occasionally glance through it. GQ on the other hand arrives protected. I looked at the
headlines on the first issue I received and promptly dumped it in the trash. My intelligence and everything else was insulted by what was on the cover, so I couldn't imagine why I should subject myself to psychological evisceration.
This poor dude thought he enjoyed some status inside the singed circle. Male feminist probably works to get some guys laid, but...
It's really hard to feel sorry for him. Live by virtue signaling, die by its consequences. To paraphrase Glenn Reynolds, the 21st Century isn't working out the way a lot of people thought it would.
SDN says: "How many hoaxes have we seen? This guy's life is ruined, he can't fight it, and there's no way to prove a negative."
All too true, and what are the chances Rupert here would have bought into the you can't make omelettes without breaking eggs.
Well, if so, this is another Humpty that's been Dumptied.
"If you look like like Robert Downey Jr..."
Really? I don't see a lot of difference between RD Jr and Rupert.
His words were like scalpels. They hurt me to the quick. Abort him. Abort him NOW.
Actually, I'll take back the "words" comment--
CourtNewsUK
Man to appear before Magistrates for repeatedly engaging a woman in conversation.
19/10/2017,12:36
re: scalpels, quick, abortion
Did he persist?
People started using the term "male feminist" to replace the more crass and vulgar sounding "douchebag."
Paul Elam wrote a piece entitled "Bill Cosby's victims? Or just a bunch of drug whoring star fuckers?" he was displaying an overt hostility towards women that characterises the movement.
Or was did he use a provocative title to set up the vigorous rejection of the title later to come?
Others have been tripped up by that one, too.
I have a grand son who is 12. I am thinking about what I will say to my son when he is a bit older.
I don't think college is a safe place for 18 year old white males right now. My son, his father, is a fireman and does not have a degree.
He is the only one of my kids who does not have a degree and he is one of two who own their own home in California.
If things are not better, I will probably suggest he go into the military, maybe the Marine Corps, first and then go to college on the GI Bill when he is 22, having had a chance to mature and be prepared for the hazards of left wing feminist bullshit.
We are already in a new era of sexual repression.
It's probably too late. "Sex positive" feminism has been the minority position among feminists for a long time.
The current school of thought in academic feminism today is that all penis-in-vagina intercourse is violence.
Over 50 women have accused Bill Cosby of sexual assault.. and the jury was unable to condemn him
conservatives who've been crying out about the lack of due process .. same for Wenstein.
Every actress who refuse to come out will be blamed as accomplish or willing to do whatever it takes even if nothing happened creating a perverse incentive
The story would have been funny if somehow it had turned out to have been a transatlantic misunderstanding of the word "mates."
Blogger Michael K said...
I have a grand son who is 12. I am thinking about what I will say to my son when he is a bit older.
I don't think college is a safe place for 18 year old white males right now. My son, his father, is a fireman and does not have a degree.
He is the only one of my kids who does not have a degree and he is one of two who own their own home in California.
If things are not better, I will probably suggest he go into the military, maybe the Marine Corps, first and then go to college on the GI Bill when he is 22, having had a chance to mature and be prepared for the hazards of left wing feminist bullshit.
That is a good plan Michael. My son did a USMC enlistment that included three deployments before going to college. He is now in law school and well-prepared for said bullshit. I suggest having the talk soon.
"when is it okay to quip "I’ve got enough mates, I’d rather fuck you"?"
If not in the office, when you want to fuck her, of course. A bit of a crude ask, but only an ask nevertheless. Subject to a few limitations of course, but assuming an even playing field between the two, it's just an ask.
Or if you want her to be your mate, but only if she has a thick enough skin and a sense of humor.
Or if you are the very cautious type, never with a co worker. Gotta wait for her to ask. It's not harassment if she asks, is it?
Watch when you use the term "fanny" in a conversation with a woman in the UK.
The stereotype of male feminists claiming to be feminist just to fuck women is a well deserved one.
But Meyers used a bad pickup line (bad because he wasn't hot enough to do it, which makes a lot of complaints problematic). I don't think what he did was wrong. Crude, but that is life.
If they say they just want to be your mate, when is it okay to quip "I’ve got enough mates, I’d rather fuck you"?
Define "okay"? It's ALWAYS legal. Period. At least in the US. I suspect that it may very well get one into hot water with the law to say such a thing to a reigning monarch / member of the royal family in countries that still have such anachronisms.
Is it rude? Usually, but not always. Is it crude? Almost always. Is it offensive? Depends entirely on whether the one being addressed takes offense. Is it "okay". THAT DEPENDS. While it is refreshing on one level to see an entity that bills itself as Gentleman's Quarterly paying some serious attention to ungentlemanly behavior, color me skeptical that such attention is actually rooted in any understanding of "what behooves a gentleman."
A woman might be as open to crude advances from a wealthy person whose connections she wants as to a handsome feller.
Joe Biden is the next to fall. It is only a matter of time.
10/23/17, 10:58 AM
It would have happened already if he had chosen to run against Hillary.
"What are the rules for going out for drinks with a co-worker?"
-- I don't, unless it is a group happy hour.
"If they say they just want to be your mate, when is it okay to quip "I’ve got enough mates, I’d rather fuck you"?"
-- Pretty much on the never side of ever.
The sexual revolution has evolved into behaviors so liberated it is repelling at least half of its practitioners. Interesting.
"I don't know the details that made Kate Leaver write "He... forced himself on me outside a pub in Fitzrovia.""
-- I'd like to know exactly what she means too. Because if she thought "it wasn't that bad," I could see it be a touchy/handsy hug or something being self-justified like that. But if he forced a kiss on her? More?
Just what, exactly, did she initially think wasn't that bad? It may very well BE bad, but without knowing what, we're asking the reader to decide between Current Her's version of events and Past Her's version of events, as filtered by Current Her.
Myers might be an asshole, but I'd like to know what *exactly* he stands accused of.
Michael K & Oso Negro,
Blogger Michael K said...
I have a grand son who is 12. I am thinking about what I will say to my son when he is a bit older.
I don't think college is a safe place for 18 year old white males right now. My son, his father, is a fireman and does not have a degree.
He is the only one of my kids who does not have a degree and he is one of two who own their own home in California.
If things are not better, I will probably suggest he go into the military, maybe the Marine Corps, first and then go to college on the GI Bill when he is 22, having had a chance to mature and be prepared for the hazards of left wing feminist bullshit.
Oso Negro: "That is a good plan Michael. My son did a USMC enlistment that included three deployments before going to college. He is now in law school and well-prepared for said bullshit. I suggest having the talk soon."
I'm in similar boat with a kid in high school. He did play football, which has worked out well.
He gets good grades, but I'm seriously thinking Marine Corps after high school. Then, college will be a breeze.
I suppose it's a product of my outdated morals, but I can't imagine a scenario in which it's ok to say "I'd rather fuck you" to ANYONE.
And if she had perhaps thrown her drink in his face at that point, things might have turned out differently.
