That's an allegation about what Mike Bloomberg said to a pregnant employee who is quoted in "Bloomberg's sexist remarks fostered company culture that degraded women, lawsuits allege/Bloomberg allegedly told employee who had just announced pregnancy to 'kill it.'"
Did he really say that? He denied it, under oath and also while connected to a "lie detector."
But for the purpose of answering this question of mine assume he did or forget about Bloomberg and just answer my question as a hypothetical:
From the point of view of a person who genuinely and deeply believes that abortion is murder, which statement, made to a pregnant woman, is less odious: "Kill it" or "You should have an abortion"?
I'm thinking "Kill it" is less odious (again: from the point of view of someone who genuinely and deeply believes that abortion is murder). To say "Kill it" is to recognize that abortion is murder. Both "Kill it" and "You should have an abortion" are stated as imperatives and have the speaker telling the woman what to do, but perhaps the woman asked "What should I do?"
To say "Kill it" is perhaps a way to influence the woman to think about the unborn child as a real person whom abortion will kill. What's her next line? "I don't want to kill it. I just want to not be pregnant. It's not a good time for me now. I just want to have an abortion...." The line "Kill it" might ring in her head.
Now, in blandly conventional human relations in the workplace, I think if a pregnant employee asks the boss what she should do, he'd be wise to say something like, "This is a decision for you to make, and I will support whatever decision you make."
But I don't want you to think that I believe that if Bloomberg said "Kill it" it was because he wanted to stimulate anti-abortion moral thinking in the woman. I think that is less likely than: 1. He didn't say it, 2. He thought it was a funny, snappy way to give the advice he wanted to give (have the abortion), or 3. He knew the woman wanted to be pregnant and was doing a kind of outlandish teasing that's possible when you know you're among people who are entirely comfortable with abortion.
December 17, 2019
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
73 comments:
Someone wants to kill Bloomberg’s candidacy in the crib...
"It" implies it's not a person. Or anyway hasn't declared pronouns yet.
Kiss it.
I would have thought it was another "distinction without a difference", but I clearly see the difference. But, I give it about a .0001% probability of Bloomberg actually thinking in the terms you describe.
It seems a little hypocritical of the left to criticize him regardless. It's a woman's body to do whatever (not murder) and she was just asking his opinion, right? It's no different than if she asked if she should get a boob job.
Is Bloomberg an Aspie? That's the sort of comment an Asperger's spectrum person might make, intending to be funny, but missing.
If not, then nah, he didn't say it.
""It" implies it's not a person. Or anyway hasn't declared pronouns yet."
Yes, but that's consistent with the shocking coldness of "Kill."
My hypothetical is about the possibility that saying "Kill it" is a way to shock your interlocutor into thinking I don't want to kill and that includes the thought: And it's not an "it."
To write that I had to use "it" again, and you should see that we commonly speak of the unborn and even the recently born as "it." Otherwise how could we say "It's a boy" and "It's a girl."
I have always appreciated the Althouse honesty about abortion.
He said "Kill it before it grows."
Then, he shot the sheriff.
I don't care what he said, it's not worth money.
... people who are entirely comfortable with abortion.
I stay out of the abortion shit, because there's no upside to being involved and it no longer concerns me.
But, what kind of fucking monster is "entirely comfortable" with abortion?
Professora is breaking out humorous side of Bloomberg and her own?!
Does this show how close knit family are Bloomberg and his hired help?
Very much humanizes him!
My wife and I referred to all five of our babies, boys and girls, as "it" during the first year or so of their lives until their behavior began to be gender-specific. I suppose it was similar to how Victorians dressed their baby boys and girls identically.
When you seek counsel do you retain agency?
More exactly Or at what point do you surrender it?
Feminist mantra has so far been : live baby = lost agency?!
Should I be qualifying agency with "moral" above?
Or is it always implied!
perhaps the woman asked "What should I do?"
_____&&&&&-----
I'm always mystified by brainy people calling this a search for imperatives and not merely simple question: what is the best choice I can make?
I don't really agree with your analysis on "kill it". But I do notice this...Bloomberg is paying the house members for Trump's impeachment. Is that ok with people?
Professora:
Will you also pose hypothetical to help us clarify sexist component?
Bloomberg is paying the house members for Trump's impeachment. Is that ok with people?
I think it's called the pursuit of happiness.
Q: how does this scenario develop if (boyfriend) employee brings up pregnant girlfriend?
I must concede: you are good teacher.
Would that Mrs. Bloomberg had followed her future son's advice.
