I think we've got a confrontation between 2 individuals whose lives got launched within lovely economic advantage. Both of them, as far as I can tell, are life-long elite. The dispute is deeply (and shallowly!) gendered.
I say "deeply" because — whatever happened between these 2 young people — we need to contemplate how the subordination of women can happen and the psychological burdens that arise out of the complexities of sex and the fear of violence.
I say "shallowly" because there is a political, partisan game going on, and the serious questions are getting appropriated and exploited for political power.
I'd like feminism to operate independently: I'm a believer in the separation of feminism from partisan politics. But I don't expect the world to arrange itself around my belief. So I'm just an observer and a writer in a style I call "cruel neutrality." I've been writing about the gender politics of the Blasey/Kavanaugh matter. And I'd add class politics, because we're dealing with the elite and the political community reacting to and serving the needs of the elite.
But to drag in racial politics when everyone is white is blatant confusion and misappropriation of racial problems, which are important on their own and don't deserve to be tossed in with every other problem.
I'm reading, "Joy Behar Accuses 'White Men' on Senate Judiciary Committee of Protecting 'Probably Guilty' Kavanaugh" (IJR): "These white men, old by the way, are not protecting women... They're protecting a man who is probably guilty."
I know, she also said "old" and "probably guilty." Maybe Behar prefers a shotgun approach. Something might hit.
Is it just Behar? The Free Beacon presents it as a standard talking point: "MSNBC and CNN anchors and reporters are fixating on the optics of Republican 'white men' on the the Senate Judiciary Committee publicly questioning a woman who has accused Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault." Many examples at that link ("Once again, it will be all white men on the Republican side of the Judiciary Committee...," "It is a lineup of white guys over the age of 50," "Are these Republican white men essentially going to ask her if she's telling the truth?," "worst-case scenario for a bunch of white men...," "a bunch of white men once again defending another white man"). The woman is white, and white men have been defending white women for a good long time, often to the disadvantage of black men.
This is a despicable talking point, deliberately and eagerly inciting racial discord over something that isn't racial. Why not spend a little less time on this one news story and forefront some stories that really are about race? I'm sure we haven't run out of them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
370 comments:
1 – 200 of 370 Newer› Newest»The fact that mainstream media organizations give Joy Behar the time of day is illustrative.
Not in a good way.
Not only are they White, but they are Cis-Gendered Straight men (as far as we know). Let's leave no stone unturned.
I'd like a story about the average American black IQ being 86 and what strategy might make it a non-problem, like going for good character. Then blacks are just normal Americans.
"I think we've got a confrontation between 2 individuals whose lives got launched within lovely economic advantage. Both of them, as far as I can tell, are life-long elite."
An odd statement written by someone who was first in her class at NYU Law. That just didn't happen.
Same deal with Kavanaugh. He just didn't show up at GT Prep and Yale and excel. That is especially true in sports.
Althouse and Kavanaugh undoubtedly had some advantages but they didn't squander them. And grades surely weren't handed out based upon identity politics in law school.
My parents were non-union factory workers. My grandparents were subsistence farmers.
Both your feminism and the racism hysteria seem, from my vantage point, designed to make sure I never enjoy the advantages that spoiled rich white kids with rich parents received.
In a way, I'm happy with my background. I received a religious and moral education. I had to work from childhood and I wasn't showered with crap I hadn't earned. I haven't spent my life faking victimhood, like all the rich kids have been for the past 60 years.
I don't know what to do with my grandkids. They have way too much money, too much stuff and they probably won't work until after they graduate from college. I don't know how to shield them from this spoiled rich kid nonsense.
whatever happened between these 2 young people —
Why the casual assumption that anything happened between them? Kavanagh has explicitly and completely denied that anything happened between them.
This shouldn't be surprising, since black conservatives are also labeled as racist when they speak out.
The racial angle will be gone this afternoon, replaced by the gay angle. Then the transgender angle.
But maybe the GOP can have Tim Scott question Ford. He’s darker skinned than Harris and Spartacus.
Then we can talk about why Dems only vote for light skinned blacks for Senate and President.
I say "deeply" because — whatever happened between these 2 young people — we need to contemplate how the subordination of women can happen and the psychological burdens that arise out of the complexities of sex and the fear of violence.
Call it a soap opera hot button, so it would go on the shallow side, except that soap opera is deeply attractive to women.
That's something that should be important to their husbands, who in fact like caring about it, and may be the evolutionary reason that women developed soap opera instincts. They need a husband in order to have somebody care. Women become selective about mates. He's got to care, be a worthy man.
Alas, the husband has been replaced by men in general, and men in general have to care. They can't and they don't.
There's deep.
This is a despicable talking point, deliberately and eagerly inciting racial discord over something that isn't racial. Why not spend a little less time on this one news story and forefront some stories that really are about race? I'm sure we haven't run out of them.
The vast majority of the stories presented as racial because the people involved are of different races are also deliberately and eagerly inciting racial discord over something that isn't racial.
I reminder when the old White Guy Dem Senators yore inti the young black man nominee in 1991.
The optics weren’t good then either.
This is a despicable talking point, deliberately and eagerly inciting racial discord over something that isn't racial
You write like this is something new, and not the standard operating procedure from the Left for the last sixty years.
I was so poor that I had to work at $.80 an hour to pay for flying lessons.
The old White Man senators can ask Ford why she married a White Man.
"by any means necessary" --they meant it.
who is providing all the feces for this shit-show? All these 'isms' didnt inject themselves into the mix.
Name your oppressor.
Dr. Ford,
How many blacks were members of the Country Club you grew up at?
...we need to contemplate how the subordination of women can happen and the psychological burdens that arise out of the complexities of sex and the fear of violence.
I agree. As with most contemplation, it is best done in silence.
I had an old National HRO-50 as my first ham receiver. So old that to change bands, you had to pull out a coil and plug in a new one. Look it up on google images.
Poverty.
Dr Ford,
Why are your sons white?
If couse they are despicable - they are Democrats.
Meanwhile, stron and somewhat credible rumors are starting to percolate around Washington that this is case of mistaken identity by Ford. That would explain both Kavanaugh’s categorical denials (unusual for a great legal mind to leave absolutely no wiggle room if there as even a microcosm ofbtruth in the allegation), and her sudden reluctance to testify
Democrats have descended into madness. Trump triggered it by winning but it was always there, just below the surface.
The implication is that old white men can't help being old white men--there's no way they can achieve justice or objectivity, they're all caught up with their genitals, skin colour, and age. If other kinds of people find themselves in charge, are they going to be any better? Does a history of being a victim make one more just, more sweet, more humanitarian, or (to paraphrase Scott Adams) does it just feel that way? People who are angrily seeking revenge always feel that they are seeking some kind of sweet, cool justice--not like those other bastards. But maybe the best we can hope for is one selfish vicious group taking over from another? Maybe the closest we can come to justice is different vicious groups taking turns giving each other the total shaft?
It's not madness, it's soap opera.
Dr. Ford,
Why did you hire a White Lawyer?
The Democrats believe the quickest route to power is to toxify people of certain races, sexes and ages —everything they say they stand against — and then attack those within that group they oppose politically.
Even if equal treatment causes them to loose a few of their own, they believe they can win that war of attrition.
It's all about keeping the black voters on the Plantation. To the extent the black voters escape alive , the Dems become desperate to motor voter register illegal immigrants to vote. Watching the eminent Dem Senators lie about this charade to smear the GOP as mysoganists is Three Stooges level funny. At last humor has been returned to politics of Kill The Trump before we all go to jail.
Dr. Ford,
Why did Kamala Harris marry a White Man?
Women never were, and are not now, subordinate in the U.S.
You were never subordinate to anybody, professor. You're simply lying about that.
Dr. Ford,
Why did Joy Behar marry a White Man?
"whatever happened between these 2 young people"
Assuming that anything happened is giving a malicious accuser the benefit of the doubt.
"we need to contemplate how the subordination of women can happen and the psychological burdens that arise out of the complexities of sex and the fear of violence."
We always "need to contemplate how the subordination of women can happen," don't we, but right now the issue is the vicious partisan attack on a solid nominee.
"the serious questions are getting appropriated and exploited for political power."
The most serious question is whether the Althouses of the world, voters in the middle, will call BS on the Dems. So far, the answer seems to be no.
"I'd like feminism to operate independently: I'm a believer in the separation of feminism from partisan politics."
Trolling or lack of self-awareness? We all have our blind spots, but still.
I'll bet the alumni magazines for both of the schools tout their diversity and wokeness at every opportunity.
What kind of parents send their kid to board at a school just a few miles away, besides Al Gore's?
Why not spend a little less time on this one news story and forefront some stories that really are about race?
Why not? Because Progressives are crazy with desperation over Kavanaugh. The Supreme Court is their “holy of holies” and has been their one path to lasting power. Until now. They are losing control. The long lasting effects of this loss are starting to dawn on these idiots and they are lashing out irrationally.
Desperation explains a lot of what we are witnessing.