Myers is a numbers pickup artist because he can't read women and some women will fall for it. He goes for it, doesn't take no for an answer, then moves on. Obviously he has had some success doing this, so, it's really the women who are seduced by him that are at fault for encouraging his behavior.
That's double hypocrisy
I think people very much think of double hypocrisies like they're double negatives. It's ok to be hypocritical when you're showing up the other person's hypocrisies, just like the negative of a negative number is a positive.
Ethics don't really work that way, but most people unfortunately think that "make them live up to their own rules" is better than "take the high road."
"Outside a racing-green pub one night in 2015, a man pulled me into him, kissed me and put his hands on me. It was unwanted contact. He had just declined my offer of friendship: “I have enough mates; I would rather fuck you,” he said, right before his body touched mine."
Can't anybody here use Google?
Sounds like most any book with Fabio on the cover.
Michael K pontificated...
I have a grand son who is 12. I am thinking about what I will say to my son when he is a bit older.
...
My son, his father, is a fireman and does not have a degree.
Your son is your son's father?
I knew a guy who claimed he was his own grandfather.
He is the only one of my kids who does not have a degree and he is one of two who own their own home in California.
That is very fascinating.
++
Wiki:
The Red Pill chronicles [Cassie] Jaye's journey beginning as a skeptical feminist investigating what she believes to be a hate movement. She goes on to discover that the movement is different from what she expected and begins to question her own views on gender, power, and privilege.
The film discusses issues facing men and boys such as male suicide rates, workplace fatalities and high-risk jobs, military conscription, lack of services for male victims of domestic violence and rape, higher rates of violent victimization, issues concerning divorce and child custody, disparity in criminal sentencing, disproportionate funding and research on men's health issues, educational inequality, societal tolerance of misandry, circumcision and men's lack of reproductive rights.
...
After it became known that the film would not condemn the men's rights movement, Jaye was unable to find funding to cover the cost of the movie from traditional sources.
++
I wonder if we'll ever see a similar backlash and outing against women using men of lower social status as meal tickets, shallow gold diggers, etc....those amoral women that abuse their sexual power over men to manipulate them to their own benefit.
Naw.....
Libidinal urges are not the most elevated sectors of the human personality. My browsing history, while nowhere near as degenerate as your browsing history, is not something I'm proud of...... I'm pretty sure that in younger days I may have said something equally stupid and might somewhere along the way have made a boob grab. I have no specific memory of such events, but they might have happened. In other ways, I have led a useful, productive life, and I hope these youthful indiscretions (which I have no memory of) do not cause all decent people to shun me and consider me unemployable........If, because of her words, a lot of women come forward with similar stories about this young man, then good for her. If this was an isolated case, I'd be inclined to give him a break. Let's await further developments.
I'm telling ya -- we wouldn't have as much societal angst, if we re-taught males how to ask girls out on dates (and re-taught females how to get asked out on dates).
A refresher course on how to act on a date would probably be good too.
Guys and gals would self-select suitable mates and there'd be a lotta consensual sex, which the quest for, and denial thereof, seems to cause so much friction.
I've been married over 22 years, so maybe I'm just hopelessly out of touch. But, I do remember the pre-marriage days, and they were fun too!
"Obviously he has had some success doing this, so, it's really the women who are seduced by him that are at fault for encouraging his behavior."
-- See, people say things like this without the true story. If the guy is just very, crudely forward, and backs off when told no, yeah. This justification works.
If he is forcing himself on women outside bars then... no. It's not really the women who are saying 'yes' who are a problem. Without knowing the actual scope of what he's being accused of, I'd be very, very careful about saying anything like this that.
By the way, the lady is writing a book. No word yet on the cover model.
My first reaction was alarm that accusations are now seen as proof. That's still my reaction.
My ongoing reaction is the twitter is a plague and only idiots use it.
Female chauvinists, and the male chauvinists who love their work, advertise their orientation under euphemistic, emotionally-appealing labels.
[Note: The justification "works" in the sense that it is a justification. Not one I would agree with, but one which isn't inherently flawed. The guy is a jerk because he gets results from jerkdom. As opposed to the second where, it doesn't matter whether he gets results or not, he's going to force himself on people anyway-- in which case the justification is inherently flawed.]
And they all laughed at Mike Pence!
"My first reaction was alarm that accusations are now seen as proof. That's still my reaction."
-- That's why I've been saying that we need a lot more than just accusations to ruin people's lives. I may fully believe all of these women -- but I'm not making hiring/firing decisions based on my gut. Because I've trusted people I shouldn't and not trusted people I should have.
Ann, It's "Rubert" not "Rupert". That's why your search did not work.
We really do seem to be entering a strange neo-Puritan era. Do not dream of making any sexual advances to a woman, even though most women expect a man to make the first move -- unless you are her type in every way and have great prospects as a provider. If you're just an inch too short, you've practically assaulted her.
The safest route now would be to approach the males in her family and seek their permission to court her. They will consult with her, and if she approves of you, they will give you their consent. You may need to submit to genetic testing and provide all your pertinent financials.
Anyone who has been friendzoned constantly might perhaps sympathize with a gent being direct enough to not want to play emotional tampon to a woman for free. She wanted someone to hang with, buy her drinks, show her around and probably do a touch of mentoring...and he got to bask in her glorious presence.
So his rather crude assertion is understandable in setting out exactly what kind of relationship he was open to.
Now, the 'force himself on me' sounds like sexual assault...which runs the gamut of a stolen kiss to rape rape. So I would need details before making a judgment (though liberals need no such nuance or perspective: see his job)
Pence, more and more, looks like a frigging genius! If we are weaponizing female ire to the level that even unsubstantiated accusations can get a man canned, the ladies can expect to be frozen out of a lot of male interaction period!
That the Leftist Gaia is eating her own children without any help from Saturn is just...dare I say 'delicious'?
Sounds like most any book with Fabio on the cover.
What was the reason for the success of Fifty Shades of Gray? Hint it wasn't men who get off on dominating women......
"Watch when you use the term "fanny" in a conversation with a woman in the UK."
Yeah, a 'fanny pack' is a whole other thing.
Leaver is not an unattractive woman, but she's no Rose McGowan.
FIDO - what it really means is unattractive men have even fewer options going forward. Society in the past told all men - you have to be super assertive, get the first kiss in, hug her, etc... Now that kind of assertive behavior will get you fired, possibly imprisoned. Alpha males will continue to rack up the available females, perhaps they will even get the laws changed to allow polygamy.
The proper response to her direct assertion of 'I just want to be friends' was to finish his drink quickly, and bid her a good night and leave her there, leaving sufficient cash for his drink and tip on the table for her to pay the check.
It used to be that a young man could learn these lessons through trial and error. In some cases he would be humiliated for a time, and he may be called a creep or a loser, but he could lick his wounds and with time grow to be a better man. His non-criminal screwups didn't need to dog him for the rest of his life. As long as he smoothed out the rough edges, he would be fine.
