November 15, 2017

Uber and sexual assault — 2 stories raise the question: How vigilant and self-defensive is a woman supposed to be?

1. You may have heard about the Dallas County District Attorney Jody Warner who got fired after an Uber driver posted a recording of her berating him after he stopped his car and demanded that she get out. The driver, Shaun Platt, explained afterward:
“We get to a stretch in the road where the navigation says continue for several blocks. She says 'no, make a right here.' I said 'I’m required by Uber to follow the GPS.' She said 'no, make a right here' and she became kinda belligerent.... She kept calling me stupid. She said this was the only job I can get because I’m so stupid. And that I was a retard. She hit me on my shoulder. That was the final straw. I’m used to dealing with drunk passengers on different levels of intoxication. I pulled over immediately. I said, 'ma’am you need to exit my vehicle.' She said 'you’re supposed to take me home.' I said 'I understand that but you just crossed the line."
The recording makes Warner look horrible, but she's inviting us to see her subjective perspective in "a situation that made me feel very uncomfortable and I became defensive and eventually angry." She says:
"I'm not trying to make any accusations against that driver, I don't know what's in his heart... Whether it's because of my experience as a prosecutor, maybe [I'm] hyper-vigilant, but whether I was justifiably uncomfortable, I can't tell you that... all I can tell you is what's in my heart."
His heart, her heart, what is she trying to say?
She says she felt uncomfortable with the route the driver was taking and went into "fight or flight" mode, saying her years of prosecuting sexual assault cases may have put her on edge or more sensitive than most.
So, she's a woman, alone in a car with a man, and she's vulnerable, because she's intoxicated and needs to trust him to get her home, and he takes what she now claims looks like the wrong route — though it was apparently just the GPS route Uber requires him to take — and she goes all authoritarian on him, yelling at him, ordering him to do things and attaching shocking epithets and accusations.

2. Meanwhile, "2 women sue Uber, alleging sexual assault by drivers" (NY Post). This is a class action in federal court, accusing Uber of failing to do adequate background checks and monitoring.
The lawsuit... alleges that Uber markets to young women traveling alone and puts profits over their safety.... It asks the court for unspecified damages to compensate the women, and also seeks court-ordered safety measures including fingerprint background checks for drivers and a panic button on the Uber app that would alert the company and authorities to safety problems....
There is a perception that a woman needs to be vigilant about the potential for a sexual attack from an Uber driver, and the lawsuit is an effort to make Uber provide the vigilance. But Uber oversees billions of rides. The incidence of attacks is probably already quite low. Maybe Uber should do more. Should the app have a panic button? The rider has a phone and could call 911, but there are situations when you're just wary — perhaps like Jody Warner — and you think the driver is deviating from the norm and maybe he's not.

You know, we're talking a lot these days about how much a woman should react on the spot when something starts going wrong. The Jody Warner case may explain why sometimes these women report that they felt "paralyzed" or unable to speak up. Look at the horrible consequences for Warner of opting for fight mode.

240 comments:

1 – 200 of 240   Newer›   Newest»
Unknown said...

are fight and abuse the same thing now? Maybe Weinstein was just in fight mode...

sparrow said...

She was a Texas Deputy DA: couldn't she have gotten a concealed carry permit pretty easily?

chickelit said...

In vino veritas as they say. Her words alone show us what was in her heart: ugly misandry -- probably stoked by years of working with abused women -- caused her to lash out at the innocent. Rose McGowan recently crossed the same line.

Ann Althouse said...

@sparrow You wish the drunken lady with distorted judgment had been in a position to kill the innocent man?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Poor delicate flowers. Perhaps they should wear some concealing clothing and only go out with a male relative?

tim in vermont said...

What is it about drunk female Texas prosecutors throwing their weight around?

sparrow said...

Good point,
but I'm just pointing out if that if she had a real reason to fear she could have done something about it.

CarolynnS said...

If she had a phone, she could have used google maps to chart the route the driver was taking. Then she would have been able to see where he was going and whether the route was accurate. My husband does this regularly when we are uber-ing in unfamiliar areas.

SGT Ted said...

The driver wasn't threatening her one bit. The driver is NOT responsible for her drunken emotional over-reaction. She should have kept her head and not bullied and assaulted the driver.

She wasn't confronting a potential attacker. She was verbally abusing the driver, calling him stupid, based on his being a driver. Her "sexual assault!" snivel is a cheap, blame shifting attempt to avoid being held accountable what she did.

Far too many women think they can use their abusive emotional reactions to avoid consequences.

Freeman Hunt said...

If she was in fight mode and thought this man was planning to sexually assault her, wouldn't she want to get out of the car?

Mr Wibble said...

Being drunk and alone makes you vulnerable. Don't put yourself in a position to be vulnerable. I'm a 5'11", 240lb man and even I'm wary about when and where I'll drink.

SGT Ted said...

It needs to be repeated: Her invoking "sexual assault!" is a bullshit after-the-fact attempt to avoid accountability. She deserved to be fired, because she does not have integrity.

sparrow said...

I'm not believing her fear excuse I think rather she acted out of sense of superiority.

Kevin said...

@sparrow You wish the drunken lady with distorted judgment had been in a position to kill the innocent man?

Had she been out with her weapon, she would not have been drinking. You don't drink and carry.

Sober + armed = less fear + no need to go off on the guy.

mccullough said...

Some people shouldn't drink alcohol.

Krumhorn said...

Sounds like an after-the-fact excuse for bullying drunken behavior designed to obscure the reality that she was also drunk with power. While I want always to take any woman’s claim of fear or abuse seriously, I refuse to be browbeaten into burying a tendency to view emotional statements with a balancing skepticism. All too often I am briefly dazzled by a whiff of perfume and a fine leg tucked into a stiletto ...until I come to my senses after defiling a potted plant.

- KrumhornWeinstein

Beta Rube said...

I have over 5,000 rides as a driver. I have taken lots of drunk girls home at night without incident. The driver is not required to follow Uber GPS, and I always let customers guide me to a shortcut or to their favorite route. I generally tell them that everyone knows how to get home, and I thank them. It works every time.

bruh -_- said...

I don’t believe that Warner was “wary”. She was drunk and abusive. She got what she deserved.

Kevin said...

If she were really worried about being alone with a guy in the car, she could have kept rejecting the rides offered by Uber until she got a woman driver.

Mr Wibble said...

Had she been out with her weapon, she would not have been drinking. You don't drink and carry.

Sober + armed = less fear + no need to go off on the guy.


Had she simply been sober she would have had less fear and no need to go off on the guy.

Anonymous said...

If she had a functional brain, she'd be listening to the GPS give the Uber driver directions. If she's worried about the route, she can put her home in her own GPS and see what it says.

Vigilance is good. Being a power-hungry jerk is not

Nonapod said...

Humans need to stop driving things. Humans need minimize their contact with other humans. Bad stuff can happen every once in a very great while. I envision a future where every interaction between two humans is monitored, recorded, and cataloged by various smart devices scattered throughout the environment. This data is then assessed in real time by sophisticated AI agents designed to identify negative behavioral patterns. Incidents of bad behavior are instantly identified, warnings are issued first, then punishments are issued if behaviors are not corrected. Punishments could include things like public shamings on social media.

holdfast said...

FWIW, traditional taxi companies also have problems with drivers raping women. Doesn't seem to get much attention in the local papers in which those companies advertise . . . But anyway, a person I know and trust handles some of the lawsuits that result. Not to excuse Uber, but we should not pretend it's a unique Uber issue.

PoNyman said...

I believe we can assume the driver had no ill intent. But this is interesting, I can think of at least two things where if we assumed there was ill intent it'd be good to get a move on on extricating oneself from the situation.
1. The Asst DA's side. The driver has some bad intentions, sexual or otherwise, he is trying to take me to a place that isn't going to work for me.
2. The driver's side. She is trying to take me off path and has some friends who will beat, rob, and/or kill me. I'm going to stick to the path.
Of the two, #1 is probably more common, but #1 isn't what the driver has in mind so #2 becomes more prominent (if he was thinking in these terms.)

sparrow said...

To be fair Ann's point is still valid: if she (the DA) had bad judgement enough to get drunk and be rude on video she might have misused a gun.
I mentioned the gun as a way to imply that her fear excuse is not likely, but again to be reasonable, after a drink or two fear may be part of her over-reaction. I'm not in her head, but fear doesn't excuse the behavior in any case.

Rick said...

Kevin said...
If she were really worried about being alone with a guy in the car, she could have kept rejecting the rides offered by Uber until she got a woman driver.


I think women can request female drivers.

AlbertAnonymous said...

Absolute garbage!

Head she wins, tails we all lose.

She can be a total belligerent bitch, denigrating the driver as stupid, but we’re supposed to accept it because she might have felt vulnerable?

He was right to drop her. Whether she should have been fired, well people can argue over that. Weird how we have such a scorched earth, old testament, attitude. Say something wrong and boom! Out of the tribe. Banished. You must wander around yelling “leper leper, unclean unclean” to alert others that you are scum, lest your scumminess rub off on them.

Oso Negro said...

The human race will fail quickly in the year 2087, when all men are required to wear self-destruct implants in their heads that may be activated by any woman for any reason at any time.

Oso Negro said...

Blogger Freeman Hunt said...
If she was in fight mode and thought this man was planning to sexually assault her, wouldn't she want to get out of the car?

11/15/17, 9:40 AM


There you go with logic again, Freeman!

Michael K said...

Woman are well on their way to proving that they are not capable of functioning in public, especially around men.

Maybe the Saudis were right.

sparrow said...

Also a young man who says "Ma'am" is IMO less threatening, especially one who wants to wait for the police. You'd think those facts would help her to feel at ease.

Oso Negro said...

Blogger Michael K said...
Woman are well on their way to proving that they are not capable of functioning in public, especially around men.

Maybe the Saudis were right.


Dunno if you ever spent anytime in the Kingdom, Michael, but an under-discussed truth is that a man can quickly become accustomed to women keeping their mouths shut in public.

Scott McGlasson said...

Look at the horrible consequences for Warner of opting for fight mode.

...while intoxicated, ie, without good judgement. How long until we demand that women have a male escort everywhere they go outside the home?

Mac McConnell said...