The most likely (based on evidence) “whatever” that happened between them is absolutely nothing. As far as I can tell there is no evidence that they’ve ever even been in the same room together. Is it possible that 2 teenagers living in the same town going to different schools crossed paths at some point? Of course. An accusation (let alone such a vague accusation) is not evidence.
I feel bad for the accuser in this case, because it’s possible that she does in fact suffer from a very fragile emotional constitution.
One thing is certain, based on evidence, which is that the political community from which she hails is more than willing to exploit her desire to further its agenda. Any real, or imagined psychological trauma that she may have experienced in the past will pale in comparison to what she is currently experiencing.
High School. Fake memory of "he almost killed me!"
In these cases "White" is not used to make a racial distinction, but as an epithet, one of the few that is still permissible in our enlightened age.
No, we don't need to consider how the "subordination of women can happen." We need to consider whether a crime was committed and prosecute the offender if justified. De jure subordination of women ended in this country a long time ago. De facto subordination, to the extent it still occurs, is inconvenient, humiliating and sometimes can threaten the livelihood of innocent women. For the most part there are remedies for those wrongs. Anything worse is likely to be criminal and dealt with as such. Until and unless "feminists" publicly, loudly and unequivocally denounce the treatment of women in non-western societies, Islamic ones in particular, there is no cause to complain about "subordination of women" in the U.S.
"Feminism" in its current form is not independent of partisan politics. The world will not arrange itself to conform to the opposite belief. Bill Clinton earned "one free grope" while in office. Brett Kavanaugh may be derailed by an unprovable accusation. "Feminism" is presently nothing but partisan politics; there are too many examples to list.
What Lloyd W Robertson said. But that insight screams that we protect the right to trial by jury. The Jury panel and a good trial lawyer is the last great hope for civil sanity. They are honest and smart , despite smears so often directed at them.
You have to understand intersectionality. The Left decomposes society into a zillion different victim groups based on multiple permutations of markers of victimization--race, sex, sexual preference, obesity, disability, and a lot of other things. But then for political purposes all those victim groups and sub-groups get rolled up into one mega-group that is opposed to the remaining victimizer group which would be, in general, middle-aged, not-disabled cis-gender white males who are not poor.
Behar throwing in "old" is a bit confusing, but when you are talking about white cisgendered males in positions of power, age doesn't count.
You're one of the richest, most privileged white women to ever walk the earth, Althouse.
This lying about the oppression and subordination of women that you do it appalling.
Do you have any shame at all? Your lying is disgraceful. And it's not a small lie.
Ford has been represented by two different white female lawyers.
How many can she afford?
Who is paying those bills?
I say an investigation of Fusion GPS is required.
Subpoena the business records.
You have to understand intersectionality. The Left decomposes society into a zillion different victim groups based on multiple permutations of markers of victimization--race, sex, sexual preference, obesity, disability, and a lot of other things. But then for political purposes all those victim groups and sub-groups get rolled up into one mega-group that is opposed to the remaining victimizer group which would be, in general, middle-aged, not-disabled cis-gender white males who are not poor.
Behar throwing in "old" is a bit confusing, but when you are talking about white cisgendered males in positions of power, age doesn't count.
Birkel
Brian Fallon (ex-HRC press hack) has formed an organization with $5m from Soros and others. That's how Wisconsin Law alum Katz is getting paid.
Just wait until Monday and the guy who really did it testifies. The greatest Perry Mason moment ever!
Someone needs to search the Landon School yearbooks and start looking.
In Lukanioff/Haidt's new book (Coddling of the American Mind, which I believe Prof. Althouse is reading), the authors talk about different ways identity groups can organize.
One way - the traditional one, practiced by great leaders - is to stress the common humanity of all people, and appeal to the best and highest instincts of those they wish to persuade.
The other is to unite against a "common enemy" (IOW, "you and I are on the same team, but those other people are EVIL INCARNATE, and must be crushed before they destroy the planet).
Hard to think of a better framework for understanding appeals like Behar's and those in the press who are - to borrow their own description - racializing a conflict between two white people.
I've been pretty dismayed by some of the hostility expressed towards women here in the comments. It's hardly unique to this commentariat. At the same time, I do understand where a lot of it comes from. There is a strain of feminism that seeks to unite women by demonizing men. That sadly (and predictably) provokes a social backlash that seeks to rally/unite men by demonizing women.
Neither tactic seems likely to improve matters. We're in this together, like it or not (I happen to like it very much because I like men and value their contributions to the world we live in). Watching all of this idiocy, I find myself wanting to scream, "Jeez. Stop making things worse."
“This is a despicable talking point,”
Well, sure. But it also suggests that Democrats are throwing in the towel on blocking Kavanaugh. This is political gleaning, and it’s pretty tired, and possibly counterproductive, stuff.
Any weapon to hand. I sometimes fear that we cannot have a functioning Democracy until Democrats are swept aside.
We need another party. Is there anyone on the left who stands for something other than raw will to power? I bet they exist, even if there are currently too few of them to mount a campaign.
Cassandra:
Yeah, after black v. white didn't work it's back to grade school with boys v. girls.
Racializing - effective noun verbing.
Has any evidence been brought forward that Kavanaugh and Ford knew each other in high school? What evidence do we have that this isn't a simple case of mistaken identity?
That is, maybe they're both telling the truth, but Ford has fingered the wrong guy.
rhhardin said...
"I'd like a story about the average American black IQ being 86"
"I'd like a story about white men and rape and murder throughout American history."
rhhardin keeps harping on this IQ topic - a Charles Murray fan no doubt - reminding me of the history of white men and eugenics, and scientific racism, and all the rest. You'd think they'd try to separate themselves, but the insecurity behind racial superiority (are you being superseded by imbeciles? How is that happening if you're so smart?) renders them helpless to their worst impulses.
Just horrible people.
I've been pretty dismayed by some of the hostility expressed towards women here in the comments.
There you go, repeating Althouse's oft repeated lie, that recognizing the stupidity and fakery of Marxist feminism is expressing hostility toward women.
You're a liar too. I stopped falling for this con game a long time ago.
Try on somebody who gives a shit.
White grrl proggy l1th hour liar has an army of white apologists like white white white proggy Joy Behar.
An example of Sailer's "rule by actresses".
The actresses include "MSNBC and CNN anchors and reporters"
Joy Behar is very white .
This is a despicable talking point,
I think it's a great talking point since it shows exactly who they are and what they stand for. The left believes arguments are ranked according to the speakers' place in the victim hierarchy rather than on the argument's accuracy, logical basis, and consistency with known facts.
We see this constantly as in "men need to shut up".
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/09/18/sen_hirono_on_kavanaugh_men_need_to_shut_up_accuser_needs_to_be_believed_and_i_believe_her.html
Dave Begley,
I think the former Di "Chi Spy" Fi former staffer who raised $50 million for Fusion GPS is a likelier funding source.
Investigate!
This lie that Althouse repeats constantly, that rejection her feminist ideology represents hostility toward women as a whole, is the concrete proof that she's a Marxist feminist.
This tactic is one of the oldest tactics in the Marxist playbook.
If you don't shed a tear over "oppressed" class X, then you despise all members of class X.
Althouse runs this Marxist con daily.
It was the early 80's. To drag in sex when many of the girls were drinking and screwing around with partners numbering in the dozens is probably not a good idea.
I don't think it's a deliberate attempt to bring in race: it's just that "white men" is such pejorative set-phrase in their circles that it never even occurs to them to take out the part that isn't relevant. It'd be like mentioning a kaboodle and leaving out the kit.
When white men act like "white" men, here, there may have to be a distinction made between them and rational folks. Like the slow kids in school who had to ride on the little yellow school bus. Blacks and women have worked together against them from the start.
Calling them out, like we do racist Southerners, has probably - finally - come into fashion. I mean, why leave me at their mercy, when they don't have none?
Call them out for who they are. They're not Americans. Or, they're not trying to be, anyway.
The whatever that happened between these 2 young people is very simple, very easy to understand, and the vast majority of people in America understand it.
Absolutely nothing.
Her story is nothing but a lie from beginning to end. It's simple and easy to understand.
What is really the purpose of Althouse's daily lying about oppression and subordination?
She's a drama queen who, like all the other rich kids, compete for attention and perks by pretending to be a victim.
Fuck this shit, Althouse. I got so sick of your lying and pretending and fakery that I stopped reading your blog and commenting on it for 3 years.
You're a decent legal commenter when you aren't lying and pretending that you have some sort of bitch.
You're just an awful person when you play out this stupid shit.
rhhardin keeps harping on this IQ topic - a Charles Murray fan no doubt - reminding me of the history of white men and eugenics, and scientific racism, and all the rest. You'd think they'd try to separate themselves, but the insecurity behind racial superiority (are you being superseded by imbeciles? How is that happening if you're so smart?) renders them helpless to their worst impulses.
East Asians are smarter than whites on the same tests.
The high school acquaintance of Ford and Judge also brought up the whiteness of everybody at the schools.
White liberals are obsessed with whiteness.
I continue to be mystified by how anyone, of any political suasion can say they believe they know what happened between Ford and Kavanaugh. Yet turn on the radio or TV and supposedly sophisticated people state with certainty who they believe.
