December 16, 2017

Nevertheless, he persisted.

From "Nine more women say judge subjected them to inappropriate behavior, including four who say he touched or kissed them" in The Washington Post:
Christine O.C. Miller, 73, a retired U.S. Court of Federal Claims judge, said that around early 1986 — shortly after Kozinski was appointed to his seat in the 9th Circuit — he invited her to attend a legal community function in the Baltimore area.

As the two drove back together, Miller said, Kozinski asked if she wanted to stop at a motel and have sex.

Miller, then in her early 40s and married, said she had considered Kozinski, who had served as chief of the Claims Court, “an ally and a professional friend” but harbored no romantic feelings for him.

“I told him, no, I wasn’t interested and didn’t want to be involved in anything like that,” she said. Kozinski, she said, persisted.

“He said if you won’t sleep with me, I want to touch you, and then he reached over, and — this was the most antiseptic — he grabbed each of my breasts and squeezed them,” Miller said. She said she stared straight ahead, and he soon dropped her off at her home.
Nevertheless, he persisted....

83 comments:

traditionalguy said...

He did it his way. Frank Sinatra in a black robe.

tim maguire said...

Why are the ones complained about always so fumbling and pathetic in their attemps? Are the real players insulated somehow? Is the real complaint about the amateurishness? Is it (intentionally or not) a vendetta against nerds with power? Can men (people) pressure all they want so long as they are a little suave about it?

FIDO said...

Read the article. So, he was essentially Leisure Suit Larry. For the 80s, his behavior was pretty much typical of the lists of love. Men sometimes said creepy things and made innuendoes, occasionally moved his hand in an inappropriate, but culpably deniable way like that name tag thing.

If she was into it, she didn't mind. If she did mind, it was her responsibility to make this evident.

There was this girl I liked in 7th grade. I used to moon at her from afar. Never touched her. Never talked to her. Well, she noticed my attention and let me know VERY DIRECTLY that she not only didn't like me, she would never like me.

I didn't moon at her after that. This was ALSO in the 80s. Directness solves a lot of these issues.

The other thing is that this 'persistence meme'? Um...read any book after the Epic of Gilgamesh and usually, the women said no to the initial requests for dates. She didn't want to be seen as easy.

Well, now if a woman says no, she better not change her mind, otherwise SHE is on the hook for doing the approach. How many women do you know who shot down their steady boyfriends and husbands the first time they asked? I am guessing quite a few.

Asking twice is not stalking. Asking twice is asking twice on the same car ride.

I think the judge is correct. This is weak sauce. Creepy, but not morally discrediting. How do his 'sins' measure up compared to Bill (Pantless) Clinton? Because that is now the metric that we get to use on both sides.

The WaPo and his fellow justices want to ax one of the few Conservative/Libertarian judges on the bench and use this tool to cut out those whom they want. (That the tool has turned in their hand and is cutting them up more as they bear down is just karmic justice)

The fact that Trump will almost instantly replace him with someone else just as, if not more Conservative seems to be lost on them. I would also be worried that he EXPANDS the 9th ala FDR's tactics in retaliation. 'Oh...you are overworked. Here are 6 new Conservative justices. Have a nice day.'



rhhardin said...

1986 was back when the sexes were different.

Imus suggested for today's gropers filling a tube sock with jello and groping that.

Darrell said...

According to FBI Profilers, the is the first step on the road to becoming a titty-twister. All you need is a major stressor, like the impending elecion of Donald Trump.

Michael K said...

Did none of these women know how to slap a man's face ?

Darkisland said...

I thought one of the things we learned from the whole Title 9 megillah was that we are supposed to ask.

So the judge does that and gets hammered 30 years later?

Why did he ask? Perhaps he's just a horndog.

But perhaps the woman was giving off signals that she might be amenable. She might not even be aware of the signals. Might even be just pheromones.

She should say no and that should be an end of it.

I suspect Pence is right:never, never, never be alone with a woman.

I'd go further, I'd never hire a woman to work in my company if I thought I could get away with it.

John Henry

Phil 3:14 said...

Where do these men learn such behaviors?

Gahrie said...

She should have slapped him when he grabbed her breasts. Then she should have either filed charges or moved on.

Complaining now is pathetic.

David Begley said...