Now there's no room for error. If you come on too strong, say the wrong thing, misinterpret a signal, etc., you are forever a creep. You may even have to fight accusations of "sexual assault" for maybe forcibly hugging a girl outside a bar and drunkenly telling her that you wanted to fuck her. This will never go away. The Internet doesn't forget.
@tim in VT
Yeah, a 'fanny pack' is a whole other thing.
So, been bar-hopping in the UK with Laslo again, have we, Tim?
GQ fired him, which seems like an extreme response --no probation? no mandatory attendance at a harassment seminar?--except according to the article, he may have harassed other employees as well so, as usual, there's probably more to this story than the one incident.
Most companies have written procedures which outline how incidents like this are supposed to be handled and the first offense doesn't usually result in termination. I wonder if all this publicity is going to see more companies decide just to go for termination immediately, which seems like that would create its own set of problems. One thing for sure, he shouldn't have acknowledged that it happened by apologizing. Deny, deny, deny. Don't make it so easy for your employer to fire you. And then clean up your act.
@Alex
Women currently are finding it very difficult to find partners as it is. If men are now afraid of weaponized female ire in societally enforceable ways, they better start making those Hitachi massager units again and get Jason Momoa on the cover, because it's going to be a long lonely series of nights.
At least in days gone by, men who submitted to matrimony were assured their kids, their assets and at least a social expectation of a sex life.
Current divorce laws remove those aspects entirely.
Has Ms. Althouse weighed in on this societal change from a legal perspective?
Those of you thinking about military after high school, that's exactly what my son did.
Four years in the Marine Corps Moto-T and two tours if Afghanistan later and he used the GI Bill to go to tech school. He was never college material, but he loved cars.
The GI Bill not only paid for his tuition and materials, but they also paid a stipend when he was in school so he did not have to take a second job, but could still pay his rent, utilities and eat.
He is now managing an auto restoration shop that is already booked up for the next 18 months with Corvettes, Beetles, GTOs, and Chargers that need restored.
Two caveats: 1. It took the VA a full year to get his GI Bill set up so he could start school, and 2. parents get very little sleep during deployments.
Greatest thing he ever did. The difference in maturity, discipline and work ethic between and other recent graduates gave him such a leg up.
Kate Leaver -
"Here I am now, in my living room alone, covered in biscuit crumbs, scared and exposed and angry."
Sounds like she should have taken the offer.
I wonder if 20% of the women who work at GQ are raped?
Ann Althouse said...I'm afraid too many women will recoil at sexual expression and hide too much away and nurture the notion that they are "broken" and "violated" (to use the words of one of Toback's accusers). Let's not fling ourselves headlong into a new era of sexual repression. There's a big difference between the unsuccessful pick-up line "I’ve got enough mates, I’d rather fuck you" and taking a physical action.
Ah, but you see, it's a woman's prerogative: SHE alone can decide the severity of the offense and SHE alone can decide what she feels about any given situation. Her feelings do not in any way have to be consistent, or logical, or related to any objective standard. Nine guys she works with might hit on her using that line and she can laugh them all off, but if she feels like the tenth guy to try it on her has hurt her in some way...boom, he's gone, and for him you will feel no sympathy. Her feelings are what decide and determine fault, and her feelings cannot be questioned.
See? It's not full time repression and that's a silly fear to have! Women can choose to be as free and unrepressed as they want to be--they can proudly attend a SlutWalk at 10AM and then take offense and have a man fired for looking too long at her exposed cleavage at noon. No contradiction there--she felt> empowered by her own actions and felt violated by the man's actions. Do you as a third party feel badly for the guy? Hell no, "he should have known better," and after all "he was acting creepy and made her feel bad" so he deserves whatever punishment he gets.
Any objection to that power dynamic is itself patriarchal, evidence of misogyny, and "objective support of rape culture."
It's female privilege, naturally.
should not be gleefully enjoying this man's loss of a job
I dunno, is a schadenboner gleeful?
But I've come to the conclusion that conservatives and libertarians should be hunting scalps. As Ace from Ace of Spades likes to point out, the rules the progs put forth to cause their enemies to lose their jobs must be enforced upon progs as well. There can not be two sets of rules.
And once they decide they don't actually like their rules being enforced against them, then we can go back to a set of rules where having unorthodox politics doesn't cause you to lose your job.
"So, been bar-hopping in the UK with Laslo again, have we, Tim?"
No, fanny is more a word for "C U Next Tuesday."
Kate Leaver -
"Therapy is my most important hobby. I turn up to my therapist’s central London office every fortnight to talk through my life, and it gives me an insight I don’t think I could get on my own. It’s like a guided tour of my own mind, and I cherish it. And I’ve been doing it a long time – I was diagnosed with bipolar disorder when I was 18 and started seeing a therapist the following year."
"I’ve been seeing mental health professionals for nearly a third of my life and frankly, they’ve saved me on multiple occasions."
Obviously the GQ guy never saw the video about the hot/crazy matrix.
... except that conservatives who've been crying out about the lack of due process for men accused of sexual assault should not be gleefully enjoying this man's loss of a job.
Well I'm one who's not. I agree with SDN upthread, that "forced himself upon me" is unsupported by anything other than her word. We don't even know what "forced himself upon me" means, do we. It might mean that he grabbed her, it might refer to nothing more than his clumsy pickup line followed a clumsier on-the-spot apology.
SNL - Tom Brady Sexual Harassment PSA
Step 1: be attractive
Step 2: don’t be unattractive
https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/sexual-harassment/2751966
Nurturing a notion/self-image of violation and brokenness--prizing the status of victimhood--is a hallmark of our degraded age. Much flows from that.
Personally I blame Oprah and have often said that a time traveler looking to correct our current cultural problems could get far simply by taking her out in the mid 1980's or so. Won't it be grand when she's President in a few years?
Thanks, women.
Ken B said...My first reaction was alarm that accusations are now seen as proof. That's still my reaction.
Ken women have a RIGHT TO BE BELIEVED. That you'd suggest anything else is appalling. For shame.
Would it be possible to get some sort of rulebook on this stuff so I don't screw up? I'm confused about proper behavior and verbage with the female sex. Do I have to worry about conversing with gay guys? Am I even allowed to interact with "people of color"? Perhaps I should take some sort of college class. Let me just say right now that I am sorry for all future offenses. Can I prepay in anticipation of my sins?
Ann Althouse said... I can't think of what else to say except that conservatives who've been crying out about the lack of due process for men accused of sexual assault should not be gleefully enjoying this man's loss of a job. That would be hypocritical, and your glee is based on the notion that Myers is a hypocrite. That's double hypocrisy!
Yes, by all means, let's make sure the Left never gets a taste of their own medicine/has to live by their own absurd and offensively-intended standard of behavior--if they had to suffer that there's some chance they might agree the standard itself is bad, wrong, and should be discarded. We simply can't have that.