"She was drunk and abusive." Which is why she was going home ALONE.

KittyM said...

@Michael K "Woman are well on their way to proving that they are not capable of functioning in public, especially around men...Maybe the Saudis were right."

@ Oso Negro "...a man can quickly become accustomed to women keeping their mouths shut in public."

Wow, you guys. Am I missing something? Are you joking?

I Callahan said...

She says she felt uncomfortable with the route the driver was taking and went into "fight or flight" mode, saying her years of prosecuting sexual assault cases may have put her on edge or more sensitive than most.

Utter and complete horseshit. She's using her position as an excuse for her behavior, as opposed to the truth, which is that because she's a prosecutor, she believes she can treat people any damn way she wants.

Feranindianide said...

"I want the cops to come so that they can fuck you up."

Classy bitch got busted. Har har.

Yancey Ward said...

The lady's story literally makes no logical sense. If she really feared the driver, why was it so difficult to get her to leave the vehicle? I mean, seriously, isn't this part fucking obvious?

I Callahan said...

Wow, you guys. Am I missing something? Are you joking?

You're new here, aren't you?

Feranindianide said...

Yancey Ward said...
The lady's story literally makes no logical sense.


She's a professional liar. Well, she *was* a professional liar. And FWIW, youtube has better recordings.

Mac McConnell said...

"Also a young man who says "Ma'am" is IMO less threatening.
Who in the South doesn't say "Ma'am"?

fivewheels said...

"Am I missing something? Are you joking?"

They are joking, but it's only funny if there's a whiff of truth to play off of. You can decide for yourself whether there is or not.

North Star said...

Beta Rube is spot on. As an uber diver as well, I've had many rides that deviate significantly from the uber route with no issues whatsoever. One passenger signed up for a short 1 mile trip that turned into 20 miles. They were hoping to outsmart the system late one Saturday night.

Passengers generally know where they're going. Key with all passengers is to communicate before the conflict happens. I'd like to think Beta Rube would have headed off a problem. But she's a complete jackass and deserves what she's got coming.

iowan2 said...

Saudi Arabia is right? Women are in capable of going out in public alone?

Can you request Uber drivers of a certain sex? (race, sexuality, nationality etc)?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Wow, you guys. Am I missing something? Are you joking?

@ Kitty

Probably joking.....sort of. The issue is that women lately want to have it both or all ways. They are women they are strong....sing it with me!!!! and at the same time they are delicate little things who are unable to handle the slightest hint of anything that may represent a man looking sideways at them.

They want to be belligerent and act like men (or how they think men act), pushing hitting shouting, swearing and then get all bent out of shape when the man strikes back or pushes back against the rude behavior. Not all men act this way, but if you ladies want to act like a man.....take it like a man. Consequences are for everyone.

You can't have it both ways. If you are strong then buckle up buttercup and handle it yourself. If you are so delicate, then maybe you shouldn't be out in public alone, dressed sexily or without your male relative to beat off the sexual predators.

The other issue that may have been in the driver's mind when told by the drunken belligerent rude woman to deviate from the GPS route is that this drunk bitch is going to get us lost. NO thanks...I'll stick to the GPS route.

William said...

BetaRube at 9:45 explains how the driver should have handled it. Nonetheless, the woman demonstrates the absolute worst way to handle the situation. This current postscript shows that even sober her judgment is not to be trusted. She's playing the vulnerable woman card in a cynical way. She was not feeling the fear of woman victims but is using the fear of vulnerable women for her own purposes. You'd think a DA could argue her case better.

exhelodrvr1 said...

So this week we don't want total equality for women?

KittyM said...

@ I Callahan "You're new here, aren't you?" - Yes, relatively. A while back, I started joining some of the conversations. But It was a bit "rough" for my tastes and around the time when there were lots of posts about the Confederate statues issue, the opinions voices were too extreme for me and I stepped away. But I still read the blog and felt like joining in again.


@fivewheels "They are joking, but it's only funny if there's a whiff of truth to play off of. You can decide for yourself whether there is or not." Oh, OK. Yeah - not funny for me, obviously. But I am not the intended audience, so fair enough.

Fascinating that Althouse posts two stories - one of a woman behaving badly, one about men behaving badly - and the first gets the absolute lion's share of the comments. At time of posting, 34 comments about story 1, overwhelmingly critical of the woman; 2 comments specifically about story 2; 7 "general" comments, including my posts and your responses.

rhhardin said...

Women want it both ways and will insist on it. They're women.

Dude1394 said...

Where are the police charges? Where is the evidence collected in this sexual assault case.

This looks like an UBER competitor actually wanting to damage the company, if they did not file charges, it did not happen.

William said...

We've gone from Harvey Weinstein and A-list movie stars to Uber drivers and drunken lawyers. How disappointing. I'm addicted not to sex but to sex scandals. Not much kick in this story. I continue to hope against hope that Huma sues Hillary for sexual harassment.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

But I still read the blog and felt like joining in again.

Don't quit. Don't get discouraged. We need all viewpoints in order to have good discussions. Some people can be snarky, sarcastic and even downright mean. It is hard to discern what is sarcasm and humor at first. Ignore those who are worthless to have discussions with and engage those who you can.

Cowgirl up. You can do it :-D

Dude1394 said...

"Beta Rube is spot on. As an uber diver as well, I've had many rides that deviate significantly from the uber route with no issues whatsoever. One passenger signed up for a short 1 mile trip that turned into 20 miles. They were hoping to outsmart the system late one Saturday night.

Passengers generally know where they're going. Key with all passengers is to communicate before the conflict happens. I'd like to think Beta Rube would have headed off a problem. But she's a complete jackass and deserves what she's got coming."

I thought that UBER drivers get paid by the ride as defined by their app, not the amount of miles taken. So the 1 mile trip that turned into 20 miles took money out of the drivers pocket. If the drive recognizes the shortcut and wants to use it, fine, if not then shut up.

Ann Althouse said...

"If she was in fight mode and thought this man was planning to sexually assault her, wouldn't she want to get out of the car?"

If she was drunk and it was nighttime and she wasn't near home, then she might have viewed the driver as her best hope. Obviously, she was confused and making bad decisions. As prosecutors know, sexual assault victims often present complicated facts of that kind, which a defendant will use to his advantage.

Ann Althouse said...

"It needs to be repeated: Her invoking "sexual assault!" is a bullshit after-the-fact attempt to avoid accountability."

Maybe. But you don't know.

SGT Ted said...

What DBQ said.

People are tired of female supremacism, defined as expectations and demands of special and favorable treatment of women by society and culture not afforded to men, cloaked as "equal rights".

damikesc said...

At the risk of being crass, at what point do we require women to have chaperones at all times?

They seem unable to navigate the world those days.

SGT Ted said...

Althouse@ 10:28.

It's pretty obvious, I've seen this movie before.

Michael said...

Item: Uber does not require drivers to obey gps routes.
Item and pro tip: sit in the back with Uber drivers. They are not your pals. For a short while they work for you. Very difficult to assault a backseat passenger.

tim in vermont said...

One of them was drunk, one of them was sober. One of them was responsibly trying to carry out his job, one of them was reasonable, one of them was nasty. One of them tried to use her public trust against the other. One of them was polite. One of them had a recording going to protect himself from this type of situation.

This is just not that hard of a case.

Ann Althouse said...

"As prosecutors know, sexual assault victims often present complicated facts of that kind, which a defendant will use to his advantage."

I'm not saying this Uber driver did anything wrong (other than the mistake he acknowledges, telling the police officer he was okay with what happened and had no complaint to make).

I'm only saying that people sometimes get into situations and make a few mistakes and they get hurt by someone who really is culpable, and the mistakes of the victim don't undo the culpability.

tim in vermont said...

Well, there was the issue of that Uber board member being a Trump supporter, so they are in the wrong no matter what. There is also the issue of cab drivers hating their guts, so you can assume that there are no people spreading rumors about them.

Uber knows where the cars are every second. Has there ever been an "unsolved" sexual assault of a woman who called Uber by the Uber driver? Billions of rides, there will always be cases, but how stupid does a person have to be to use an Uber car to commit sexual assault?

Ann Althouse said...

"Item and pro tip: sit in the back with Uber drivers. They are not your pals. For a short while they work for you. Very difficult to assault a backseat passenger."

I was wondering myself whether she'd gotten into the front seat. If you are in back, you are at some risk of child locks being engaged. So if the guy gets those locks engaged and then stops and climbs over the seat, you are very much trapped. In the front seat, you can always open the door (but some people can't figure out how to do it).

Big Mike said...

Defending the right of a woman to get drunk and act abusive smacks of some sort of female privilege to me.

Dude1394 said...

I always get in the front with the uber driver. I almost always deal with it as someone giving me a lift, a normal person. Works out.

Amadeus 48 said...

Re: Jodi Warner--Her excuse sounds after-the-fact to me. DA says she investigated the incident thoroughly before she fired Warner.

Re: story 2: One of the safety factors implicit in Uber is that the driver is known and knowable--and customer-rated. You'd have to be a pretty stupid Uber driver to attack a passenger, although I am sure it does happen. The class-action lawsuit sounds like lawyers trolling for a nuisance settlement. Yawn.

Ann Althouse said...

"Defending the right of a woman to get drunk and act abusive smacks of some sort of female privilege to me."

If you are at a physical disadvantage (small/weak/drunk) using exaggerated words might be your best option. Saying I am a prosecutor and I am telling you what you are doing is already kidnapping and that is a felony might be worth saying in a very harsh tone even if none of it is true. You might say "My husband is a gangster and he will kill you." You're allowed to lie to defend yourself. But if you're wrong about the other person and there is a recording of you, you've got a new problem.

buwaya said...

Total information saturation creates an urge to make all of lifes frictions and accidents, however low the incidence or probability, a high priority matter. Hence incidents get inflated far beyond their significance.

Meanwhile situations which do matter from a general perspective are suppressed, as these are filtered through organized centrally controlled systems, such as the MSM and academia.

The result is insanity.

Ann Althouse said...

Speaking of lying to defend yourself, Warner is now trying to defend herself, so her assertions will be heard in that context. There's plenty of self-interest and people probably won't believe her, and that takes us back to the longstanding skepticism of women making claims of sexual assault.

AZ Bob said...