“Miller, then in her early 40s and married, said she had considered Kozinski, who had served as chief of the Claims Court, “an ally and a professional friend” but harbored no romantic feelings for him.”

What’s romance got to do with it? Why mention that she is married?

Bob said...

Is there any intersection between this phenomenon and transgender bathrooms, teaching about anal sex in grade school and Japanese sex dolls?

Maybe we need to expose boys at a young age to tits and ass until they can't stand it anymore?

and what is going on under those robes?

Mac McConnell said...

Phil
They are taught by the women that come across, married or not.

james james said...

I have written of the broken men before, such as the Guy Who Stares At Women's Asses Too Long. Being a bar, there is not really a shortage of broken men to be found. Some know that they are indeed broken; some even have an ex-wife on which they can lay blame. Some do not know they are broken: they believe they are simply misunderstood, usually. Maybe the world is against them: sometimes the world misunderstands.

In the evenings there are the college girls. They are in their own bubble: in that bubble they dance with friends, make suggestive dance moves to the jukebox, pose with Instagram pouts for selfies. Occasionally they briefly intersect with the broken men, usually as they wait in line at the bar for fresh drinks, Sometimes the college girls are also looking for party supplies.

One of the broken men -- the misunderstood kind -- is quietly asked if he knows where one can buy some cocaine. He says Sure, he can make that happen. I have no idea if he can actually make that happen or not; maybe he does know someone who knows someone, or maybe by saying Yes he just gets to be around the college girl a while longer.

He enters the bubble, and laughs and drinks and watches the girls from a better proximity. Somehow he forgets he is only in the bubble for the time it takes for him to procure what they need. Somehow he forgets he is broken. And somehow he touches the college girl's breasts.

Later he explains that it was accidental, but he can't exactly explain accidental how. Then he says he thought it would be funny, that's all. So you get two stories to choose from where it is not his fault: again, sometimes the world misunderstands.

The college girl shouts an obscenity, and pushes him away. College boys come to the table: maybe being the White Knight will help them get laid. The college boys do not think they misunderstand the world.

The bouncer comes, and pulls the broken man towards the door. He explains his story, versions one and two, but he is pushed out into the street. Eighty-sixed. Where another bouncer keeps a hold on him, in case the police are to be involved.

The bouncer inside asks the college girl if she wants to press charges. She says No, she just wants him gone. Maybe it wasn't something that was worth her time. Maybe it wasn't a big deal. Maybe she doesn't want him to mention to the police that she was trying to buy cocaine. There could be a lot of reasons for her decision, really. She returns to the bubble; a college boy goes to the bar to buy her a new drink.

The bouncer outside gets word, and lets the guy go. There is another bar with a looser crowd down the street; it has college girls, too. You see police cars outside the establishment not infrequently. He heads off in that direction.

- james james

Kevin said...

For context why dont we read about a successful approach by Matt Lauer?

I get back to the office and I couldn’t concentrate. It was like an out of body experience. I know that sounds silly to someone who wasn’t there emotionally, but I couldn’t sit still. I sent him a message, and he wrote back right away.

“meet me.” he said.

“meet you where?” I asked. “matt, think about this first…you have a wife.”

“dressing room.”

“dressing room where?”

“studio.”

“i’ll be there in 20 minutes,” I said.

“I can’t stay that long…I have a car coming at 3:00.”

It was 2:42 p.m.


https://www.google.com/amp/variety.com/2017/tv/news/matt-lauer-today-secret-relationship-production-assistant-1202641040/amp/

Darrell said...

Cue Eleanor Rigby, for JJ.

Darrell said...

Do you approve of the job President Trump is doing?
Yes!
Fucking A.

Add my response to your poll, without my visit.

Darrell said...

“I can’t stay that long…I have a car coming at 3:00.”

It was 2:42 p.m.


Ah. Time for a smoke, then, as well. . .

james james said...

Darrell said...
"Ah. Time for a smoke, then, as well. . ."

Darrell understands.

- james james

Sean Gleeson said...

What was "antiseptic" about squeezing her breasts, though?

Angel-Dyne said...

"Asking twice is not stalking."

"She should say no and that should be an end of it."

Most of the posters here seem to be missing that she did say no. And grabbing tits is not "asking twice". (And it wasn't considered to be so in the 1980s, either, lol.)

