Writes Ruth Marcus in "Assessing Tara Reade’s allegations" (WaPo). Marcus wrote a book about Christine Blasey Ford and concluded that she was telling the truth. This column is (or purports to be) Marcus's effort to not be a hypocrite.
Outrage over misbehavior only by those with whom we have ideological differences is not righteous — it is hypocritical. Skepticism about accusations only when they are made against someone with whom we are ideologically aligned is not high-minded — it is intellectually dishonest.I won't detail Marcus's assessment of the evidence in the Reade and Blasey Ford cases, but I wanted to point to something said in the comments over there. This combines 3 different commenters:
And yet. Reflexive acceptance of any and all allegations of sexual misconduct against any man is not staunch feminism — it is dangerous credulity that risks doing terrible injustice to the accused. #BelieveAllWomen was a dumb hashtag and a dumber approach to inevitably complex, fact-bound situations. I have always tried to argue in favor of fact-finding first, conviction later, whether in the court of public opinion, in the Senate confirmation process or elsewhere....
Women of a certain age, and Ms. Reade is one, know that we all wore pantyhose in those days in DC.... I have difficulty in thinking a female staffer on the Hill in the spring of 1993 was not wearing hose with a business skirt.... I'm a retired physician and a woman. I've done a lot of pelvic exams in my life and I honestly don't see how a standing man could reach under a standing woman's layers of clothes and insert a finger without groping, fumbling and cooperation.... Especially if she was wearing pantyhose....
Posts
159 comments:
Joe is getting a pass. That's what the Obama video told us. Nothing Burger. Time to move along to the next squirrel
Christine Blasie Ford couldn't remember anything other than it was Brett Kavenaugh. I did not believe her for a minute. Liberals did. Tara Reade remembers it all, and has witnesses. I wasn't there...I think men deserve due process...but WHY should I even think about it, when I know Liberals wouldn't do the same for anybody else??? They made their own beds...Now lay in the slop you made.
Gentlemen prefer Hanes.
A better argument would have pointed out that if Reade were wearing a chastity belt the grope would have been even more difficult.
The comments about pantyhose have merit.
This issue should be included in the televised Senate hearings.
I honestly don't see how a standing man could reach under a standing woman's layers of clothes and insert a finger without groping, fumbling and cooperation
Sure. Blame the victim. All pantyhose is the same strength, isn't it? Scientific. Yet I have some memories of unintended punctures. On the more expensive varieties, too.
Sweet Jesus on a unicycle, the rationalization-hamster-wheel-spinning of women never ceases to amaze.
The hastag #believeallwomen was stupid you say? Now, you say.
Reade is a liar. Ford is a liar. That ex-model Jean who wrote a book about Trump is a liar.
They're liars. There is no acceptable understanding as to how these women could make an accusation of the magnitude and circumstance they made them after so much time has passed.
Period...which incidentally has a lot to do with this. Pun intended.
Government digital surveillance got Biden into a lot of trouble.
And after Joe's scrape with Corn Pop, maybe he sharpened his nails on a curb and dipped them into a rain barrel, like all the cool cats did back in the day.
So let me get this straight. We are not supposed to believe Reade because SOME women wore pantyhose, so she MIGHT have worn pantyhose.
Oh, and Ford’s story was credible and believable, and hers is not.
And Epstein committed suicide.
Especially if she was wearing pantyhose....
She was. That's why her toes curled up.
Can Marcus point to an earlier column condemning “believe all women”?
Is the argument about pantyhose based on an unproven generalization that might not apply to this woman?
I want them to live by their own rules.
Is that too much to ask? Or do the rules only apply to some people?
Biden used his digital thermometer to check for COVID-19. A public service, I tell you.
And there is another point to bear in mind: Double standards work in both directions. Those who disbelieved and diminished Christine Blasey Ford face the challenge of explaining why they seem so much more eager to credit Tara Reade’s account.
Nice try. Of course the real story is about media reaction, not personal opinion. How many in the media disbelieved or diminished Blasey Ford? How many are eager to credit Reade's account?
Jake Tapper couldn't be reached for comment.
Maybe they were crotchless panty hose.
Marcus' charge that the hypocrisy is a two-way street here suggests that folks on the right were eager to dismiss Blasey Ford's allegations, and are now eager to believe Reade's. I don't think that's the case. All the Reade commentary I've seen from conservatives does not conclude that what she alleges is true, just that there ought to be one set of rules that apply regardless of the accused's politics.
I was around in those golden pantyhose years and would like to note that coworkers in those days were perfectly fair game. In both directions with many a secretary more than willing to take a chance on sparking true love. Big companies, whole governments, were hellholes of horniness, colleagues screwing like bunnies. If you think otherwise you were not there
Another thing. Creeping the hand under the pantyhose, walking the fingers slowly south, was part of the sport. And, yes, it could be done standing.
If Reade looks distraught when she describes the incident, then she is telling the truth.
I think I am pretty consistent here. No contemporaneous evidence means it didn’t happen. I do think Ford's story was less credible, but they are both well below my threshold.
Women have two weapons they've evolved to make up for their complete powerlessness in the face of nature, inability to manipulate the physical world in which they live to aid their survival, and protect themselves from wild animals:
Their sex, and their ability to lie to men and to each other. Sex gets the man, lying keeps him, and lying to women keeps them away from him. They really don't have much else in the way of power on planet earth.
Psychologically you could make the argument that lies about rape are in fact projected desires to be raped by the protagonist of their accusations (a la ex-model Jean). They are also expressions of the powerlessness I enumerate above...they have lost their power to influence men and events and have conflated the ability to lie to other women to 'keep away' with the perversion of damaging the powerful man so no woman wants him. This is very common in sexual politics among heterosexual women. They do it all the time.
I refuse to engage is this silly game of Blasey-Ford was way more credible that Reade. There are two ways to defend Biden.
One is the NYTs style of obviously lying about their double standard and tell everyone to fuck off because they have the power.
The other is the stupid attempts to show how unbiased they are by "struggling" with their decision. But gosh durn it, after I struggled, investigated, and thought really really hard. I just have to conclude Kavanaugh is guilty and Biden is innocent.
