1. Both Franken and Franks said they believed that the established due process — through an Ethics Committee — would vindicate them, but declined to go through that process and allowed the accusations to be the final word. That may seem like a victory for the accusers, but if the accused automatically concedes to the accusers — while maintaining that a fair process would prove them wrong — we are going to worry that the truth doesn't matter any more, that everyone is just supposed to hurry up and get on the predetermined winning side. We may start to think that the allegations of women can't hold up in a fair process, that women are being indulged and not expected to be fair or to care about truth and due process, and at some point, if this dynamic continues, the idea of listening to women is going to sound pernicious. If we don't balance the listening to women with listening to a full and fair process, the period of listening will, I'm afraid, lead us back into suspicions that women tell stories that can't stand the light of day.
2. "Female senators took down Al Franken" — that's a headline at Vox. Subhead: "This is why we need more women in office." I'd like to see more women in office, but I'm afraid that the speed with which the female Senators aggregated and demanded instant surrender is frightening. Is that the way women use power? I want more success for women because women have been on the down side of power throughout human history. I want freedom and fairness for everyone. And so if women who acquire power are worse than men — vengeful and too impatient for due process and eager to take sides and ready to assume they know the facts — then we should be skeptical about the benefits of women in power. The Vox article quotes a congressional aid saying — about the women in the Senate — "Their patience had worn very thin." That reinforces old stereotypes that women are too emotional — too hysterical — to exercise power. That's not helping the cause of women's equality!
3. If the consequences of allegations of sexual harassment are disproportionate, women who are empathetic and who care about fairness may decide it's better not to come forward. Franken's first accuser said she didn't want him to resign: "I just wanted him to understand what he did was wrong and how he treated me and how abusers do that under the guise that it’s funny, or that ‘Oh, I can get away with it because I’m a comedian.’ That’s never funny. When you shine a light on it, that’s the culture of it — that’s the change we need to make." We could have learned that lesson without politically murdering Franken. He learned it. Why can't we embrace (figuratively!) and move forward into an enlightened, improved culture? When you talk about destruction, don't you know that you can count me out.
4. Some of the recent progress in taking sexual harassment seriously has been leveraged on the notion that women have no reason to lie. When Dustin Hoffman asked John Oliver, “Do you believe this stuff you’re reading?,” Oliver had the viral answer: “she would have no reason to lie.” But the more we believe what women say without putting them to the test, without tolerating the man's defending himself, and put him to death socially and politically, the more we encourage the most devious, vengeful women to make accusations. Even as we silence the more empathetic, fair women, we may activate nasty women and the women who don't care if the The Reckoning takes down innocent men. Once that dynamic gets going, people won't be so receptive to the quickie argument she would have no reason to lie. The idea that women don't lie about this is going to lose strength. I heard some commentator on TV the other day assert that women don't lie and then accept pushback and say "only 2%" of the time. Whether 2% is or isn't the actual number of women who lie about sexual harassment right now, there's nothing fixing the percentage at 2. As the motivations to lie change, that number can change, and that undermines the overall project of taking sexual harassment seriously.
5. Will the workplace — after all this effort to include women — become a sterile place, where nobody ever laughs at sexual innuendo, no one ever touches anyone on the arm, nobody talks about their relationships? Look at how Franks got into trouble. I still don't know exactly what he did, but I imagine that he thought he could bond with female employees by talking about reproductive woes, the struggle to have the babies you dearly want. These particular women were offended. And he had to resign over it. The message is that men in the workplace better be damned careful about any kind of personal interaction with women. When women are around, men had better be starchily formal and all business all the time? Part of the value of going to work is to have colleagues who feel like or even are your friends. You can banter, you can laugh, you can (sometimes) share personal stories. Yes, too much friendliness can burden women (especially if the friendliness aimed at women is different from what the men get), but a fear of friendship, a cold bureaucracy in the workplace, an endless Era of That's Not Funny... it's really sad! That's going to hurt all of us, and, ironically, it may hurt women more than men, because women may care more about bonding with other people in the workplace.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१४४ टिप्पण्या:
I think for Franken and Franks, part of it is that both actually did SOME of what they were accused of. Franks really did have a conversation, and Franken did pose for that photo. Neither of them really wants to fight it out, so this is their best compromise. Or who knows.
lead us back into suspicions that women tell stories that can't stand the light of day.
Obama and the Rape Culturists have already done that in higher education.
Who said he was resigning?
These seem like all valid points. In normal, saner times these sorts of arguments would not fall on deaf ears. But we're in the midst of The Reckoning, a season of madness, mass hysteria, or whatever you want to call it. These sorts of cultural upheavals are like a wild storm, destroying the innocent as well as the guilty. I don't think appeals to sanity will work until the storm passes, which may take another year or more.
Bigger issue is women may have more trouble getting employed.
Not formally, but they will likely be kept in female ghettos, and out of the decisive point, the coal-face, more than they already are.
The market adjusts, in all sorts of ways, regardless of mandates. Or rather, in ways the mandates did not intend.
The message is that men in the workplace better be damned careful about any kind of personal interaction with women. When women are around, they'd better be starchily formal and all business all the time? Part of the value of going to work is to have colleagues who feel like or even are your friends. You can banter, you can laugh, you can (sometimes) share personal stories.
The message is you'd better get to know the women beforehand. If she has ever mentioned the patriarchy your rule applies. With any luck people will internalize this well enough they naturally apply it in job searches thus keeping the problems out of the organization.
"That's not helping the cause of women's equality!"
Women are equal under the law. But it ends there. They are not equal to men in the areas where men have been for millennia. They are better than men in the areas were women have been for millennia. The problem is that women want it to be accepted that they are equal in areas where men have been and this just is not so. Their striving for that has caused untold problems and the coterie of Democrat women in the Senate is only one small incident which proved that again.