Oh yes, a fine Tuesday morning topic; lets discuss the nuance discussions that lead to murder. Yeah, I'm out. Although, I'm sure the trolls will be here to pump this discussion thread over the 200 mark.
Our Beloved Professor Althouse asks us...
which statement, made to a pregnant woman, is less odious: "Kill it" or "You should have an abortion"?
I am a person, who genuinely and deeply believes that abortion is murder, and to me;
"Kill it" is FAR Less odious.
Just like "you'd should be lampshades", or; "You look like plant food to me" are MORE odious
If you're going to turn someone into soap; be honest about What you're implying
People just don't carry on casual conversations with that level of nuance and irony, and, if Bloomberg has an outrageous sense of humor, he certainly keeps it well hidden. I don't believe the woman. I know women never lie about rape, but perhaps they're more fanciful when talking about abortions.
That story about Bloomberg has been around for a long time. And it might be true—he has a famously tin ear and says really cold and off-putting things.
Grammar quibble: not just the unborn and recently born can be referred to as "it" in the same sense as "it's a boy" or "it's a girl." The doorbell rings; you answer and (here's an example) *it's* your dad instead of your friend, whom you were expecting. "Oh, *it's* you," you say. Though in none of these cases, including "it's a boy/girl" is "it" actually, grammatically the antecedent for the person, I believe. Grammarians, what part of speech is "it" in these cases? Just the plain old subject, right? With "boy/girl/your dad/you" as predicate nominative? Such that "it" is not being used as a "replacement" for the noun, as would be the case for a pronoun's antecedent? Or am I totally making this up?
As for the comment and the implications - ugh. Both are odious. Both are inappropriate - and who asks her boss what to do about an unexpected pregnancy? That employee needs friends. Your boss should not only not be your friend, but sometimes must be the antithesis of a friend. But if you were to ask your boss what to do about a pregnancy, your boss's response ought to be, "I'm sorry, I don't think I should weigh in on anything so personal." No statement of support - because perhaps s/he can't support your choice; say you work in a warehouse and your advancing pregnancy will make it unsafe for you to do the lifting the job requires. Or say your boss is pro-life, and you decide to get an abortion.
The "Kill it" statement at least addresses the infant, whereas "You should have an abortion" implies that the woman is the one most affected by the decision. One of the reasons I cringe when a woman says "My Body, My Choice" in regards to abortion because it makes it sound as if the woman's body is the one to be dismembered/dissolved/dissected.
“Someone wants to kill Bloomberg’s candidacy in the crib.”
Closest thing to an existential threat to the status quo on the Dem side of the isle, is a President who cannot be bought. The Dems have exclusively run compromised, purchased, politicians for President since at least 1992. Bloomberg is a purchaser of politicians, instead of a purchased one, like the rest running. This means that they can’t control him.
A mother is not likely to refer to her baby or child as "it," but nonpersonal reference may well be preferred by somebody who is emotionally unrelated to the child, or wishes to generalize across sex distinctions in scientific contexts: "A child learns to speak the language of its environment."
- A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, Quirk Greenbaum Leech and Svartvik
'I'm thinking "Kill it" is less odious (again: from the point of view of someone who genuinely and deeply believes that abortion is murder).' Uh, no. Even people who genuinely and deeply believes that abortion is murder can recognize that other people honestly disagree with them. They can cut those people some slack for their moral confusion; we do that a lot. Moral confusion is less evil than deliberate murder.
"Kill it" is deliberately evil.
"You should have an abortion" is banally evil.
Which is worse depends on your point of view, I suppose. The former says something worse about the person making the statement while the latter says something worse about society.
Bloomberg is a very disciplined, very direct person.
If he did tell a woman to, "Kill it," I doubt he would retaliate if she looked him in the eye with an expression of disdain and said "No!"
If he said it again, the appropriate response would be, "Who the heck are you to tell me something like that!"
Women have to decide whether they prefer victimhood or agency. Hiring a lawyer to extract a financial settlement for mean words is a victim's game. If he had fired or demoted the woman for having a baby, I could see it; otherwise, no.
Tucker Carlson talks constantly about corporations and family. How they've convinced women that serving a company's bottom line is more important than having a family.
How corporations are a driving force behind abortions.
Fascinating.
The doorbell rings; you answer and *it's* your dad instead of your friend, whom you were expecting. "Oh, *it's* you," you say.
Saying "Oh, he is you!" is dysgrammatical because it sounds funny.
What would Gordon Gekko say? Wall Street guys of Bloomberg's generation loved to talk tough like this, about deals or personal stuff. He's telling her, you want to be a winner, you gotta talk and think like one of the boys. Which pretty much was how the successful women on Wall Street I dealt with in the 80s and 90s did.