Even a cursory review of the known knowns and known unknowns should tell anyone with a working intellect that this shit show has zero resolution right now.
Idiots like Behar are so stuck in the "blacks are good/whites are bad" mindset that they now just reflexively mention it even if it has no reason to be stated.
"This is a despicable talking point, deliberately and eagerly inciting racial discord over something that isn't racial."
Hey - "White" men have certain attitudes that they refuse to stop forcing on others - and they need to hear it, and know we see it, and won't kowtow to it, and they won't profit from holding them. Malcolm used to say they're scared of being treated the same way they treated blacks - they're making it impossible to think of doing otherwise.
No one else should shoulder the blame for the evil the bring on themselves.
The uncomfortable truth is that without old white men to moderate the game, women, of any color, end up with jackshit. Your own life is a testament to this, Althouse.
A subtext here is that black men are more compassionate, hence more of them agree with us.
And the few who dare not to agree with us are sick and demented racial sell-outs anyway.
The first three paragraphs of this post assume moral equivalency:
"I think we've got a confrontation between 2 individuals..."
"...whatever happened between these 2 young people..."
"I say "shallowly" because there is a political, partisan game going on..."
A confrontation? Ford accused Kavanaugh, and is now declining to back it up.
Whatever happened" Phrased that way, it assumes something happened between them.
There is a political, partisan game" All the gamesmanship has been by Feinstein and (likely" by Ford.
Anne's feminism is dragging her into the mud. It's charming that she says she's resisting, and believes there is a difference between feminism and Marxism, but there isn't. If your core identity is handed to you, all is determined, and determinism.
It's all despicable.
@Crack
Althouse and rich white women like her are your enemies, not white people in general.
She and her comrades stole the political movement and the money that was intended to go to you and blacks like you.
Because they wanted attention and money. When I was young, the rich girls shook their tits and asses at their rich daddies and boyfriends and shed a tear while they complained about oppression.
Fools that they are for T&A, their daddies and boyfriends gave them everything they asked for. And those women are still bitching for more. And they are still stealing from you.
Althouse is not your friend. She throws you a bone every once in a while to prove she's hip.
rhhardin said...
"East Asians are smarter than whites on the same tests."
Yeah, but only racists are concerned about it.
What we have here is the fact that the accuser ran away before Kavanaugh got his pants off so she cannot testify to a peculiar shape of his erect penis that the Senators could then compare to Brett's erect penis on National TV. The Days of Our Lives. That scene would re-run for months on CNN with Anderson Cooper and Don Lemon drooling.
But The Runaway Accuser has runaway again.
The Dems are merely upholding the Constitution. You know, the amendment that reads:
"The right of the people to a show trial, shall not be infringed."
IQ, so you have the same data I do,
average iq by country
another pdf
Idiots like Behar are so stuck in the "blacks are good/whites are bad" mindset that they now just reflexively mention it even if it has no reason to be stated.
See "Serena Williams at the U.S. Open"
This is going to be scattershot (sorry - need to get back to work) but...
Yeah, after black v. white didn't work it's back to grade school with boys v. girls.
Point at the worst actors on the side you oppose and then paint [insert fraction here] of humanity with that very broad (pun fully intended :p) brush! Everyone's trying to get a big enough team to defeat the other side, but they end up creating splinter groups whose main effect is to irritate and inflame.
To Cracker's point, you don't get taller or smarter by trying to stand on someone else's shoulders.
ST - Make the argument on the merits, and if you wish to communicate clearly, start your sentence with "Marxist feminists..." rather than "Women". People don't have time to dissect general comments about "women" to figure out that the speaker actually didn't mean "all women", but only "Marxist feminists (which necessarily includes men as well as people who self-identify as terribly confused).
Sounds like we need an acronym. May I suggest "MFWNIMAWAPWSATC"?
I caught the same yesterday as I was in out of my truck, as I made sales calls. Noticed the shift of debate from that very thin facts of this case, to the "old white men". Somehow being unqualified to hold the positions the electorate placed them in (FUCK DEMOCRACY!) The media is now talking about anything, but the facts. But, I ask our hostess. Does this warrant the 'diversity bullshit' tag? I constantly hear this election cycle that more women are running for office, like somehow their chromosomes offer some special elixirs that will render their decisions superior to those of men, Iowa elected their first woman to Senate. (the one that ran an ad, offering to bring her castration skills she learned on the farm, to DC) According to the local media, her being female was a bug, not a feature. Supporting, surprisingly, a soon to be 'old white guy'. So once again, the left cares not for women in politics, they care about leftist in politics and will accept even women.
But I have to take exception with one other thing
I say "deeply" because — whatever happened between these 2 young people
Bret Kavanaugh, has stated unequivocally, that he has never done anything like the described events, to Ford, in fact, has never treated any other woman, ever, in the manner described by Ford.
Stop giving the accuser the benefit to the doubt, While ignoring the accused the presumption of innocence.
(as I finish posting this, Dershowitz is on FOX. His leading comment is exactly this point, the smear of assuming there exist a perpetrator and a victim. Today there is neither.
"we need to contemplate how the subordination of women can happen and the psychological burdens that arise out of the complexities of sex and the fear of violence."
"We" do? Can you make a case that women are, in fact, "subordinated"? And are the burdens that arise out of sex uniquely complex to women?
It is at least true that the average man has significantly more upper-body strength than the average woman. The traditional approach to that biological reality was to socialize men to never hit women, and to socialize women that they could hit men should they feel the need to do so (and without fear that the man would respond to being hit with violence).
Of course, the traditional socialization was imperfect; isn't everything? And (in no small part due to feminism) traditional gendered socializations have mostly been discarded, especially among those professing feminism progressivism. Leaving us, perhaps, with law and legaism as a substitute for internal controls.
BUT, what does this have to do with Brett Kavanaugh and his accuser? Must every accusation (no matter how flimsy) be an occasion for "teachable moments" in which some presume the role of teachers, and others are to submit to instruction?
Anita Hill all but launched the corporate "harassment training" racket, as corporate managements desperately sought safe harbors. With the result that millions of men got lectured-to by self-important "trainers" in an environment in which expressing any dissent from orthodoxy was prohibited. And what, exactly, was achieved by this multi-million dollar expenditure? Men learned to keep their heads down (low profile), but, does anyone think any hearts and minds were changed by this petty bullying?
Perhaps "we" might contemplate whether we wish to live in a world in which even the most evidence-free accusation can produce severe consequences for the target, and thus a world in which preemptive political denunciations are routine?
"East Asians are smarter than whites on the same tests."
Yeah, but only racists are concerned about it.
Actually, that's correct, but without the ill will component attributed to racist. Quite the opposite.
The outcome based tests of discrimination serve to make race relations worse because of the IQ problem, so the IQ problem comes up where it would not have otherwise.
Whites are being helpful and encouraging to blacks; blacks tail the lieutenant's test at a higher rate than whites; blacks are told this is because whites are discriminating against them; white say what the fuck we are not. And nobody cares about the other group any longer, where good will had been the previous force.
So, the IQ data says, don't use outcome based discrimination tests so that it doesn't come up, because you can't fix that.
What you can fix is good character. Good character makes you valuable.
Ford is one twentieth Cherokee.
re vagueness -
How is Blasey vs Kavanaugh different from Musk vs British cave rescuer guy
It's the same old intersectionality of the Symbionese Liberation Army.
Shouting Thomas said...
"Althouse and rich white women like her are your enemies, not white people in general."
So says the man who was dissing me and blacks YESTERDAY.
"She and her comrades stole the political movement and the money that was intended to go to you and blacks like you."
I got that, but you didn't want any of us to have anything - then or now - so you're worse.
"Because they wanted attention and money. When I was young, the rich girls shook their tits and asses at their rich daddies and boyfriends and shed a tear while they complained about oppression."
That's cool: black men like A) tits B) asses C) rich daddies, and D) tears about oppression. Not always in that order.
"Fools that they are for T&A, their daddies and boyfriends gave them everything they asked for. And those women are still bitching for more. And they are still stealing from you."
This is like reparations, except - unlike "white" men - I'm not pissed about it or thinking it comes directly out of my pocket.
"Althouse is not your friend. She throws you a bone every once in a while to prove she's hip."
Shouting Thomas, What is hip? Tell me, tell me, if you think YOU know.
Behar is a grumpy old white woman.
Amazing comment considering ALL of the Senators opposing Clarence Thomas were "old white men"!!!
Blogger Gahrie said...
whatever happened between these 2 young people —
Why the casual assumption that anything happened between them? Kavanagh has explicitly and completely denied that anything happened between them.
I’m troubled by this too, as well as the rest of the statement:
— we need to contemplate how the subordination of women can happen and the psychological burdens that arise out of the complexities of sex and the fear of violence.
This is what seems to me a root problem of feminist politics....demanding that the legal and political systems provide redress for the inability of many women to psychologically adjust to biological realities of their gender. We must provide abortion on demand because it’s unfair that women have to weigh the potential consequence of pregnancy whenever they have sex. We must abdicate the norms of “innocent until proven guilty” in sexual assault allegations because women fear sexual violence.