Good lord, its just hit me.
Whst on earth is next years HR "diversity training" going to look like?
Post of the year.
I remember figuring out how to overcome the way a group of male colleagues would stop talking when I came into the room when I was a young accountant in the 70's and early 80's. I suspect this hysteria will undo the progress of the last 40 years.
This is so, so, so good.
"I'd like to see more women in office, ..."
I don't, because if we are required to always believe the woman, they hold absolute power. I'm already at that place you fear, Althouse.
Dustin Hoffman caught groping another actress.
Very touching story by the actress . It rings true, but, the 30-year delay is just too damn long.
Prof. Althouse, please stop writing about Fraudken's "resignation." He hasn't resigned and he's never going to resign. It's all just posturing.
It really boils down to one essential question: Is a person still considered innocent until proven guilty or not? To the "listen to the women" and "women have no reason to lie" crowd, the accusation is the conviction. Not only is the accessed presumed guilty but any attempt to defend himself is hampered. Indeed, at many colleges, any attempt at defense is prohibited.
This won't end well.
The thing is, yes, due process through an ethics committee would have absolved him.
But everyone would have believed they let him off because he's a reliable dem vote.
Which would be worse when the same panel expels Moore.
Perception is reality.
I work at a college with a number of female student workers. I absolutely refuse to be put in any situations where I am alone with one of them. All it takes is one baseless accusation from one of them to effectively end my life.
the period of listening will, I'm afraid, lead us back into suspicions that women tell stories that can't stand the light of day.
Excessive connectivity between the right and left halves of the brain.
Women can think like men but strongly prefer not to.
The idea that women have to learn when to think like women and when not to is the underlying point. Then the accusations disappear and it goes back to interpersonal instead of public.
Feminism ought to be about upgrading women, not pandering to them, in the workplace.
Or women can go traditional feminine and create spaces instead of taking over existing ones.
Also-
- We are wandering into the territory of saying adult women do not have agency. I'm thinking about the Louis CK accusers now. They were adult women, who said "ok" to someone without power over them, and now that he has become a huge star, they are sorry they agreed to what he wanted. This creates a zone around grown women where we want to simulate statutory rape laws.
- Although women are being boosted here, too many of the boosters want to make men responsible for stopping men at the time things happen. Not so much in the Franks/Franken situation. But in Hollywood especially, men have gotten in trouble for not speaking out but women are forgiven because they fear for their jobs. As if men always know what's going on with other women, and are never themselves in danger of losing their jobs.
"What on earth is next years HR "diversity training" going to look like?"
Well I think the CPR mannequins will take on a new role.
Think of creating spaces as domestication, which is where flirting ought to wind up.
Ironic that the (self-proclaimed) Champion of Women has brought such damage to "the cause". But then, Al Franken has always been a pig.
>>female Senators aggregated and demanded instant surrender is frightening. Is that the way women use power?
Yes.
I'm not a fan of item one. It boils down to we have to be fair to men because not doing so will hurt women. Male lives ruined, Women hardest hit.
Why isn't being fair to men enough? Those who find it insufficient should be identified and treated like Weinsten's enablers, not coddled by appealing to their misandry.
If no police report was filed, it did not happen. Sorry but there it is.
And I stopped hiring women if i didn't have to years ago. You know the old fable about scorpions.
I also try my best to not do other business with women. Doctors and other professionals. I continue to be told they think I am a rapist,
Why would I hire someone who thinks that?
Yes, Franken resigning is fake news.
Helping or hurting women is at best a sideshow to bringing down Trump. Irrelevant really...
So you are a manager of a large department in a large company looking to hire a skilled candidate. It's down to two (2) people, a male and a female. Equal skills across the board. Who does the manager choose? Will the manager hire the male because of fewer future HR problems?
Oh correction from last night, collusion does have an index but no clear sourcing and some interesting omissions, crowdstrike fireeye, shaun henry, or akmetshins tie to fusion.
So about that forged yearbook signature?
Why isn't being fair to men enough?
Because you're talking to women. Women are interested in details, men abstract from details to get principles.
It's a handy difference to learn if you're a woman who can be persuaded that sometimes it's better to think like a man instead of what interests you, thinking like a woman.
So far that's pretty far out of the narrative: everything women do is better.
These are very good points.
My boss is a woman. We've become close friends. A group of us will occasionally go out for lunch or drinks. The talk can be R-rated, at least. I really learned a lot about relationships (including physical) from my female co-workers, and I think they learned a lot from the guys. They were certainly intrigued.
It would be - at the risk of being dramatic - tragic to lose that. We'll have to wait for the panic to subside to tally the damage.
zipity,
Better get a bodycam like the Police are beginning to wear.
--
Blogger Unknown said...
I stopped hiring women if i didn't have to years ago
-
Well..if it's easier to defend against discrimination in hiring vs "sexual misconduct", maybe.
This is what liberal females do. They're not happy so no one can be happy. Progress!
IMHO, fewer women will be elected. Fewer women will be hired. They have, like NFL players, dug their own grave.
It's a handy difference to learn if you're a woman who can be persuaded that sometimes it's better to think like a man instead of what interests you, thinking like a woman"
Althouse calls that "generating an aphorism" and thinks it takes mental energy, when we can no more not do than we can not notice an attractive woman.
Excellent points, Althouse. I posted this comment in the last thread:
"One of my older brothers met his wife at work when they were both in their early 20s and she got a job as a receptionist at the company he was working at. He took to hanging around the front desk and flirting with her. She did not initially want to go out with him, but he persisted. Finally she gave in and agreed. They have been married for 42 years and have 3 kids and a new grandchild.
Today? What man in his right mind would dare to flirt with the receptionist? And to continue to ask her out after she had turned him down a couple of times already? Stalking! Harassment! Because no woman has ever played hard to get or changed her mind about dating a man.