Pointing out that dredging up incidents decades later is obviously politically motivated behavior, or arguing that an incident doesn't merit attention or action, is one thing, but come on, guys. Criticizing the #metoo mania, and giving the finger to lefty hypocrisy on the matter, in no way requires finding an excuse for every bit of asshole behavior.

If Kozinski behaved as claimed, then it wasn't because of "mixed signals" or "the 80s" or "feminism", or "changing mores", or whatever. It's because he's an asshole, and he's an asshole regardless of whether the woman handled it well or badly, or whether some women didn't mind his assholery. These are all dumb, energy-wasting, beside-the-point arguments. And typical conservative weak-sauce defense. Conservatives need to go on the offensive against this #metoo crap that the Dems think they're going to ride to victory. Coming up with excuses for spergs grabbing tits isn't much of an offense. The Dems want to make being an asshole disqualifying for legislatures and the judiciary? Well, all right then...

Wilbur said...

(Chortle) That Kozinski. What a kookola.

I'm surprised nobody rearranged his bridgework sometime during these past decades. I guess when you're a Federal judge, people don't do that.

Kevin said...

Most of the posters here seem to be missing that she did say no.

So did Matt Lauer’s mistress. Right before she slept with him.

Michael K said...

I'd never hire a woman to work in my company if I thought I could get away with it.

This is what's coming. Plus:

The oppressive atmosphere of the Gulag that is developing my be harmful.

Earlier this year, I noticed something in China that really surprised me. I realized I felt more comfortable discussing controversial ideas in Beijing than in San Francisco. I didn’t feel completely comfortable—this was China, after all—just more comfortable than at home.

That showed me just how bad things have become, and how much things have changed since I first got started here in 2005.

It seems easier to accidentally speak heresies in San Francisco every year. Debating a controversial idea, even if you 95% agree with the consensus side, seems ill-advised.


Craziness is toxic.

More recently, I’ve seen credible people working on ideas like pharmaceuticals for intelligence augmentation, genetic engineering, and radical life extension leave San Francisco because they found the reaction to their work to be so toxic. “If people live a lot longer it will be disastrous for the environment, so people working on this must be really unethical” was a memorable quote I heard this year.

Trees don't grow to the sky and societies age and die. Maybe this is what we see now.

Breezy said...

Seriously, people need to teach others how to treat them. What did the judge learn from both of her responses?

Sean Gleeson said...

I went and looked up "antiseptic" in the dictionary, just to make sure the word had not acquired some new meaning which would make sense of her description.

But, no. It still means "killing microorganisms that cause sepsis," and has some derivative meanings such as "exceptionally clean or neat." The connection to mammary gland squeezing is not obvious.

Breast milk does contain antibodies, so it might have some germ-killing properties. But it also contains so much sugar (lactose) that it should not be your go-to antiseptic.

Leland said...

Where do these men learn such behaviors?

Movies

Angel-Dyne said...

Kevin: So did Matt Lauer’s mistress. Right before she slept with him.

This is what I mean by fucking stupid, time-wasting arguments.

Fine, Kevin, "no man is ever an asshole and no woman is ever not interested in fucking any allegedly 'alpha' guy who asks" is a fabulous response to Kozinski's critics, and a sure-fire approach to preventing the Dems' #metoo maenads from taking him down and destroying the careers of other non-lefty pols and judges. (So tell me again why conservatives have been bitching about Bill Clinton's horn-doggery all these years? Oh, that's different, you say, he's a rapist? How can he be a rapist if no woman ever really mean "no" when an alpha male asks?)

Keep going with that. Nothing says "win" like stubbornly refusing to move out of a lefty-defined frame and squeaking "he is not a racist, er, asshole" over and over.

Anonymous said...

No longer news !

- White police shooting black honor students in back as they leave Sunday school.

- Thousands overdosing on narcotics smuggled from China or dispensed by greedy Big Pharma operatives.

(Posting this way because blogger has been immediately deleting regular posts and I can't take a hint).

MayBee said...

It's just shocking to me that a guy who emailed pictures of naked women painted as cows (because of their breasts, get it??) harbored demeaning thoughts about women.

But way back in 2008, when this was discussed, it was the unsophisticated rubes who just didn't get it. My how times have changed.

Fritz said...