That's a good point. On the other side, it sounds like Reade could credibly place herself in proximity to Biden during the relevsnt time period, and did report this contemporaneously to other people, both lending a credibility to her account that Ford lacked (where in fact Ford's only contemporaneous witness -- her friend -- conspicuously failed to corroborate her account of the alleged party).
That's not to say her account is credible, just that it's marginally more credible than Ford's.
On the gripping hand, I'm not sure that whether a candidate has been beastly to women in the past is particularly relevant to to whether one should vote for him. If misconduct from decades in the past is disqualifying to you then, well, fine, I guess -- you can vote for whatever reason you like. But if the concern is that the candidate is going to repeat that behaviour in office now, I think you can dismiss that. Even Trump, well known for being beastly to women, doesn't seem to have been harassing the secretaries JFK-style. If he had been, he has enough enemies in his own administration that I'm sure we'd have heard. And whether a man harassed a woman thirty years ago doesn't have any apparent connection to his politics today.
“Is that too much to ask? Or do the rules only apply to some people?”
It is in direct conflict with their goal. The left want a caste society, and you don’t. They will fight you on this.
Those who disbelieved and diminished Christine Blasey Ford face the challenge of explaining why they seem so much more eager to credit Tara Reade’s account
For me, it's not really a question of disbelieving or believing an account, it's what seems more credible. I've went over my thinking on this yesterday, but suffice to say I find Tara Reades accusation generally more credible and I believe I'm being reasonable.
I don't accept either allegation as credible. But - We all note how the media and the establishment treat the allegations.
The high school bed bounce -> without anyone else anywhere recalling the party or the location = believe all wimin! He's a mass-rapist. Rape parties!
Tera Reide = don't even dig at all because it's Joe Biden. he'd never do anything wired like that.
Am I missing something, or did she just accuse the victim here?
How these Dem media personnel do contort themselves to stay the party line. Every time. They have no idea how little credibility any of them have anymore.
weird
The collective left set the standard with Bill Clinton.
Any D - you get a pass, because D. and dead babies.
I've been around a lot of indoor pools in my life, and I've never encountered a Democrat Politician in the nude doing ANYTHING around a woman.
Sandwiches anyone?
Ronald kessler turned up that story in his book about the secret service.
What year did Monica Lewinsky show Clinton her thong?
In my mind, the only difference between CBF and Reade (false) stories is that the former had the assistance of Democrat operatives to construct her narrative. Is there any evidence that Tara Reade had similar help?
I thought attractive young female DC Dems were all wearing thongs in the Clinton years.
So it's not possible to digitally penetrate someone who was (probably) wearing pantyhose. Ah, the things one learns in the Washington Post.
And there is another point to bear in mind: Double standards work in both directions. Those who disbelieved and diminished Christine Blasey Ford face the challenge of explaining why they seem so much more eager to credit Tara Reade’s account.
Nice try. Of course the real story is about media reaction, not personal opinion. How many in the media disbelieved or diminished Blasey Ford? How many are eager to credit Reade's account?
Exactly. It isn't that I believe Reade and disbelieved Ford. It's that #BelieveallWomen is a farce, and pointing that out wasn't allowed during the Kavanaugh hearing. Do we all remember how senators were chased down in the halls of the senate office building, being told to believe all women?
Your average teenage horndog--or Brett Kavanaugh--could solve the pantyhose zone problem standing up, or lying down, or standing on his head. And older generations could make their way through girdles. Speaking from very long ago (mid late 1950's) personal experience of course. The fact is that where there's a will, there's a way. But it usually involves at least some cooperation.
Which brings up another point in this eternal he/she drama. Consent is elastic so to speak. Female consent once given can be retroactively withdrawn. She subsequently decides "it was a mistake" and bingo! She never consented. It's a strange set of rules we play by today.
The only way to be consistent after believing the Blasey-Ford accusation is to believe any accusation without question. You either admit you believed a claim which literally had nothing but disconfirming evidence and keep it up, or finally admit that you were a hack back then and reform.
Hes the author of the violebce against women act, savvor the irony.
As for pantyhose, there are all different kinds. The cheaper kinds like l'Eggs and Hanes were super flimsy. You can get your hand in the waistband and move your hand down. You can get your hand outside the pantyhose and still penetrate at the crotch. Come on.
Basically to demand consistency from anyone who might have doubted the Ford accusations is absolutely risible considering how baseless they were. It'll be very hard to reach that low a standard.
The pantyhose thing (or at least multiple layers of clothing) is why I didn't believe the fingering thing. Biden may have been sprier in his younger days, but was he really that agile? No problem believing the rest of her story.
Marcus is engaging in some "whataboutism" of her own. People who were skeptical of Blasey Ford's and Swetnick's stories aren't just unquestioningly buying Reade's. It's people who promoted the earlier stories who have to explain now why they are so unwilling to believe a story which may have more foundation than the earlier accusations.
The Kavanaugh hearings were a wake-up call about a lot of these rumors and accusations circling - as if we actually needed one by that point. I've heard so many wild rumors and allegations that I tend to disbelieve most of them nowadays.
The model seems to be a national catharsis is needed to put one of these allegations behind you.
Team Biden is hoping it can eschew that with the help of a biased, predisposed and pliant media.
Best for Trump is a slow burn on this story through the DNC convention.
Not enough to knock Biden out but to make him an even less favorable alternative come the election.
The pantyhose defense? Seriously?
Assumes facts not in evidence. Tara may not have been part of the "everyone was wearing it" crowd.
Biden did it. Consistent with his creepy behavior and his sense of entitlement as a Senator. And Tara was very hot then.
Honestly, I suspect we all just do the do-si-do square dance with these allegations and politics in general. Left, right, we switch our stances to win the battle of the day.
Maybe that's too cynical, but that's life in the modern Disunited States of 'Merica.
My own gut tells me that it would be rare for this claim to be true, without any others coming out in Biden's 33 years of running for president.
But if the concern is that the candidate is going to repeat that behaviour in office now, I think you can dismiss that
That's what DC thought about Clinton after Gennifer Flowers and then the Am. Spectator state trooper stories broke. He'd left his horndog in Arkansas. Biden is much older than Clinton was, but there's Dirty Old Man Syndrome.