Who knew that The Little Mermaid was about rape?
Now’s your moment
Floating in a blue lagoon
Boy, you better do it soon
No time will be better
She don’t say a word
And she won’t say a word
Until you kiss the girl
Sha-la-la-la-la-la
Don’t be scared
You got the mood prepared
Go on and kiss the girl
A classic case of the old saw about sexual harassment:
A lewd and clumsy come on from an ugly guy is sexual harassment.
A lewd and clumsy come on from an attractive guy is a date.
These good looking women will eventually miss all the sexual abuse/attention when they realize that menopause and age has left them devoid of any sexual attraction.
Yes, by all means, let's make sure the Left never gets a taste of their own medicine
I've never quite understood the idea behind that phrase. If it's about revenge, to make your opponent face the same bad thing that they've inflicted on you, then it makes sense but isn't exactly laudable. It's also not very likely to be successful since the left still controls media and culture. They can (and will) produce barrels of the bad medicine for every spoonful you make them taste.
If it's supposed to mean that they're going to finally realize how bad that thing was that they were inflicting, then that's just absurd.
I would think that it would be noteworthy if prominent conservatives would stand up for the principle of due process. Instead of showing the left what they're "medicine" tastes like, show them what an actual effective remedy is like. The contrast will be instructive for people (those who might still be impressionable) who are observing and choosing sides,
But it new era of sexual repression it will be.
To paraphrase a line I remember from long ago:
Sure the Puritans had issues, they just weren't these issues.
"Without knowing more, I can't think of what else to say except that conservatives who've been crying out about the lack of due process for men accused of sexual assault should not be gleefully enjoying this man's loss of a job. That would be hypocritical, and your glee is based on the notion that Myers is a hypocrite. That's double hypocrisy!"
But if that glee isn't openly expressed then it's double secret hypocrisy!
"You shouldn't cheer, it could happen to you one day!"
Uh, it's been happening to "us" for a number of years now. A while back it was claims of racism/white supremacy ("ugly" stuff, that) and before that it was accusing people of being homophobic/anti-gay, but it's all the same thing.
"Winning" arguments by labeling/naming your opponent part of some hated group has been a winning political strategy for a while now. My intuition is that as women's share of the vote or importance as a voting block has increased this tactic has become more powerful/more important, but it's probably a microagression to even entertain that thought (and it's definitely a macroagression to express it!).
The nice people decided that there was no valid reason to oppose gay marriage. Boom! Anyone expressing any opposition was therefore automatically a hateful bigot and there's no reason to engage with hateful bigots--you don't try to change their minds, see, you just attack them personally (get the fired, socially ostracized, etc) to reduce their power.
That's the whole point of eschewing objective standards. Your opposition to proposal X makes people FEEEEEEEL bad. It hurts the feelings of gay people when you oppose gay marriage so it doesn't matter if you claim to have valid reasons for your opinion--you're "on the wrong side of history." Similarly if you're labeled a creep or if you behavior makes women FEEL like you're a creep then it doesn't matter if your actions can be proven to be wrong (against some objective standard of behavior, etc)-- the woman knows "her truth" and her feelings are unassailable (even against a reasonableness standard!) so the accusation/assertion of bad feelings is enough.
Again--that's how this generation "thinks." (These kids today!) That's what the Daily Show and John Oliver's show taught them--contrary opinions are themselves evidence of wrongdoing and/or moral defectiveness. There's no reason to argue, one must simply point out the heretic and cheer on the mob as they attack.
"What are the rules for going out for drinks with a co-worker?" Pence Rule.
"If they say they just want to be your mate, when is it okay to quip "I’ve got enough mates, I’d rather fuck you"?" Never.
Women fight for sexual equality by showing they aren't. The Leavers of the world, anyway.
I would think that it would be noteworthy if prominent conservatives would stand up for the principle of due process. Instead of showing the left what they're "medicine" tastes like, show them what an actual effective remedy is like.
Why? It hasn't worked for the last fifty years......
The contrast will be instructive for people (those who might still be impressionable) who are observing and choosing sides,
Yeah...let's go with the winners and not the idiots who won't even defend themselves........
So, all it takes to get a guy fired is a single vague claim, years after the fact, that he "forced himself upon me" on a public street outside a pub? This thing is resembling the Salem Witch hysteria more every day. Women and their daughters are preternaturally attuned to the community zeitgeist, are ever ready to seize the powers accruing to victimhood, and nurse eternal grudges for past slights.
I R A Darth Aggie said...
"I dunno, is a schadenboner gleeful?"
Pro tip:
If your schadenboner isn't gleeful, draw a toothy smile on it with a Sharpie.
"I've never quite understood the idea behind that phrase."
-- It is under the assumption that the best way to change a bad rule is to enforce it. Vigorously/Rigorously (mattering on who you're quoting.)
The point is that the right *knows* the rules are bad, but the left never suffers the consequences of their own rules. So, the idea is to enforce the rules equally until they realize the rules are flawed, since attempts at reasoning have failed.
A baby trial. Off with his head!
He gets good grades, but I'm seriously thinking Marine Corps after high school. Then, college will be a breeze.
A few years ago, I was working for a company that did workers comp peer reviews. We hired a young guy who had gotten his Comp Sci degree while on active duty with the Marine Corps in SanDiego. He was terrific but we lost him in about 6 months because he was getting better offers that we could afford to pay.
I don;t know if he had an arrangement with the Corps to go to school while on active duty.
"I've never quite understood the idea behind that phrase. If it's about revenge, to make your opponent face the same bad thing that they've inflicted on you, then it makes sense but isn't exactly laudable. It's also not very likely to be successful since the left still controls media and culture. They can (and will) produce barrels of the bad medicine for every spoonful you make them taste."
Tit-for-tat is well described in game theory, it is meant to clarify risks. If your opponent can be made to fear your retaliation he is less likely to attack. Tit-for-tat retaliation may be required in order to provide the other side sufficient information (through escalating pain) as to the risks he faces. This is not an emotional matter, simply rational strategy.
It can fail if the other side is ultimately irrational, or if the retaliation is insufficient through the relative insensitivity of the other side (higher capacity, than you, to bear losses), or if the balance of power is disproportionately against you.
The Trumpian strategy, on the other front, has been to address your other point, to reduce the credibility of the media and bring "the culture" into disrepute. This seems to have been working.
It's not that tough to be subtle in trying to figure out if a woman is a potential bedmate. There is no need crudity or pushiness.
The problem is that you learn those skills later in life. I would hate to be a clumsy college student or 20-something today.
I have two thoughts in response to Althouse's due process/hypocrisy comment:
1. Who's talking about due process? The guy was fired by a private employer that chose to believe his accuser. If it was the wrong thing to do, then fine. It was wrong. But it's not remotely similar to a student being expelled from college because the PROCESS for adjudicating the claim against him was changed under pressure from the federal government thanks to Title IX. We now have government-sanctioned anti-male kangaroo courts in universities across the country.