Years ago in Los Angeles, a newly hired deputy DA lost her engagement ring down a sink of a restaurant bathroom. Drunk, she threw a fit and among other things was quoted as saying, "I'm a deputy DA and I can do anything I want to."

Needless to say, she did not pass her probationary period.

SGT Ted said...

"Saying I am a prosecutor and I am telling you what you are doing is already kidnapping and that is a felony might be worth saying in a very harsh tone even if none of it is true."

Isn't that an under cover of authority violation?

Gahrie said...

"It needs to be repeated: Her invoking "sexual assault!" is a bullshit after-the-fact attempt to avoid accountability."

Maybe. But you don't know.


Isn't there a video proving nothing close to a sexual assault occurred? Why else would she accuse him of sexual assault when no assault took place?

buwaya said...

The prosecutors best move is a sincere public apology and a considerable gift. Best if this had been done before it had gone public.

Whatever her fears, or the justification thereof, it is clear that she misjudged him, and insulted him.

That is something left lying on the table - a demonstration of penitence, of humility. Crawling up the Cathedral steps on ones knees, while scourging oneself for instance.

SGT Ted said...

"There's plenty of self-interest and people probably won't believe her, and that takes us back to the longstanding skepticism of women making claims of sexual assault."

It takes us to the longstanding truth that women will play the victim as a distraction to avoid the consequences for their conduct. She was an abusive shit and tried to justify it by invoking "sexual assault!".

Gahrie said...

You're allowed to lie to defend yourself

Now we know why feminists were so willing to support Slick Willie........

Women must never be made to feel bad or to take responsibility for their actions.

Kevin said...

Fascinating that Althouse posts two stories - one of a woman behaving badly, one about men behaving badly - and the first gets the absolute lion's share of the comments.

From Harvey Weinstein to Roy Moore to Bill Clinton, we’re a little worn out on the men behaving badly discussion.

Gahrie said...

Fascinating that Althouse posts two stories - one of a woman behaving badly, one about men behaving badly - and the first gets the absolute lion's share of the comments.

No one attempted to defend the actions of the men who are accused of rape...Althouse has attempted to defend the woman who accused an innocent man of sexual assault.

Amadeus 48 said...

What are we to make of the DA firing her after looking into the situation? Did Warner make her points to her female boss, who had watched her prosecute sexual assaults for two years? Did her boss believe her?

Here in Cook County, the only thing that will get a state's attorney fired is embarrassing the office by perverting the course of justice too obviously in court. However, assignment to traffic court is also possible. Maybe Warner should have been reassigned to traffic court. Then she could hector Uber drivers in front of a judge.

Freeman Hunt said...

Would be good to know for certain whether or not he was required to follow the GPS directions. Is there a local rule requiring this? If not, why didn't he oblige her request to turn? Perhaps she seemed too drunk to reliably provide directions. If so, why didn't he say that instead of invoking a GPS requirement?

Amadeus 48 said...

Did she accuse the driver of sexual assault? I thought she argued with him about the route, abused him verbally, and then hit him. I thought she said after the fact that she was concerned about her situation because she had prosecuted many sexual assault cases.

Beta Rube said...

To Freeman:

I follow GPS about half the time. Right now there is so much construction in Milwaukee, both downtown and the freeway system, that local knowledge is much better than GPS in many cases. I have never gotten a negative word of feedback from Uber or a passenger for deciding on a better or more familiar route.

GPS also pulls the route based on the fastest time, so it defaults to freeway driving much of the time. Given accidents, lane closures, Brewers games, etc., the freeway is not the best way to go in many rides.

Achilles said...

It is getting to the point where you just can't talk or be with women without a video camera following you around. Even though the vast majority of women do the right thing and take responsibility for themselves 2 or 3 fuckups can ruin it for everyone.

If the women were assaulted that is a law enforcement issue. But there is a company with money so lawyers gotta lawyer and gold diggers gotta dig gold.

But the left has been trying to divide everyone as much as possible by gender race socio-economics etc. Mission accomplished. Of course lawyers are almost all leftists too and they are just as much a part of the problem.

David Docetad said...

"Look at the horrible consequences for Warner of opting for fight mode."

Sometimes I just don't get Althouse. Did I miss something in the story? Did the Uber driver assault the passenger?

Quaestor said...

Althouse wrote: Look at the horrible consequences for Warner of opting for fight mode.

Arrogant, over-educated, under-civilized, brain-hosed on tequila shots bitch mode, you mean.

damikesc said...

I cannot fault him for refusing to follow driving directions from a drunk and belligerent passenger. If they get you lost...they will blame you.

Quaestor said...

She was a Texas Deputy DA: couldn't she have gotten a concealed carry permit pretty easily?

In most states it's a felony to consume alcohol while carrying a concealed firearm.

Gahrie said...

Look at the horrible consequences for Warner of opting for fight mode.

One could also say "look at the horrible consequences for Warner for being drunk, entitled and physically aggressive".

Earnest Prole said...

Years ago, before Uber and cell phones, my wife caught a taxi at O’Hare and the driver, a Middle Eastern man who spoke little English, proceeded to get lost. He then spent the next hour driving through bad parts of Chicago, supposedly trying to figure out where he was. Twilight came, and my wife became panicked when he drove into an abandoned industrial area and parked the car, but it turned out he just needed to pee. Eventually he recognized a street and she made in to her destination, late but safe.

KittyM said...

@Achilles "Even though the vast majority of women do the right thing and take responsibility for themselves 2 or 3 fuckups can ruin it for everyone."

What on earth do you mean by that? What is doing the right thing and taking responsibility for oneself?

@Gahrie "Women must never be made to feel bad or to take responsibility for their actions."

That is nonsense. Statistically, we know that women are very often *not believed* in cases of sexual assault and rape. We know there is a massive problem of underreporting. We know that women are rightly suspicious of the justice process because it is hard to get a fair hearing. In other words, the much bigger problem is *men* not accepting responsibility for for their actions. See: Roy Moore, Harvey Weinstein etc etc etc ad nauseum.

@SGT Ted "It takes us to the longstanding truth that women will play the victim as a distraction to avoid the consequences for their conduct."

What? Some human beings, regardless of gender, are capable of playing the victim. But women are statistically much more likely to actually BE the victim of a sexual assault.


Michael McNeil said...

I thought that UBER drivers get paid by the ride as defined by their app, not the amount of miles taken. So the 1 mile trip that turned into 20 miles took money out of the drivers pocket.

No, Uber drivers get a percentage (depending on category of ride, e.g., X vs. XL etc.) of the total fare, which in turn is computed by Uber based on an algorithm considering both distance traveled as well as time spent en route. An ultimately 20-mile ride, even though originally a 1-mile distance was indicated, will gyp neither Uber nor its driver.

tim in vermont said...

to the longstanding skepticism of women making claims of sexual assault.

One has to look at the physical evidence and accept the fact that sometimes you simply don't know. In this case, she hit him even though he had made no move on her. Was abusive prior to that. So, IN THIS CASE, she can go to hell, and I am happy she lost her job. Let her become a title attorney or something where her judgement is not that important.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said....You know, we're talking a lot these days about how much a woman should react on the spot when something starts going wrong. The Jody Warner case may explain why sometimes these women report that they felt "paralyzed" or unable to speak up. Look at the horrible consequences for Warner of opting for fight mode.

What bullshit, ma'am. What utter bullshit.
First of all you're assuming that Warner's behavior was the result of her going into "fight or flight mode." That's so overly generous (to her post-hoc attempt at rationalization) that I assumed you were kidding--I guess "cruel neutrality" is out the window on that one. If she's in fight mode you'd think she'd be yelling accusations at the guy or in some other way indicating that she's angry because of fear...and not saying/doing things that actually seem designed to PROVOKE anger in the dude (berating him as lower class, calling him retarded, etc). Her excuse is clearly bullshit and anyone buying it should not be taken seriously--she's STEALING the empathy and concern we should all have for vulnerable women and using it to cover for her own shitty behavior. Shameful.

More broadly (no pun intended): what a silly complaint. We expect men to react immediately to tough situations and make split second judgments all the time. We fault men when they don't react to highly-stressful situations in exactly the correct way and we're quick to charge men for crimes when their reactions turn out to not be justified (ie "I really thought he had a gun/really thought he was a criminal so I punched him"). There's a distinct lack of empathy for the risk men face (of reacting poorly/not quickly enough/in the wrong way when faced with a stressful and/or dangerous situation) but now you want to highlight the danger what women--GASP!--might be held to a similar standard?
That's called equality, right? Or is it wrong to treat women like adults and hold them responsible for their own behavior/reactions? Maybe they need a male chaperone to take that burden off of them, something like that?

tim in vermont said...

See: Roy Moore, Harvey Weinstein etc etc etc ad nauseum. Bill Clinton, Teddy Kennedy, if you want to get into little girls, Joe Biden. Check out the video of Sessions slapping Biden's hands away from his daughter, among many, many more inappropriate and uncomfortable touchings of pretty young girls.

tim in vermont said...

If only Moore had killed the girl driving drunk and been a Democrat! He would have a Senate seat for life if he only moved to Massachusetts!

lgv said...

She works at the Dallas DA office. This makes her a professional liar. The place has a history. Craig Watkins was absolutely corrupt to the core. He was replaced by mentally ill and incompetent Republican Susan Hawk. Faith Johnson has taken over. She's in over her head, but this gave her a chance to drain a little of the swamp. All the same, I think getting fired was bit too much of a punishment for stupid drunken rant.

She apologized, but starts the crawl back, essentially calling the Uber driver a liar. No big deal, she is about to make a ton more defending the accused than working for the state.

David said...

Jody was opting for drunk mode, not fight mode. It apparently hasn't been reported, but I found references in the Bee City, Texas newspaper comments section to incidents involving her when she was was in high school and of college age. She was accused in these of getting away with driving drunk, and generally being obstreperous and nasty when interacting with alcohol. Her momma is a former district attorney in the county, and her father is presently the city attorney of Bee City, Texas. Prominent locals who protected baby when she needed it.

Todd said...

Ann Althouse said...
Speaking of lying to defend yourself, Warner is now trying to defend herself, so her assertions will be heard in that context. There's plenty of self-interest and people probably won't believe her, and that takes us back to the longstanding skepticism of women making claims of sexual assault.