"Marcus wrote a book about Christine Blasey Ford and concluded that she was telling the truth. This column is (or purports to be) Marcus's effort to not be a hypocrite."
If I may paraphrase our friend, Drago. LOL
She wasn't groped! Because......PANTYHOSE!
Looking forward to Ditzy Ruth Marcus' book about Tara Reade...........
To appear reasonable, leftwing idiots like Ruth Marcus have to perform a lotta mental, moral and intellectual gymnastics.......
I can not be helpful on this topic. And I don't care. Is that OK?
Yes. With the pantyhose defense we now need a FULL FBI investigation and televised hearings. And as I have previously commented, those hearings and the questioning must be conducted by Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh. Both men are experienced lawyers and know how to protect the rights of both parties.
More importantly, I want to hear China Joe's statement denying it; his "high tech lynching" moment.
Hypocrites are commonplace, lying is the norm. The first question to ask is why isn't there an onslaught of media trumpeting the Reade's allegation. The answer to that question will lead to a better understanding of what's really going on here. The medium is still the message.
"...groping, fumbling and cooperation"
Kinda sums up Biden's career.
Why is feminine modesty still such a big deal. That ought to be the opposite of feminism.
Either charge it as assault and battery at the time or forget it.
The "pantyhose" comment came from a commenter on the Post website, not Marcus herself.
The idea wasn't that groping through the pantyhose was impossible, but that there would have to be enough squirming at some point that it would make it very difficult. Even if a woman were frozen or bewildered or initially complicit, she could still make it difficult at some point before completion. The detail doesn't disprove the allegation, but it's questionable and raises some doubt about what happened.
Watched the movie "Shooter" yesterday. Portrays the US government of being composed of amoral psychopaths who will do anything to get and retain power. Then I watched some episodes of "A Person of Interest."
I have always tried to argue in favor of fact-finding first, conviction later, whether in the court of public opinion, in the Senate confirmation process or elsewhere....
Liar.
Those who disbelieved and diminished Christine Blasey Ford face the challenge of explaining why they seem so much more eager to credit Tara Reade’s account."
It's not challenging at all. We're applying the standard you created because the goal isn't to see Biden "convicted" in public opinion, it's to ensure everyone (i.e., the rationally ignorant) recognizes the left media present "news" based on their partisanship. This lesson applies to everything they do but in many areas (like direct policy preference) the proof is obscure. Teaching the public using this subject thus prepares them for your policy duplicity.
Kliban's "Pantry Hose" - reach in there and grab a can of beans.
Biden's only four years older than Bill Clinton, but people are convinced he's much older, a product of the 1920s or 1930s who can't stand rock and roll. It's unclear what it says about him, but rock and roll was his generation's music.
Biden does have complete credibility when he says he "doesn't recall the incident".
People who go with their “gut” on this have gone full Dunning-Kruger, like those who find a “ring of truth” in some stories. If you can prove to me that you sat down and listened to 100 stories and did significantly better than random at determining which were false, then maybe you can tell me about your gut.
With the pantyhose defense we now need a FULL FBI investigation and televised hearings
This is my take as well. We need an investigation. Who knows how many other women might come forward if they know this charge is being taken seriously.
The televised hearings are also important. Joe deserves The same opportunity to address these charges on national television that Kavanaugh had.
Even if a woman were frozen or bewildered or initially complicit, she could still make it difficult at some point before completion. The detail doesn't disprove the allegation, but it's questionable and raises some doubt about what happened.
If a woman can squirm enough to stop him, pantyhose don't make a difference. Seriously. Go put on a pair of pantyhose and without putting your hand inside, see if you can't do enough from the outside to feel you've violated yourself. You can.
Kremlinology returns to the Media's toolbox I see. While we were supposed to feel blowsyfords pain based on hazy memories and no witnesses, we are now obliged to consider the granular details of The Accuser of Joe down to ruminations over what EXACTLY what she was wearing and whether Joe's unwelcome groping (which I guess we just accept is okay if she has hose on) was impeded or not. Wow. Having shifting principles sounds so difficult when these creeps try and explain it to us rubes.
I honestly don't see how a standing man could reach under a standing woman's layers of clothes and insert a finger without groping, fumbling and cooperation
and a little sweet talk... dammit, Joe!
If the hand don't fit, you must acquit!
The downside of quarantine is that I can't watch my friends tie themselves in knots over this in person.
Here's a good article by Cathy Young about the accusations, the first I've read which gets into details. Reade's stories have inconsistencies and her behavior is inconsistent. As Young notes none of this is absolute proof of falsehood but there is plenty of justification for doubt.
The story is not whether these accusations are true. The story is that left wing institutions (media, academia, activist groups) change their behavior as soon as their team is targeted. It's an implicit admission their behavior towards all others is politically driven and their positions unsupportable. Anyone paying attention already know this, but having such a high profile mass hypocrisy is good because it will reach many people who normally ignore politics.
Cathy Young
Surveillance is wonderful - unless you spy on Planned Parenthood.
that's illegal. Because D.
It depends on what the meaning of "insert" is.
And speaking of high tech lynchings, it is harder to get a pubic hair to stick on the lid of a can of Diet Coke than to finger a standing woman with hand down her clothes. There’s no stopping a hand once it’s gone down inside the panty hose from the waist level. Silly Rabbit.
woah
AOC Calls Out Hypocritical Response to Biden Sexual Assault Allegation: ‘Believe Women…Until It Inconveniences Us’
How long before AOC walks this back? or - is disappeared?
If Biden's finger spelled like a cigar, BJ Clinton was there first.
Personally, I've not invested any emotion in Tara Reed's claim except that it seems to be more credible than the Christine Blasey Ford hoax.
Joe Biden to Us: You're a “lying dog-faced pony soldier”
Us to Joe: You're a groping, hair-sniffing, panty-hoser"
Most women did wear pantyhose at that time but the thigh high stockings became fairly popular among those of us who were young and didn’t need “tummy control”. Those were the days!
Do the American people have a right to know if their future President sexually assaulted one of his employees?
Whether he is mentally capable of handling the job of President?
Whether Ukraine and China bribed him via his son?
Obviously not. Trump must be removed from office is their rationalization.