2. The witch-hunt #MeToo Internet mob mentality must stop. I have no idea about the particulars in this case, and whether there were other credible accusations against this guy. But I do know that maleness is now casually dismissed and demonized as a "toxic" existence. If this guy suffers unfairly, I hope the unfairness is exposed. I don't think he should suffer simply because he may be a hypocritical liberal male feminist. But that's out of my hands. If he suffers, I hope it comes out that he's basically innocent and maybe just acted stupidly and drunkenly in an isolated instance, not realizing that the woman he was hitting on was suffering from mental illness (bipolar disorder) and has unfairly lashed out at him.
CStanley said...I would think that it would be noteworthy if prominent conservatives would stand up for the principle of due process.
They are. They have been. It's a Sec. under a Republican President who rescinded the "guidance" on Title IX. Etc.
BUT. We're not just talking about principles. We're also talking about political power--winning elections, for example. The principles is that as a Presidential candidate you're supposed to stay above dirty mudslinging. You're supposed to let the bias and unfairness of the Candy Crowley Media hang there and be apparent to all instead of attacking the Media as biased and corrupt. Nice guy Mitt Romney upheld that principle...and lost. Mean guy Trump didn't uphold that principle, and won. Because he won we have a SecEd who might undo some of the damage done to the principle of due process in schools.
Look: "tit-for-tat" isn't always an optimal strategy. I'm under no illusion that the Left will see the light and suddenly agree their bias and commitment against objective good faith argumentation is harmful to all. It's still true, though, that "always surrender" is rarely an optimal strategy, either.
I think someone can believe it's a violation of a principle when the Left is punished for running afoul of their own unprincipled standards and nonetheless laugh/cheer when the application of that standard harms "one of their" in the same way they've been gleefully harming "ours" for some time. I don't think that is, itself, hypocritical...and anyway that's how I FEEL and so that's "my truth" and since self-reported feelings are sacrosanct you must accordingly agree that I'm correct.
Althousian-Level Strong Woman Story:
There used to be a gal in my crowd that hung out at the bar. I'd flirt outrageously with her including all sorts of inappropriate innuendo. One time after making a reference to her giving me a blow job, she said "ok, I'll do it, right now, underneath that table over there." When I foolishly declined, she held it over my head forever afterwards, and any sexual comments I made were deflected with "you had your chance, bucko!".
Ok, Matthew Sablan, that is a helpful explanation if that is what you and others mean by it. But it still makes no sense to me when you don't hold the actual power to enforce those bad rules on the left. What seems the be happening now is that one leftist group (women) have begun enforcing the rules on another leftist group (leftist men in positions of power in media and the film industry.)
I can see why you might then hope that this medicine will make them all rethink what they've been doing, but I don't imagine the happy ending some of you seem to see, except for the part where the left loses its hold on the culture.
And since the left is already eating itself, it would seem to me a far better strategy to get out of their way and keep advocating for the right rules and standards to be applied, to be better positioned to pick up the pieces after the implosion.
Also appreciate your explanation, buwaya. Again, my rebuttal is that I don't see the right as being positioned to apply the tit for tat. It's more a matter of good fortune that the left forms a circular firing squad.
So the tactic of joining in the cries for scalps of these guys seems misguided.
Very interesting. A song (possibly satirical, but a cri de coeur even so) comes to mind: "Fully Qualified to be Your Man", by Richard Thompson.
And Hoodlum-
I agree with you about Mitt Romney's error, but I don't see that as the same thing as this. And I think he didn't need to sling mud to counter what Obama and Crowley did...he just needed to respond to it! I think he got caught off guard and I can forgive him for not having a response ready at the debate, but he and his team certainly should have aggressively pushed back the next day, and not let go until the fact checkers cried uncle. None of that would have required Trumpian tactics...but I will concede that the failure to counter this and other things led to Trump, and that he's more successful than I would have predicted because he undermines the left and the institutions they control.
As long as we're talking about "looks privilege", I've long observed a massive difference in the way men and women treat an obviously hot/beautiful member of their own gender, specifically as it pertains to a newcomer in a work environment. Men will see an obviously handsome, fit, attractive new man and will notice it, maybe even lament the amount of hot women the guy is bedding, but after that, he's normally accorded the same treatment as the dumpiest, ugliest man in the company, and the newcomer hawt guy will rise or fall in their esteem based on his personality, sense of humor, and general competence.
Women, on the other hand, may never give a hot new female coworker even a second's grace. They are aggressively anti-her from the get go, forming coalitions of nattering naysaying and finding every fault imaginable. Even if the hawt new chick has a great personality, a great sense of humor, and is generally competent, its rare that they will warm up to her. Indeed, I've observed outright sabotage on the pettiest of pretenses.
"I don't see the right as being positioned to apply the tit for tat"
It is more capable of it than before, with, now, the "bully pulpit" in the matter of rhetorical warfare and the displacement of conventional media.
Previous versions of the "right" certainly were poorly positioned for rhetorical tit-for-tat, both by culture (lacking aggression), lacking media outlets beyond a niche, and by easily being co-opted.
Besides this the "right" needs to begin using the organs of the state, to the degree they control them, for this purpose, in the same ways as the left had. Much of the battle in Washington is exactly about this, to deny the administration the free use of the executive agencies.
Beyond this is a matter of world view. This is not an argument between well-intentioned, reasonable people. At every level, from the geopolitical to the personal, this is a ruthless, bloodthirsty existential struggle that will not end until it is resolved.
Tit-for-tat is well described in game theory, it is meant to clarify risks. If your opponent can be made to fear your retaliation he is less likely to attack. Tit-for-tat retaliation may be required in order to provide the other side sufficient information (through escalating pain) as to the risks he faces. This is not an emotional matter, simply rational strategy.
Tit-for-tat is a small stakes strategy. It succeeds over others when the game starts with no knowledge of one's opponents. In contrast, high-trust strategies can generate large wins when you know you are playing with another high-trust partner.
Then there are the permutations when you have a high-trust group intersecting with a low-trust group.
The concept of tit-for-tat working in the intersection of social media and ideology seems pretty pointless to me. "if you burn a random person on my side I have never heard of before, I will burn a random person on your side who was equally obscure before today." There's a very large supply of random obscure people to hurt. This is a war of attrition between moss and fungus.
I've been hearing for decades that women were smarter, tougher and braver than men yet they are also delicate flowers that need protecting from male predators.... somewhat confusing isn't it.
Strange that all these pervs have to do is 'promise' fame and fortune or embarrassment and the vast majority of these women keep quite.... until much, much later when it's opportune to pile on.
If these women had stood up for themselves and howled loudly (literally and figuratively) when they were assaulted, how many other women would have been saved from these pervs? Ignoring evil is an evil act itself.
I don't think it will work, either. So, I think a lot of it is just because people are tired of having to sit back and take it.
I'm generally against it, but I also won't really shed a tear over it.
Potted plants are looking better all the time.