In the past, these issues were properly handled with social and cultural norms-chivalry, stigma against sex outside marriage, etc. There were problems with that system but the problems with the new paradigm of expecting the law to even out the biological disparities between men and women are far worse IMO.
Really this is a fault of all progressive politics (stemming I think from the idea of positive rights) but it manifests in these particular ways in feminism.
PackerBronco said...
"Idiots like Behar are so stuck in the "blacks are good/whites are bad" mindset that they now just reflexively mention it even if it has no reason to be stated."
"White" men are so determined to act like a historical drama isn't unfolding, they can't understand anything that's happening, is a better way to put it.
Everyone knows we're an emerging people, but "white" men, who seem to think we're just a target for ridicule for not doing as well as them - yet.
Just horrible people.
I got that, but you didn't want any of us to have anything - then or now - so you're worse.
I'm an honest competitor, Crack. No, I don't intend to give you anything, nor do I pretend that I want to.
I'm fighting over the money and pussy honestly. If I can beat you, I will.
You have to get for yourself. Whether or not you can manage that is up to you. I'm not here to kiss your ass or to fix you.
was all that "Sexual Revolution" business a giant sting operation?
because we're all #PrudesNow...or rapists.
This sounds like concern trolling. Who cares about these calls to "civility"? Who envisions oneself as an impartial referee, calling the plays here?
Clearly, this is a message (when a woman confronts a bunch of old white men, the woman is courageous and is right) that resonates with the Democrat base and is seen as obvious by most of them. If it is working, who can argue with that? Are some things (like "racializing" the issue) just beyond the pale? Should we reach for the smelling salts?
The Democrat coalition is very diverse, but not completely cohesive, and everyone is working his or her angle. Why should people of color feel left out of the story?
Or is this what this blog post is about, not letting those other coalition members impinge on the white women's turf?
As perverse as it may sound, defeating Kavanaugh by any means necessary is clearly better for US black people (at least in the short and medium term) than allowing him to be confirmed. If they manage to stall this nomination enough to get a Democrat judge instead and/or a Democrat House majority, isn't this more advantageous than publicizing even a thousand instances of racial discrimination against black people?
Besides, they can always pretend that they didn't say that, next time when it comes to admonishing the Republicans for their inappropriate behavior. Using race "inappropriately" does not pose any threat to the US standards of public discourse, because no such standards exist.
Winning justifies many things. Let them win first, then worry about proprieties later. If they lose because they refrain from using racial tactics, where is the consolation in that?
When did we decide Cuban-Americans (Ted Cruz) are white? I agree that many are, as are many other Hispanics, but I wasn't aware that this was decided.
Does this rule only apply to conservative Cuban-Americans like Cruz or Marco Rubio or is Bob Menendez also white?
we need to contemplate
No we don't.
how the subordination of women can happen
Perhaps the glorification of this obscure woman is worthy of contemplation ...because it actually happened, unlike the imaginary subordination.
and the psychological burdens that arise out of the complexities of sex and the fear of violence.
LOL.
"Women are not hotheads, freaking out about rape, attempted rape, and the burdens of avoiding rape."
So, which is it?
Like the Unabomber said, "Eat your cake and have it too".
Ford is one twentieth Cherokee.
My Jeep is 100% Cherokee because it's not a Ford.
Closing in on the closing of this, alleged, issue. And accelerating.
-sw
fear of violence
It's a real thing. Because when a man gets hold of you, you don't know if he's going to rape and kill you, or *just* rape you...don't ask me how I know.
That said, I don't think I would have been so worried about the murder part, at a house party, with people I knew. If this ever really happened.
Jesus H. Christ! Subordination of women? In this United States? In this century?
You must be out of your damned mind. That's the only thing I can think at this point. Just the fact that women in this country are concerned with microaggressions ought to be a clue.
Believe it or not, most woman have long ago grown a pair and are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves and others without this enormous stupidity of the woman's movement.
I apologize for my tone. I am fed up with all this childishness and the victim olympics. I do not, however, apologize for knowing full well that women don't need this bullshit.
Speaking of The View, can Chunky McCain come back to the show already? I never thought I would miss her, but compared to the Huntsman ditz, she is Barry Goldwater. I don't think she would have let Behar get away with her libelous rhetoric without comment.
Gahrie is exactly right. It’s very possible nothing at all happened between these two.
Ann why did you assume something did?
If old white men shouldn’t ask questions in a venue where they are supposed to ask questions, why should the old white woman Joy get to spout her opinion on the subject? I suppose she’d say because she is a woman. That being the case, then being old and white is not the problem, but gender is the issue. Dosen’t Joy believe in equal rights?
Speaking as an old white woman, I believe Ms. Ford is making a mountain out of a mole hill if her description of what happened truly occurred. From what I’ve read, at worst she was groped at a teenage party 35 + years ago and did not feel the need to confide in anyone about the incident for 30+ years. When casting about for reasons for issues in her marriage, she brought the incident up as some sort of explaintion for her feelings or behavior during marriage counseling.
I think Ms. Ford she was playing the victim card in her counseling session with her story and is playing the ultimate victim card now with her “# me too” moment of sacrifice and glory for the greater good for all womankind.
So, which is it?
This isn't hard. Contemplation is not freaking out.
Funny to watch all the freaking out that happens when Althouse mentions something to contemplate.
I can understand the discord. We have a specific situation involving an accusation made by a woman against a man that should be resolved if possible as a matter of fact. The way people react to that accusation is tied to much bigger issues. It make sense to understand those bigger cultural and historical issues to understand all the different reactions to the controversy.
However, to roll this specific accusation into a snowball of bigger issues trivializes the singular question of guilt and innocence. And that does seem objectionable.
I haven't seen Chuck/Drago comment in this kerfuffle. I hope he isn't ill.
Is now a good time to list drama queens in this saga? I'll start: Chuck Schumer.
-sw
What do you mean, "happened between these two young people"? Kavanaugh says nothing happened and he doesn't even know her. You are assuming, Dr. Althouse, that something did happen. That hasn't been proven. Considering the complainant's leftist credentials, and the timing of this hit job, I come down on the side that her story is fake. I'll give Kavanaugh the benefit of the doubt and, besides that, I believe him, not her.
I can't think of a more effective publicity campaign for the "alt right" or "white nationalists" etc. than the relentless mainstream demonization of white men.
Combine that with Identity Politics, in which everything must be racialized, and the growth of these movements seems inevitable, perhaps unavoidable. With that growth, of course, further fueling the politics that fuels the growth.
America's semiquincentennial in 2026 is going to be n ugly affair.
"The woman is white, and white men have been defending white women for a good long time, often to the disadvantage of black men."
I don't understand the statement above. Does anyone have an example?
Ann: ...whatever happened between these 2 young people — we need to contemplate how the subordination of women can happen and the psychological burdens that arise out of the complexities of sex and the fear of violence.
My sense is that the world is complex and challenging enough without having "the system" try to correct for all kinds of accidents of birth and genetics and culture and the natural variations in people's emotional resilience, strength, or intelligence. We can't have different rules for each micro-identity group. Recognizing on an individual level that men and women experience life differently is a separate matter.
I've been re-reading Sowell's Cosmic Justice. I think he does a great job of teasing out the flaws in conflating empathy and the understandable wish that the world were a "fairer" place in terms of outcomes with procedural "justice":
A "fair fight" is one in which both combatants observe the rules, regardless of whether that leads to a draw or to a one-sided beating. Applying the same rules of baseball to all meant that Mark McGwire hit seventy home runs while some other players hit less than ten. The "career open to talents" or "a level playing field" usually means that everyone plays by the same rules and is judged by the same standards. Again, if the process itself meets that standard, then no matter what the outcome, "you had your chance." But this is not what is meant by those people who speak of "social justice." In fact, rules and standards equally applicable to all are often deliberately set aside in pursuit of "social justice." Nor are such exceptions aberrations. The two concepts are mutually incompatible.
What "social justice" seeks to do is to eliminate undeserved disadvantages for selected groups. ...this is often done in disregard of the costs of this to other individuals or groups—or even to the requirements of society as a whole. When one considers a society such as Sri Lanka, where group preferences initiated in the 1950s led to decades of internal strife, escalating into bitter civil war with many atrocities, it is not purely fanciful to consider that other societies may become more polarized and contentious—to everyone’s ultimate detriment—by similar schemes of preferential treatment for one segment of society.
So far, this hasn't been a "fair fight" in terms of process. The world's not a "fair place" in terms of outcomes either, but striving for a fair process - one that treats everyone the same - is the best shot we've got. When you start perverting the process because "she's a girl, and somehow we need to be uniquely sensitive to her pain", I have a problem with that.
Althouse, van ShoutingThomas. He’s a pox.
Kinda sad that people associated with "law" should even think that Kavanaugh is guilty immediately once an accusation is made. Doesn't he have any rights to a fair trial? Since when does someone accused of anything need to prove their innocence? Shame on everyone calling themselves lawyers for having that attitude.