I can't imagine any serious person voting for Joe Biden. In his own way, he's more flawed than Hillary was in 2016.
Re: Ralph L:
By "now," I meant to indicate the present, post-MeToo environment. I wouldn't be surprised if a President Trump in 1994 were groping women. But I would be surprised if a President Clinton (M) in 2020 were groping women, even with liberal privilege. It's a different time.
Biden's kind of weird because I think he's honestly rationalised to himself that his clumsy nuzzling and other unwanted touching isn't actually sexual harassment and isn't even inappropriate even though it clearly is, and clearly makes women uncomfortable. I think he's constantly jolted about by his pride and insecurity, and deluding himself that his behaviour is perfectly okay stems from the same psychological impulses that prompt him to whip out obvious, stupid lies about his academic record, or call voters "lying, dog-faced pony soldiers" when they ask questions that prick at his insecurities.
I think Trump and Clinton, in contrast, had the self awareness to know quite well when they were pushing past the bounds of acceptable behaviour and did it anyway when they thought they could get away with it.
Blasey Ford’s specific allegations ought to have been investigated. I’d argue that they should have been quietly investigated by the FBI prior to being made public. Blasey Ford didn’t go public - she informed a Senator. Instead her unverified allegations were announced in a senate hearing. The issue for Blasey Ford is that her allegations were vague and there was no contemporaneous memory of the events or corroborating evidence.
In Reade’s case, she made a video and announced what she claimed she was assaulted by Biden to the world. She also states she reported this to her boss, the Senate personnel office, three law offices, and some friends and relatives. Those are all things that can be verified. Further, we know the Congress paid $17m over a 10 year period in sexual harassment settlements. Those settlements are sealed with NDAs. Joe Biden needs to formally release anyone who has an NDA from coming forward. If none of Reade claims can be verified and or one else comes forward with creditable claims, then this accusation is simply that, an accusation.
#believeallwomen should mean take accusations seriously and investigate. It should mean we assign guilt to anyone at any time simply because an accusation was made.
So, back to the double standards. Please find me a GOP senator that said Blasey Ford’s accusation should not be investigated?
Rick- exactly.
I’d like to know why her “gut” tells her what Reade alleges didn’t happen. The only evidence against it is Biden’s denial. But I’m not going to read her column, sorry.
Look, I’m all for treating serious allegations seriously. I don’t know if Biden did it or not. Admittedly, his groping behavior colors my view of him and this allegation. I’m astonished that anyone could just discount this allegation or presume its falsity based on their “gut” when Biden has a very public history of behaving creepily when around women and girls. Unlike Kavanaugh. But for some reason that woman had to be believed.
#BelieveAllWomen was a dumb hashtag and a dumber approach to inevitably complex, fact-bound situations.
Anita Hill: I believe Anita.
Paula Jones: Slut!
Christine Blasey-Ford: #BelieveAllWomen
Tara Reade: Eh, my gut says no...
I'm fine with calling all sexual abuse complaints more the 24 months old, and no police report, null and void.
Make it so.
Lets move on to the CIA spying on political campaigns. I'm tired of what the Democrats are force feeding the nation.
Not one “witness” could ever put any of Kavanaugh’s accusers in the same house with him, much less alone in a room. Reade literally was employed by Biden in his Senate office. There are records. She filed a complaint with the personnel office. She was fired in retaliation which is also a crime. Note any difference in how this actual proximity is being played by the media?
Milo Minderbinder said...
Hypocrites are commonplace, lying is the norm. The first question to ask is why isn't there an onslaught of media trumpeting the Reade's allegation. The answer to that question will lead to a better understanding of what's really going on here. The medium is still the message.
4/16/20, 9:24 AM
THIS!!!!!
Women of a certain age, and Ms. Reade is one, know that we all wore pantyhose in those days in DC.
I call bullshit. Washington gets hot and muggy, even in the late spring. Tara Reade as born in 1971 and she was 22 when the incident happened, and she might very well have left her pantyhose at home if the day was hot enough.
It’s only a dumb hashtag when applied to Democrats.
It’s still perfectly fine applied to Republicans
Seriously. Go put on a pair of pantyhose and without putting your hand inside, see if you can't do enough from the outside to feel you've violated yourself. You can.
Okay... trying now... definitely having to make a choice of dressing right or left... okay... gettin’ fresh with myself... hey... not bad!
"Lucien said...
People who go with their “gut” on this have gone full Dunning-Kruger, like those who find a “ring of truth” in some stories. If you can prove to me that you sat down and listened to 100 stories and did significantly better than random at determining which were false, then maybe you can tell me about your gut."
So, what's your opinion of the allegation?
Panty hose, the next best thing to a chastity belt.
Nina Burleigh could not be reached for comment...
Wife reminds me that the pantyhose of that era could not be worn with sandals.
"a book about Christine Blasey Ford and concluded that she was telling the truth."
So why should we pay any attention to this person?
I remember reading in her account that she was bare-legged. It struck me at the time as an odd detail to include. Now it makes sense.
I stopped wearing pantyhose in the 80s and even then didn't wear them every time I wore a dress or skirt. So her defense of Biden is lame.
The Blasey Ford business came first. Some Republicans are just following that example. Marcus is like the little boy tattling to his mother: he started it - he hit me back!
Women of a certain age, and Ms. Reade is one, know that we all wore pantyhose in those days in DC.... I have difficulty in thinking a female staffer on the Hill in the spring of 1993 was not wearing hose with a business skirt.... I'm a retired physician and a woman. I've done a lot of pelvic exams in my life and I honestly don't see how a standing man could reach under a standing woman's layers of clothes and insert a finger without groping, fumbling and cooperation.... Especially if she was wearing pantyhose....
This is what is known as "wide stance" reasoning.
The quoted comment is 100% assumptive. This has no credibility in any examination. I'm surprised Ann seems to give this credibility enough to post. I would think she would be the very last to do this
A. Kavanaugh and Biden are very different sorts of men.
B. All the independent evidence contradicted Blasey-Ford, including her named witnesses.
C. Blasey-Ford lied about several things: fear of flying, coaching on polygraphs, etc.
That is not to say Reade’s story is true. The delay and contradiction suggest otherwise, but at least she told people at the time. Prosecutable? I don’t think so. Credible? Maybe. More credible than Blasey-Ford? You bet!