GQ prestigious? Ha!
My dad paid $10 for a year of it without even knowing what it is, an SJW rag.
Fashionable men's clothes are terrible these days--too tight, coats too short, waists too low.
Even the scrawny models look like they've outgrown their clothes.
Chico Marx introducing himself to Tallulah Bankhead (and after being told not to hit on her): "I'd really like to fuck you".
Tallulah: "And so you shall, you old-fashioned boy"
They are aggressively anti-her from the get go, forming coalitions of nattering naysaying and finding every fault imaginable
I saw that in my second job with a small company. The young woman didn't need painting and processing to look like a model, and the other women hated her. Of course, she did start fucking the VP soon after? her hiring.
CStanley said....What seems the be happening now is that one leftist group (women) have begun enforcing the rules on another leftist group (leftist men in positions of power in media and the film industry.)
I can see why you might then hope that this medicine will make them all rethink what they've been doing, but I don't imagine the happy ending some of you seem to see, except for the part where the left loses its hold on the culture.
And since the left is already eating itself, it would seem to me a far better strategy to get out of their way and keep advocating for the right rules and standards to be applied, to be better positioned to pick up the pieces after the implosion.
Yes, that's accurate.
Where I disagree is in the implied assertion that one can't laugh at the left attacking themselves and simultaneously support the correct rules and standards.
My position is "this is what happens when you have bad, arbitrary standards. It hurts everyone, and it's funny to me that it's hurting you now (when you've taken such delight in it hurting "me" for so long)." I don't think that's hypocritical.
Negative or "bad" examples can be very instructive! When people reject good faith arguments, objective standards, and (conceptual) due process for emotion, arbitrary "standards" and enforcement-by-mob it's not wrong to laugh when that rejection causes pain in the ones who most forcefully rejected it (especially when that rejection was intentional and intended to be for their own benefit)!
"if you burn a random person on my side I have never heard of before, I will burn a random person on your side who was equally obscure before today."
But this is not applicable today. There no longer is such a thing as an irrelevant random person, for messaging purposes. Brendan Eich was well known only in his industry, certainly not a household word. The various cake-bakers, wedding photographers and pizza restaurants were picked specifically because they were everyman. Social control is exerted by making examples, and the most innocent and obscure are just as effective, these days, as the powerful.
More so maybe, as targeting them makes it appear that they are omniscient and omnipotent, that their perception and power reaches down to the least, and obscurity or irrelevance is no protection.
It would be wrong and hypocritical for conservatives to take part in enforcing a bad rule, but it's perfectly okay to sit back and watch the Left eat itself. If he's being unfairly treated, you can defend him or you can shut up. If he's being let off the hook where a conservative would be crucified, you can criticize the hypocrisy or you can shut up.
What you shouldn't do is try to enforce a bad rule, because in doing so you may actually strengthen the bad rule by giving it the appearance of bipartisan support. Many people will react by just accepting the rule as settled.
The proper response to her direct assertion of 'I just want to be friends'
I would add: I don't go out 1-on-1 drinking with opposite-sex friends.
"I would add: I don't go out 1-on-1 drinking with opposite-sex friends."
-- Exactly. Avoiding even the appearance of impropriety used to be important.
Sebastian said:
"Women fight for sexual equality by showing they aren't."
I am woman, hear me whine. Feminists like to claim women are equal to men, but apparently that's not true, if women's reaction to sexual liberation is to feel threatened by guys hitting on them in a bar. Perhaps these timid women should retreat to a safer space -- aka the kitchen or the kindergarten.
I'm still trying to get by the fact somebody called GQ Magazine 'prestigious.'
@Hoodlum-
I think it's natural to feel schadenfreude and it's honest I guess to express it but if you want to be seen as the good faith arbiter of the rules I think that too much laughter works against that.
"Ann, It's "Rubert" not "Rupert". That's why your search did not work."
No. It's Rupert. Fox News misspelled it the first time, though not the second time.
I actually searched both spellings, but I found old article of his and it's clear that it's Rupert, not Rubert.
The proper response to her direct assertion of 'I just want to be friends'
I've always gotten out of such situations by telling the woman "I've developed a method of using my penis like a cat uses its whiskers. I find it very useful in clearing out space on a crowded Metro train Would you like to see?"
It's amazing how often that's triggered a woman to suddenly remember the books that she's got overdue at the Library. The National Association of Librarians owes me a debt of gratitude.
The man refused the friend zone. Was he required to be her friend? Is that in his employment contract?
"He does not have the looks privilege..." lol
That does completely make the difference.
Face it, if he was hot, she would of been on it.
"I think people very much think of double hypocrisies like they're double negatives. It's ok to be hypocritical when you're showing up the other person's hypocrisies, just like the negative of a negative number is a positive."
2 wrongs don't make a right.
Ever heard that one?
"Who's talking about due process? The guy was fired by a private employer that chose to believe his accuser. If it was the wrong thing to do, then fine. It was wrong. But it's not remotely similar to a student being expelled from college because the PROCESS for adjudicating the claim against him was changed under pressure from the federal government thanks to Title IX. We now have government-sanctioned anti-male kangaroo courts in universities across the country."
I'll say what I've said before about due process (i.e., fair procedure) and what I often say about free speech. It's a larger category than the right against government. I'm not talking about constitutional rights, but about how those with power should use it against others, and I criticize private organizations for abridging freedom of speech and for summarily taking away a job in an unfair way. I am not misunderstanding what the constitutional rights are.
Fox News called GQ "prestigious"?
Also according to my eCave (Brian Cave) tests that I have to take every year, asking a colleague something like that once, being told no, then stopping and not retaliating is not sexual harassment.
""Rupert, you are not cute enough to work a line like that"
Well that, really is the point, isn't it? It's not so much what was done (or said) but who did it (or said it).
Because behavior that might be welcomed from one man is annoying from another and perhaps even criminal if attempted by a third.
It's the man's responsibility to know which category he's in before attempting something that might be interpreted in a way that will get him in trouble.
If you want to keep up the pressure on universities to meet due process, you should care about the unfairness of this kind of summary dismissal by a private employer.
People are going to lose their feeling for what fairness is.
The means doesn't justify the meany.
" I don't think he should suffer simply because he may be a hypocritical liberal male feminist."
No, it's not that he "should" suffer. It's that he's dead last in the line for sympathy from those of us who were fighting on his side while he was fighting against it.
We don't know how summary his dismissal was.
Most people are paying to go to university, and the heavy hand of the Feds tipped the scales.
Ann Althouse said....People are going to lose their feeling for what fairness is.
Yeah, what a scary potential future that is.
"Bake that fucking cake or lose everything" strikes lots of you nice people as perfectly fair, of course. "Express full throated support for every part of our agenda or be labeled an ugly bigot and cast out of society" is the nice centrist's ideal of "tolerance" right now. Today.