Tommy Duncan said...
"The woman is white, and white men have been defending white women for a good long time, often to the disadvantage of black men."
I don't understand the statement above. Does anyone have an example?
I think Emmett Till is a pretty good example of what she meant.
"Althouse and Kavanaugh undoubtedly had some advantages but they didn't squander them. And grades surely weren't handed out based upon identity politics in law school."
Back then.
I'd like a story about the average American black IQ being 86 and what strategy might make it a non-problem, like going for good character. Then blacks are just normal Americans.
9/20/18, 8:21 AM
Isn't it nice to have a racist comment first thing in the morning? It goes good with my morning coffee. Black, of course.
I see a lot have people have commented on the "I say "deeply" because — whatever happened between these 2 young people — we need to contemplate how the subordination of women can happen and the psychological burdens that arise out of the complexities of sex and the fear of violence" quote.
I understand Althouse's argument, but I believe it also undermines her point: this woman's story is the one to hold up as an example of "the subordination of women" and the "complexities of sex and the fear of violence"? This is the story to place your own intellectual integrity on?
If we are to follow this reasoning, we must then agree that an elite white woman of privilege telling a thirty-year-old story with no substantiation -- and no questioning allowed -- is representative of "the subordination of women" and the "complexities of sex and the fear of violence".
We must accept that the accusation means something deep by simply existing; we must accept that legal concepts of reasonable doubt et all are to be discarded by the penumbra of subordination, complexities and fear.
If this woman IS a true representative of these things, then one must consider that feminism has overshot the mark.
I first believed that Althouse was being disingenuous with such comments -- that there was a schism between feminism and law that she was struggling to reconcile; I will now accept her as truly believing this woman is a worthy representative of the causes of women everywhere.
That she does not suspect an earthquake to happen as the two tectonic plates of boutique feminism for women and due process-for-all grind beneath her feet is not being obtuse, but accepting broken eggs for intellectual omelettes. And, like with many earthquakes, it is not the earthquake itself that may cause the most damage: the earthquake's damage is multiplied by the aftershocks that follow.
I am Laslo.
I’m sorry, your rape card is maxed out.
I’m afraid that race card, unfortunately, wont work here.
Do you have any good will, trust...respect for rules built up?
I see, I see.
Well, there’s not much I can do for ya here I’m afraid...
I’m going to ask you to stop swearing at me.
Okay. now I’m going to terminate this interaction.
I do understand you’re very powerful...very powerful.....Of course. Just as a reminder if you do decide to come back, there is security here.
I do see your ‘security’ waiting outside and it’s apears to be a bunch of Socialists, so....
I think there are two very interesting questions for Althouse to answer -
1) WHY do you think it is important to contemplate the subordination of women, here in America in 2018?
2) WHEN in your life did you personally feel subordinated because you are a woman?
Those would be interesting
I would not have sex with Joy Behar.
Anne's feminism is dragging her into the mud. It's charming that she says she's resisting, and believes there is a difference between feminism and Marxism, but there isn't. If your core identity is handed to you, all is determined, and determinism.
Yes, I have to agree. American women have been privileged for 50 years. A group of Marxist women like Freidan, convinced themselves that marriage and children were slavery. I remember when it happened. My wife and I socialized with another young couple when I was a medical student. They had no children and were struggling along like we were. Then the other woman read "The Feminine Mystique" and convinced herself she was oppressed.
In 1957, Friedan was asked to conduct a survey of her former Smith College classmates for their 15th anniversary reunion; the results, in which she found that many of them were unhappy with their lives as housewives, prompted her to begin research for The Feminine Mystique, conducting interviews with other suburban housewives,
Smith college became Lesbian U not long after this.
The other couple split up and Jerry, the husband later remarried. The ex-wife moved to San Francisco, went to law school and bragged about her sexual affairs. She never married again and I don't know what became of her.
The book came out in 1963 and all hell broke loose with American women, mostly those raised by prosperous parents who could send them to college. Like Blasey.
Look at the year books.
"Partied with London prep and Georgetown prep."
What's crazy is that you rarely, if ever, hear a substantive critique of Kavanaugh. Anything like "I didn't like his decision over in this case" or simply an honest "I don't care for his politics" would be preferable to a smear or this bizarre addition of race into the mix. Are there any Dems who argue rationally or is just going to be hysteria 24/7? If can't reason with someone you are left with few good choices. I can't imagine what it's like to be in Senate fighting this for a living.
The Law of the Soggy Potato Chip
Why does that come to mind whenever Crack posts a comment?
In intersectionality, women are honorary people of color because they are oppressed.
Isn't it nice to have a racist comment first thing in the morning? It goes good with my morning coffee. Black, of course.
It is in fact racist, in the sense of believing that there are differences between races. Call it biologism to get rid of the ill-will components that are used to suppress the discussion by intimidation.
If racial differences interacting with policy produce racial animosity, a discussion of the solution will include noticing the differences.
Sex and chauvinism should not mix.
That said, it's all diversity. Racism, sexism, congruence, Choice, elitism, etc. is all diversity or color judgments.
Well said, Laslo, as always!
BTW, I well remember when, if a fight broke out that involved both blacks and whites, the media called it a race riot, even if it had nothing to do with race. I worked briefly for a newspaper and once asked the editor, who was white, if he knew any black people personally. He looked a little stunned.
the gay angle. Then the transgender angle.
LGBTQ... the transgender spectrum, separate and "=".
Althouse wrote. "whatever happened between these 2 young people"
Better than nothing is a high standard. I'm going with nothing.
If a few nice guys had properly grabbed Dr. Crasey Ford by the pussy now and then (assuming she let them), we wouldn't be in this mess!
Now, we have 50-year old, Crazy, woke, psycho-babble, Cat woman on the prowl.
How many cats do you think she has? I'm betting the over/under is 4.
women are honorary people of color because they are oppressed
Female (sex) and feminine (gender) are diversity classes. A way to color individuals and rationalize discrimination in blocs.
Men and women are equal in rights and complementary in Nature.
In terms of what what is documented, there was a likely embarrassing and angering foreclosure situation..and a subsequent embrace/activism on the Left...Kavanaugh being their political pinata du jour.
It's not good optics to bring up race when you're participating in a Lynch Mob, even if no actual black people are involved.
Those on the left always have a fixation on race, sex, gender, class, immigration, or any other status that may be perceived as being victimhood.
@Crack Emcee - Crack, I am really glad you came back. Keep emerging! You are doing a swell job! You should recognize that there is a race-neutral conservative position - “do what you want, as long as I don’t have to pay for it”
Are there any Dems who argue rationally or is just going to be hysteria 24/7?
We know that without asking. I assume your question was rhetorical.
@ Crack - and yes, some of my ancestors were slave-holders! But so what, some of yours were also. ))
Blasey Ford is just an alcoholic STD vector who is trying pass her shame off onto a man. She's a psychologist, and almost nobody goes into that field unless he or she is mathematically eliminated from an actual scientific or professional field, and they're notorious for being almost, if not actually, as mentally unstable as those they supposedly help.
More of that civility:
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/09/20/cnns-ana-navarro-kavanaugh-allegations-will-be-in-his-obituary-huge-black-cloud/
Paul Zrimsek is right. White male is the go to derogative (by intent I mean). They just trot it out unthinking.
there was a likely embarrassing and angering foreclosure situation..and a subsequent embrace/activism on the Left...Kavanaugh being their political pinata du jour
Retributive change? I wonder if this is where her recovered memory originates. It would explain her internally, externally, and mutually inconsistent knowledge and penumbric references to fill in the gaps between missing links.
Deliberately misreading:
http://dailycaller.com/2018/09/20/huffington-post-kavanaugh-sexist-clerks
For them, this isn't a distraction from or misdirection from the point. For them, this is the point. It's the whole reason they oppose the nomination to begin with.
After multiple high profile false accusations, cruel neutrality demands a presumptive contemplation..
Im bwtting constantly treating all white men as a problem cannot POSSIBLY backfire.
I think this is generally called "Identity politics" and I think it's been going on for quite a while.
"The subordination of women" could mean all sorts of things:
1. The tendency of women to defer to others/seek approval/avoid conflict more than men do, and whether that's nature, nurture, or both.
2. That many/most women still don't make stereotypically "male" choices in life (and thus, we continue to see different outcomes for women professionally especially in cultures where they feel more free to choose for themselves!).
3. That biology gets in the way of women going to school, or having careers, sometimes. OK, biology confers advantages and disadvantages on us all - see: the military draft, male lifespans, etc.
4. Different expectations for men/women re: sexual behavior/promiscuity/assertiveness.
The law isn't ever going to be able to "fix" these things. Figure out what you want and go for it, taking into account whatever advantages/disadvantages nature or chance have handed you. Make what you have work for you.
I just don't understand the notion that women should be a protected class who are granted special consideration because... life's unfair! It cuts against the notion that women "are too" just as capable as men, on average.
How did Althouse find a way to absolve Ford of any agency?
She was out drinking to blackout and screwing a different man every night in high school.
I doubt she even remembers most of them.