Fire him and let Trump appoint a new judge.

Anonymous said...

How did he grab her tits and drive at the same time?
Did I miss something?

FIDO said...

Angel

He IS an asshole. I believe I noted that at least three times. Enter 'creep' = 'asshole' in your mental matrix.

Two big issues:

One: Did he violate the 'Clinton/Kennedy' standard of treatment of women? No. When feminists let these two off the hook, they set the standard. Kozinski doesn't even come close to the hacky sack of those two Democratic luminaries. You gave them a pass FOREVER. Well..

Two: Now Dems and Feminists want to change the standard to 'if he kissed me/if he touched me/if he propositioned me when I don't want to, even DECADES ago, then that person should be destroyed, discredited, and cast into the outer darkness forever'.

To that desired change, I say no. Hell No. If YOU want to continue to push that standard, okay then. A lot of good men who misunderstood a signal or were momentarily stupid are going to get dragged into that finely spun net and I, as a man, am not buying that standard PERIOD.

What has he done in the last 10 years. Otherwise, I'm not interested unless it was rape.

And if you hate hate HATE Pedos, why aren't you clamering for Bill Clinton to be investigated over the Lolita Express with the indicted Epstein? LOTS of smoke there...but instead I am reading about 'bear hugs'.

Yeah...I will take your side seriously when they start acting seriously.

FIDO said...

If you have issues with the 'one free grope' policy, take it up with Gloria Steinem.

Renee said...

"But perhaps the woman was giving off signals that she might be amenable. She might not even be aware of the signals. Might even be just pheromones."

So women can not leave the house if she is ovulating, the peak of her pheromones emitting?

Her No was pretty clear and direct.

"As the two drove back together, Miller said, Kozinski asked if she wanted to stop at a motel and have sex.

Miller, then in her early 40s and married, said she had considered Kozinski, who had served as chief of the Claims Court, “an ally and a professional friend” but harbored no romantic feelings for him.

“I told him, no, I wasn’t interested and didn’t want to be involved in anything like that,” she said."

Luke Lea said...

Impeachment the obvious solution.

FIDO said...

Renee,

1) Conceded: boob grabbing is out of line. The hands want what the hands want, but really, he SHOULD have more self control than a 16 year old.

2) Asking twice is NOT out of line 'Changing her mind is a woman's prerogative' as they say.

3) Asking a married women to cheat is scummy...but frankly, when 30-40% of women admit to having done it, he is not exactly facing horrible odds.

As Mike said, a slap would have said it all.

Ann Althouse said...

"Did none of these women know how to slap a man's face ?"

When has that ever been something women could easily do, especially when dealing with your employer or an honored guest at an event?

You expect a law student to slap a federal judges? That's an absurd expectation.

I've seen face-slapping in old-time movies, but never in real life, and I don't know any woman that is taught to do that. You want the workplace to devolve into physical violence whenever anyone interprets an interaction to be inappropriately sexual?

How would that work?!

But you not only think it would work, you expect the woman to do that and subtract from her credibility if she does not.

That's just bizarre.

Angel-Dyne said...

FIDO @8:58:

Way to miss the point entirely. Re-read my comments, and get back to me when you figure out which "side" I'm on.

Nah, don't bother. To the dumb lefties around here I'm an extremist right-wing xenophobe nazi misogynist bigot hatey-McHater; no big surprise when I magically become a Dem prog feminist Clinton-defender to their rightie equivalent.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Yeah...I will take your side seriously when they start acting seriously.

12/16/17, 8:58 AM


Fido, Angel-Dyne is true blue conservative. You're new here I guess. Talk less listen more, maybe.

Bad Lieutenant said...

You want the workplace to devolve into physical violence whenever anyone interprets an interaction to be inappropriately sexual?


Yes. More violence in "society" please. I know you dream of an end to violence. I don't. Violence CAN be the answer. If someone had punched HW's lights out, or stabbed him, things would be different. The subordination of this natural impulse does nothing but empower creeps.

narciso said...

Yes I think its more likely, that he is being destriyrd because he dared aupprt vote the right way with trump, and other past exercises in crimethink

Johnny Sokko said...

Impeach him then.

Maybe he can be like Alcee Hastings and end up in the US House of Representatives after the impeachment and removal.

FIDO said...