As long as you get the Media to call 'em Nazis it's ok to punch people wearing red hats, at least in the collective mind of what seems to be most (nice) Americans. Today. Mobs tearing down statues and encouraging potential rioters to "burn this bitch down" are A-OK as long as the target of that violence is considered ugly enough. That's today, right now.
If you nice centrist people want to give an example of the danger of the population losing touch with "fairness" and the possible bad results of that you'll need to update your scare stories.
Feelings are more important than facts. That's the decision of the nice people of America.
If a group we care about expresses feelings of pain we as a society (schools as institutions, workplaces as institutions, etc) have to take those feelings seriously. We as a society have to structure reality around those feelings. We as a society are not allowed to question the rationality, sincerity, nor "fairness" of those (expressed) feelings. Hell, even questioning matters of FACT is forbidden in many cases (since "women have a right to be believed".)
Noe of that was my doing. I fought it and if I had a hope of victory I'd continue to fight it. But you nice centrist people aren't interested in judging a fair fight--all the Left has to do is call me racist/sexist/homophobic/bigoted and you decide the contest for them automatically. Is that "fair?" I don't think so, but as a white cismale my opinion doesn't matter--again under a rule the nice centrist people agree with.
In the end I think we're left with something like: an insistence on "fairness" is counterrevolutionary. Only Social Justice matters.
I buy magazines in airports sometimes, and once I bought a GQ. It had an article about what to do and not to do, and taught me to NEVER roll long sleeves up short of the elbow. ALWAYS roll them above the elbow.
Or maybe it was Esquire. I think it was Esquire, upon third thought.
It's the man's responsibility to know which category he's in before attempting something that might be interpreted in a way that will get him in trouble.
"A man's gotta know his limitations." - Dirry Harry
It is not hypocrisy to want for people who are pushing change on the rest of us, to have it pushed on them.
You think random other people shouldn't get due process? Then you're not entitled to it.
That's not hypocrisy, that's justice.
should not be gleefully enjoying this man's loss of a job.
How will rules change without the Establishment being publicly hoisted on their petard? Ridicule is a good weapon to make it happen, the schadenfreude is just a bonus.
Of course, nothing really changed after Monica because of the mass hypocrisy you point out frequently.
So, uh, rhhardin is basically right about all this. It's just that he uses insulting phrasing.
You are all in a huge political-cultural struggle out of which there will only be one winner. There is no such thing as "fair", nor are there wrongs or rights anymore. All that matters is firepower and numbers.
These things like fairness are as irrelevant to the combatants of today as the Marquess of Queensbery's boxing rules were at the Somme.
The tit for tat discussion misses the point that the Right isn't taking down the Left. Parts of the Left are eating some other parts of the Left. The cognitive dissonance and inherent contradictions are finally surfacing.
What's not to like about that?
Ok, here we go, one accusation from years ago and he loses his job. Women never lie? haahahahahahhaha
but really not so funny
"Robert Downy doesn't need techniques to pick up women, a simple 'wanna fuck' would probably work at least half the time for him."
That's what I liked about the 1970s and early 1980s. I'm not as good-looking as him, and certainly not as wealthy; but back then that worked for me about half the time.
You are all in a huge political-cultural struggle out of which there will only be one winner.
There will be a different winner every day. And a lot of losers.
Cultural struggles like these don't have winners. They just slump forward into disrepute.
If you want to keep up the pressure on universities to meet due process, you should care about the unfairness of this kind of summary dismissal by a private employer.
We do. it's just very hard to work up much sympathy, and not feel a little schadenfreude when the Left is forced to experience what they have been doing to the rest of us for fifty years.
People are going to lose their feeling for what fairness is.
You mean the Right will lose their feeling for what fairness is...the Left never gave a shit.
"Cultural struggles like these don't have winners."
They most certainly do have winners.
Further, the winners and losers can be tracked by social statistics.
Fuck him, he's a GQ pussy.
Those fuckers want war people. They deserve anything they get.
I seriously don't get how what he said was a "bad" pickup line (as if there are good ones) or that he was crude. Crude compared to what? It's pretty low on the meter, these days. Was he supposed be a Cyrano and write a love sonnet?
Shall I compare thee to a summer's eve?
I shan't. I'd rather shag thee
They most certainly do have winners. Further, the winners and losers can be tracked by social statistics
You have winners and losers at some given time, but the system is dynamic and you can't assume that winners and losers result from actions plans.
Never quite understood the GQ target marketing. I thought that maybe I was missing something here with this brouhaha, looked them up online, and discovered that I hadn’t, esp after seeing an article titled: “Barack Obama Is Back and Reminding Us What a President Looks Like” (“mom” jeans are what you want to see your President wearing?) its kinda like Cosmo for guys - telling them what to wear to be stylish, and attract other men. Sorry, I meant attracting women, except that wearing GQ outfits really only works with women for guys living in NYC. That Obama article could maybe have been retitled “How to Make the (Former) Most Powerful Man On The Planet Look Like a Beta Male” (And, yes, that was one of the problems with his Presidency - he really was a beta male in an alpha male job).
I don't know. Her looks are on about the same level as his. There's a sliding scale on the "looks privilege", there has to be.
"You have winners and losers at some given time, but the system is dynamic and you can't assume that winners and losers result from actions plans."
It is very much like war. There are casualties on both sides, victories and defeats, there are plans indeed, and these are significant even if modified by the reactions of the enemy and the effect of chance. And in the end there are winners and losers.
I'll have to rewatch The Pickup Artist. I don't remember it at all. It probably has no good moment, the usual reason for not remembering one.
It's not a cultural struggle. It's internet mob addicts looking for outrage material, the problem being that outrage gets tired of the same stuff and the examples get more doubtful.
Outrage is started by online people with hot buttons. "This has got to stop."
Entertainment all around.
A new genre of mob zingers is needed. Iowahawk sometimes has a good one or so.
Thank god for our twitter first responders, being one.
Despite all her endless posturing, the new tyrannical feminist is all about the POWER. Doesn't matter that the new narrative completely contradicts all those others from the recent past. You adapt with her or feel her wrath. Explains how we constantly flip from "strong woman superhero" to "weak victim, no agency" over and over. From "slut walks" to "rape culture" and back again. How long until someone finally calls this out? Or do we all have to play along with her in the starring role for every new histrionic event be it #metoo or mansplaining. Because you see, whatever happens, someone is getting all the attention again, isn't she?
There's no such thing as power. The tyrannical feminist wants nagging.
I'm feeling manly, having cut up and dragged to the back fence two full-sized smooth sumac trees that committed suicide in front of the house. Hand saw, no chainsaw cheating.
Rupert Myers looks exactly like Bill Clinton, ca. 1985.
> Hand saw, no chainsaw cheating.
That's cheating, take them off flush to the ground with an ax. Crusty old Yankee woodmen, of either sex, could do that.
"It's not a cultural struggle. It's internet mob addicts looking for outrage material"
This is simply a mechanism/manifestation of cultural struggle. The concept is much broader and than a given manifestation.