11/15/17, 10:43 AM


Absolutely right! Too many people still don't believe women when they make claims of sexual assault, unlike say the automatic acceptance of sexual assault claims by men.

I get it! Woman is intoxicated and rude in public, women and children hardest hit!

I Callahan said...

Maybe. But you don't know.

Uh, common sense says we do. You're giving this woman an out for bad behavior by even giving this reasoning any credence. It doesn't deserve any.

tim in vermont said...

Why didn't Gerry Studds use book marks? He liked his pages bent over! Another illustrious Massachusetts Democrat, protected by the press!

Almost might make one wonder what else the press is covering up.... Naah!

rhhardin said...

I just watched Atomic Blonde. Women need to learn to leave a trail of bodies like she does.

David said...

" Let her become a title attorney or something where her judgement is not that important."

Her daddy owns the title company in Bee City. She worked there until momma, a former district attorney herself, could grease the skids for a DA job in the Big City. Or so I speculate. No direct evidence.

tim in vermont said...

Meanwhile, Republicans ran Hastert out on a rail. What credit did that get us? Democrats laughed up their sleeve and covered for Bill.

Todd said...

Freeman Hunt said...

Perhaps she seemed too drunk to reliably provide directions. If so, why didn't he say that instead of invoking a GPS requirement?

11/15/17, 10:56 AM


I would have done the same (followed the GPS instead of the passenger) and "blamed" in on company policy. Much easier than arguing with her that I did not trust her directions. Did not stop the argument this time but it might have in the past.

Much, much easier to play the "not my fault, the company is making me" card than "sorry I think you are too sh*tfaced to do it right" and just think if they did get lost and she did cry assault, the police would be all "Why didn't you follow the GPS? You KNEW she was drunk!"

Has NO one here watched any episodes of L&O: Special Victims?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Freeman Hunt said... Would be good to know for certain whether or not he was required to follow the GPS directions. Is there a local rule requiring this? If not, why didn't he oblige her request to turn? Perhaps she seemed too drunk to reliably provide directions. If so, why didn't he say that instead of invoking a GPS requirement?

Yup, totally. The best thing to tell a drunk belligerent person is that you're not listening to them because they're drunk and belligerent. Drunk people love that--it takes all the argument right out of 'em.
The best thing to tell an angry woman is "calm down, honey." Works every time; defuses any big argument.

Gahrie said...

@KittyM:

Do you believe that 20% of women who attend college are raped?

Dude1394 said...

"I thought that UBER drivers get paid by the ride as defined by their app, not the amount of miles taken. So the 1 mile trip that turned into 20 miles took money out of the drivers pocket.

No, Uber drivers get a percentage (depending on category of ride, e.g., X vs. XL etc.) of the total fare, which in turn is computed by Uber based on an algorithm considering both distance traveled as well as time spent en route. An ultimately 20-mile ride, even though originally a 1-mile distance was indicated, will gyp neither Uber nor its driver."

But that fare is calculated BEFORE the person ever gets in the car, in other words a flat fee. Unless I am mistaken, UBER will never jack up the cost of your ride after the fact, for example, if there is for some reason a longer route, longer time taken. So again a 1 mile ride, that turned into 20 does not get charged more to the customer. Unless UBER is eating the difference, someone is out time or money.

exhelodrvr1 said...

"But women are statistically much more likely to actually BE the victim of a sexual assault."

So now we can use demographic statistics when discussing crime? This is so confusing!!

Sydney said...

Watched the video. For what it’s worth, I thought her body language said, “I’m lying.”

HoodlumDoodlum said...

I guess the "reasonable man standard" was changed to the "reasonable person" standard. Makes sense, of course but it sounds like maybe there needs to be a reasonable man standard and a "reasonable woman standard."

Apparently under the "reasonable woman" standard you can excuse any ridiculous actions by saying "I'm smaller and always vulnerable so when I claim to have been acting out of fear (of sexual assault, I guess) you have to take that claim seriously no matter how much my actual actions contradict that later claim. Victims don't always react the same so my claim to have been in fear of being a victim must be accepted no matter how I acted or reacted."

See? Let's just be explicit about what we're doing: we're operating under two different standards. Equality demands it!

Fabi said...

"Fascinating that Althouse posts two stories - one of a woman behaving badly, one about men behaving badly - and the first gets the absolute lion's share of the comments."

A same size of two cannot be fascinating.

mandrewa said...

I don't think she should have been fired for her drunken rant. When people get angry they call people names. Not everyone but a lot of people do. Should we fire everybody that will start swearing and calling others names if sufficiently frustrated?

It seems like an excessive punishment for what are just drunken words.

I suspect I'm underestimating when I say half the population has that tendency.

Should we fire half the population?

Howard said...

Blogger Michael K said...Woman are well on their way to proving that they are not capable of functioning in public, especially around men. Maybe the Saudis were right.

I call cultural appropriation Doctor. Not the Saudi part, but the part where you use the logic of a naturopathic reiki faith healer to suggest the west return to the middle ages as far as women are concerned.

BDNYC said...

"... and she goes all authoritarian on him, yelling at him, ordering him to do things and attaching shocking epithets and accusations"

And don't forget she physically assaulted him.

BDNYC said...

I love it. Althouse wants us to think of this drunk power-abusing witch like a sexual assault survivor. I have zero interest in whatever her subjective fears were, even though I am quite sure she's lying her ass off. Fuck her feelings.

Howard said...

Blogger Quaestor said... Althouse wrote: Look at the horrible consequences for Warner of opting for fight mode. Arrogant, over-educated, under-civilized, brain-hosed on tequila shots bitch mode, you mean. 100%. Actually what she was doing was purpose driven to instigate a fight.

Peter said...

Sorry, Ms. Althouse, but are we supposed to believe a modern, tough young district attorney in a major, high crime city didn't have a smartphone she could have used if she thought she was in danger? Probably with several emergency numbers on speed dial? DAs have to worry about security, wasn't there some protocol in place? Her only desperate gambit was this out-of-control abuse? Also, what was with the tears? Maybe she has Gloria Allred on retainer.

She's not helping your cause.

buwaya said...

"you use the logic of a naturopathic reiki faith healer to suggest the west return to the middle ages as far as women are concerned."

Not Reiki - Thomas Aquinas - from the Summa
A sample -
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1092.htm

We could do a lot worse re attitudes to women actually. Women in Christendom had extraordinary protections in law and custom relative to today, and restrictions in liberty that were not, arguably, more so than those of men, in that much more communal culture.

Larvell said...

"If she was in fight mode and thought this man was planning to sexually assault her, wouldn't she want to get out of the car?

How dare you question the actions of a woman who has just been sexually assaulted. Aren't you aware that there is literally no action a woman can take that would be inconsistent with a claim of assault?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

We can't dismiss the idea that this woman actually felt threatened in this situation.
Ok, so what? So fucking what? Are we on that basis supposed to cut her some kind of slack? If that's not the point of what you're saying then what is?

We can't dismiss the idea that any person who behaves in a terrible way was experiencing some feelings at the time of their terrible behavior. So? We usually say "well that person may claim to have felt that, and we have not way of proving they didn't, but that doesn't in any way excuse their behavior" or even "they may have felt that but given the circumstances that feeling wasn't reasonable and even if we thought it was the behavior was out of line/wrong anyway."

But, I mean, maybe that's just for men. I guess we don't expect children to govern their behavior--we understand that little kids can't always control their emotional responses so we don't judge little kids harshly when they act out while having a "temper tantrum" or something similar.
Maybe that's it, huh? Women who consider themselves "vulnerable" should be treated the same way we treat children--should be held to that same standard.
How very feminist.

Big Mike said...

That is nonsense. Statistically, we know that women are very often *not believed* in cases of sexual assault and rape. We know there is a massive problem of underreporting. We know that women are rightly suspicious of the justice process because it is hard to get a fair hearing. In other words, the much bigger problem is *men* not accepting responsibility for for their actions.

@KittyM, as a mathematician I’d like to see that statistics you quote. In particular I would like to see the raw data and methodology. There are a lot of made up “facts” out there on this issue, and it’s especially true about the underreporting issue. Last time I was able to dig into the underreporting numbers they turned out to be based on “estimates” that were nothing more than wild guesses.

buwaya said...

This is medieval -

We could use a lot more of this -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o4TCAgNHfo

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Women who falsely claim to be victims of sexual assault/rape are more harmful to "the cause" of justice for actual victims than reasonably-skeptical men ever will be (see Duke lacrosse, Rolling Stone UVA, etc).

I assert that allowing this person to excuse her actions on the basis of an alleged fear of sexual assault (a fear that manifests itself nowhere in her actual actions, which were in fact seemingly designed to PROVOKE a violent response) is harmful to "the cause" of convincing us/changing the norm to "women ought to be believed" when alleging they've been victimized.

n.n said...

So, what is the standard that is internally, externally, and mutually consistent, for societies will desire to defend adolescent and prepubescent children from transgender and trans-social conversion, women and girls from liberated men and boys, and babies from chauvinistic women?

buwaya said...

Grounds for dismissal in this case can be independent from her behavior towards the driver.

Simply being drunken in public, causing a public scandal, and bringing disrepute to the department should suffice.

BDNYC said...

Has she been reported to the State Bar? God I hope so. Just repulsive conduct from a prosecutor who should know better.

Howard said...

Blogger buwaya said..."you use the logic of a naturopathic reiki faith healer to suggest the west return to the middle ages as far as women are concerned." Not Reiki - Thomas Aquinas - from the Summa A sample - http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1092.htm
We could do a lot worse re attitudes to women actually. Women in Christendom had extraordinary protections in law and custom relative to today, and restrictions in liberty that were not, arguably, more so than those of men, in that much more communal culture.


Logic is a method to reach a conclusion not a dogmatic proscription for hair shirts and foot binding like you have cited. You should get out on a kayak and go fishing like so many of your countrymen I see out in the Red Triangle instead of filling your head with nonsense. They have taught me the joys of smoked mackerel and fish soup. The real world is so much more interesting than books... the map is not the territory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Korzybski).

William said...

Scott Walker makes cynical use of a ham and cheese sandwich to make himself appear to be a regular guy, and no one catches him out on it. Typical double standard of the commenters here.

buwaya said...