Angel,

You misunderstand: I find that 'destroy a man because he gave unexpected bear hugs and kisses 30 years ago' to be a rather unrealistic standard, no matter what side of the aisle you stand in. (Boob grabs pass my comfort level. I have girls)

Now, there is a difference between a time or two and 15 accusers. So conceded.

And IF I am held to that standard, I will sure hold the Left to it IN SPADES (see Franken).

That being said, I do not find that a realistic standard, nor one which is good for either gender.

My son is a young man but past legal age. If he, in a moment of stupidity, touches a boob in an unwelcomed fashion, should HE be destroyed some 30 years from now if he gains any fame or fortune?

According to these new standards, yes he should.

I do not want that for my son. I don't want my daughters groped either.

This new standard is not an improvement on society, IMO. I don't have a better answer but expect a backlash from this standard any day now.

narciso said...

I am suspicious of all these woke moments in what Claire berlinski calls the year of the warlock. Take David vitter he was foolish once upon a time or twice, when his name along with many others came up in the diary of a madam but surprising few people, one bush administration official were mentioned by name, subsequently did go after red queen and her ties to a certain dodge financier who was enabled to loot Nigeria like an anemic vampire anx they brought the diary up again, in his race against bel Edwards a suitable Dem factotum.

Or consider the Ashley Madison scandal, only a few names were harped on, particularly a local state atty but nit the coke snorting son of the salon, who was on a Russian cooncred Ukrainian oil company.
N

narciso said...

Now since her involvement in the Malaysian grapevine and the nevertrump movemrnt, I've been a little wary of citing her.


https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/12/06/the-warlock-hunt/

Inga said...

“.... I'm an extremist right-wing xenophobe nazi misogynist bigot hatey-McHater; no big surprise when I magically become a Dem prog feminist Clinton-defender to their rightie equivalent.”

Yes all true, but you’re also a woman and that in itself makes you suspect in the minds of the FIDOs of the world. You helped create the FIDOs, congrats, now you reap some of the rewards of your labors. It couldn’t have been directed to a more deserving woman.

narciso said...

Let us see what other judge gets targeted, in the future, I have my suspicions.

Now Stuart smaller who says he will step down, we shall see.

EDH said...

Gahrie said...
She should have slapped him when he grabbed her breasts. Then she should have either filed charges or moved on.

Complaining now is pathetic.


At this point are these women really only "now complaining" or just recounting prior episodes to corroborate the judge's behavior for other women who are now complaining?

Gahrie said...

At this point are these women really only "now complaining" or just recounting prior episodes to corroborate the judge's behavior for other women who are now complaining?

Perhaps if theses women had acted correctly at the time, the women who are now complaining (I am not aware of any complaints newer than 20 years ago by the way) wouldn't have anything to complain about.

Gahrie said...

I've seen face-slapping in old-time movies, but never in real life, and I don't know any woman that is taught to do that. You want the workplace to devolve into physical violence whenever anyone interprets an interaction to be inappropriately sexual?

Yes.

How would that work?!

The way it works among men. You'd be surprised about the number of problems that can be solved by a good ass kicking.

But you not only think it would work, you expect the woman to do that and subtract from her credibility if she does not.

That's just bizarre.


Look...are men and women equal, or are women delicate creatures that need to be protected? At some point you need to make up your mind.

(I know I know, it's always a woman's prerogative to change her mind)

wwww said...


Slapping a face is likely to escalate a situation and it's ineffectual at stopping a predatory attack.

Verbal should be fine for a misunderstanding. If it's a predatory attack, you defend yourself if you can't run.

Don't point a gun unless you're ready to use it.

If you need to fight to get free, you do it seriously. Eye gouge, take out a knee, self-defence strike to the throat and escape as soon as possible.

Michael K said...

"Slapping a face is likely to escalate a situation"

I bow to the voice of experience. It was, for many years, the best suggestion by a woman to a man that he had crossed a line.

Now, they cry about it and write a letter to the editor 30 years later about it.

Do you think that is progress ?

My wife and I were talking this morning about when this all began to change. Do you remember when "Deep Throat" was playing in mainstream movie theaters? I do. That was the tipping point when the culture war was lost.

Everything has been downhill since then.

FIDO said...

The question is one of proportionality.