And Ford is a rich, spoiled, white prep school kid.
How is this a feminist issue? It isn't. It's a moral issue.
I’ll tell ya who’s hip. The Pinebox Dwellers. That’s who’s hip.
I gotta say that whole “confrontation” reference is a big own goal.
Cassandra suggests: The law isn't ever going to be able to "fix" these things. Figure out what you want and go for it, taking into account whatever advantages/disadvantages nature or chance have handed you. Make what you have work for you.
Yes. And quit whining!!!
Althouse wrote: “... we need to contemplate how the subordination of women can happen and the psychological burdens that arise out of the complexities of sex and the fear of violence.”
“Subordination” is in the eye of the beholder, isn’t it? If it means not getting to do what you want, we are all subordinated. For example, I didn’t necessarily want my career choices partially determined by the need to support three children, but tradition and upbringing decreed....
As for the fear of violence, modern feminists depend on the forbearance of the males they are trying to feminize and on the good will of those for whom protection of women is also decreed by tradition and upbringing. With few exceptions they are largely incapable of protecting themselves from violence inflicted by men. Anyone who has prosecuted sex crimes has a clear understanding of that.
BTW, regardless of the continuous assertions by CNN mediaswine and Hollywood softcore porn queens of all genders, the allegations against Kavanaugh do not amount to “sexual assault.”
As for “the complexities of sex,” seriously?
Despicable? Oldwhiteguy is a thing.
Laslo said: That she does not suspect an earthquake to happen as the two tectonic plates of boutique feminism for women and due process-for-all grind beneath her feet is not being obtuse, but accepting broken eggs for intellectual omelettes. And, like with many earthquakes, it is not the earthquake itself that may cause the most damage: the earthquake's damage is multiplied by the aftershocks that follow.
This is very profound. The social contracts between men and women, people of various ethnicities, social classes, etc., is not static and like the tectonic plate does change. It does change.......And it should change in many cases.
When change occurs in a slower and mutually agreed upon manner, society proceeds along and the changes is imperceptible. The changes then become permanent. (for a while until the next societal changing)
Trying to force change and especially to force it with actual force causes anger, resentment and huge rifts in society. The tectonic forces that Laslo speaks of are going to cause change and likely change that will tear society apart.
Be careful what you wish for ladies (speaking to the radical feminists). The results may not be at all what you envision. Ever heard of the boomerang effect? Christine Ford should have. She is a psychologist after all. Right?
The Democrats are in retreat on this one- Ford has told them, or, most likely they told her that she isn't testifying Monday. With that decision made, the rest is to just send out and broadcast the talking points to make her non-appearance as Dem-friendly as possible.
I have to admit- I am probably going to be shown as badly wrong last week when I wrote it was a mistake to offer Ford a hearing- the Senate leadership does seem to have had the better plan. I wrote it was wrong to fight this out on the Democrats' terrain, but I think maybe the Republican leadership saw enough detail to realize the Democrats were attempting to fight this on a different battlefield than an open hearing.
Shouting Thomas said...
"I'm an honest competitor, Crack. No, I don't intend to give you anything, nor do I pretend that I want to."
Right - in a competition I didn't enter - so fuck you. You're the source of my pain and no help with it - so what good are you?
Me and white women will do fine without you.
Cassandra wrote: "In Lukanioff/Haidt's new book (Coddling of the American Mind, which I believe Prof. Althouse is reading), the authors talk about different ways identity groups can organize."
Thanks for bringing this up. Before reading your comment, I had brought it up in discussing this post with Meade. I was discussing it just about exactly they way you are here:
"One way - the traditional one, practiced by great leaders - is to stress the common humanity of all people, and appeal to the best and highest instincts of those they wish to persuade. The other is to unite against a "common enemy" (IOW, "you and I are on the same team, but those other people are EVIL INCARNATE, and must be crushed before they destroy the planet). Hard to think of a better framework for understanding appeals like Behar's and those in the press who are - to borrow their own description - racializing a conflict between two white people."
The book makes much of the Solzhenitsyn quote: "If only it were so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being."
"I've been pretty dismayed by some of the hostility expressed towards women here in the comments. It's hardly unique to this commentariat. At the same time, I do understand where a lot of it comes from. There is a strain of feminism that seeks to unite women by demonizing men. That sadly (and predictably) provokes a social backlash that seeks to rally/unite men by demonizing women. Neither tactic seems likely to improve matters. We're in this together, like it or not (I happen to like it very much because I like men and value their contributions to the world we live in). Watching all of this idiocy, I find myself wanting to scream, "Jeez. Stop making things worse.""
Thanks for saying that. I agree.
It is still possible, though, for the Democrats to scare up another accuser, but that accuser will have to come from a later point in Kavanaugh's history, and that is more dangerous for a liar because it is easier for Kavanaugh to mount a defense with contemporary witnesses, as Thomas showed us 27 years ago.
RHHardin wrote: “Alas, the husband has been replaced by men in general, and men in general have to care. They can't and they don't.”
Some men pretend to care thereby empowering the soap opera. If they would cease the country might heal.
The issue has to be racialized because they are discovering that the circumstances of the event aren't supporting this as a solely feminist issue.
Of course, the racialization angle would work better if the accuser was someone who actually had some connection to actual racial issues.
Like someone who maybe worked as a community organizer and had a B.A. in a Social Science/Urban Teacher Program.
Like someone who, in their work, advocates for fair treatment and meaningful involvement of communities of color and low-income communities in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulation, and policies for the purpose of eliminating minority health disparities.
But so far the only person I can find that fits this criteria, and is publicly claiming abuse by a man, is a woman who is part of the GreenForAll organization.
Her name is Karen Monahan.
I don't know who she is because I haven't read anything about her in the Media.
And I can't imagine that the Media and Feminists would not highlight her story when it seems exactly like what they are wanting us to "contemplate".
I am Laslo.
SDaly said...
"A professor literally shot himself the other day to protest Trump. A GOP candidate in California was attacked with a knife the other day. We had a mass assassination attempt on GOP Congressmen last year."
And the Right's not getting any nicer.
There is a strain of feminism that seeks to unite women by demonizing men. That sadly (and predictably) provokes a social backlash that seeks to rally/unite men by demonizing women. Neither tactic seems likely to improve matters. We're in this together, like it or not (I happen to like it very much because I like men and value their contributions to the world we live in). Watching all of this idiocy, I find myself wanting to scream, "Jeez. Stop making things worse."
Boomerang Effect.
This review of the book Militant Normals, which is about Trump and the Deplorables (now known as the Dregs of Society!).....is very very relevant to the Feminists movement that wants to demonize men. Substitute the term MEN for Normals in the below and see the possible results.
Be careful ladies! (and I use that term rather loosely).
REVIEW:
Donald Trump is only the beginning of a mighty disruption in American politics and culture, thanks to the rise of the militant Normals in America.
They built this country, they make it run, and when called on, they fight for it. They are the heart and soul of the United States of America, They are the Normals, the regular Americans of all races, creeds, preferences, and both sexes who just want to raise their families and live their lives in peace. And they are getting angry...
For decades they have seen their cherished beliefs and beloved traditions under attack. They have been told they are racist, sexist, and hateful, but it was all a lie. Their ability to provide for their families has been undermined by globalization with no consideration of the effects on Americans who did not go to Harvard, and who live in that vast forgotten space between New York and Santa Monica.
A smug, condescending elite spanning both established parties has gripped the throat of the nation. Convinced of their own exquisite merit while refusing to be held accountable for their myriad failures, these elitists managed to suppress the first rumblings of discontent when they arose in the form of the Tea Party. But they were stunned when the Normals did not simply scurry back to their flyover homes. Instead, the Normals came out in force and elected Donald Trump.
Now, as the ruling caste throws everything it can into the fight to depose Donald Trump and reestablish unchallenged control, the Normals face a choice. They can either surrender their country and their sovereignty, or they can become even more militant...
Feminism and gay marriage were both successful gambits by rich white kids to co-opt affirmative action and make themselves eligible for quota favoritism.
I say "deeply" because — whatever happened between these 2 young people — we need to contemplate how the subordination of women can happen and the psychological burdens that arise out of the complexities of sex and the fear of violence.
1) @Althouse, your statement presupposes that something did happen between these two back during their high school years. I am not going to say that no wealthy young men from Georgetown Prep got drunk and behaved badly at parties where no adults were present, but there is no record of Kavanaugh behaving badly towards girls at parties before this incident or after. Do sexual aggressors only aggress once? I think not.
2) Embedded in this post and others you’ve put up recently is a fundamental notion that men are always the aggressors when teenagers get drunk at parties. This is simply wrong, and it is particularly wrong when it comes to the daughters of wealth.
3) Related to that, even if it were true that teenaged boys are always sexual aggressors with drunken teenaged girls, I read the sentence quoted above to mean that you are all right with punishing Kavanaugh as the scapegoat for whole generations of “handsy” teenaged boys. If that’s not what you meant — but I think it is — then it is on you to be more careful with your wording. You are trained as a lawyer and you trained lawyers; you should know better.