"You should get out on a kayak and go fishing "

Sadly, I have to work for a living, for now.

When I retire we will wander the earth, finding some way to annoy people, probably.

And I am a natural bookworm and teacher. Maybe I will teach.

Todd said...

buwaya said...

When I retire we will wander the earth, finding some way to annoy people, probably.

11/15/17, 12:42 PM


Now that sounds like a fun hobby! To get you started, try these:

- every 11 minutes, yawn very long and loud (for extra points do the big arm stretch)

- suck your teeth

- nose hum barry manilow songs while eating in public

Have fun and don't forget, to get really good a something takes practice, practice, practice!

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Try it the other way:
As a non-criminal man I face the risk that I might be wrongly accused of a crime by a woman. Let's say I'm an Uber driver. I know a drunk woman might accuse me of criminal behavior even though I have never committed any crime--I'm "vulnerable" to a false accusation and in a he said-she said scenario the cultural ethos now is "believe the woman" so I might have my life ruined (be fired, be arrested, be socially ostracized, etc).
So I'm vulnerable in that way and I know I'm vulnerable in that way.
What behavior of mine will that excuse?

Let's keep things civil and say that as a result of feeling that vulnerability/understanding that risk I refuse to pick up female riders. Sorry ladies, I just can't run the risk of a false accusation so I refuse your business. How quickly do you think I'd be subject to lawsuits, boycotts, thundering op-eds, etc? Do you think nice people like the Professor would take my fears seriously--would excuse my choice based on my expressed FEELINGS? Yeah, me either. But hey, I'm not a woman; the rules are just different, ok?

I guess it's just another one of those things we're not supposed to notice. In fact the act of noticing--the act of pointing out the clear double standard--is probably itself considered rude/violent/threatening in some way. How dare we!

Howard said...

Excuses, excuses. Most the fishermen I know work and support young families. It's not unusual to see a Filipino fisherman greeted by the wife and kids as he lands his catch on shore.

Jupiter said...

If I hired someone to take me home, and he refused to follow my directions, I would consider myself to be kidnapped, and I would tell him so. Where we go from there is up to him, but if he said the company required it, I would be quite certain that he was lying and the situation called for a violent response. I don't really see how the rest of you are missing this. You hire someone to drive you where you want to go, he's supposed to drive you where you want to go. Not where he wants to go.

And now, if the Uber drivers in the thread can be believed, we find out he *was* lying. I tend to agree that her best bet was to get out if that was possible. And maybe she over-reacted. But when he refused to turn where she told him to turn, he kidnapped her.

Jupiter said...

Dust Bunny Queen said...

"Don't quit. Don't get discouraged..."

DBQ, I think you must have forgotten KittyM. I remember her well from her Confederate Statues posts.

KittyM, get discouraged. Quit.

SGT Ted said...

"But when he refused to turn where she told him to turn, he kidnapped her."

Oh please. Quit being a drama queen.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

If a drunk guy gets in an Uber, shouts at the driver, threatens the driver, and strikes the driver I bet we'd all understand if the driver smacked the guy in the face. The driver might get charged with some minor battery, but we'd all probably say "he shouldn't have smacked the guy but the guy definitely deserved the smack."

This drunk woman does those things, though, and nice people like the Professor are going out of their way to make sure we all understand we can't PROVE the woman didn't FEEL afraid...presumably to imply that we should FEEL empathy and/or compassion towards the woman and understand that her outrageous behavior is in some way excused by those things the woman allegedly FELT.

Right? So in the same situation we'd agree a guy "deserved" a smack we're supposed to agree that the woman's actions, while wrong, might be unerstandable/excusable based on how that woman claims (after the fact) to have felt.

And feminism is about equality--equal treatment, equal consideration. Feminism is the radical notion that women are people! Right. SPECIAL people, I guess they meant.

Feranindianide said...

buwaya said...
We could use a lot more of this -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o4TCAgNHfo


Those white hoods would look great on just about any college campus.

"Therefore, let us now chiefly consider women; and first, why this kind of perfidy is found more in so fragile a sex than in men."

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Jupiter said...And now, if the Uber drivers in the thread can be believed, we find out he *was* lying. I tend to agree that her best bet was to get out if that was possible. And maybe she over-reacted. But when he refused to turn where she told him to turn, he kidnapped her.

It's a matter of consent, you see. The SECOND she didn't consent to his route he was a kidnapper.
Oh, by the way: that standard means Uber, Lyft, and taxis generally can't legally operate. The business owners can in no way guarantee that their drivers won't make a turn against the expressed wishes of any given rider, and since that's true they'll always be liable to lawsuits and/or criminal prosecution (for kidnapping, infliction of emotional distress [at the kidnappings], etc).

See? If we are going to say that we're not operating as reasonable adults then we're going to have to face the consequences of that shit. If "you taking a turn I don't want in a situation where I've hired to you take me to a designated point" is kidnapping then car services can't operate.

Personally I'd rater treat people as competent adults and understand that in situations like that a minor disagreement may exist but that doesn't amount (morally nor legally) to kidnapping--a crime that would probably require an entirely-absent mens rea anyway--but I get that there's a STRONG desire for people to accept treatment as children. Enjoy your world, I guess.

Jupiter said...

SGT Ted said...
"But when he refused to turn where she told him to turn, he kidnapped her."

"Oh please. Quit being a drama queen."

OK. How far did he have to drive before he had kidnapped her? Fort Worth?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Jupiter said...If I hired someone to take me home, and he refused to follow my directions, I would consider myself to be kidnapped, and I would tell him so.

Ok, let's play that game (a stupid game, mind you, but let's play).
He turns left, you say "no, don't turn left, go straight" and he keeps going left.
You say "I do not consent to this route, you're kidnapping me right now!"
He says "what kind of a fucking moron are you? Get out of my car, dipshit--you're not being kidnapped."

[I mean, that's sort of what's supposed to have happened here, right?]

If you don't immediately get out of the (unlocked) car does that mean you're trespassing? If your continued presence in the car (contrary to the expressed wishes of the driver) makes the driver feel threatened does that mean you're guilty of assault?

Todd said...

Jupiter said...
If I hired someone to take me home, and he refused to follow my directions, I would consider myself to be kidnapped, and I would tell him so.
11/15/17, 12:53 PM


Have you ever used Uber? You tell the app where you want to go, it knows where you are and it tells all that to the driver. How the driver gets you there is NOT up to you. The driver was using a GPS/mapping app and elected to follow it, not your directions which they may not have been familiar with. Do you tell the surgeon how to remove your gallstones? I know that is not the best analogy but give me a break.

Jupiter said...

"If you don't immediately get out of the (unlocked) car does that mean you're trespassing? If your continued presence in the car (contrary to the expressed wishes of the driver) makes the driver feel threatened does that mean you're guilty of assault?"

Yes. I mentioned that. If he lets you out, great. No harm, no foul. But if he *lies* to you and keeps driving, you have been kidnapped.

Jupiter said...

Well, not assault. But trespassing, yes. Listen, there are people doing time in prison for standing between a woman and a door for a few seconds. Forcibly taking people places they don't want to go is *way* out of line.

Jupiter said...

Sounds to me like a case of prosecutorial indiscretion.

Bruce Gee said...

Sorry, haven’t read each comment. But I wonder, rather than a panic button, couldn’t Uber allow women to request women drivers? Or arent there enough women Uber drivers? Or do women Uber drivers suffer the same discomfort women Uber riders may?

Buy a car. Take a bus.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Funny lack of EMPATHY for the driver here, I notice.
Take a few moments ant look at it from his perspective. He's being threatened by a powerful person--a person who's promising to abuse her power to harm him, in fact--and he's pretty much screwed no matter what he does now.
If he somehow forces her out of his car (without in any way touching her--the moment he touches her he's going to jail for sure) and something happens to her stupid drunk ass afterwards (she wanders into traffic and gets killed) he'll probably be liable for that. Certainly nice people here like the Professor will be quick to point out that he had a duty to care for the woman (she was drunk and vulnerable, after all!) and by kicking her out of his car he put her at risk.

But wait! If he doesn't kick her out of his car he's a kidnapper! How can he PROVE that he wasn't going to kidnap her and take her somewhere and harm her--how can he PROVE he wasn't acting criminally?! She says he was and he can't prove that he wasn't (I mean, ignoring the fact that he didn't actually do anything to show that he was a threat, that the fucking Uber app constantly tracks his location and he'd know that it'd be tracking him if he detoured somewhere and assaulted her, etc). So clearly he can't keep her in the car either.

So he's just screwed, huh? I mean, fuck him I guess--his FEELINGS don't matter since he's not a woman. The fact that some drunk bitch can slap him around AND still pose a very real threat of ruining his life with a false accusation--well, that's just the price he pays for trying to earn a living as a man, I guess.

Todd said...

Jupiter said...

Forcibly taking people places they want to go [but not how] is *way* out of line.

11/15/17, 1:13 PM


There fix it for you. Read it slow. Stupid, right?

Feranindianide said...

HoodlumDoodlum said...
And feminism is about equality--equal treatment, equal consideration.[not]


If it were, it wouldn't be called "feminism", although the name is strangely honest considering the fact that it's the most dishonest SJW variant.

DARE TO RISE FOR EQUALITY
"This N7 design is the latest in Nike's pledge to EQUALITY. The feathered graphic inside the EQUALITY letters is inspired by Jude Schimmel and represents the wings of an Eagle, which is sacred in Indian Country signifying courage, wisdom and strength. All EQUALITY t-shirts promote diversity and inclusion, and express Nike's commitment to advancing those ideals."


"Diversity and inclusion" are kinda the opposite of "courage, wisdom and strength", and equality.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Jupiter said...OK. How far did he have to drive before he had kidnapped her? Fort Worth?

He was driving her TO HER DESIGNATED DESTINATION, genius. The fucking Uber app was directing him (via a GPS route) to her fucking destination. His crime is FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS of the app they both consented to using (as a part of the commerical transaction) and NOT the shouted commands of a drunken woman.
You'd have much more of a point if this were happening the opposite way. If she hired an Uber to take her to a location and the Uber GPS indicated he should go one way but he started driving off that route, some other way, to a potentially-unknown destination...then maybe it'd make sense to say her fear/a belief that she was being kidnapped might be a little bit justified. That's not what's being alleged here, though. The driver said he was following the Uber GPS directions. I haven't heard anyone dispute that--just that his saying he was obligated to follow those directions was "a lie." Based on that lie he's a kidnapper!