Obviously, Weinstein style harassment and threatening is unacceptable. How to set a happy medium here without turning the world – and work – into a drab, gray place where women have to be treated like they are disembodied spirits ?"
"I'm not a fan of item one. It boils down to we have to be fair to men because not doing so will hurt women. Male lives ruined, Women hardest hit. Why isn't being fair to men enough? Those who find it insufficient should be identified and treated like Weinsten's enablers, not coddled by appealing to their misandry."
The list is on its own terms about how what is being done for women is actually harmful TO WOMEN.
Other lists can be made, but I chose to make this one because I think it can reach some people who would resist an argument about being fair to the men.
I don't know what the answer is. I know for a fact that I'd be vulnerable to an accusation if I bantered the exact same way with female and male coworkers. If I make a joke or a comment that has even PG-rated content, I can imagine a crazy woman claiming I'm coming on to her. And you never really know who's crazy or what later unforeseen circumstances might cause someone to turn on you. At least with the men, if they turn out to be crazy they can't reasonably claim I was coming on to them.
This nonsense is going to hurt women. Women complain about a "boys club" mentality in the workplace, but this is only going to heighten the sense of estrangement between the sexes. If they think it's bad now, just wait. Women will continue to benefit from hiring quotas, etc., and maybe even win more favorable treatment when it comes to promotions and maternity leave. But the long game will favor men because men will increasingly decide to stay away from women. Men will socialize together, throw back beers and tell tawdry jokes, and basically become the very thing that professional women claim to fear.
Where did the absurd notion come from that women never lie? As a mental exercise apply this to the spectrum of criminal law and see what you get.
I still think the Franks women were snowflakes
Exactly. I used to be a moderately liberal person -- socially liberal and fiscally conservative, as they say. Over the past year or so I've seriously started to think that giving women the vote was probably a mistake. No, I'm not joking. The fewer women that vote, the better society will probably be. The fewer women there are in government, the better it will be. That's what current events have taught me.
Bob, it wouldn't hurt my feelings a bit to be disenfranchised. Although I consider myself a sane voter not led by emotions, most of my 'sisters' are not. They wreak havoc on all they touch.
Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher were excellent leaders and there have been other exceptions so I don't think lack of the vote would or should preclude women getting elected--by men--if they are deserving of the office.
My wife of nearly 40 years used to work for me, and we used to "do it" at work sometimes. Thanks for the memories!
At any given party where both males and females are present, the most dangerous person in the room is a drunk female. The male she targets is damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t.
We knew each other before I hired her, but weren't dating. I suppose that makes me an even bigger creep.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/363949-moore-accuser-says-she-added-notes-below-moores-yearbook-signature
So this Alabama lady admits she altered the yearbook.
Where's our idiot friendly neighborhood handwriting analyst who was being so fecking obnoxious and so goddamn sure of himself two weeks ago? He got quiet all of a sudden, eh?
I'm basically a G-rated person, though, so I'm not concerned really. And while I do talk to women and men differently, there's still a lot of overlap, after all we're all just people. I think the office predators will just find another way to get what they want. They're not the types to seem too worried about consequences, and oftentimes they develop elaborate techniques to protect themselves and/or destroy their accusers. The people who are going to be most affected, in my opinion, are the normal non-predatory people who will feel pressure to be "starchily formal," as Althouse says. Friendships and workplace morale will suffer. And yes, many women will be excluded from informal gatherings, etc. that could help their career prospects. It's just sad all around.
I chose to make this one because I think it can reach some people who would resist an argument about being fair to the men.
Right. So similar to appeals to racists this seems wrong.
I am not sure that the minimum wage job I gave her counted as coercion though.
I'm one of those guys that "sexually harrassed" my wife, a co-worker, into marrying me. That was several decades and three kids ago.
Outstanding post! Sometimes our hostess simply amazes.
This firestorm has become a vehicle for a lot of gender politics unrelated to sexual assault or actual harassment (as opposed to a clumsy approach). What is an “unwanted advance”? That has become the equivalent to rape.
It is the classic war between the sexes as it was described during my parents’ lifetime and their parents. At the end of the day, most conflicts are really just a power struggle. I’m not defending beasts like Weinstein, Ratner, Simmons, and Singer each of whom richly deserves his ignomy and exile, but, as much as I despise Franken, he deserved better and so have many others. Maybe that guy from The Ranch raped those girls and maybe he didn’t. The police investigated at the time and couldn’t resolve it. That’s not a statement of innocence, but peremptorily depriving him of his career and livelihood hardly seems fair without some reasonable effort to divine the truth.
In the end, Ann is entirely right. This isn’t helping women at all. I certainly do predict a cold and sterile workplace with every man wearing recording devices that are always on.
The howling mob wants John Lasseter fired from Pixar. The man has made contributions to animation of extraordinary genius proportions. His films have earned billions and they will last forever. If he was huggy, handsy, or too affectionate, tell him to cool it. He has built a great many careers, overseen amazing films, and should left alone to reconcile his position of power with his behavior.
Of course, if he actually raped someone or diddled a minor, then hang him out back and laugh as he chokes.
- Krumhorn
Rules of etiquette, 1880:
Gentleman, only speak to a lady when you have been formally introduced. Do not be alone with a young woman. A chaperone must be present. You do not want to ruin her reputation and prospects.
Rules of survival, 2017:
Guys, wear a body camera when you’re alone with a woman unless you’re related to her. You don’t want to ruin your reputation and prospects.
Thank you Tyrone. Women are human. There are some women that lie about little things, big things, anything, and everything.
It's probably the way I was raised but I don't assume that people are telling the truth. I don't believe the accuser or the accused. I want to know the details of what happened.
As a reality check, the kids are having no trouble, apparently, at socializing (dating) co-workers of the opposite sex. This sort of worry may seem more pressing to their management.