What is the proportionate punishment for playing 'honk honk' 30 years ago?

And do we 'just' allow the process and character assassination be the 'punishment' or do we actually give him a chance to respond legally to his critics?


Yes, I am sure women like that standard of 'anything I ever disliked should be an actionable offense FOREVER' is not going to work out well for anyone and is sort of a douche standard to have.

Carol said...

She should have slapped him when he grabbed her breasts. Then she should have either filed charges or moved on.

Move on is all you can do. Because complaining about boob-grabbing just draws attention to what an embarrassing, prolish old-man "gotcha!" move it is - mortifying for all concerned, really. Or should be.

Kansas Scout said...

It's not clear to me that she told the Judge to stop touching her. She just looked ahead. Just on the basis of her account it sounds like she may have allowed it, passively. This is where I see a common thread. Several of recent accusations speak of the "victim" becoming passive and "frozen" with no clear indications a clear no was given. Perhaps it was and she failed to mention it?

Bad Lieutenant said...

My son is a young man but past legal age. If he, in a moment of stupidity, touches a boob in an unwelcomed fashion, should HE be destroyed some 30 years from now if he gains any fame or fortune?

According to these new standards, yes he should.

I do not want that for my son. I don't want my daughters groped either.



Just so you know, it is apparently possible to touch someone, unintentionally, in a way that offends her, or even him. In a culture where strangers or brief acquaintances see fit to hug, a hand can always go to the wrong place, without set intent.

Sometimes the touchee will say nothing but nurse the grudge unto death. Sometimes the toucher is either unaware, or nonplussed by the accidental contact, and doesn't know what to say about it, says nothing, says the wrong thing, and there you are.

wwww said...


I bow to the voice of experience. It was, for many years, the best suggestion by a woman to a man that he had crossed a line.


In terms of culture, I shudder to think of what children can find on the internet if parents haven't put safety controls in place.
What are the chances one of the kiddo's friends all have parents who are computer savvy?

Another commenter on this blog -- I forget who -- commented that his wife, years ago had physically slapped a man. He gave her a bloody nose. She was still glad she had slapped him. But a punch to the face can be dangerous. It can result in reconstructive surgery. A light slap only works on a man who will not hit women. Rapists will hit women. Weinstein hit women. You don't know if they will stop at rape. Are they a Weinstein? Are they a Ted Bundy?

Think of a bear. Is it a defensive attack? Is it a predatory attack? If it's a misunderstanding, firm verbal communication works. If it's predatory, you need to fight if you can't get away. Otherwise you're the next meal.






Kevin said...

Fine, Kevin, "no man is ever an asshole and no woman is ever not interested in fucking any allegedly 'alpha' guy who asks" is a fabulous response to Kozinski's critics, and a sure-fire approach to preventing the Dems' #metoo maenads from taking him down and destroying the careers of other non-lefty pols and judges.

You're missing my point. I'm not saying men aren't assholes or women always get what they deserve. I'm saying that an objective examination of each of these incidents has to go beyond "she said no".

That alone is not sufficient evidence of wrong behavior by the man, as it isn't even clear evidence of disinterest by the woman.

If we have a campaign of "no means no" today, it's only because in at least our recent history and likely for much of time before then, no has not always meant no.

And to judge someone's assholery 30 years ago by today's standards is hardly objective, I think we'd all agree.

I'd go further and say that some women's situation is so ridiculous that the guy was an asshole even if she couldn't state that she clearly said the word "no".

But women need to own the issue that they say "no" for all kinds of reasons, and many of them are not because they don't want sexual attention from the man in question. Ironically, in some cases the reason for saying "no" is to get even more sexual attention from him.

And if we can't have that discussion, we're not objectively trying to solve the issue.

Doug said...


When has that ever been something women could easily do, especially when dealing with your employer or an honored guest at an event?

It has to be ready too do, or the poor little dears give up and cry. And you wonder why they only Earth 77% of what men do.

Kevin said...

Do you remember when "Deep Throat" was playing in mainstream movie theaters? I do. That was the tipping point when the culture war was lost.

That was back when sex wasn't casual and certainly couldn't be expected from the majority of women. To go that far had consequences, consensual or not.

Today, consequences are not expected and we have a culture that reflects that in every possible way.

Doug said...