Just ridiculous. Let's say he's rolling down the interstate and she (drunkenly) screams "stop immediately!" If he doesn't slam on the brakes and let her jump out (into traffic) then he's a kidnapper. Consent can be withdrawn at any time! Hell, given that standard she can decide AFTER the ride that she didn't agree with his route at some point and those extra few minutes were spent not in traffic but in fact in CAPTIVITY! Arrest the driver at once--he SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that she didn't want to go that way--as a vulnerable little woman she was understandably too scared to speak up but it was his duty to get enthusiastic consent continuously during the trip. "Is it ok if I turn right here? Is it all right if I follow the GPS directions now? How about now?"

Reasonable adult standard. Wonderful world you're building, just wonderful.

Valentine Smith said...

She's a drunk. Anything can happen, and sooner or later does.

Krumhorn said...

I’m charting the progress of this issue just so that my Assburgery insensitive boorish self can grasp a firm handhold:

* if she’s been drinking, she’s incapable of consent because men are shits
* if she says something bad happened, we must believe her because men are shits
* if she says she was fearful that something bad might happen to her, the fact that nothing bad happened doesn’t matter because men are shits
* if she said she felt fearful that something bad might happen to her when she was drinking, we must believe her because men are shits
* if she was drinking, her consent cannot be believed but her statement of fear must be believed.... because men are shits

Damn! I thought I had something there for a minute.

I think I shall defile a potted plant.

- KrumhornWeinstein

buwaya said...

"Those white hoods would look great on just about any college campus."

Wouldn't they just!
The KKK copied them btw, from similar Catholic groups in New Orleans.

I wonder (well, no, I lie) how a cofradia of this sort would go in San Francisco.
A procession down Market Street on some fourth of October (the feast of Saint Francis, typically (not always though) this patron saint's day is the feast day (fiesta) of the city.

Well, they can compromise.
This is the dress, Franciscan garb, of the cofradia at the feast of San Francisco, in Zaragoza -

https://www.flickr.com/photos/joseangelperez-o/16850267407

campy said...

Listen, there are people doing time in prison for standing between a woman and a door for a few seconds.

Not "people." Males.

Pinandpuller said...

If we look at the power differential, Jupiter, at a certain point she's a carjacker.

Pinandpuller said...

Oh wait, I forgot that officers of the law are allowed to commandeer your vehicle when a sexual assault is going down.

Pinandpuller said...

Ok, what if she was on her way to an important yearbook signing?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Listen, there are people doing time in prison for standing between a woman and a door for a few seconds.

"There exist examples of a ridiculous standard being applied/misapplied in an unfair or unjust manner, therefore everyone should be and/or must be subject to the same ridiculous standard at all times."

Perfectly sensible.

Jupiter said...

Todd said...
Forcibly taking people places they want to go [but not how] is *way* out of line.

"There fix it for you. Read it slow. Stupid, right?"

It does seem kind of stupid, but maybe you're just having a bad day. Lots of smart people have been known to think stupid things. Anyway, look, you grab some stranger, and drive them around downtown Dallas for an hour or two, and then let them out where you think they wanted to go, and see what happens. YMMV.

I can only assume the reason you are all having problems with this is because we're talking about a drunk woman. Well, when you are an Uber driver, you get to deal with drunk women. But you don't get to drive them wherever you feel like.

Jupiter said...

campy said...
Listen, there are people doing time in prison for standing between a woman and a door for a few seconds.

"Not "people." Males."

Yeah, all the ones I know of. And the victims are women. Look, fellows, just because feminists claim women are physically equal to men, that doesn't make it so. You know that.

Jupiter said...

Pinandpuller said...
"If we look at the power differential, Jupiter, at a certain point she's a carjacker."

I think she would have to attempt to take control of the vehicle. But look, a car is many things. It's a deadly weapon, and a place of incarceration, and a way to get across town. You can get into a great deal of trouble with a car, that's a fact.

KittyM said...

@BigMike "...as a mathematician I’d like to see that statistics you quote. In particular I would like to see the raw data and methodology..."

This is an important subject and I agree on the need to have access to excellent quality stats. But this is an internet forum and I have other things to do, so can't go into this at proper academic level.

However, I can touch briefly on one respected source: The Bureau of Justice Statistics (that's the statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Justice). The Bureau conducts an annual survey on crime, reported to the police and unreported. This is the National Crime Victimisation Survey (NCVS). It's a self- report survey in which interviewed persons are asked about the number and characteristics of victimizations experienced during the prior 6 months.

Here's (too much!) info on how they work:

"Trained interviewers administer the NCVS to persons
age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample
of households in the United States. e NCVS de nes
a household as a group of members who all reside at a sampled address that is their usual place of residence at the time of the interview and when they have no other usual place of residence. Once selected, households remain in the sample for 3 years, and eligible persons in the households are interviewed every 6 months for a total of seven interviews. New households rotate into the sample on an ongoing basis to replace outgoing households that have been in the sample for the 3-year period. e sample includes persons living in group quarters, such as dormitories, rooming houses, and religious group dwellings. Persons living in military barracks and institutional settings, such as correctional or hospital facilities, and the homeless are excluded from the sample. (For more detail, see the Survey Methodology in Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2008, NCJ 231173, BJS website, May 2011.) In 2010, about 81,950 households and 146,570 individuals age 12 or older were interviewed for the NCVS. e response rate was 92.3% of households and 87.5% of eligible individuals. Victimizations that occurred outside of the United States were excluded from this report."

Here's a fact about unreported sexual crimes: "The percentage of rape or sexual assault victimizations reported to police increased to a high of 59% in 2003 before declining to 32% in 2009 and 2010."

Here's more about how many more females are victims of sexual crimes than men: In 1994 victims reported about 1 rape/sexual assault victimization of a female victim for every 270 females in the general population; for males, the rate was substantially lower, with about 1 rape/sexual assault of a male victim for every 5,000 male residents age 12 or older.

Hope this is interesting to you and helpful.

Just anecdotally and as a woman myself with many female friends, I can assure you that the stats above about underreporting of sexual crimes seem right to me. Also - think about all the crime that is being revealed now through the reporting on Weinstein etc.

Jupiter said...

HoodlumDoodlum said...

"Reasonable adult standard. Wonderful world you're building, just wonderful."

If you offer yourself and your vehicle for hire, and someone gets in and gives you directions, and you refuse to follow those directions, and you offer a spurious explanation and keep driving, you are not behaving like a reasonable adult. It may be that you have good reasons for your behavior, but you can hardly expect others to assume that is the case. I certainly wouldn't. I would be immediately and deeply concerned, even though I am a large, strong male.

Todd said...

Jupiter said...

I can only assume the reason you are all having problems with this...

11/15/17, 2:10 PM


And therein lies your problem, "we all" are not having a problem with this. OK, one more time, extra slow...

She. entered. where. she. wanted. to. go. into. the. Uber. app. before. the. driver. showed. up.

He was taking her to her requested destination using the directions from his (Uber's?) map app, like literally thousands and thousands of people do every single day.

The only point of contention is that the app said go straight and the drunk said go left. The driver said (in affect) sorry, I am going to follow the directions of the app [not the directions of the drunk].

At no time did he force her to stay in the car.

Why are you having a hard time with this? Are you purposely dense or a white-knight, or just over thinking it?

Jupiter said...

KittyM said...

"Also - think about all the crime that is being revealed now through the reporting on Weinstein etc."

Some of Weinstein's actions do appear to rise to the level of crimes. A few of the other cases are criminal because they involved minors. But most of what is being whined about these days is only illegal because of employment law. Of course, there's Clinton and Polanski, but rape has always been acceptable to the Left if committed by the right (Left) person.

Peter said...

@ HoodlumDoodlum

Please cut the crap about arguing that equality means interchangeability on this subject. There is a reason sexual assault and sexual harassments are almost exclusively male sins. Ever hear of testosterone and upper body strength? Our host has raised a good point, but she has chosen the wrong person to illustrate it.

Jupiter said...

Todd said...
"Why are you having a hard time with this? Are you purposely dense or a white-knight, or just over thinking it?"

She instructed him to turn the vehicle. He did not do so. At that point he ceased to be a person conducting a lawful business in a lawful manner, and became a person refusing to carry out his contractual obligations. She had every right to assume the worst. The world is fraught with situations in which there are power and knowledge differentials. And the law usually attempts to place the responsibility for dealing with those situation on those with the power and the knowledge. Quite rightly, I may add.

KittyM said...

@HoodlumDoodlum "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people! Right. SPECIAL people, I guess they meant."

@Krumhorn "...if she’s been drinking, she’s incapable of consent because men are shits...if she says something bad happened, we must believe her because men are shits... if she says she was fearful that something bad might happen to her, the fact that nothing bad happened doesn’t matter because men are shits...etc"

@Feranindianide "although the name is strangely honest considering the fact that it's the most dishonest SJW variant."

It's so strange when grown people pretend to not understand a simple notion such as feminism. It's like you've never lived in the real world or had any interactions with actual men and women.

In the real world, it is a fact that women are generally disadvantaged. That means for example: earn less money for the same job, suffer disproportionately from violence in the home, suffer harassment in the work place.

Not all women. Not every single individual woman has it worse than every singly individual man. Of course not and nobody with half a brain would ever make that claim. But taken as a whole, women are still struggling as a group. That is absolutely a fact of life.

Feminism is a movement that seeks to rectify these injustices. The goal is equality. Feminism is a very very broad label, however, under which lots and lots of different opinions can be found.

Krumhorn - you write these dismissive things such as "...if she’s been drinking, she’s incapable of consent because men are shits". You must surely know that it is a common excuse proferred by perpetrators of sexual crime that a woman who was drinking has somehow deserved to be assaulted. Consent is a massive issue. Not because "men are shits" (you mean to imply that the thought is "all men are shits"). But absolutely because too many men are indeed shits.

Men, get your house in order.

David Docetad said...

HoodlumDoodlum,

It's a thankless task you have undertaken.