He's embracing the Pro-life position (the unborn is a child) in order to emphasize his own and her expected toughness in pursuing a Wall Street career.
That is The Question that must be answered when Two people in a relationship are faced with the demands of a third person to live a life at their expense.Is it a chance to love an other person? Or is there a duty to preserve the immediate life plans of the Two self centered monsters?
It is an easy choice to make. And God is watching.
Wait a minute, I thought Dems were all in favour of killing fetuses? (Or is it bad because Bloomberg was a Republican when he said it?)
I agree re the Gordon Gekko Wall Street tough guy pose.
If one wants to gain the world, well, one must consider ones priorities.
It does not conflict with the idea that Bloomberg wasn't sincere, and moreover was acting as an agent of Satan.
Mark 8:36
"I don't want to kill it. I just want to not be pregnant. It's not a good time for me now. I just want to have an abortion...."
Just to illustrate how abortion is all about women thinking morally, one Althousian justification for fabricating a constitutional right.
The powers-that-be in the Democrat Party seem to have decided it’s Biden and nobody but Biden. Which naturally strikes thinking people as odd, but at this point I think it’s more about ass-covering than electoral victory. Biden knows where the metaphorical bodies are buried. That’s the Vice-President’s job. Now get these people out of my way, dammit.
"He denied it, under oath and also while connected to a 'lie detector.'"
"Lie detectors" do no such thing. They are only one step past a guess.
They recycle this one every time Bloomberg gets prominent. THere's also the one about sexually charged comments he made about female executives, and the overall testosterone fueled environment he permitted within Bloomberg. He's either incredibly boring or very discreet, as this seems the best they can come up with. Oh, his daughter is an equestrian, they'll use some photos of her in full gear to emphasize what a richy rich he is, and maybe show some aerial photos of his Bermuda home and talk about how he used to weekend there even when he was a mayor of a city that had lots of poor people.
@Ann: To say "Kill it" is to recognize that abortion is murder.
"Kill" doesn't mean "murder". It recognizes that what you wish to kill is alive, that's all.
I think if a pregnant employee asks the boss what she should do, he'd be wise to say something like, "This is a decision for you to make, and I will support whatever decision you make."
I think it would be more appropriate to say "You should probably ask someone in your personal life to advise you."
Around here, that qualifies as edgy humor acknowledging the dilemma faced by ambitious professional women.
One could almost call it Solomonic.
Split the baby, kill the baby...split the difference. He was acknowledging the woman's value to the firm.
One glaring overlooked point
Is Bloomberg the daddy?
Bloomberg is paying the house members for Trump's impeachment. Is that ok with people?
I think it's called the pursuit of happiness.
That's a good one, Earnest Prole. I do wonder what Bloomberg does for fun. He does not seem like a barrel of laughs.
Abort, but don't kill. That's what Solomon would have done.
From the point of view of a person who genuinely and deeply believes that abortion is murder, which statement, made to a pregnant woman, is less odious: "Kill it" or "You should have an abortion"?
Haven't you got that backwards? Shouldn't it be, from the point of view of a person who genuinely and deeply believes that abortion is simply a woman exercising her God-given right to choose, what's wrong with suggesting that she should "kill it"?
I actually think "kill it" suggests that the speaker knows full well that abortion is the killing of a living entity, as opposed to a clump of cells, but is fine with killing the living entity - in my opinion, much more evil.
"He denied it, under oath and also while connected to a 'lie detector.'"
"Lie detectors" do no such thing. They are only one step past a guess.
I've beaten one.
He's denying the intent imputed to him by those repeating the story, not the words. It's not about telling her to have an abortion. It's an acknowledgment that she's trapped in the horns of a dilemma, and she's no longer got the option of staying out of the arena.
There are two possible solutions for the callousness of "kill it" and acing a polygraph examination:
* Bloomberg is a sociopath.
* Bloomberg is mentally ill or possessed.
Sociopaths are notoriously hard to pin down on lying, because they reject your reality and substitute their own. I have a great uncle who is one and is pinned to peak oil. You can point out that the US has found more oil fracking than Saudi Arabia has, and he simply changed the subject and then forgot you'd said anything about it when the subject came back up. (Fortunately, his stock broker recognized his dementia and refused to let him bet his entire retirement fund on it just before oil prices dropped in half earlier this decade....)
If Bloomberg is a sociopath, he could simply convince himself that he never would have said anything like that, and believe it. A tape recording wouldn't convince him either ("Deep fakes").