When has that ever been something women could easily do, especially when dealing with your employer or an honored guest at an event?

It has to be easy to do, or the poor little dears give up and cry. And you wonder why they only Earn 77% of what men do.

walter said...

Angel-Dyne said...Criticizing the #metoo mania, and giving the finger to lefty hypocrisy on the matter, in no way requires finding an excuse for every bit of asshole behavior.
--
Yep. This isn't that hard. The straw grasping re this guy gets old.

Jim at said...

Criticizing the #metoo mania, and giving the finger to lefty hypocrisy on the matter, in no way requires finding an excuse for every bit of asshole behavior.

Exactly.

Assholes are assholes.

But this crap from 30 to 40 years ago needs to just stop.

readering said...

Lot's of great advice here from some old men to other old men on how women should behave with men.

rcocean said...

"Slapping a face is likely to escalate a situation"

Wrong. That's just an excuse for being a wimp.

My mother and aunts would slap the face of any man who got "Fresh" with them. And any man who got too "frisky" got a knee in the balls. My wife is the same.

What's the man going to do? Call the cops? Hit them back? In which case you have sexual assault and battery.

But these women are so gutless they wouldn't even SAY anything until 4 other women go public.

FIDO said...

But these women are so gutless they wouldn't even SAY anything until 4 other women go public.

Reverse Sharia. A pervert is not a pervert if 4 women won't testify about him.

FIDO said...

But this crap from 30 to 40 years ago needs to just stop.

Yup. This breathless assertion that we've live in the Handmaid's Tale for the last 30 years is ridiculous.

Jim at said...

You helped create the FIDOs, congrats, now you reap some of the rewards of your labors. It couldn’t have been directed to a more deserving woman.

It could've - and should've - been directed at you.

I've dealt with your types - personally and professionally - for all of my 53 years on this planet. You are miserable, snarling bitches. You are the very worst of the female gender.

Professionally? I loathed you and did everything possible to stay clear of your toxins.

Personally? I have nothing to do with you. You don't exist.

It's a much better world.

Jupiter said...

Angel-Dyne said...

"Criticizing the #metoo mania, and giving the finger to lefty hypocrisy on the matter, in no way requires finding an excuse for every bit of asshole behavior."

I am a bit concerned about what exactly it does require. Because it seems that what they are trying to put across is, "Find an excuse, or fire him". My view is that nothing Judge Kozinski is accused of doing makes him unfit to be on the bench. If these women don't want to socialize with him, then they shouldn't. Look, 30 years ago, I dumped a beer on guy in a bar. Full beer, right in his lap. Did I have a right to do that? I did not. Was it an asshole thing to do? It sure was. Am I sorry? I am not. Fucker had it coming. Sorry about the beer, maybe. So, there, I have now demonstrated that I am unfit for -- well, for what? What am I unfit for? I guess, since it was a guy, no big deal. Right?

Jupiter said...

Ann Althouse said...

"You expect a law student to slap a federal judges? That's an absurd expectation."

Also a federal crime. The only way he could possibly hope to get away with it is if he were female.

readering said...

News report:

Multiple sources report that three clerks for Judge Alex Kozinski have decided to leave. Calls to the Ninth Circuit’s public information office have not been returned as of this writing.

If true, quite the bombshell. Guess he'll finally have to join the bench memo pool.

Angel-Dyne said...

Jupiter: My view is that nothing Judge Kozinski is accused of doing makes him unfit to be on the bench.

Mine too.

I am a bit concerned about what exactly it does require. Because it seems that what they are trying to put across is, "Find an excuse, or fire him".

Yes, they are. And?

"Why yes, he is an asshole. Your point? Oh, you seem to think that means we have to get behind giving him the old heave ho? Your assholes first, my shitlib brothers and sisters. All of them. With big, public, weeping, wailing, dig-up-every-living-victim-to-testify, posthumous anathematizion of Ted Kennedy, OK? Then we'll think about. Othwerwise, fuck off."

Jupiter said...

Angel,

It sounds as if we are substantially in agreement. But I'm still in some perplexity as to the principle I am defending. FIDOS asked;

"What is the proportionate punishment for playing 'honk honk' 30 years ago?"