4) A recent post by you indicated that you fear Kavanaugh will be the 5th vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. It wasn’t going to happen, but after this shitstorm, to which you are contributing with your not-at-all neutral stance, who knows?
Welcome to the real world, Professor. Let us know how you like it here.
Thanks for saying that. I agree.
Althouse ..your casual assumption that something happened between them, and labeling the seat "Kennedy's seat" are making things worse.
If you were truly trying to make things better you would be outraged over this accusation and the tactics of the Democrats, instead you pretend to be disinterested while actually supporting this allegation and the actions of the democrats.
Oso Negro said...
"I think there are two very interesting questions for Althouse to answer -
1) WHY do you think it is important to contemplate the subordination of women, here in America in 2018?"
When was the last time we saw a dude escaping a woman's basement after 10 years or something?
Seeing how hard AA is playing the gender card, am I the only one wondering if she wishes she were black to play that one?
I went to a well funded public high school around 1970 which primarily taught literature and a little basketball. It was 4 years of brainwashing where presentation was worth more than morals, logic or facts. A lot of tax dollars spent that catered to girls and a few tall guys. I was neither but didn't feel discriminated against because I had me. I wondered what this might mean for the future. In particular, I suspected the next generation would be easily manipulated because of this worthless education. I blame the public school system for everything.
Anybody can outright lie. And since jail or other consequences are off the table for the foreseeable future, it's open season for liars.
"There is a strain of feminism that seeks to unite women by demonizing men."
It's called "feminism."
Laslo at 10:03,
Well stated.
The homeless man's Jesse Jackson said: "Me and white women will do fine without you."
Is being homeless doing fine?
"I've been pretty dismayed by some of the hostility expressed towards women here in the comments. It's hardly unique to this commentariat. At the same time, I do understand where a lot of it comes from."
Being more specific would be good.
Smith college became Lesbian U not long after this.
I thought Sarah Lawrence was Lesbian U. Maybe both?
For decades they have seen their cherished beliefs and beloved traditions under attack. They have been told they are racist, sexist, and hateful, but it was all a lie. Their ability to provide for their families has been undermined by globalization with no consideration of the effects on Americans who did not go to Harvard, and who live in that vast forgotten space between New York and Santa Monica.
Well said, DBQ. We may see a preference cascade in November or it might have to wait until the next outrage. We will see.
How is that book ? I just downloaded George Gilder's new book, "Life after Google" to my audio library. Maybe I should add that one.
You could add that the elites who went to Harvard and aspire to rule are mostly Humanities majors and do no math.
Too much work.
Oso Negro said...
"@Crack Emcee - Crack, I am really glad you came back. Keep emerging! You are doing a swell job! You should recognize that there is a race-neutral conservative position - 'do what you want, as long as I don’t have to pay for it'"
I know - I've talked to libertarians before - they're insane. "Whites" don't seem to understand, they've always been unfair, so what they think doesn't matter much now. Garbage in/Garbage out. I mean, if I can agree with a "white" person on 90% of subjects, but they'll still lynch me for that last 10% - as has happened here since I returned - there's no reason for me to take them seriously. They have abandoned the American sense of justice for "Just Us" and deserve to be run over. They demand it.
So I say you better prepare yourself for a good stew on things because - whether you want to pay or not - reparations are coming. It's just a matter of when, not if or how. Like rhhardin, and his obsession with IQs, only "whites" are concerned about such things:
The rest of us just want the bullshit to end.
I wouldn't describe Carrie Lukas, Christina Hoff Summers, or Camille Paglia as feminists who demonize men.
Simply ignoring data points that undercut your position doth not an empirical (or sound) argument make.
FWIW, I don't subscribe to "feminism", unless by feminism one means "a basic belief that women deserve equal treatment under law". But I wouldn't argue that it's monolithic, or that there are no disagreements on tactics or basic tenets.
The homeless man's Jesse Jackson said: "They have abandoned the American sense of justice for "Just Us" and deserve to be run over."
Thankfully, in additional to not having a roof over your head at points in your life, you currently are not in possession of an automobile.
Laslo wrote:
Her name is Karen Monahan.
I don't know who she is because I haven't read anything about her in the Media.
--
Or the footage her son referenced. Here we have 30 year memory at an apparently fully debauched school.
Oso Negro said...
"@ Crack - and yes, some of my ancestors were slave-holders! But so what, some of yours were also. ))"
Oh, you guys say that like the numbers were equal - or many blacks did it just to save friends and relatives. You lie to yourselves, which just makes things worse. If you really accepted our history as I do - without malice - you wouldn't be trying to minimize what happened for your "side" because (and this is going to shock you) HISTORY HAS NO SIDE. It's just you and me looking at what happened.
You're the one who's still keeping the competition - which I didn't sign up for - going.
I wouldn't describe Carrie Lukas, Christina Hoff Summers, or Camille Paglia as feminists who demonize men.
Does the Feminist movement today consider these women to be Feminists or gender traitors?
Ann:
Thank you for providing a place where interesting ideas are tossed out for discussion, and I'm often provoked into rethinking my assumptions and reflexive positions.
I'm not able to read discussions here often enough to understand the community dynamics, but I truly enjoy both your posts and lively reactions from your readers (even when I disagree with them).
Here's the most likely scenario:
1. Blasey Ford went to a rich, elite, private high school, where the kids partied and slept around.
2. With all this rich-kid partying, probably Blasey Ford had a few bad experiences with boys.
3. Probably, Blasey Ford knew who Kavanaugh was, shared some of the social circles, but never really knew or interacted with him.
4. 37 years later, life hasn't turned out too well for Blasey Ford. But she's politically woke, so she makes her play: anonymous letter merging one of her unpleasant interactions with some boy or boys with Brett Kavanaugh. Maybe, she thinks, an anonymous charge will sink his nomination, without her having to confront him or make a statement under penalty of perjury. She'll bluff, he'll fold.
Sorry, bluff called. Either make a written statement under oath, subject to a penalty of perjury charge, or go the fuck away.
When I read this I thought about how white men are the new Jews. They're behind everything. We need quotas to keep them out of positions of power. Etc.
Regarding "Suppression of Women" as a popular talking point, concept.
1. People can be individually suppressed or suppressed as a group by general consensus of society.
In a dysfunctional marriage or family, the woman (or the man) can be suppressed. In a sexual relationship, one person might be suppressed by the other. Individual suppression. Not approved by society in general.
In a group suppression, some Islamic religions or Christian Fundamentalist sects are examples. Slavery is a prime example of suppression of a group allowed by society. Victorian times in England, women were suppressed by societal rules and this was considered normal.
2> It is not normal in today's general society to suppress groups or individuals either. Keeping women in dungeons is not a normal or accepted process.
To baldly state that Women as a group in society as a whole group are being suppressed is fantasy and is a bald faced lie. A lie that is perceived by the majority of society and by the majority of women who do not feel or see that they are victims of a planed organized suppression.
3. When your argument is predicated on a lie, no one is going to believe you. The louder and more strident you get with your lies, the more the Normals tune you out.
Boomerang.....praaaang!!
"I wouldn't describe Carrie Lukas, Christina Hoff Summers, or Camille Paglia as feminists who demonize men.
Simply ignoring data points that undercut your position doth not an empirical (or sound) argument make."
Uhhh....
Answers on Quora to the question "What do feminists think of Christina Hoff Sommers who hosts “The Factual Feminist”?"
One answer: "...also, she’s clearly not a feminist, unless she had a conversion, since she spent the first part of her writing life attacking “feminists” as if they were all the same — and something she wasn’t... ...since Sommers is only occasionally factual and has never, in any of the writings I forced myself to read/watch, said anything approving of feminists or even of women...."
Another answer: "...anyone can also participate in the traditional right wing ad hominem attacks of scholarship because the scholars are (in their view) prima facie liberals, and therefore intolerant, but I do not subscribe to that view and prefer to trust those held to standards of argument by their peers than by people looking for self-validation. She simply does not meet academic standards. She’s great as a video lecturer, though, with the false sweetness and apparent transparency of Phyllis Schlafly in her heyday.
...Now, the most brilliant observations can be made by people with the most suspect motivations. The point is that such events almost never happen. Such events become even rarer when the organization who pays the salary is the one with the suspect motivations, and no accountability...
...For historical reasons, the AEI calls its public relations content staff “scholars,” just as the Nazis used the word “socialist” in their own title — and about as accurately. AEI has most recently drawn a lot of attention for its attempts to buy scientists to deny climate change and its human causation. The Guardian called it “bribery,” which the AEI indignantly denied: they were grants, for heaven’s sake. Grants which simply required that the scientists deny that human-caused climate change was a problem, or existed at all. Grants, in short, awarded based on the pre-existing bias of the scientists, rather than the quality or
..Sommers is a “feminist” paid to be the anti-feminist front the way a few “scientists” are paid to be the anti climate-change front. She’s a relatively unimportant pr woman, since feminism is not the greatest threat to billionaires, the way re-evaluating the plunder of the earth’s resources obviously is. But she was hired, and is now paid, to make these videos. AEI sponsors them. It’s reasonable to assume that AEI also provides the technological assistance necessary to get them out there, the marketing assistance to get Sommers’ name in the papers as the face of the anti-feminist movement, and possibly the events arrangers for her to give speeches and otherwise be given credibility as a “national expert.”...