For those possessed and severely mentally ill, you can have these kinds of events too. The evil behind the mask sometimes peaks out, and the regular personality isn't aware of it. Milady's cousin is schizophrenic, and one time we went to a restaurant with her. The voices were trying to convince her to pick up her steak knife and kill the whole table. (And I'm not exaggerating, she was thinking so loud that we all could tell it.) The next time we saw her, she was well-medicated, and she didn't even remember having been at the restaurant.
If he's "sold out", then the mask slipped and the true evil popped out. He probably doesn't even realize he did it, and would rationalize it away if you could show him evidence.
Bow about "the final solution of the fetus problem"?
It’s a weird and anti-social comment in any context, and seems disqualifying for a presidential candidate.
Bye, juice box. Everybody wave goodbye to juice box!
Bloomberg has a lot of skeletons that are going to come dancing out of the closet. He's not being protected by the NYC press anymore.
Bloomberg is a social liberal. Big Time. Also, an old-school sexist. Big Time. And he will lose. Big Time.
Earnest Prole: "I suppose it was similar to how Victorians dressed their baby boys and girls identically."
LOL
As if Victorians even saw their children before the children turned 12.
Outlandish teasing from Trump, may be.
Outlandish teasing from Bloomberg, extremely unlikely. He looks too school-marmish-serious to tease.
May be the group was discussing about the pregnancy over enthusiastically, Bloomberg told them to "kill it", i.e. kill the party, go back to work.
I understand that Bloomberg has a series of lawsuits and NDAs that are problematic. This might be the first leak.
Darth Biden strikes back.
On the linguistic level, though, consider that you had told the person that you were pregnant with either a boy or a girl specifically- how does that change the impact of the language used? "Kill it" is kind of impersonal in a way that "Kill her" isn't.
And, I should have read the comments first- rhhardin hits the exact point I wanted to bring up in the second comment.
Remember that Bloomberg made it big at Salomon Bros in the early 70s and when he went into business his main customers were trading desks on the street. Of course he said it. That is the culture he grew up in. Go read Liars Poker if you are unaware. Being mean and cruel was a badge of honor. Robother is dead on.
Also, I don’t think what he did in the 1990s should matter to his candidacy. And, he would make a terrible president.
Sekiko was not asking for advice. She was happily sharing the joyful news and he replied that she was number 16 and should kill it. Sixteen was a reference to the number of pregnant women at Bloomberg at that time, or so her lawyer argued in court.
Michael K. This is not a leak, the case filings were reported on at the time and were widely shared within Bloomberg were they were a topic of underling mirth. Everyone new. It was brought up also during his first run for mayor in 2001. No one really cared when it came time to vote. Kinda like Trump.
Avarice knows no bounds.
Per Bloomberg, nothing over 32oz allowed...
I repeat. This is an attempt to take out Bloomberg, because the Democrat mandarins cannot control him, and he has more than enough money to be competitive, regardless of what they do. He easily has the money to challenge Trump, and is really the only candidate wit a credible claim that he could increase employment and/or wages. The policies of pretty much every other major Dem candidate would destroy our economy, and greatly increase unemployment. Plus he can claim management and executive experience, while none of them can. Of course, those mandarins don’t want a President with Executive experience, which is what they had with Obama, because they, not the elected President, would be the ones actually running almost all of the federal government.
If they can’t destroy Bloomberg, he is likely to use continue spending tens and hundreds of millions pushing his candidacy, effectively bypassing the mandarins and the activists running the Dem party.
Slightly off thread, but related to Bloomberg, I thought Stormy Daniels established that it is perfectly all right to ignore an NDA in the case of a candidate for the Presidency.
This incident has been well covered. She was not asking for advice. She was announcing joyful news. Joyful to her, anyway, by her account. He was sharing his view.
I have asked "Do you want me to be happy for you?"
Women have responded quite positively to that question. It energizes them to feel the way they prefer. It gives them the choice of feeling how they feel. And it is non-judgemental. I will feel however they direct me. I want to share in their feeling.
Now, if they ask whether they should abort a baby, I have a different response. Asking is an indication that they feel the moral weight of the decision.
I don't believe the woman.
We live in a culture where our best and brightest say it's a constitutional right to stab a baby in the middle of birth.
They don't say it like that. They dress it up with lies and semantics. But of course that's what they are saying.
So why is it surprising when a billionaire says crudely what government officials say obliquely?
Of course, when most people realize that abortion kills a baby, they become pro-lifers. But there's a class of people who realize that abortion kills a baby, and it doesn't bother them at all.
Here's an amusing Ted Talk about sociopaths.
Post a Comment