Blogger FleetUSA said..."I still think the Franks women were snowflakes."
I started out thinking that about of most of these chargers. Sure, having Franken try and stick his tongue in your mouth is gross. So knee him in the groin and move on. But I'm coming around to the notion that this isn't about sexual harrassment at all. It's about grabbing power.
The public arena is the realm of left Democrat destroyers: leftmedia, feminists and their moronic surrogates, politicized students, politicized African-Americans, gay activists and their moronic surrogates. One-party rule is foremost among the puppet masters' goals.
As the destruction progresses all will be hurt. Weinstein, Frankenstein, Conyers and these other toads were the good guys. But that was then, this is now. Why should those of us on the receiving end of the vilification of the lefties and their dupes care if they cannibalize themselves?
Two men forced to resign....women hardest hit.
@ Althouse:
we are going to worry that the truth doesn't matter any more
Haven't you already said that truth is overrated? Isn't it about the feelz and damn the facts?
I've seriously started to think that giving women the vote was probably a mistake
Welcome to the club.
mockturtle said,
"Bob, it wouldn't hurt my feelings a bit to be disenfranchised. Although I consider myself a sane voter not led by emotions, most of my 'sisters' are not. They wreak havoc on all they touch."
I agree, mockturtle.
In Europe, at least, it might be a moot point in 50 years or so, when those refugee "children" Inga worries about end up outnumbering the natives. There have been cases in Sweden where raped women amazingly refuse to identify their attackers , because they don't want to cause an anti-Muslim "backlash."
Ms Althouse has that right. The message is that men in the workplace ought to be damned careful about their interactions with women--or with gays for that matter.
There have been way more than a few pigs taken down lately--but this stuff has a habit of splashing all over the pay and there will be a number of truly innocent victims. Now that modern feminism has stretched the true definition of words out of all proportion, ephemeral charges are easily flung--and they mostly stick.
Gahrie is on a roll!
I met a woman who says you molested her when she was 14. She has no corroboration, but claims she told some family members about it years afterward.
How do you plead? Guilty or not guilty?
BTW, she recently went through bankruptcy and there are those who would spend a fortune to see you discredited, but never mind.
It's not just the women that will lie. As Jason pointed out, the blue ink in Beverly Young's yearbook was in fact forged. How many people remember that just a few weeks ago, CNN altered the image of that yearbook to make the blue ink black, to butress her forgery and discredit those who accurately called it into question?
So. Beverly Young forges, and CNN helpfully improves the forgery on her behalf.
"Jackie" lied, and Rolling Stone lied further on her behalf.
A stripper lied, and a hundred professors at Duke helped her destroy the men she was lying about.
Consequences to the women? None. Consequences to the media? Lost credibility, but only from their targets who were already wise to them. CNN's credibility won't suffer at all in Inga's and Ritmo's eyes. Just watch.
#MeToo for men: SHE SEDUCED ME!!
Franks deserves for us to view his accusers' stories with exactly the same skepticism and concern for due process and the welfare of the accused that he granted to the liar Jennifer Leigh Jones in the Kellogg, Brown & Root case. #DueProcess
I think it can reach some people who would resist an argument about being fair to the men.
You mean feminists?
Wishful thinking.
I am wondering if you owe rhhardin an apology for calling him a moral idiot?
" The problem is that women want it to be accepted that they are equal in areas where men have been and this just is not so. Their striving for that has caused untold problems and the coterie of Democrat women in the Senate is only one small incident which proved that again."
**********************************
Progs are always trying forcibly to change and perfect human nature. The Soviets tried too, with their concept of a New Soviet Man, Homo Sovieticus---a notion which backfired on them as the populace devolved into cynicism, laziness and passivity.
But the outcome of that failed ideal doesn't stop the progs. What's amazing is, they also consider themselves Darwinists, not understanding that Darwin would have laughed out loud at the notion that politically/socially-enforced behavioral changes could cause people to "evolve".
If there's any doubt where this is (or at least was, before Hillary was defeated) heading, all you have to do is look at the Title ix kangaroo courts.
At the core the feminist movement has become about dividing men and women into warring camps. It is an attack on the fabric of civil society. You would have to be stupid to not understand what is going on right now is going to put a chill on personal relationships. They did the same thing to marriage with perverse divorce laws that make it so a woman can ruin a man financially for over a decade.
The progressives do care about the "unintended consequences." They want men and women to hate each other. Their goal is division and misery. Tearing apart society and culture is what they do.
I think the only people who should have the right to vote are those who pass a rigorous test based on whether they agree with what I think is important and how to deal with those things.
In my 50 year working life I saw up close three accusations of sexual harassment. One was very real, one was very phony, and one had so many layers of gray it was next to impossible to determine what the intent was. The moral of all the stories? What Dad said: Don’t s**t where you eat.
BDNYC: It's just sad all around.
The Progressive agenda is working!
How the Franken & Franks resignations will, I'm afraid, end up hurting women.
LOL
"Women and Minorities Hardest Hit" by asteroids, IIRC. So eat plenty of fiber.
“This is what liberal females do. They're not happy so no one can be happy. Progress!”
Rep. Mia Love, R-Utah, said Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas, should resign from his post after it was reported he had settled a sexual harassment case for $84,000.
“I think he should voluntarily resign, because I believe we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard,” Love told CNN anchor Kate Bolduan Thursday night. “Where he may not feel like his behavior was inappropriate, obviously somebody did."
Rep. Barbara Comstock, R-Va., also called on Farenthold to resign, through a spokesperson last week. When Jeff Marschner, Comstock's deputy chief of staff, was asked if Comstock thought Farenthold should resign, he responded “yes,” Politico reported.