A woman who accepts a ride from a co-worker should not have to accept a round of honk-honk along with the transportation. But should a man who grabs her breasts be fired for it? And what if he didn't grab her breasts? What if he asked her if she wanted to stop at a motel, she said "No", and he drove her home, and she just thinks the story goes a little better with the honk-honk part? Let him prove he didn't, right? Fucking cheap-motel bastard.

Angel-Dyne said...

FIDO: You misunderstand:

I understood what you wrote. I don't even disagree with what you wrote. But it has nothing to do with what I wrote.

I'm not arguing that Kozinski should be given the boot.

I'm not defending anybody who says Kozinski should be given the boot on the point of giving him the boot.

Neither of those positions can be logically inferred from anything I wrote.

Look, I go off on people after carelessly reading their comments, too. But when people say, "Angel-Dyne, you dope, you misread me", I don't respond by repeating my original reaction to what they didn't say. I re-read their comment, say, "oops, sorry, I was reading carelessly", and if I have no pertinent response to what they did write, I shut up. Or just go rant at somebody else who is saying something to which I have a pertinent response.

Angel-Dyne said...

Kevin: You're missing my point. I'm not saying men aren't assholes or women always get what they deserve. I'm saying that an objective examination of each of these incidents has to go beyond "she said no".

Fine, you were advancing a point, with perhaps excessive, read-my-mind economy of expression, which has been advanced a dozen times over, that I have never disagreed with, and which has nothing to do with *my* point in the comment you were originally responding to.

Sorry, my mistake.

Char Char Binks said...

Nevertheless, he perverted.

Phil 3:14 said...

"My son is a young man but past legal age. If he, in a moment of stupidity, touches a boob in an unwelcomed fashion, should HE be destroyed some 30 years from now if he gains any fame or fortune?"

If he did it once, no.

If he did it over and over, well....

Anonymous said...

Lifetime tenure, baby.

n.n said...

Once a baby, a person is deemed nonviable. The abortion proceeds, without consultation of the constitution, religion/morality, or scientific evidence. I wonder who's next.

elyse said...

jesus - you all have a hard-on for Clinton. He didn't get away with anything. He got impeached and his reputation has a stain (as it were) for life. We're talking about what's going on today and what women have been dealing with for ages. Many men, left & right don't know how to keep their penis in their pants. Period. Get a grip and get with the program. Try to think what it might be like to be a woman with all this shit you guys pull. Fido - mooning a woman because you have a crush on her? I don't care how old you were. That's just plain inappropriate and gross. No wonder she didn't like you.

Professional lady said...

This "just slap him in the face stuff" is just too easy. The people who say it have probably never have a move like this pulled on them. Grabbing someone's breasts or groping them is sexual assault. It's also a battery. It's shocking and surprising and yes, you don't always immediately know what to do. If it's a public situation or the person is in a position of power or respect, you doubt yourself. It happens so fast. It runs through your mind: What good is it going to do to say anything or cause a scene? People aren't going to believe you and you'll expose yourself to even more embarrassment. This person may be in a position to harm you or ruin your reputation or take some other sort of revenge if they want. The person who is doing this sort of thing counts on this reaction and that's how they get away with it. One part of me is glad that people who regularly pull this sort of thing are finally getting their embarrassment and comeuppance. But, I'm also concerned with false accusations or a one time lapse of judgment or accidental touching. So there's no easy answers.

FIDO said...

Mooning. I should have used 'over' but I doubt that would have made a difference to elyse.

Verb
(en-verb) • (colloquial) To display one's buttocks to, typically as a jest, insult, or protest
• (colloquial) (usually followed by'' over''' ''or'' ' after ) To fuss over something adoringly; to be infatuated with someone.

The bolded was my meaning. Sorry for the confusion.

FIDO said...

Elyse,

Bill Clinton and his wife made $153 million in speaking fees between 2001 and 2016.

I could use that kind of 'stain' on my reputation. He vacations in Martha's Vineyard, frequently for free. He has billionaires flying him around to where very very young women are available for 'Monica time' at reasonable rates and which the media is absolutely uninterested in. He was running around advocating for his wife all year to adoring crowds of Democrats.

Is that the kind of 'damage' Clinton has 'suffered'?

So...did Clinton do worse things than Al Franken, who was called to resign? Did Clinton do worse things than Moore was accused of? Did Clinton do worse things that Clarence Thomas was attacked for?