Regardless, the hypocrisy is palpable and delicious.
If she wasn't wearing panty hose then she was asking for it.
"Panty hose, the next best thing to a chastity belt."
One time on TMC I was watching an interview of the dancer Ann Miller where she was telling how she came to invent the panty hose and then she looked into the camera and said sorry guys.
Oh the mental contortions they put themselves through to defend their guy.
Other than yelling, "HYPOCRITE" are Republicans showing consistency toward the two situations?
Bullshit about the pantyhose. In the early '90's, I worked in a large office with over a hundred female attorneys. The younger attorneys wanted to go without hose and often did so--even though the official dress code for the female attorneys at the time directed that women must wear a skirt (no pants) AND HOSE. So even though the head of the office was stuck on an old-fashioned template for female attorney's dress, she was fighting a losing battle because everyone knew that pantyhose were passe. I can remember it clearly because of all the controversy and push-back; eventually we were allowed to wear pants and they gave up on enforcing the wearing of hose.
Here to endorse the bullshit tag. I was a reporter all through the 90's in DC, part of my beat covered Capitol Hill, and there were plenty of young staffers and attorneys (and reporters) running around up there who didn't wear pantyhose. Even back then it was considered antique and oppressive by many.
Lived and worked in DC in late 80s. Hot and humid as fuck in the summer months.
The ladies didn't wear panty hose, jeez.
Often, they weren't wearing panty-anything, if you get my drift.
Our favorite bars were The Tombs and Champions -- both in Georgetown.
Let's go Hoyas!
In defense of Sleepy Joe, he is a nice guy.
He was performing a friendly "grab 'em by the pussy" move, not a mean one.
When Trump talked about it, he was being mean.
"How long before AOC walks this back? or - is disappeared? "
To borrow a phrase from Instapundit: When AOC becomes the voice of reason ...
And here I've been told, since Biden was a mere chairman of the Judiciary Committee, that it isn't the weight of any evidence, but solely the seriousness of the charge, that is damning. At least that has been the case when Democrats are charging Republicans with career-ending but eventually-proven-fictional misbehavior.
I don't think there's hypocrisy on the part of most conservatives here. I have no idea if Reade's story is true, just as I didn't for BF's. But why should that stop me from being furious at the double-standard in press coverage and in the minds of liberals who dismiss this one out of hand but still have "Impeach Kavanaugh" bumper stickers? They made the bed. It's theirs to lie in.
Credible? Maybe. More credible than Blasey-Ford? You bet!
@hombre, also more serious and more important.
I agree with Dream above, but I do find it interesting that to dismiss Reade, a strawman argument has to be introduced with a demand that it be burned first. I can see the new rape defense argument now, "was she wearing pantyhose, because if she was, it couldn't have happened."
I seem to recall a short time in the 90's when it couldn't have been possible for an intern to have alone time with the President, and then it was discovered that it was super easy and barely an inconvenience to just shutdown the government.
My wife worked in DC about the same time frame, she was a spokesperson for a lobbying group. She tells me that on those really hot & humid days pantyhose was a no-go.
To liberals, truth is defined by what they think and what they feel.
#BelieveAllWomen was a dumb hashtag and a dumber approach to inevitably complex, fact-bound situations. I have always tried to argue in favor of fact-finding first, conviction later, whether in the court of public opinion, in the Senate confirmation process or elsewhere....
I am certain that, if this is the case, Marcus can point to some statements she made to this effect when Kavanaugh was first accused, or at least to something she said prior to Biden being accused.
It certainly interesting that the WaPo commenters have created a fake defense for China Joe. They desperately want Trump out.
So, JournoLists want a Planned baby and have her, too. Feminine chauvinism. Don't avoid, reconcile. #HateLovesAbortion
I now understand that if Christine Blasey Ford was wearing pantyhose at that notorious party, then she had nothing to fear from Kavanaugh or anyone else, because they are impregnable, so to speak. And if she wasn't wearing pantyhose, then she was obviously a slut.
Thanks, insightful WaPo commenters!
Ruth Marcus writes:
Reade presents a confounding figure — to me, much more so than Ford.… Reade supported Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I) presidential bid, and the fact that she went public with her allegations just as Biden was on the verge of cementing the Democratic nomination raises the possibility of political motivation, although Reade denies this.
Other red flags emerge as well. Reade has been inconsistent in her attitude toward Biden. She repeatedly praised him on Twitter, including specifically for his work on combating violence against women — an odd position for someone who now claims Biden sexually assaulted her.… The credibility question is the biggest hurdle for me with Reade. Ford did not strike me as a person who was coming forward because of political motivations or because she wanted publicity — anything but. Reade seems a much different and less reliable figure.
So according to Ruth Marcus, Reade's support for Biden's opponent calls her credibility into question … but Reade's praise of Biden also calls her credibility into question? That seems like a "heads I win, tails you lose" argument: you don't have credibility if you're politically opposed to the person you're accusing, but you also don't have credibility if you're politically supportive of that person!
Would Marcus not have believed Christine Blasey Ford if she at one point had praised Kavanaugh for seeming to be an excellent judge? Somehow I doubt it.
Does Marcus really want to encourage this kind of thinking to be applied to future allegations against other politicians, where we go looking for any political statements the person has made that were either against or supportive of the politician, and see either one as a reason to discredit the allegation?
Will no one ask old Joe what HE remembers about Tara? Her scent maybe?
The NYT and WaPo have forgotten more allegations against Biden than you’ve ever heard of. This is called COVERING the news. Like with a pillow.
"Double standards work in both directions. Those who disbelieved and diminished Christine Blasey Ford face the challenge of explaining why they seem so much more eager to credit Tara Reade’s account.""
No. No one here is "eager" to believe Reade. But we do note the differences between her accusations and CBF's.
Progs apply double standards even in accusing the right of double standards.