The House Ethics Committee revealed Thursday that it voted to establish an investigative subcommittee to examine whether Farenthold sexually harassed Greene, discriminated against her, or retaliated against her after she complained about his conduct.”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/republican-mia-love-calls-on-blake-farenthold-to-resign-amid-sexual-harassment-allegations/article/2642921
First, we need to be careful to distinguish between women and female chauvinists, between male and male chauvinists. The latter are not friends of women and men, respectively. However, most women are ladies, and most men are gentlemen.
Second, equal and complementary is the basis for equality under the law and special deference to women. That's it. A moral imperative born from a natural imperative.
The establishment of selective-child, a wicked solution, under Pro-Choice where conception is placed before Choice was the first instance of denying women's agency. We've been on a progressive slope ever since, including painting men, women, and classes of people with broad, sweeping strokes.
Bob said...
Over the past year or so I've seriously started to think that giving women the vote was probably a mistake.
Fucking up since 1850.
The Progressive agenda is working!
Progressive corruption. Progressive confusion. Progressive dysfunction.
Junior High School Principal, Ann Althouse, and her book of 10,000 rules of conduct.
I worked most of my life in start-up law firms and later in dot-com start-ups. No women and no HR Dept. No fag hag S&M junior high school principal. I finished my career working at home. Blessed relief from fag hag office politics.
Success brought the fag hag shit Althouse loves in the door. Emphasis on performance decreased to near zero. Playing fag hag office politics became the reason for being. That’s what you get with women. Glorifying gay men in the office while deceptively trying to find a straight man (who makes more money than they do) to fuck them after work.
Men, you just have to be creative and find a way not to allow the junior high school principal to get her thumb on your neck. There is always a way. It can be a lot tougher way to go than re-enrolling in junior high school, but if you’re smart and you have any pride, you’ll find the way. I never put up with the Althouses and I never will. Shove your book of rules, professor. I can never beat you at fag hag office politics. You’re a demon there. I can find places where performance really matters and the big book of 10,000 rules doesn’t mean fuck.
progressives ...They want men and women to hate each other.
Not classical progressives. At least not until the opportunity to exploit leverage over competing interests became an addiction. Progressive liberals, however, are monotonically divergent.
I'd like to see more women in office, but I'm afraid that the speed with which the female Senators aggregated and demanded instant surrender is frightening.
I agree in principle, but in my view, this was more a matter of political expedience. A Dem governor will appoint Franken’s replacement who may well be a woman, and they will have clean skirts as they move in full-throated attack against the new Alabama senator and, of course, Trump.
By any means necessary. Never forget that. Franken is collateral damage. Acceptable loss.
- Krumhorn
Blogger buwaya said...
I'm one of those guys that "sexually harrassed" my wife, a co-worker, into marrying me. That was several decades and three kids ago."
Me too. My wife was so cowed by the experience that she went on to raise our son, become a muni judge, head two city departments and a state agency.
She was also the victim of an attempted rape by a serial rapist. It did not go well for her assailant. She is not a "#metoo" woman.
I think that when people/women who dislike Trump call him a predator, they dilute and conflate the word predator which hurts all of us.
"We may start to think that the allegations of women can't hold up in a fair process, that women are being indulged and not expected to be fair or to care about truth and due process, and at some point, if this dynamic continues, the idea of listening to women is going to sound pernicious."
Actually, the point of no return was when we stopped buying and selling women like livestock and let them teach us how to talk. We've been listening ever since.
"I'm afraid that the speed with which the female Senators aggregated and demanded instant surrender is frightening. Is that the way women use power?"
It is the way that girls and teenage females often act. Not that they are all like that, but the bullies are, and it has always seemed to me that it is very easy for female bullies to set social agendas. I base this on nothing scientific other than a lifetime of experience, but girls as a tribe can be very very tough on the vulnerable. It is perhaps not an accident that #me.too is now the rallying point. Beware the mobs of both genders but where social-emotional rather than physical violence is concerned, especially watch out for the females.
Tailoring the argument for women is what was classically known as an ad hominem argument.
Appeal to your opponent's interests and conceits.
Somewhere the meaning flipped to an attack on your opponent.
Even as we silence the more empathetic, fair women, we may activate nasty women and the women who don't care if the The Reckoning takes down innocent men. Once that dynamic gets going, people won't be so receptive to the quickie argument she would have no reason to lie. The idea that women don't lie about this is going to lose strength.
The idea that women don't lie about sexual harassment should never had any strength whatsoever. It's awfully easy for a woman to make a false charge, it's not easy to defend oneself, and there never is any consequence for woman who makes the false charge even when it become obvious that she did make a false charge. Remember Ashley Judd celebrating nasty women during the riots that accompanied Trump's inaugural? Too many like her out there.
What will the workplace become? I think your fears are not ungrounded, Althouse. I mentored young female technical professionals, some as part of my corporation's mentorship program and some on my own. In today's climate that would be unacceptably risky. Why have your career damaged or destroyed by some woman who figures that helpful guy == target?
@hombre, good on your wife!
From roman law to woman law.
Original Mike observes: But I'm coming around to the notion that this isn't about sexual harrassment at all. It's about grabbing power.
Indeed it is. Women [at least those women] have discovered a powerful weapon and they will wield it as long as they can get away with it. And, as others have suggested, real sexual assault claims will be looked upon with suspicion. Crying wolf, as it were.
Rick said...
"Right. So similar to appeals to racists this seems wrong."
Yeah, Rick. Because like sex, race does not exist.
All the women I mentored were via email. Safe sex.
I tried mentoring a gf but it didn't work. Hey you'd really like this, it's cool. Nope.
Latest South Park nailed it, if you have not seen it yet. In the latest episode, two co-workers find themselves attracted to each other, and start seeing each other in secret. They are so worried about being found out (due to prevailing trends), they go camping in the woods. For reasons I will not go into, the townspeople are out searching for President Trump (Garrison) who has been seen wandering in the woods.