He was betting one of her many personalities would like a slap and tickle. You have to spend the time necessary to dial in the right one when you are navigating the dating scene in Bizzaro World.
"There's a sliding scale on the "looks privilege", there has to be."
Women are like buffalo chips, the older they are, the easier they are to pick up, but young women have a value that they rightly protect.
Weird that seeing a Titus post cheers me up a little.
Fairness is PC. It's Pro-Choice. It's a favorable Political Congruence.
Do you think if the babies had a voice; if they were armed; that they would voluntarily go to the abortion chambers?
Fairness is capital, control, and leverage, which is why we have religious/moral, legal, and scientific enterprises that are selective, unprincipled, and opportunistic. It is why we have class (e.g. color, sex) diversity, racism and sexism, respectively. And the people call it "good".
If you look like like Robert Downey Jr. in 1987, go ahead and quip "I’ve got enough mates, I’d rather fuck you," and I suspect the worst you'd get is a laugh and a no from a woman who feels flattered and still hopes to be friends. But here's Rupert Myers:
A huge amount of criticism of Weinstein is based on how physically ugly he is. Fat and repulsive. And the "journalists" who want us to hate Weinstein try to find photographs (or illustrations) that make him as ugly or shady as possible. Similar to Time getting caught trying to darken O.J. Simpson's face to make him scarier.
There are any number of photographs of Weinstein where it's obvious that women like him. For instance, here is Hillary and Harvey at a party.
So when Althouse says, "Rupert Myers is unattractive and should know better," she is baiting us to see if we will jump on her. And also maybe making a point. If good-looking men get away with what Harvey does all the time, then what Harvey does is not criminal. The point being that rape or sexual assault has zero to do with what a man looks like. Our rules about rape--or sex harassment--should apply to all people the same way. And if they don't they aren't rules at all, and you can't punish any ugly man for violating them.
In short, if it's okay for George Clooney to say "Wanna fuck?" it's okay for me to say it, or for you to say it, or for a 67-year-old 400 pound man to say. It's okay for the Elephant Man to say it. It's not a crime to be ugly and repulsive. And hot young girls who want to make it so should be mocked for their childishness.
And the people call abortion rites, class diversity, clean wars, trail of tears, etc. "good" under a progressive liberal (i.e. monotonically divergent) ideology.
So when Althouse says, "Rupert Myers is unattractive and should know better,"
Oops, I shouldn't put quotes around that, I'm paraphrasing her argument.
For any who are still wondering exactly what "forced himself" means, she elaborates a little more in this piece.
"Outside a racing-green pub one night in 2015, a man pulled me into him, kissed me and put his hands on me. It was unwanted contact."
Rabel covered that at 11:56. Not reading a thread is worse than forcing yourself on a bi-polar Brit.
YH,
"women end up bearing the brunt of that burden"
In the current American family-law environment? The hell they do...
Bay Area Guy,
You passed the hopelessly out of touch stage several light years ago.
dreams @ 12:46pm,
Yes they do, even the most doctrinaire of them.
This reminds me of the old SNL training video on sexual harrashment
GE Sexual Harrasment Training Video
Just saw her picture and decided an Arrested Development reference would be appropriate.
https://media.tenor.com/images/7ea86e124e923d82c2c6f948fb359496/tenor.gif
The plus side is that women like this serve a Darwinian purpose. Rupert is now fed up with the dating game. He just wants to get married and settle down. No more playing the (mine) field.
Lots of people on the thread seem to be unaware that her story is not merely "he said-she said." After Kate Leaver went public with her Twitter thread about the incident, Rupert Myers sent her a Twitter DM stating "Kate, I'm sorry" thereby acknowledging guilt/bad behavior of some kind.
Since they were on a public street outside a bar, one assumes (yes, I know how to spell ASSUME) that "forced himself on me" involves an unwanted kiss &/or an over-the-clothes grope. It is interesting to me that we have finally put a stake through the heart of the "one free grope" rule endorsed by Gloria Steinem et al. back in the 90's to protect Bill Clinton from the claims of Kathleen Willey & WJC's other victims.
Women. Men. Men. Women. They have no idea what they're doing now. Did we ever?
the older they are, the easier they are to pick up, but young women have a value that they rightly protect.
yes, and the "value" is baby-making potential
our sex drive is a reproductive drive
men value young women because they make babies and keep our species alive (in the broad sense) and on an individual basis because we as individuals can breed and have children
This was on a public street, so I'm picturing something like an awkward, resisted hug.
You sound like a lawyer for the accused.
Can't wait for Pedro to clear up everything for us.
Hypocrisy in defense of liberty is no vice.
But let us look at what could have happened to Rupert:
1. He makes a crude pass at Leaver, she refuses, and that is the end of the matter.
2. He makes a crude pass at Leaver, she refuses, and he is fired, humiliated, and banished from polite company for the rest of his life.
3. He makes a crude pass at Leaver, she accepts, and he becomes involved in a relationship with Leaver.
So, it could have been better or it could have been worse, but I think it worked out well for the bunny.
"Nice shoes -- wanna fuck?" works for me at an alarmingly high conversion rate. Even the ones who say "no" get a good laugh. Full disclosure: I'm a lot more charming than that mother fucking pig on Green Acres.
Our rules about rape--or sex harassment--should apply to all people the same way. And if they don't they aren't rules at all, and you can't punish any ugly man for violating them
rhardin smiles, and rightly so.
I look at these guys who have fired such as Roy Price, Tyler Grasham, Chris Savino etc, and I wonder what their employment future can possibly be. I imagine getting a job at McDonalds would even be dicey. It is certainly nuclear scale career destruction. A job that doesn’t require a CV is hard to find, but it’s almost the only choice.
Something about all this reminds me of the pre-school hysteria, except those were almost all false. To the extent these accusations are true, it will be many years before any of these guys will be able to make a decent living again, if ever. What employer would take the risk?
- Krumhorn
He will never get another lefty magazine writing job.
Rupert Myers sent her a Twitter DM stating "Kate, I'm sorry" thereby acknowledging guilt/bad behavior of some kind.
Look, he's a liberal man who apparently spends his life trying to please women. Of course he apologized. If he was a dog he would roll over and show his belly.
I don't know if he realizes just how much she nuked his life. He's lost his job and now when anybody googles him they will see "sex assault" next to his name.
He probably won't sue for slander, but he has a pretty good cause of action, I think.
"the bunny" LOL!
That's cheating, take them off flush to the ground with an ax. Crusty old Yankee woodmen, of either sex, could do that.
Smooth sumac takes itself down at the roots. It break off below ground and falls over. Almost by design, after a life of a decade or two. It propagates by underground stems and the tree is just something that poked up 20 feet or so.
With search engines, it's more like "You'll never work on this planet again!"
If he is a good writer, he is going to have to dig deep and find an audience. Swallow down the jagged little red pill.
I'd be more impressed if you had used your scythe.
Post a Comment