I remain confused by the assertion, made here by Althouse and seen elsewhere, that the Reade v. Biden accusation falls into the same category as the Blasey Ford v. Kavanaugh accusation, and that however you reacted to the latter should dictate your reaction to the former. That's a very strong assertion with strong implications for how one must think and feel to avoid hypocrisy, but on what basis? I find the Reade allegations more credible, even though both are thinly sourced, because Reade was an adult, has clear memories of the incident, the accusation was of behavior Biden perpetrated as an adult and because Reade seems to have told friends about it at the time. Just because I was highly skeptical of the Blasey Ford allegations, I'm supposed to be equally skeptical of Reade? I really don't get that.
I don't believe or disbelieve Ford. Same with Reade. One reason we have limitations periods and the doctrine of laches is to acknowledge that the truth becomes increasingly difficult to ascertain with any confidence as time passes.
Furthermore, even if bad behavior can be somehow proved, the interest of judicial recompense -- both criminal and civil -- becomes more attenuated. People change.
Do the media have a double standard? Well, were our last couple Popes Catholic?
Leland said... I do find it interesting that to dismiss Reade, a strawman argument has to be introduced with a demand that it be burned first.
I also don't find hypotheticals about what people must have been doing decades ago compelling. I think the best arguments against her assertions are:
- the first story she told publicly to the Nevada County Union did not include rape, it was sexual harassment in the form of looks, touchiness in non-sexual ways (wrist / arms), and asking that she serve cocktails at an event because she had nice legs. A later podcast interview included the rape accusation. If a rape occurred these other accusations are pretty meaningless except as a way to prove the rape. It would never be omitted from the story.
- This supposedly occurred in the hallway of a public building where Biden had just been talking to someone else. I don't doubt cad behavior occurs regularly, but there? Even Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd tried their waitress sandwich in the private room of a restaurant (while loaded).
- As Cathy Young wrote "But Reade’s description, just like her claim that she needed to be “educated” about the assaultiveness of being digitally penetrated against her will (despite being a recent college graduate, and a feminist, at a time of intense campus activism against sexual assault), feels more like a recitation of progressive stereotypes about the “bad old days” than a genuine recounting of the events."
Against these weaknesses at least she told some people about her experience. But it's a little cloudy what she actually said. Apparently her brother re-contacted the reporter to specify she did mention assault rather than a less serious harassment which means he did not assert that in his original interview. It's not clear the other parties ever specified she told them about an assault as opposed to touching her in a non-sexual way (arms, etc, one of her allegations of 'harassment').
It's hard to believe Biden would soberly do this only this one single time. If he is willing to be this brazen there would be dozens of victims and stories.
Maybe his touchiness bothered her and she now feels aggrieved about how her job ended so when the touchiness didn't create the backlash she desired she upsold her experience. It's not necessarily true but you can see how this possibility explains the inconsistencies in her story.
JAC said ... Would Marcus not have believed Christine Blasey Ford if she at one point had praised Kavanaugh for seeming to be an excellent judge? Somehow I doubt it.
In a similar vein, would Ruth Marcus have believed CBF if she had not scrubbed the Internet of all traces of her previous statements?
What would you expect from Ruth Marcus..?
I think most of the right is advertising Tara Reade to get the MSM to follow their own rules. As someone said up above, where's her Senate hearing?
Those who disbelieved and diminished Christine Blasey Ford face the challenge of explaining why they seem so much more eager to credit Tara Reade’s account."
A) #believeallwomen wasn't our side's idea. You want to make that the standard? Live with it.
B) I don't #believe for a second that you were against "believe all women." Links or it didn't happen.
But, if you're looking for an explanation of why Reade is more credible than Ford:
C) Biden has a well documented, PUBLIC history of creepy behavior towards women, complete with photos and videos;
D) Biden has been accused in print of disturbing behavior toward women (such as swimming nude in front of female secret service officers, and laughing about it); those accusations came at a time that it WASN'T politically convenient;
E) Reade told multiple people about the incident at the time; Ford didn't tell anyone until Kavanaugh's name was floated as a possible Court pick;
F) Reade says she reported sexual harassment (though not assault) to "official channels" at the time, but was ignored;
G) Reade's story is more specific, and consistent, than Ford's story ever was;
H) Ford's story was directly contradicted by every person she said was at the party, including her friend.
CBF was less credible. She only had vague recollections, she was coached by Democrat lawyers, and is a staunch Democrat. She made up various lies, including adding another door to her home, and being afraid to fly. There was no proof she was ever in the same room, much less same party with Kavanaugh. It was 100% BS. She couldn't get one person to corroborate the party. She had no idea where this happened.
Ironically Reade is claiming Biden did to her what Trump said women ALLOWED him to do on tape. Reade worked with Biden, Reade told people at the time of the incident, although her brother isn't someone I would put 100% stock in. Reade is more credible, and she was demoted after the alleged incident.
I seriously can't believe a law professor would consider them "the same". Parts of Reade's story are factual and can be corroborated, if not the act itself. Reade, as far as we know hasn't been coached or paid by Republicans. Maybe someone should see if someone in the DNC is coaching her.
I agree, Birches. My sense is that the right is actually pretty skeptical of Reade -- not all that different than Ford. Their enthusiasm for pressing her case has more to do with exposing the double standard of the Left and the Media (forgive the redundance).
after Biden was accused of sexual assault, his senior adviser,
@SymoneDSanders went through and deleted all her Kavanaugh tweets
MayBee said... As for pantyhose, there are all different kinds. The cheaper kinds like l'Eggs and Hanes were super flimsy.
Back in the 70's Chicago was having its annual February "Polar Vortex" or whatever we called It then.
To survive the cold, we layered like crazy, but there really was not much you could do about freezing legs. My GF suggested panty hose. I bought a pair and tried them on, but they ripped apart in seconds. I tried a larger pair and they worked for one day before tearing apart.
They were pretty good at keeping my legs warm, but I cannot imagine how women could wear them in warm weather. Of course, I did not shave my legs, so that may be why they were itchy and uncomfortable.
"Skeptical Voter said...
Your average teenage horndog--or Brett Kavanaugh--could solve the pantyhose zone problem standing up, or lying down, or standing on his head. And older generations could make their way through girdles. Speaking from very long ago (mid late 1950's) personal experience of course. The fact is that where there's a will, there's a way. But it usually involves at least some cooperation."