So, she is obviously NOT a feminist.
And it sounds as if -- if she were to side with the Kavanaugh accuser -- the feminists still wouldn't like her.
I am Laslo.
In those days in that environment there were reasons why young men avoided violence - they were taught it was wrong and this is how Kavanaugh was raised. Moreover, there wasn't a power disparity between these kids. All these kids had parents, and they attended schools with reputations to keep up - two layers in there between doing nothing or having to go to the police. If anything really happened a girl she only had to tell her parents - and she did have parents. A girl's parents only had to go to school principals for a firebomb to land on the guy without police or publicity. Different times. The whole story is a lie. Moreover the Dems are trying to normalize a set of conditions - believe what any woman says and don't question her - such that they create a huge power disparity and one that is retroactive. No man who went to high school could ever clear his name should any woman ever choose to attack him. And this is wrong. Kavanaugh will survive and this publicity for the shameful, unconstitutional tactic will help other men.
damikesc said...
"Im bwtting constantly treating all white men as a problem cannot POSSIBLY backfire."
Who said "all" white men? This is like the suggestion I see NewAge "everywhere" when I point it out in specific places and people. The problem "white" guys seem to identify themselves pretty well for everybody to see. On this blog it's - in no particular order:
Michael K
Drago
Gahrie
Jay Elink
John Henry
BunkyPotatohead
Char Char Binks
Shouting Thomas
Big Mike
Qwinn
Jaydub
Francisco D
and mockturtle
These are the "white" Keepers Of The Flame, here, who don't seem to get it, and - with their ignorance on full display - can't seem to restrain themselves from acting out in racist ways, meant to both provoke others and, obviously, prop up their (just as obvious) racial insecurities. Unlike, say Meade or Traditionalguy or Freeman Hunt, I would protest these people being on ANY jury in America for the attitudes they display here, whether seriously or in jest. They're just horrible people with no interest in our country and an obvious obsession with America being "white" - and not America.
Learn to dance, Fellas, it's your only hope.
I think Bay Area Guy nails it. I went to a relatively (to public schools) small Catholic high school. I barely knew any boys or girls in the class 2 years behind me or 2 years ahead of me, unless they were in band or on a sports team I was on. Shared social circles across 2 years of classes were almost non-existent. And we shared hall-ways and lunch breaks and were at the same dances. In Kavanaugh's case, the girls and boys schools were separate.
Crack has been lynched in the Althouse blog. Crack always on the imaginary Pettus bridge. Fire hoses in his brain.
Kavanaugh struck me all along as a goody two shoes type who would probably do a Kennedy once on the court.
As someone else has pointed out, this experience has probably radicalized him as it did Clarence Thomas.
Thanks, lefties.
Althouse discovers intersectionality.
Regarding Christina Hoff Sommers:
I suspect Althouse's position on this current game of charades overlaps with the feminists' opinion of Christina Hoff Sommers that I quoted above.
Althouse's cruel neutrality has already put her on thin ice amongst her social and intellectual strata.
To argue that Kavanaugh's accuser might be problematic to feminism would have Althouse's peers seat her next to Christina Hoff Sommers at the table of the ostracized. Where Christina Hoff Sommers is evidently sitting next to Phyllis Schlafly.
I am Laslo.
Althouse quoting Cassandra: “I've been pretty dismayed by some of the hostility expressed towards women here in the comments.“
It’s a tribal thing. All women are not the same. It would be helpful for you to note that and evaluate the comments accordingly. The modern feminist tribe claims to speak for all women. Most female members of the other tribes containing females let them and are dismayed when the mirror fails to discern the difference.
DBQ, for example, distinguishes herself from the feminists who despise and disparage men. If there is “hostility expressed toward women here,” I expect DBQ knows she is not a target. OTOH, many of us have difficulty exempting ourselves from the label “white men.”
President-Mom-Jeans said...
"The homeless man's Jesse Jackson said: "Me and white women will do fine without you."
Is being homeless doing fine?"
"The homeless man's Jesse Jackson" and "The Unsuccessful Agitator" are two keepers - thanks!
Everyone can add President-Mom-Jeans to that list. I am.
DBQ:
I certainly do not feel oppressed or suppressed :p So I agree with you there.
With all the themes and arguments that have been rolled up in this controversy, the ONLY one that matters to me is the question of due process. Granted, the Senate is not a court of law, and Kavanaugh is not a criminal defendant. But we have rules and guidelines and precedents for evaluating accusations like these.
It seems bizarre to me to see so many of the folks who've been screeching the loudest about norms and the rule of law, advocating for the erosion of both so long as it leads to the outcome they prefer. And loading the full weight of perceived historical injustice upon this one case seems like the straw that breaks the system's back
"Whites" don't seem to understand, they've always been unfair,
Crack's racism never ends.
but they'll still lynch me for that last 10% - as has happened here since I returned
As usual Crack must pretend criticism is "lynching" in order to support his persecution complex.
Note the implicit assumption in the larger context also:
I mean, if I can agree with a "white" person on 90% of subjects, but they'll still lynch me for that last 10% - as has happened here since I returned - there's no reason for me to take them seriously.
Those who disagree with him on even a tiny fraction of his positions (or perhaps those of any black) are guilty of lynching and are therefore racist. Maybe there are pathetically insecure people who can be silenced and cowed by this idiotic assertion but it seems likely all such people would be afraid to express their positions in the first place.
I believe honesty demands some acknowledgment that there are smart women who dissent from the mainstream, who call themselves feminists
You mean women like Carrie Lukas, Christina Hoff Summers, or Camille Paglia? It's not my side who is denying the feminism of, and demonizing, these women.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
REVIEW:
Donald Trump is only the beginning of a mighty disruption in American politics and culture, thanks to the rise of the militant Normals in America.
They built this country by forcing other people to work under the whip and the gun, they ruthlessly make it run, and when called on, they fight for it without asking questions everyone else must, since America's racists usually started it. They are the racist heart and soul of the United States of America, They are the Normals if you don't count anyone else they don't consider Normal, the regular Americans of all races, creeds, preferences, and both sexes who just want to raise their families and live their lives in peace by denying our entire past that brought them so many riches at the expense of everyone else - even in other nations. And they are getting angry...but what else is new?
For decades they have seen their cherished beliefs and beloved traditions under attack because Jesus hasn't come back in over 2,000 years. They have been told they are racist, sexist, and hateful, but it was all a lie - since they were REALLY racist, sexist, and hateful BUT EVERYONE UNDERSOLD IT IN A SILLY ATTEMPT TO GET ALONG. Their ability to provide for their families,...blah, blah, blah,...the Normals came out in force and elected Donald Trump who isn't racist no matter what they do or say - which they ignore, just like the people they hate.
Now, as the ruling caste throws everything it can into the fight to depose Donald Trump and reestablish unchallenged control, the Normals face a choice. They can either surrender their country and their sovereignty, or they can become even more militant...because only anti-American morons think those are the only two choices.
"Everyone can add President-Mom-Jeans to that list. I am."
Is that the list of white people you plan on "running down?" Assuming of course, that you can ever afford/carjack a vehicle? You are always ranting about cults but you are sounding like you are planning on employing the ways of the religion of peace.
Aloha Snackbar, Homeless Man's Jesse Jackson, Aloha Snackbar.
No point trying to impugn Ford's character. Whether she's sincere or not doesn't matter.
She's making a serious charge, much more serious than Anita Hill's allegations of sexual harassment.
If she had reported the attempted rape at once, Kavanaugh would have had his day in court and a chance to be found innocent. He's denied this opportunity by the passage of time and the statute of limitations.
How, then, can he clear himself? Are we saying if enough time passes a person can be punished for a crime without due process?
Punished he will be. If the charges are believed, Kavanaugh is not only off the Supreme Court, he's off his current bench, too. His career is over. He'll have lost everything because he was nominated while being a conservative. (What effect will that have on future nominees?)
Attempted rape is a crime. People charged with a crime should have the full opportunity and safeguards to defend themselves.
This isn't Anita Hill v. Clarence Thomas. It's much more serious, and if people, even powerful people, can be ruined without the opportunity to defend themselves, don't think it won't matter for society at large. Don't think it won't matter to you.
If new evidence emerges of Kavanaugh's guilt, I'll re-evaluate. As it stands, this is a "have you no decency" moment.
Feminism, as it exists today, is not about universal values. It is a male-female power dynamic within the confines of the European and American bourgeois. The rest of us are just caught in the crossfire.
Women in the less civilized parts of the world who call themselves feminists do not address their appeals to their countrymen (an countrywomen), they address their appeals to international organizations and institutions run by the Western bourgeois.
John Lynch said...
"When I read this I thought about how white men are the new Jews. They're behind everything. We need quotas to keep them out of positions of power. Etc."
Nice try, but the Jews didn't bring their persecution on themselves. American "white" guys did.
Post a Comment