When the town comes across the two (straight) co-workers that have clearly just copulated, everyone is overcome with nausea at the thought and the funniest animated take on mass nausea/vomiting then occurs. Hilarious. Watch it.
I want more success for women because women have been on the down side of power throughout human history.
It's about reparations.
The Reckoning and Resign-a-thon is winding down. People like me, normals, are bored with it and though we were delighted to see the left eating its own and though we realized that in doing so they were violating every principle of fairness we hold dear we think it has gone on long enough. The Reckoning and Resign-a-thon should be shelved there with the local stations still covering the removal of some sad Confederate memorial in some sad southern town where the sad local sjw stands by the sad black official pontificating about history. This will shortly be on the six o'clock local news with a councilman #resigning
Professor, I'd like to de-construct this section of your post:
I want more success for women because women have been on the down side of power throughout human history.
Women have not always been on the downside of power, it is just that they use power differently. It is typically less institutional and more personal to their interests and within their relationships. As an example, I've observed that men pay attention to their wives' "intuitions" about social situations. I've observed that womens' opinions matter to those she associates with, which is a form of power. Until Women's Suffrage [and Prohibition], women used their power of persuasion in personal ways, and that often affected profoundly their societies. After suffrage, learned better how use institutional power. That said, often it seems that they still prefer to use their personal power to morally judge others and to shame behavior they find disagreeable.
I want freedom and fairness for everyone. And so if women who acquire power are worse than men — vengeful and too impatient for due process and eager to take sides and ready to assume they know the facts — then we should be skeptical about the benefits of women in power.
Women *are* vengeful and too impatient for due process and eager to take sides and assume they know the facts. Example: The OJ Simpson trial. Evidence: Mean girls in middle school and high school. Evidence: "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."
We should be skeptical of how power is wielded. Men also show evidence of handling power badly. Power is sought by many for the thrill of possessing it and when obtained will usually be abused. Abuse of power is not gender-specific (sorry to disappoint you Hillary! and Hillary-lovers).
Our Framers---truly great men in the history of Western Civilization--- understood these problems with power, and thus attempted to institutionalize limits on that power. It is a system worth preserving. That it has been constantly attacked and undermined by the fetid machinations of leftists, socialists, totalitarians, and globalists has shaken it to its foundations. What comes next if it [rule of law] collapses will not be pretty, and will not advance the cause of women, perhaps especially.
TL;DR: Women use power differently than men. Rule of law --- using blind justice and due process --- is an institutional power that benefits all, and is at risk.
How to avoid any charges of sexual harassment with technology.
I feel Althouse's pain. It would be nice if any prog feminists listened to her. An Althousian world would be a better place. But it is not the world we live in. In this world, prog feminists don't give a damn about argument and principle. In this world only power and more power matters, even if it comes with unintended consequences.
"we are going to worry that the truth doesn't matter any more, that everyone is just supposed to hurry up and get on the predetermined winning side." That has been the prog MO for more than a century.
"We may start to think that the allegations of women can't hold up in a fair process, that women are being indulged and not expected to be fair or to care about truth and due process, and at some point, if this dynamic continues, the idea of listening to women is going to sound pernicious." Start?
"lead us back into suspicions that women tell stories that can't stand the light of day." Back? All these years after Tawana Brawley et al.?
"the speed with which the female Senators aggregated and demanded instant surrender is frightening. Is that the way women use power?" Yes. Get used to it. They like people to be frightened. Your discomfort proves to them they are doing something right.
"And so if women who acquire power are worse than men — vengeful and too impatient for due process and eager to take sides and ready to assume they know the facts — then we should be skeptical about the benefits of women in power." Who dat we? Due process is an oppressive tool of the patriarchy. Women have been patient long enough, doncha know? And what are these facts you keep talking about--get your standpoint theory straight.
""Their patience had worn very thin." That reinforces old stereotypes that women are too emotional — too hysterical — to exercise power. That's not helping the cause of women's equality!" But it is helping the cause of prog power. Which is what the cause was and is all about. If stereotypes can work as tools, fine. What prog ever worried about a contradiction between claiming equality and enacting weakness?
It won’t hurt real live actual adult women one damned bit.
"Why can't we embrace (figuratively!) and move forward into an enlightened, improved culture? When you talk about destruction, don't you know that you can count me out." Faux question, right? Destroying bourgeois culture is the very point of progressivism. Has been for over a century. Your improvement isn't their improvement. And some of what you consider improvement has actually contributed to destruction--though the enlightened intelligentsia has yet to Reckon with it fully.
"the more we encourage the most devious, vengeful women to make accusations. Even as we silence the more empathetic, fair women, we may activate nasty women and the women who don't care if the The Reckoning takes down innocent men. Once that dynamic gets going, people won't be so receptive to the quickie argument she would have no reason to lie." Well, "people" haven't been receptive to it for a long time. Some people.
"that undermines the overall project of taking sexual harassment seriously." Is that "the project"? Whose project? By what measure of "seriousness"?
"a fear of friendship, a cold bureaucracy in the workplace, an endless Era of That's Not Funny... it's really sad! That's going to hurt all of us, and, ironically, it may hurt women more than men, because women may care more about bonding with other people in the workplace." So sad. If you get through to prog feminists, let us know. If they start being fair, let us know. If they apply their standards consistently, regardless of political background, regardless of gender, over a long period of time, let us know. In the meantime, the rest of us will simply retreat into cold self-protection. And of course, as long as we still can, we will vote for some hard men with the balls not to put up with the BS.
Tim
She's listed as inactive because she did not respond to mail. It does not prove she did not vote. She is registered to vote.
Women? Men? Perhaps, individual dignity? Character (e.g. principles) matter.