Many girdle styles dating from the late 50s were what is known as "open bottom", meaning that they were skirt-like with four or six garters for stocking attachment. Very easy to gain access. If it were a panty or legged girdle, not so much. You'd really need to work at it.
As for the pantyhose bit, by the early 90s, the push for bare legs in business environments was gaining steam. The hosiery industry tried to keep up, introducing hose with toe-thongs to be worn with open-toed sandals/shoes. Didn't matter; by the mid-90s it was a lost cause.
Denial is a rip in Tara's pantyhose.
Thigh highs.
Democracy Dies in Darkness!
Weak effort on Marcus' part, and sloppy on the facts. But since when did facts get in the way of honest argument?
Pantyhose began to go out of fashion when pantsuits came into fashion. Pantsuit-wearing women wore trouser socks with their loafers because sweaty feet felt kinda icky.
Women who wore dresses or skirts wore black tights or no hosiery at all. And the early commenter is right, this was a period when sandals became fine for workday dress from mid-spring through mid autumn. This also explains the explosion during that period in the number of mani-pedi parlors, virtually all of them staffed by poor brown immigrant women, a topic that never ever has been given any consideration in the woke mainstream press.
Reade is no heroine -- real women call HR or the cops about this sort of thing -- but she is infinitely more credible than Blasey-Ford, period. The latter allowed herself to become a national joke in order to mount a last-minute offense after Brett Kavanaugh had cleared all the hurdles for his nomination. This also reflects poorly on the true believers who think they know everything.
I'd like to see the list congressional payouts from their harassment "secret fund", now that you brought the topic up.
Cui bono has been the operative standard all along, as it usually is whenever the issue in controversy has a strong political-partisan aspect. But everyone with any sense already knows that. All the pretending otherwise (as in this piece by a reliably lefty, Dem partisan) is very, very tiresome. (Same would obviously be true about Hannity, too.) As the Dan McLaughlin piece featured here yesterday noted, no one believes and no one is expected to believe the pundits declaring themselves above such hypocrisy and partisanship.
My wife was working in 1993, she was 24 at the time. If it was over 50 degrees out she didn't wear pantyhose to work. She didn't wear them at unless she was going to a very dressy function, and even then she would mostly wear thigh high stockings. When it was cold out, she'd wear pants or tights. Thongs were in, "VPL" was noticed and commented on by us cavemen guys. Monica Lewinsky was wearing a thong and no pantyhose to work in the damn Whitehouse. That nasty old lady is a nasty old BS spewing lady.
Marcus is a hypocrite 100%. No amount of rationalization will change that blatant fact- all it does is shows she is a bald-faced liar to boot.
Biden is like L'eggs
He hugs you!
He holds you!
He never lets you go!
..and sniffs and gropes you.
No one in the media apparently give one fucking shit about their reputations. They are all intellectual whores.
An honest person in Marcus' position would have offered, today at least, that perhaps she shouldn't have been praising Ford's courage and credibility all this time in the face of teh contradictory evidence that was actually offerred in Kavanaugh's defense- that is the only honest way to defend Biden at this point; but then honest people wouldn't have written Marcus' book about the Ford/Kavanaugh affair in the first place. Marcus is the kind of person I would hope catches WuFlu and dies.
Gretchen said...
I seriously can't believe a law professor would consider them "the same".
Which law professor considered them "the same?"
We showed our older kids "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" recently. My kids were asking about if people could be framed the way Jefferson Smith was in the film. I decided to show them the Kavanaugh hearings. A few minutes into Ford's testimony, my tween son said, "Wait, this is about something that happened in HIGH SCHOOL?!?" Pretty much says it all.
Iman said...
Seriously. Go put on a pair of pantyhose and without putting your hand inside, see if you can't do enough from the outside to feel you've violated yourself. You can.
Okay... trying now... definitely having to make a choice of dressing right or left... okay... gettin’ fresh with myself... hey... not bad!
4/16/20, 10:00 AM
Son of a B@tch! And I didn't even buy myself dinner first! Now I feel so used! I wonder if I will call me later?!?
Bernie & Biden bromance heading south of sexual allegations?
WSJ: "A decade ago, [Avenatti's] Julie Swetnick made a sexual harassment complaint against her former employer, New York Life Insurance. Representing her was the firm run by Debra Katz, who now reps Christine Blasey Ford."
What are the odds that Katz represented one phony "victim" of Kavanugh ten years ago...and another one today? Isn't providing phony professional witnesses to another lawyer a form of witness-tampering itself?
Still no charges...
Ruth Marcus is a fucking hypocrite. Almost as bad as Jennifer Rubin.
There are various reasons that the charges against Kavanaugh always seemed dubious. But, then, so did the charges against Bork and Thomas.
Consequently, if the charges against Joe Biden should happen to be false, I find that I'm of two...no, three...no, more than that! ...minds:
1. Nobody should be subjected to false accusations for political gain.
2. The Democrats have been doing this to the Republicans continuously for fifty years, and it's only just now that the Republicans start fighting with an equal willingness to get dirty? What took them so long? How long will it take for them to catch up? Not too long, I hope: There's a rich history of leftist slander that merits a kind of belated Equal Treatment Under Law.
3. Actually, though, I don't want the Republicans to sink to that level. In another ten thousand years, most of the unrepentant leftists will be in hell; but my hope is that the people whose company I prefer, and I, won't be. I want conservatism to win, for the sake of the country; I want conservatives to win fairly, for the sake of their own souls and mine.
4. But in this life, systems of incentives matter. You can't preserve a culture or a civilization if all the systematic incentives reward their breakdown. Where's the incentive NOT to lie, if you're neither punished for it, or on the receiving end?
5. Maybe the best thing that could be done is to revive the practice of lethal dueling over matters of honor. If I were Bork, after Ted Kennedy's description of "Robert Bork's America," I'd have had eight words for the scumbag senator: "Fill your hand, you son of a bitch."
Barring something like that, or (even less likely!) a sudden surge of honesty and impartiality in the press, I don't see any non-perverse incentives in our current system.
“Bernie and Biden Bromance goes south.”
Yes it went south faster than Biden’s finger. Bernie is going to be the passive aggressive object in Biden’s alimentary system.