So I'll say it: thank you.

Jupiter said...

You know, I am remembering when I lived in Manhattan, a couple times cabbies tried to take a route I didn't care for. I straightened them out pronto. I told them I didn't care if it was shorter, do it my way or let me out here. Some did it my way, some let me out. I don't recall any of them trying to hand me any crap about how the boss wouldn't like that. If they had, I would have threatened them. Credibly.

Gahrie said...

But taken as a whole, women are still struggling as a group

Women graduate from high school and college at higher rates than men.

Women have a higher life expectancy than men.

Women may serve in combat. (but don't have to register for the draft.)

Gahrie said...

She instructed him to turn the vehicle. He did not do so. At that point he ceased to be a person conducting a lawful business in a lawful manner, and became a person refusing to carry out his contractual obligations

His contractual obligations were to pick her up at a specific location and safely deliver her to a different specific location. He was under no obligation to follow her driving directions.

Mary E. Glynn said...

I'm not in her head, but fear doesn't excuse the behavior in any case.
...
If she was in fight mode and thought this man was planning to sexually assault her,
...
If she really feared the driver, why was it so difficult to get her to leave the vehicle
--------------------------

I think people are reading this wrong. It sounds like she feared being left alone (in the middle of nowhere?) and being assaulted left out in the open like that. Did she say feared the driver would assault her?

He was either lying, or massively misinformed, if he claimed Uber drivers are required to follow the GPS. (GPS can be wrong, especially in rural areas.) I agree though, she should not have been drunk and had no other way home than depending on an Uber driver. She needed a better back-up plan, if he was unwilling or unable to follow her directions.

Jupiter said...

KittyM said...

"Feminism is a movement that seeks to rectify these injustices. The goal is equality."

But as you know, that goal cannot be achieved, because men and women are vastly different, in very many ways. And the approach that feminists take to those differences is, on the one hand, to deny that they exist, and on the other, to insist that every single aspect of society be restructured so as to make them irrelevant. Which is why I say that women used to be content to have it both ways, but now they are demanding to have it every conceivable way.

Feranindianide said...

KittyM said...
In the real world, it is a fact that women are generally disadvantaged.


Passive speech means they're disadvantaged by themselves, not by affirmative action, etc.

That means for example: earn less money for the same job

False. Women work less and have fewer qualifications.

suffer disproportionately from violence in the home

False. The opposite is true. And outside the home men make up about 90% of murder victims, die in wars, live shorter lives, etc.

suffer harassment in the work place.

Mostly false, and trivial when it's true. I'm old, I know a bunch of old ladies and they each have approximately one or two rather trivial stories about an obnoxious boss at some point in their lives and 50-year working histories. Men have obnoxious bosses, too.

Like I said, "dishonest".

Gahrie said...

If you offer yourself and your vehicle for hire, and someone gets in and gives you directions, and you refuse to follow those directions, and you offer a spurious explanation and keep driving, you are not behaving like a reasonable adult

That's not what happened. He entered into a contract with a company to pick people up from a specific location, and to deliver them to a specific location. She entered into a contract with that company to be picked up from a specific location and to be delivered to a specific location.

The guy was not a taxi driver trolling for fares.

Michael said...

I ride Uber a lot. I mean a whole lot. I very often tell the driver to take a different route and I have never been refused. GPS does not always know the best way.

Oh, and if the driver insisted on going his way I would not be " kidnapped". That is stupid.



KittyM said...

@Jupiter: I referred to Weinstein just to make a point about underreporting of sexual assault crimes, which BigMike was curious about. He's in the news and one of the big points of the story is the fact that this was going on for such a long time and most of it unreported, at least unreported to the police. So it's just a very current anecdotal example of the fact that much of this never gets reported.

"...most of what is being whined about these days is only illegal because of employment law...." Completely disagree with you. First of all, your choice of language ("whined about") is revelatory; you don't take this issue seriously or don't have much sympathy with the victims, or you wouldn't choose the word "whine" which is what kids do when they can't have a second ice cream, and not what grown women do when they make a complaint about a crime or a deeply unpleasant social interaction.

Secondly, it is not only illegal because of employment law. You don't seem to grasp the key to the Weinstein, Louis CK, Reilly, Trump, Moore, Clinton...problem. It is about power. It is about powerful predatory men taking advantage of their position of power to take what they want sexually from their victims (who are not just women, look at Kevin Spacey).

That is why this isn't a political issue and it isn't a liberal Hollywood issue and it isn't a redneck Alabama issue. It is about predators and power. It happens in every profession and every sector.

"...rape has always been acceptable to the Left if committed by the right (Left) person." Absolutely disagree and can only reiterate: rape and sexual assault are committed by perpetrators on both the left and the right and the middle and the non-political. And there has been denial on all sides of the political spectrum. It was utterly shameful, the way many on the left protected and defended Bill Clinton. And it is utterly shameful the way that many on the right now rush to defend Roy Moore. Awful that so many knew about Weinstein and did nothing. Awful that so many knew about Bill O'Reilly and did nothing.

Mary E. Glynn said...

His contractual obligations were to pick her up at a specific location and safely deliver her to a different specific location. He was under no obligation to follow her driving directions.
-----------------

So that means he could have driven her anywhere he liked (or into a lake, if the GPS told him to?) so long as he finally gotten her home in one piece? He should have listened to the customer, like the 9:45am driver explains. Problem avoided, no reason to fear she was being taken somewhere she did not request to go, or being put out halfway to her destination. (He could have driven her back to the bar, or wherever he picked her up at, right? Or called police too, reported the alleged assault, and delivered her safely into their hands.)

JAORE said...

Ahhhh, "fight mode" = entitled, aggressive, abusive bitch mode.

Thank you for the clarification.

Gahrie said...

couldn’t Uber allow women to request women drivers?

Sure...as long as men aren't allowed to request male drivers of course.

Todd said...

KittyM said...

In the real world, it is a fact that women are generally disadvantaged. That means for example: earn less money for the same job, suffer disproportionately from violence in the home, suffer harassment in the work place.

11/15/17, 2:36 PM


The "$0.77 for every $1" has been correctly refuted multiple times, please research some. The short answer is that for the "same job, same hours, same experience" women are on par or out-earn men. Women make "life" choices where as men make career choices. That accounts for the largest differentials. More men in more dangerous jobs or in higher pressure jobs or put in more hours. If you are saying that work is unfair to women because of families, that is a different argument.

Man suicide more.

Men die on the job more.

Men pay a greater percentage of alimony.

Men get child custody of the kids a small fraction of the time.

More men are in prison more frequently and for longer durations for the same crimes.

There are uncountable numbers of homeless and abuse shelters for women, only a handful for men.

Men die sooner.

There are more women students in higher ed.

More women earn advanced degrees.

Women with degrees (right out of school) on average, earn more then men. It is when they stop to start families that the scales tip.

More men die in combat.

Should men and women be equal for all that too?

In the real world, it is a fact that women are generally disadvantaged.

In America this is the least true of anywhere else in the world. Hell if the Ds had the balls to run a competent woman, there could be a woman President right now. Women have more opportunities now then ever (in fact just about everyone does). Is it perfect? No, no place is but this is currently the best there is. You say women have a raw deal, by your metrics. By mine, men are shafted daily. We are both wrong and we are both right.

KittyM said...

@Jupiter "the approach that feminists take to those differences is, on the one hand, to deny that they exist, and on the other, to insist that every single aspect of society be restructured so as to make them irrelevant."

This is a classic straw man argument. No such thing as "feminists" in the way you use the term here, to mean some single unified movement with a particular goal. Feminists I know are fighting for actual concrete policy goals with which you may or may not agree. But they're not "insisting every single aspect of society be restructured". Don't even know what that means.

You would *hate* it if I said, "Right wing men all want to keep women as chattels and sexual subservients", wouldn't you? Well then, do me the courtesy of choosing your language with more precision.

"Which is why I say that women used to be content to have it both ways, but now they are demanding to have it every conceivable way."

This is utter a-historical nonsense. Women on the whole were not content with being second-class citizens, earning less money than men, being owned by men, and experiencing violence at the hands of men.

Women had to fight for the right to vote, for the right to work outside the home, for equal pay, for the right to run their own lives.

All the basic rights that I enjoy and that seem so obvious to us were denied to us by men using arguments like yours ("men and women are vastly different, in very many ways"). Remember: 1920 - that was the year women were given the right to vote nationally. Not even 100 years ago.

Jim Kipp said...

Sorry I'm late to this thread. Jim Schutze, who writes for the Dallas Observer, the main alternative weekly in the city, has a smart take on the Jody Warner story. The issue here is Warner's abuse of her position as an assistant DA.

JAORE said...

Maybe women should be required to have body cameras like the cops. Down loaded to the cloud every night under the best security, of course (what could go wrong).

If they are assaulted.... PROOF!
If they are nasty, drunken liars......

Jupiter said...

Michael said...
I ride Uber a lot. I mean a whole lot. I very often tell the driver to take a different route and I have never been refused. GPS does not always know the best way.

"Oh, and if the driver insisted on going his way I would not be " kidnapped". That is stupid."

"if the driver insisted on going his way" assumes that you know why the driver has decided to ignore your instructions, and he has a perfectly harmless reason, or at least a merely venal one. For reasons that should be apparent, women are much less likely to make that assumption than men.

KittyM said...

@Todd Thanks for the thoughtful response. Here is mine to you, hope you find it illuminating.

Sexual Violence: From 1995 to 2010, approximately 91% of all rape or sexual assault victimizations recorded in the NCVS involved female victims. In 2010, the male rate of rape or sexual assault was 0.1 per 1,000 males compared to a rate of 2.1per 1,000 for females.

Poverty: in 2014 females comprise a greater share of the population in poverty than their share of the general population; while males are underrepresented. (56% to 44%)

Domestic Violence: 85 percent of domestic abuse victims are women; 15 percent men.

Salary: Example. Male software developer median, annual salary is $65,700, which is 4 percent more than the median female value of $63,300.

Second Example: "Procurement Leaders recent research shows that female buyers are paid less than male buyers. That is, women are earning less for the same work. The research is based on the responses of over 2,000 procurement professionals in different countries and industries. The study looks at the salaries of these individuals as well as unpacking the different pay
available to men and women. The data in this research shows clear evidence that women earn lower wages than their male counterparts even when in the same role."

Positions of Power: Only 19 percent of U.S. congressional members are women; less than 5 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs of women. 71 percent of all elected officials are men.

Jupiter said...

KittyM said...
"But they're not "insisting every single aspect of society be restructured". Don't even know what that means."

Let me help you out, KittyM. When you -- not feminists, you -- sling that transparent bullshit about "equal pay", we know that what you really mean is that you want to get paid what you like to get paid, for doing what you like to do, when and where and as you like to do it, and to no one's standards but your own. And you will keep on whining until you get exactly that and nothing less. As for all the things you don't care to do, some man can do them, for peanuts. And he had better not mouth off while he's at it. He's lucky to have a job!

In short "equal pay" = "immunity to market forces".

Amadeus 48 said...

Inga's back. And her name this time is KittyM. it reminds of the time that our Inga used the icon of a cat with a pussy hat photo-shopped in.

So, which pays better: driving for Uber or trolling for Soros?

KittyM said...

@Jupiter "When you -- not feminists, you -- sling that transparent bullshit about "equal pay", we know that what you really mean is that you want to get paid what you like to get paid, for doing what you like to do, when and where and as you like to do it, and to no one's standards but your own."

Jupiter - what on earth does all this mean? Where does all this incredible knowledge about what I "really mean" come from?

It really is one of the most tedious aspects of posting here - the habit of inventing some other - ridiculous - argument and playing it in the mouths of others, under the rubric of "this is what you really mean to say". Please do me the courtesy of responding to what I write and not what you think I "really mean". You get it wrong and it is a waste of your time and mine.

KittyM said...

@ Amadeus 48 I genuinely don't know who Inga is. But the term "trolling for Soros" is an alt-right anti-semitic meme. Surprised to see that here. You and I won't have anything to say to each other. Please just ignore my posts.

Todd said...

KittyM said...

@Todd...

11/15/17, 3:17 PM


I don't think I or anyone else indicated that rape does not happen nor that it does not happen more to women. It just will. It always will, [to be overly crude as] that is where the p**sy" is. I do not know who is right as to if rape is a power or a sex thing, maybe both. I do know rape should be a capitol crime. That also means that a false rape allegation should be a capitol crime too. As should woman on man rape, woman on woman rape, man on man, and anyone on child.

As to poverty, do you know what the single greatest contributor to women in poverty is? Out of wedlock motherhood. Fix that and you go a LONG way to fixing the poverty disparity. But current American feminist culture tells women they can be just as slutty as men with zero repercussions which is a BIG FAT LIE. Women pay a physical and mental toll for "slutting it up" up to and including pregnancy and/or abortion related complications, to include death.

Related, far more men are homeless than women.

Domestic Violence: 85 percent of domestic abuse victims are women; 15 percent men.

Every study I have read says that rates of abuse are equal between men and women but men vastly under-report. There are very few shelters for men. Men are not often believed. Courts go lenient on women abusers. There are also higher levels of lesbian domestic abuse than hetero couple abuse percentage wise (also on the gay side) but that is not worthy of news coverage.

Salary: Example. Male software developer median, annual salary is $65,700, which is 4 percent more than the median female value of $63,300.

Previously asked and answered. You can not go by median as more men have more experience, put in more hours, and have been at it longer. If you do an apples to apples comparison (equaling for all of those), men and women are paid equal.

My best counter argument versus factual evidence (of which there is plenty, watch this for a start https://www.prageru.com/videos/myth-gender-wage-gap) is that if women are routinely underpaid for the same work (other than at Democrat organizations and offices) then why have not some businesses standardized on hiring JUST women, cut their prices by 20% and own the market? Why do even women owned businesses hire men if women are so much cheaper?

Positions of Power: Only 19 percent of U.S. congressional members are women; less than 5 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs of women. 71 percent of all elected officials are men.

What is the size of the available "qualified" pool? How many women run for these positions out of the available qualified pool? For example, how many South Koreans are in the WMBA? We have to fix that! There are not enough women in the exciting career of garbageman, we need to fix that by force women to fill half of all garbageman positions!

I give you points for articulation, for sure (and I DON'T mean articulate for a woman). It is nice to have a conversation versus be screamed at and called names.

n.n said...

She was out of order, literally and figuratively. He overreacted.

So, the issue is of policy change, that respects the passenger, while offering reasonable indemnity to the driver.

Jim at said...

It is getting to the point where you just can't talk or be with women without a video camera following you around.

And the left still mocks Mike Pence about his rules for meals with women not his wife.

Why it's almost as if they scream about bad behavior, and then screams some more about not having the opportunity to scream about bad behavior.

Big Mike said...

@Jim Kipp, thanks for the link. Wouldn’t it be great if a woman would have the personal fortitude to just admit that she got drunk and did something unbelievably stupid? KittyM suggests to me that it’s not happening anytime soon.

buwaya said...

"But the term "trolling for Soros" is an alt-right anti-semitic meme. "

Its quite old, and not "alt-right", just plain right. It goes back to 2010-ish IIRC, if not earlier, on multiple sites, but solidly in play by 2012-14. They were originally Kos-kids, but the epithet switched. That's about when people began to notice drive-by commenters who rarely engaged.

Jupiter said...

KittyM said...
"Please do me the courtesy of responding to what I write and not what you think I "really mean". You get it wrong and it is a waste of your time and mine."

I don't owe you any courtesy. You and your ilk have been playing on the sympathies of your betters for my entire lifetime, and I am sick of the lot of you.

The market does not treat everyone equally. There are winners and losers. And even the winners seldom get exactly what they want. If you were actually the mathematician you claim to be, you would understand that it is not possible for everyone to be above average. If you ask the people who spend the money why they spend it the way they do, they will tell you they are trying to maximize their value received. But you are not about to accept the possibility that women are paid what they are worth. Your whinging about "equal pay" is predicated upon the bald assertion that there cannot possibly be any economically significant differences between men and women. Which is, of course, a lie, one you intend to keep telling until it is accepted as truth. That's your story, and you're stickin' to it. And your solution to this "problem" you have dreamed up out of your transparent lies and your self-indulgent fantasies is for the government to step in and restructure the economy to suit you, little KittyM.

And if you've got something better to do with your time, don't let me keep you.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Peter said...
@ HoodlumDoodlum

Please cut the crap about arguing that equality means interchangeability on this subject. There is a reason sexual assault and sexual harassments are almost exclusively male sins. Ever hear of testosterone and upper body strength? Our host has raised a good point, but she has chosen the wrong person to illustrate it.


Tell you what, Peter: I'll cut the crap when you and KittyM define what the fuck you mean by "equality" then. It clearly doesn't mean "equal treatment."

This is the classic motte & bailey argument of feminism. You folks say "we just want equality!" and then define equality as "equal treatment." Who could argue against that?! You then move on and argue that in this case or that case women deserve--must have!--some sort of special treatment. They're more vulnerable so we have to give their (post-hoc rationalization/excuse-based) fears more weight than we would for a man, etc. When people point out that you're arguing that women should get different/unequal treatment in that case you quickly fall back--"well men & women aren't interchangable, so you can't treat them as though they are!" Then you act like anyone who DOESN'T agree that men & women are different in many ways is a moron.

So on the one hand you argue that equality means equal treatment. Then you argue that women should be treated differently because they are different. Then you argue that treating women differently is really an example of equality...in some cases. Treating women differently in OTHER cases is an example of a LACK of equality. The difference seems to be just whatever's convenient for the argument at any given time.

Hell, extend that: KittyM points out examples where OUTCOMES are different for men & women. The implication is that because outcomes are different the underlying "treatment" of each must be different so that's rock solid evidence that women are treated unequally. But you JUST SAID that "equality doesn't mean interchangability." If men & women aren't interchangable--if they are in fact fundamentally different--then why would men & women having different outcomes be proof of unfair unequal treatment?? You would EXPECT unequal outcomes, wouldn't you? But in those cases the unequal outcomes are proof that women are oppressed--are at a disadvantage and treated unequally.

That's the kind of having-it-both-ways-ism that I'm talking about. Define what "equality" and "equal treatment" mean and we can talk. Until then you're just doing the typical "use whichever shifting standard is most useful in a given argument, then shift to the other and pretend like the person you're arguing against is the one being inconsistent" deal and further discussion is pointless.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

She instructed him to turn the vehicle. He did not do so. At that point he ceased to be a person conducting a lawful business in a lawful manner, and became a person refusing to carry out his contractual obligations. She had every right to assume the worst. The world is fraught with situations in which there are power and knowledge differentials. And the law usually attempts to place the responsibility for dealing with those situation on those with the power and the knowledge. Quite rightly, I may add.

Oh Baloney. No need to get hysterical about it. She contracted him to drive her to a location. She doesn't get to drunkenly shout out directions that are contrary to the GPS program that he is using to plot the route. Assuming that both of their stories are true from each of their viewpoints....

His actions are sober and thoughtful.
1. he decided that he would rather trust the GPS program than her drunken shouting
2. he really just wants to offload her as soon as possible so he can pick up another fare
3. he DOES NOT get paid by the mile so there is no reason to prolong the experience of being trapped in a car with her.

Going around the block or following the plotted route instead of taking a suspicious and unproven to him shortcut does NOT constitute kidnapping.

Get a grip.

buwaya said...

"It really is one of the most tedious aspects of posting here - the habit of inventing some other - ridiculous - argument and playing it in the mouths of others, under the rubric of "this is what you really mean to say".

The problem here is that this, and so much else, is drawn from ancient controversies going back to the 1970's-80's. There is a great deal of water under this bridge, and many others - heck, I think I first saw Seligman skewer this one in "Fortune" forty years ago. It is usual for the liberal side to have heard some assertion, but never the conservative rebuttals, over several decades.

This particular one has been beaten to death.

Posters on the conservative side often don't realize just how little of their worldview leaks into the other side. Its the old problem of the two cultures, with a semi-soundproof wall between them, that permits information from left to right, but not right to left.

Jim at said...

Men, get your house in order.

You first.

exhelodrvr1 said...

KittyM,
If you include prison, there are more male rape victims than female rape victims. Also, males are given longer prison sentences than females for the same crimes.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 240   Newer› Newest»