Will the workplace — after all this effort to include women — become a sterile place, where nobody ever laughs at sexual innuendo, no one ever touches anyone on the arm, nobody talks about their relationships?
lol, the "workplace" for those of us in the private sector has been dealing with this shit for the past 30+ years. Private sector employers and employees are not nearly as likely to avoid the consequences of a sex discrimination suit as say a politician or celebrity. This whole "Reckoning" thing has just been time to grab the popcorn for us.
I’m afraid I have to disagree with the premise than women have been on the downside of power for like ever.
It is men that have been on the downside of power in that they have been forced to wield it. Primarily because women have forced them to.
Woman have always had power and have always wielded that power. It can even be argued that they wield more power than their meager achievements would warrant.
CJinPA said...
My boss is a woman. We've become close friends. A group of us will occasionally go out for lunch or drinks. The talk can be R-rated, at least. I really learned a lot about relationships (including physical) from my female co-workers, and I think they learned a lot from the guys. They were certainly intrigued.
It would be - at the risk of being dramatic - tragic to lose that. We'll have to wait for the panic to subside to tally the damage.
--
Well..if you look back on how that friendship started, the women in the equation were likely the ones who initiated any R-rated talk. Kind of a granted permission...exerting power, really.
"Is that the way women use power? "
Yes and that is why most women I have known in the medical field have preferred to work with male supervisors.
Women choose favorites and act like a high school girl's club.
I examined a kid for the military yesterday who took one year of college in nursing and is going in the army, He wants to come back and finish on GI Bill. I told him to get his BSN and he will move into administration fairly quickly.
The idea that women don't lie about this is going to lose strength.
It was only believed in one sector anyway. If it loses strength in that group of people, so much the better. Absolutes are absolutely awful always.
I have no idea why Frank resigned. Extremely odd story. Ryan supported the resignation, so my best guess is that we don't know something.
The surrogate thing is pretty creepy unless somebody volunteered.
My daughter donated eggs to a couple that had fertility problems and were co workers. It was annoying for her to do but that is much, much less than actually agreeing to get pregnant and carry to term.
The women in the office may have felt coerced.
One of the first things an underling learns is how to fix the boss' ass.
This is a good post.
The danger of litigating and executing everything according to what made some woman, somewhere, uncomfortable is that they then concede that everything must proceed according to their very special and fragile and fallible feelings.
I think I now know why ancient Greece, the Roman republic, post-war America and countless other successful societies could never have been matriarchies. Thanks to these so-called women "leaders" for bringing me to a conclusion I was never originally inclined to hold: That sexism is necessary and that too many women are too inferior in their emotional handicaps to assume that they can successfully lead a rational society.
Message from the real world: Just listened to NPR. Gillibrand, Dionne, etc. Not a word about how this could hurt women. Entire focus on how Dem housecleaning could tighten the screws on the GOP and Trump. Turning the Reckoning back into the Narrative, the better to defeat the deplorables and seize power. This is not an Althousian world.
With Ritmo on one thread and Inga on the other rational discussion has ended.
Enjoy the weekend.
Apologies for the multiple posts, but I want to take the rare opportunity to agree with TTR.
"The danger of litigating and executing everything according to what made some woman, somewhere, uncomfortable is that they then concede that everything must proceed according to their very special and fragile and fallible feelings." True. But the people conducting the witch hunt and the Reckoning don't see it as a danger.
"sexism is necessary and that too many women are too inferior in their emotional handicaps to assume that they can successfully lead a rational society." Assuming this is posited as a good-faith claim, I wouldn't go that far. But regardless of my own views, the real-world fact is that this is the ultimate taboo. For the next few years, any allusions to female weakness, deceit, or inferiority will be disabling in public life. The pursuit of equality will proceed on the basis of the useful bigotry of sexist expectations.
Ms. Althouse's worries about puritanism are understandable and she is right that women may become sorry for some of this, but as long as the difference between what is offensive (and an offence) and what is everyday banter is determined solely by whether the woman laughs as one of the gang or says "I froze. I was terrified.", men are going to be more than a little paranoid and have nightmares about their careers and marriages being destroyed by Gloria Allred. We need some objective markers here.
My wife asked me "these guys resigned just based on accusations? What about due process? They didn't try to fight it? This sounds like a witch hunt!"
My wife is a smart cookie.
"Will the workplace — after all this effort to include women — become a sterile place, where nobody ever laughs at sexual innuendo, no one ever touches anyone on the arm, nobody talks about their relationships?"
Too late where I work.
Why do Franken and Franks believe that its better to resign than go through the process and be vindicated?
Maybe it's because the see that they see that the sexual harassment charges against them are not not much different from the sexual harassment charges against Trump. Watching what Trump is being put through on the Russian collusion charge, they know how the process works; and they know that being factually innocent is neither necessary nor sufficient anymore.
Trump is willing to endure the process. Franken and Franks are not.
The Title IX virus jumped the institutional barrier from the university to the nation at large.
Ann Althouse said...Yes, too much friendliness can burden women (especially if the friendliness aimed at women is different from what the men get), but a fear of friendship, a cold bureaucracy in the workplace, an endless Era of That's Not Funny... it's really sad! That's going to hurt all of us, and, ironically, it may hurt women more than men, because women may care more about bonding with other people in the workplace.
Yep. Men & women will relate to one another differently in almost all situations, including the workplace. Just getting different treatment can be enough to offend some women, and as you've documented we're moving towards the point where any claim of offense is enough to ruin someone.
Much easier to avoid any kind of non-formal relationships at all.
But really: the easiest way will be to just avoid hiring women! Carefully, of course, but you've got to limit your risk after all. The same dynamic works against homosexuals, transgendered people, etc--anyone you give special protection to will pose more of a risk as a new hire. A savvy boss will try to avoid that risk.
Franken, Franks, and Weiner. Anyone notice a pattern.