As was stated previously this is a red-herring. The issue is the media ignoring the allegations. The same media who dismissed and called the THREE masseuses liars who said they were assaulted by al gore. REMEMBER THE BOYS' CLUB MENTALITY THE MEDIA IS ALWAYS SCREAMING ABOUT. Except when they are not!
I will state again that my cousin was sexually assaulted in 1998 when she was a staffer on max baucus' senate staff. She was told to shut-up. This was at the time of the Lewinsky scandal. That's the EXCUSE they gave for wanting her to keep quiet. She's a step cousin so I don't know her that well. I don't know if it was max Baucus or another senator who did it or a staffer.
I worked in DC in the 90s (not on Capitol Hill) and I definitely remember women in dresses without pantyhose, for god's sake. What a lame take. Why did Anne even reference what a wapo commentator posted unless she thought had validity?
So, republicans are supposed to be open-minded while the democrats and their disgusting, lying, partisan media beat the hell out of any republican.
Sorry, no damn thanks.
"Biden. Joe Biden"
Herr Pluggs Von Sniffengroper stars in the new thriller, "Pussyfinger"
Rick at 9:37 posts a link to an interview. She was wearing a skirt and no stockings.
>>Balfegor: On the gripping hand
Nice motey reference!
--gpm
This is so much more fun to discuss than the coronavirus issue. Beyond the prurient interest, there's the fact that it's almost impossible for a Democrat to defend Biden without looking like an aparatchik or a hypocrite. That's probably why most of them and their friends in the media have adopted the tactic of ignoring the allegation......I'm of the opinion that decades old allegations that cannot be proven should not be published. The exception I would make is when some woman comes forward to corroborate another woman's current testimony. Some charges against Weinstein and Cosby were decades old, but the women came forward to support charges that were currently in the news....I would not convict either Biden or Kavanaugh, but I give Biden's accuser the edge in credibility. Also, unlike Ford, she did come forward in support of that other woman who claimed Bided had touched her in a way that made her feel uncomfortable.
Those who disbelieved and diminished Christine Blasey Ford face the challenge of explaining why they seem so much more eager to credit Tara Reade’s account.
There's no "challenge" at all.
1) There's contemporaneous evidence of Reade's allegations, while there isn't any for Ford.
2) There's a long history of Reade naming Biden as having done something; there isn't any such for Ford naming Kavanaugh. (Ford's circa 2014 claims didn't name Kavanaugh, and the only written record of them claims four boys involved, directly contradicting her current Kavanaugh-and-Judge story.)
3) There's an actual documented pattern of Biden touching women without their consent; there's no such thing regarding Kavanaugh.
The challenge is the other way around, and Ruth Marcus tries hard, pretending #2 and #3 cut the other way, but fails.
By the way, you can substitute "Brodderick" and "Clinton" for "Reade" and "Biden" and reach the same result even more conclusively, even though Ruth Marcus only manages to mention Bill Clinton in the context of Lewinsky.
Credibility here runs Brodderick > Reade > Ford, and seriousness of the allegations also run Brodderick > Reade > Ford.
Balfegor said...
Re: Ralph L:
By "now," I meant to indicate the present, post-MeToo environment. I wouldn't be surprised if a President Trump in 1994 were groping women. But I would be surprised if a President Clinton (M) in 2020 were groping women, even with liberal privilege. It's a different time.
Biden's kind of weird because I think he's honestly rationalised to himself ... same psychological impulses that prompt him to whip out obvious, stupid lies about his academic record, or call voters "lying, dog-faced pony soldiers" when they ask questions that prick at his insecurities.
I think Trump and Clinton, in contrast, had the self awareness to know quite well when they were pushing past the bounds of acceptable behaviour and did it anyway when they thought they could get away with it.
4/16/20, 9:44 AM
Love how you just bundle Donald Trump and Bill Clinton together and put both on the other side of Biden. What is that? I'll say this for Biden, having victims brought to his hotel room at gunpoint is probably above his squick level.
Rick said...
Leland said... I do find it interesting that to dismiss Reade, a strawman argument has to be introduced with a demand that it be burned first.
I also don't find hypotheticals about what people must have been doing decades ago compelling. I think the best arguments against her assertions are:
While not great, far better than anything Marcus could come up with. You know why? Because you're interested in the truth, with chips falling where they may, and Ruth Marcus is interested in D. Team D.
She doesn't want to prove Biden innocent, she wants to show him immune. Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi. You might as sue or depose Cleon, or whoever it was, for sending the yearly tributes of seven Athenian youths and maidens to the Minotaur.
John Althouse Cohen said...
Ruth Marcus writes:
Reade presents a confounding figure — to me, much more so than Ford.… Reade supported Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders...
Does Marcus really want to encourage this kind of thinking to be applied to future allegations against other politicians, where we go looking for any political statements the person has made that were either against or supportive of the politician, and see either one as a reason to discredit the allegation?
Congratulations, you stumbled over the truth. Now are you going to pick yourself up and carry on as if nothing had happened? Because it's all D. Team D.
It's Democrats all the way down. You're either on the bus or off the bus. You're either tolerating accepting promoting supporting this behavior or you're not. It will never change unless you contribute to changing it.
I've said often that Sanders would be a horrible choice as president, but at least, I believe I have been consistent in saying, I believe he is an honest man. I'm so delighted that he is apparently stepping out to take these accusations seriously, even if it doesn't last. And AOC too, good for her.
At the risk of going all Godwin, it is said that there were good Nazis. That's fine. But other than those in special cases like Oskar Schindler, the rationale for a good Nazi was that he was a good person (loved his country, feeding his family, hated commies) who had not seen the ovens or the piano wire.
Now do you see the piano wire? Do you see the Naked Lunch at the end of your fork? Why are you still a D? Why is your mother still a D?
Abortion? What better method than abortion to destroy the evidence of rape? No wonder they all support it.
Biden needs to be investigated we should have the same kind of televised hearing just like then did Kavenaugh we need to hear the facts and the evidence. Difference is there is a police report to prove her allegations.
We need to have a televised hearing just like kavenaugh she actually remembers it there was a police report and she has witnesses. So it should all play out on national tv so we can all make a decision.
Post a Comment