Can you not see that this was the inevitable, entirely predictable result of the "reckoning" you've been promoting and cheering on? Moral panics always spark witch hunts, which always over-step and exceed the limits of their own intolerance, exhausting their popularity, claiming innocents, and resulting always in a backlash and a repudiation of the panic as madness, the inquisitors as madmen. This is the Terror, as was. There will be a Restoration. And as Noel Coward once said, regardless, sex is still here to stay.
I dated a fair number of women from work. I never thought that any of them would accuse me of rape or sexual harassment, I don't think any of them thought of me as a potential rapist or harasser. I think the risks are far exaggerated, Unless you're in the entertainment or media world where it's apparently SOP.
Weinstein was not a hypothetical. The very next day after the assault a woman went to the police and filed a complaint. While she was filing the complaint, Harvey called her cell phone and asked for a meeting. She wore a wire to that meeting and recorded him telling her to come into his hotel room. She got scared and walked away. The DA Vance declined to prosecute. The local paper published a story that turned her reputation. She was stupid and naive. She thought that she could get Weinstein in trouble......Those who criticize these Hollywood women for being so slow in coming forward should consider her case. Rose McGowan's effective choice was to shut up and take it or accept $100,000 and shut up and take it.......I repeat. Harvey was not a hypothetical. Neither was Cosby, nor Toback, nor all those others. My prejudices are on the side of the women.
Claire Berlinski says there are already too many cases where a man did something that was fairly normal in context, and even the women who now complain did not complain at the time, and in some cases say they didn't realize they should complain, or that they felt bad about the incident, until years later. There is a rote accusation: doing something without permission, when it would have been easy (supposedly) to ask for permission; failing to consider how women felt. Women, sometimes years later, saying now I realize I always felt bad about it. Man who is accused, in a confession reminiscent of the Stalin regime: I now realize that it doesn't matter how the situation seemed to me, or how normal or routine it was at the time; all that matters is how women felt then, or how they feel now. Everything can be pretty much evidence-free.
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/12/06/the-warlock-hunt/?utm_content=buffer89656&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Something to be said for the Mike Pence rule. Since many men might have trouble spending all their free time with their own spouses and kids, something to be said for men's clubs. Supposedly the only British politicians in the 50s who didn't spend time at certain clubs were the ones who had "trouble with girls." Anthony Eden, one of the non-clubbable politicians, had a woman commit suicide on him over promises that weren't kept.
Berlinski feels for Louis CK, and for journalists who were notorious for non-criminal grossness, and who are now treated like criminals. Of course she says presidents are held to a higher standard. The Access Hollywood tape goes back to when Trump was a private citizen, known for outrageous words and sometimes deeds. Berlinski defends unwanted kisses, at least up to a point. On grabbing pussy, Trump left the impression he would see if a woman was going to let him.
Reading Berlinski makes me think: Betsy DeVos is trying to wind up the sexual harassment kangaroo courts on campus; but now the thinking of these courts--women are victims if they say so, with no evidence--is going mainstream.
But the she-bear thus accosted
Rends the peasant tooth and nail,
For the female of the species
Is more deadly than the male.
- Kipling
Franken did not resign.
Franken has not resign.
sexism is necessary and that too many women are too inferior in their emotional handicaps to assume that they can successfully lead a rational society.
I wouldn't use the words inferior or handicaps, but other wise I agree. Take Althouse. She is an an educated, accomplished woman. She has worked for many years as a law school professor. But even she willfully rejects rationality, and even believes that emotion is a valid part of reason. If she rejects reason, what is the hope for the vast majority of women?
The best social strategy for men at the moment is not to socialize with women. If one buys the idea that men are mainly out for sex from women, a man's optimal strategy is to find a woman willing to be paid for a sexual encounter. The exchange of money implies consent and a prostitute is unlikely to accuse a client if they plan on staying in business. I find prostitution abominable, but as a society, we're giving men some heavy incentives to go this route.
I don't know about the workplace. I've always worked with people who enjoy a good laugh and don't mind a bit of humor, wit, and banter. At our workplace, the consequence has been mainly to avoid hiring anyone who gives off a hint of bringing in drama with them. Such concerns are never documented of course - it's all pleasant handshakes, going through the motions with the interview, a quick post-hoc conversation in private, and informing the temp agency we're not interested soon after. I would say the people hurt most are the people with personality, particularly the more colorful or exotic personalities, particularly if they're women.
I am not holding my breath, there is always a back lash when ever progress takes place but it's cheerleaders never win, the arc of history bends towards justice.
"women who are empathetic and who care about fairness"- What, both of them?
"women who are empathetic and who care about fairness"- What, both of them?
Ms. Althouse,
A rather large and hyperbolic group of women are working hard to make men miserable and force them to 'toe the line' with the line being some amorphous thing which has no definition and seemingly no statute of limitations.
And I should care that this hurts them back why? I know you are trying to appeal to their self interest. Good luck with that.
Professor,
Twenty, thirty, forty years ago, this would have been insightful and predictive, but now, this is just what is happening, or has already happened. The bird has flown. The recipe has been cooked and now we are all eating it. In would throw in something about revenge served cold but really can't be bothered.
buwaya said: "Good lord, its just hit me.
Whst on earth is next years HR "diversity training" going to look like?"
Probably a rehash of this; Male Employees Accuse FAA of Sex Harassment at Workshops
Qwinn,
Mike Nifong, District Attorney and lead prosecutor in the case, did get disbarred over his part. Way less than he deserved--should have been sentenced to the exact same number of years in prison that those falsely charged were at risk of*--but still disbarment is not exactly nothing.
-------------------------------------------------
*Yes, yes, the sentences should have to be served consecutively, not concurrently! Trying to falsely imprison someone is evil, but trying to do so to multiple people is eviller, is it not?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा