Archive for the ‘Corrupted Culture’ Category
Revisiting Decorum: The CPAC Controversy
Thursday, February 16th, 2012
It didn’t strike me as particularly controversial to say that a business-political gathering calls for business attire generally or to say, specifically, don’t dress like a tramp. Here’s the link to the offending post.
Why is this controversial?
Well, some objected to me using the words “whore” or “slutty” to describe the dress. The language was provocative but no more provocative than the dress, itself, which was the point. Do young women want to be seen first as a sex object? If the answer is yes, then dress that way.
To be clear, the vast majority of women dressed beautifully at CPAC. Look at how awesome conservative women looked here. Enough poorly dressed women got my attention, and a guy brought it up to me (and then a girl did) at the convention, and then I read Erick’s post about young men, and all this was on the heels of an event I took my daughter to recently, that I decided to write about the phenomenon. Altogether, I came to the conclusion that firstly, we are doing a poor job teaching proper decorum to the next generation and secondly, these young women won’t have the benefit of being long forgotten fashion fails. Social media will capture it for all posterity.
Young people need to be more careful these days to maintain their reputations than those of my generation.
I should have divided my post, had I to do it again, because I was really talking about two things: social behavior and sartorial behavior. They are correlated, but not causative. That is, dressing sleazy does not necessarily mean one is a sleaze. That impression can be taken though, and can be detrimental to a woman’s professional and personal opportunities.
It may surprise people to know that I don’t particularly care about fashion in the abstract. I don’t pay attention to it. Women who pull off pulled-together consistently have my full respect. It’s not easy. I’ve referred to myself as fashion-unconscious.
Decorum, though, does matter, and when not one or two outliers, but groups of women seem to be so clueless that even I notice, it might be a problem. So I wrote about it.
This was not a prescriptive post. That is, I wasn’t telling people to wear such and such. It was proscriptive. That is, don’t do this.
Some men lamented that I recommend the coverage of cleavage. Some men were relieved. It shouldn’t be controversial to say that women should be aware of their effect on men and to be respectful. And even I noted that women will show a little bit and can be tasteful, but too much is too much. Who is to say what’s too much? Well, that takes judgment, discernment, and that’s what seems to be lacking.
Some folks worried that even mentioning decorum would discourage young people from getting involved. The mohawk-wielding, Fingers Malloy said that he thought the GOP was too uptight as it is, fashion-wise. Probably. But I never said to be uptight or nunnish but to dress to suite the situation. To be respectful.
And since I’m here, I may as well go all the way. Some of the young men and women I’m writing about didn’t look edgy fashion-wise–they looked unkempt. They looked like they needed showers.
Personal hygiene, being schooled in basic etiquette, knowing where to wear what, are all foundational to being respectful of those around you. I’ve caught a couple episode of What Not To Wear, and repeatedly, the hosts are stressing being respectful by dressing and grooming in a manner appropriate to the situation. They don’t ask people to give up their essential selves. They ask that the people be their best selves.
And really, that was my whole point: Young ladies, those few who this was written to, being their best, pulled-together selves is simply respectful to themselves and to their friends, their co-workers, and the environment. What you wear, how you wear it, and in what situation you wear it does provoke a reaction from people either good, bad or neutral. To pretend that people don’t judge is just silly. They do.
On Twitter, I gave examples of women who are beautiful and even edgy and sexy but not overtly sexual or sleazy. There’s a line. We all seem to know the difference. Well, Michelle Malkin, Dana Loesch, Pamela Gellar, Abby Alger and Tina Korbe are all unique and uniquely beautiful, tasteful, and sartorially pleasing, as just a few examples.
As to the latter, Robert Stacy McCain, decided to link-whore (there’s that word again) on my previous post and took the opportunity to be vile to Tina Korbe. There is no excuse for what he wrote. Please read Katie Pavlich’s thorough evisceration. He was wrong and came across as a sexist pig. Tina is an example of what TO do. That she sat down, and her skirt hiked up, and that someone captured it and pointed it out is classless. All women in a skirt (even ones that go to your knees), can empathize with her situation. The people publishing the photo should be embarrassed. [It just makes me angry that I'm playing into what Stacy really wants, which is for someone, anyone, to link to and read his blog.]
Hopefully, this clarifies things. There’s a line between stylish and even sexy, and sleazy and kinda dirty. Women who dress the latter at a business or politics conference shouldn’t be surprised when people judge them. Some ladies do this knowing the effect and being happy for it. More women though, are unaware of the impression they’re leaving and would like to be seen differently. For those women, a knowledgable Department Store worker can be a huge help. I know I have one. She calls me when she thinks something would be good, since I’ve told her my job. Being fashion stupid doesn’t mean one has to violate decorum. It just means one has to work harder.
Here’s a link to good advice. There’s more at the link.
Oh, and since I’ve irritated everyone, I’ll address the social behavior in another post.
CPAC: The Jersey Shore-ification Of Our Young People — UPDATED
Tuesday, February 14th, 2012
Erick Erickson wrote a must-read piece to the young men of the conservative movement. It’s good stuff and especially important considering men are to be future leaders at home, at church, etc.
Women will be future leaders, too, and I was dismayed to see how many of them either looked frumpish or like two-bit whores.
First, are these young people being taught anything by their parents? I was at another service-oriented gathering of young women where the girls were in tight bandeau-skirts (you know, the kind of tube-top skirts that hookers wear on street corners?). They were sitting with their mothers. What is going on here?
Second, have women so internalized feminist dogma that they see themselves in only two ways? Butch, men-lite wannabes or 3rd wave sluts who empower themselves by screwing every available horndog man?
Neither path is a way to self-love and respect, mind you. Both tracks will inhibit future success.
Women, if you’re at a conference where you’re learning to be a future politician or wish to succeed in the business of politics, dress the part. No, you don’t have to be in a business suit with pearls. However, modesty is a minimum. So:
1. No cleavage. That’s right. Cover that up. I say “no” in absolutist terms because women will show a tiny bit and that’s okay, but really, in a business environment where ideas are the priority, a dude thinking about your ta-tas is counter-productive.
2. Skirts no more than three finger-widths above the knee. Why do I even have to write this? Well, because someone is allowing these girls out of the house with mini-skirts that reveal too much.
3. Save the stilettos for Saturday night on a date with your boyfriend.
4. Bend at the knee. No, I don’t want to see your butt.
Young women, you degrade your own value by dressing and then acting the ho.
I cannot even tell you how many girls have told me that all they want is to get married and have babies. They do not seem to make the connection that a young man is not interested in getting married and making babies with a girl who is so easy as to have a one-night stand over a CPAC weekend (or any other weekend.)
You know what a guy thinks when you slut-it-up? He thinks: If she’ll do that with me, she’ll do that with anyone.
This is not politically correct advice, mind you. Young ladies at college are encouraged to embrace their sexuality and flaunt it on the one hand (empowerment!) or to be tough, gruff and make-up free (man’s world!) to be taken seriously.
A successful woman can be tough and beautiful, modest and stylish, smart and sexy while still being chaste and having expectations of men.
The conservative movement means conservative values–promoting behavior that will lead to a sound society. Family is at the basis of this. Sexuality, and the self-management of it, is at the core of family.
A man who will use self-restraint, respect a woman, honor her enough to not pressure for sex–is a man who will more likely be faithful in marriage, work and life.
Likewise, a woman who sees herself as more than a sex-object and realizes she doesn’t need to be a man in order to be worthy, who carries herself with confidence and modesty, will attract men who want to get married and make babies.
It is disheartening that these ideas even need to be written about, but clearly they do. If, at the number one conservative conference of the year, young men and women are looking and acting like the cast of Jersey Shore, it’s time to reset the compass.
It’s past time.
P.S. Parents, your children reflect your standards, or lack thereof. For. Shame.
UPDATED: Worth a read. A father gives his account of young women and says, in his article, The Death of Pretty:
Most girls don’t want to be pretty anymore even if they understand what it is. It is ironic that 40 years of women’s liberation has succeeded only in turning women into a commodity. Something to be used up and thrown out.
Of course men play a role in this as well, but women should know better and they once did. Once upon a time you would hear girls talk about kind of women men date and the kind they marry. You don’t hear things like that anymore.
But here is the real truth. Most men prefer pretty over hot. Even back in 6th grade I hated the “hot” Olivia Newton John and felt sorry for her that she had to debase herself in such a way. Still do.
Please read the whole thing.
Updated again:
Well, at least Wonkette is consistent. They are for sluttiness! Yay! Let’s promote STDs, drunken debauchery, casual sex, and by extension, the inevitable unwanted pregnancies and abortions that result. Isn’t being progressive positively regressive? Like it’s some big cultural evolution and progress to have humans rut like animals.
Updated:
Dan Riehl welcomes Tube Tops.
On “Whorishness.” Related: STDs
Little Miss Attila on navigating gender relations:
There is, in fact, a sort of intellectual jujitsu that a few conservative males practice, wherein they decline to respect women in the egalitarian John Stuart Mill sense (because, doncha know, that’s feminist, and it’s bad), and yet they decline to do it in an Old-World, gentlemenly sense (because that would be old-fahioned, and we’re all very modern around here). These two approaches can overlap, but in a certain type of male they might both be eschewed . . . and that is a recipe for caddishness.
I’ve seen it, and it isn’t attractive.
But, you know: these matters of etiquette aren’t easy, no matter where one stands on the social-conservative spectrum. And conventions . . . well, they can be dicey arenas when it comes to the etiquette of flirting. (Rebecca Watson just called to point out that a guy once tried to coffee-rape her in an elevator, which, you know . . . made me sigh heavily.)
The bottom line is, treat people decently. If you’re wrestling with heavy-duty personal demons such as uncontrolled anger—or a tendancy to proposition new acquaintances‐don’t drink as heavily, even if there is a hosted bar.
She brings up a good point on acting respectful. And that’s really what I’m talking about here–dressing, acting respectfully, appropriately (man, I hate that word).
It’s a matter of even knowing what is respectful attire, action, etc. This all makes me seem terribly old-fashioned. And it probably makes me seem hard on women.
If a woman is looking for a man, don’t act like a little girl, don’t dress provocatively and then be appalled when you’re propositioned, and have a couple standards for behavior–your own and his.
These sorts of things used to be taught. Now the rules and expectations are so blurred and confusing, there’s a certain amount of blithering hysteria involved in the Western mating ritual. Girls really have no concept of their own value and are shocked at being treated as a commodity.
Question: Were loose standards the standard for getting into the bloggers lounge? Inquiring minds outside the room want to know.
Obama’s War On Religion–Updated Marco Rubio Rebels
Tuesday, January 31st, 2012
There’s some discomfort on the part of the more secular DC inhabitants both left and right with any pro-traditional values anything. Perhaps that’s why President Obama feels free to do this, as reported by Elizabeth Scalia:
There are questions as to whether HHS has authority to issue exemptions to Obamacare, although quite a few have been issued for reasons other than conscience. There appear to be no questions in the president’s mind, or in Secretary Sebelius’, that they have the authority to intrude on freedom of religion. With this ruling they insist that church-affiliated institutions either act against their own belief or so narrow the scope of their community service as to be removed from the public square; either way, the government is deliberately affecting the free exercise of religion. Considering some Catholic schools, hospitals and charities were serving their communities before the secular governments even thought to follow suit, that is a damnable, and damning, legacy for a president who once taught constitutional law.
If the culture war has seemed oblique to you or somehow irrelevant or perhaps a thing of the past, read Elizabeth’s post.
If you have wondered what Rick Perry was talking about and now, what Newt Gingrich has been decrying in Florida, read Elizabeth’s post.
If you give a crap at all about the idea of Freedom of Religion and the exercise of, even if you believe nothing, read Elizabeth’s post.
Ultimately, you serve a god–either the One who bestows inalienable rights or the state as run by the latest human flavor.
Unless you’re in the mood to serve Barack Obama and his grand vision, defend your rights to self-determination and worshiping in the way you see fit.
UPDATED:
Marco Rubio rebels against Obama’s regulations.
Bookworm calls the cultural divide a “gaping chasm”.
Leftist Underage Labor: Forcing Children To Do Their Dirty Work
Tuesday, December 6th, 2011
Once again, a leftist uses her child as a prop to harass a conservative. Needing to prove a political point, the lesbian mom get that she’s harming a child in the process.
Here’s a gay mom using her son to pester Michele Bachmann, something the child clearly doesn’t want to do. And even if he wanted to, doesn’t have the notion of consequences, i.e., could look back when he’s an adult and have formed a different opinion. Kathy Shaidle has an opinion on this “bullying.”
The Left has a real problem using children for their own coercive purposes.
D.C. mom uses children as human shields [video] at Occupy Wall Street protests. This one in D.C.
Hollywood activists get kids to sing creepy pro-Barack song.
An artist made kids cry for anti-Bush art. (This is really despicable.)
Here’s a union “goon” using his son as a human shield in Portland, Oregon.
Oh, don’t forget this sweet girl used by her dad to block traffic. This is particularly upsetting, too.
And really, these are just the examples I can think of off of the top of my head. There are probably more and you’re welcome to share them in the comments.
The point is that leftists have no problem using children to achieve political ends. They force them against their will and without consent to engage in behavior that is dangerous.
Totalitarians of all stripes are the same, though.
Here’s some Palestinians using their children as human shields.
It’s disgusting whenever it’s used.
Feminists Lie, Women’s Hopes Die
Thursday, December 1st, 2011
Women want to believe that they’re impervious to things like age and ovaries. So, during peak creative years, women push their energy into relatively time unlimited endeavor–career–instead of a very time limited endeavor–having babies.
Young mothers are scorned for being stupid, giving up their potential, subjugating themselves to a man’s world.
Ironically, by subscribing to a dirty man’s definition of success — rutting like animals and climbing the corporate ladder by any means necessary — women deprive themselves of doing the one thing that is essentially female–giving birth.
Newsflash: Only women can do it. There are requirements. A woman must have a functional uterus, fresh eggs, good health and it’s really helpful to have economic and emotional support. In old-fashioned terms, that was called a husband.
Imagine the shock, then, when women find out that they’ve been lied to about their reproductive ability:
A decade ago, a fertility ad campaign on public buses in several big cities sparked a vicious backlash. It featured a baby bottle shaped like an hourglass, to warn women their time was running out. But women’s rights groups called it a scare tactic that left women feeling pressured and guilty.
Another ad campaign? Sure, says Mingo.
“And it needs to come on when men are paying attention,” she says. “Heck, put it on in the middle of a football game or something!”
Women are afraid of losing career opportunities. It’s not like there is one choice or the other. I’ve always worked while having kids.
Still, it helped that because of medical training waiting to have kids was no option because it limited options.
When you know you want kids, and maybe a big family, two things should be a priority:
1. Getting married.
2. Getting pregnant.
So, women in their 20s need to strike while their hot body and biology work to their advantage. This, of course, is very politically incorrect advice.
Telling a woman to carve out time to date, join social institutions (like, horrors!, churches) that encourage marriage, etc. just seems so old-fashioned.
Well getting married and having kids young has many biological and sociological and cultural advantages.
Women need to be told the truth about their limitations so they can change their life choices accordingly. Many who want and should have children won’t be able to because of the lies they believe and they’ll find out the truth too late.
America, Waiting
Wednesday, November 30th, 2011
Chart from Jim Pethokoukis of AEI.
America faces an unprecedented debt crisis, true. What is not conventional wisdom is that America could face renewed, even unprecedented, greatness if a decent leader comes forward.
Given that the Republican party seems incapable of getting its collective crap together, that scenario seems unlikely, though.
Businesses are, at this point, forcing themselves to not grow. They are unwilling to take on more risk. They’re keeping cash on hand. They’re paying down debt. They’re waiting.
Individuals are doing the same. Part of it is that they don’t qualify for credit even if they wanted it. Part of it is that they don’t want it.
Still, this unrealized creation and growth waits for the right catalyst.
Obama, is not a catalyst. Quite the contrary, he’s an inhibitor. Hell, he antagonizes any growth potential.
Obama’s actions are so frustrating to expansion that even apathetic business people are paying attention. Usually business folks lobby hard for their interests–they win some, they lose some and they work around the bureaucracy and incorporate the rules and regulations and taxes and fees into the cost of doing business. Not so now. Everyone can thank Obama for being so persecutorial rhetorically and prosecutorial policy-wise, businesses are being put out of business. That’s attention-getting.
The business world is now in open rebellion. Screw you, Obama, we’ll just not spend any money, period. Zilch. The cozy win-win we had going on is over. Sure, we’ll throw some money at you on the outside chance you get re-elected–we don’t want to be the subject of your direct ire. Instead, we’ll do just enough to get by everywhere.
A couple things about this:
America should never be so beholden to the executive branch that one person can do so much damage to the economy. And yet, here we are, and business is mostly to blame. By lobbying tirelessly for the government’s favor and selling their souls (Walmart and the AARP’s obsequious deference on Obamacare comes to mind) to obtain that favor, business leaders find out [surprise!] that’s what’s given can be taken away. Obama has been busily taking away or threatening to do so.
Businesses can afford to lobby the government, but the individual has been marginalized. Businesses were totally fine with that so long as individuals could still afford to buy their wares. Nothing like a long, deep recession to drive home the point that poor people don’t buy stuff.
So, while the cozy relationship benefits businesses for a while, eventually, people have to be forced to buy stuff and people resist being forced to buy stuff (see also really expensive light bulbs). So they just stop buying stuff they don’t want (see also solar panels and the Chevy volt.) And those businesses, warmed by the loving embrace of government tax breaks, bailouts and inducements find themselves screwed. No one wants expensive, useless crap. It’s bad enough when it’s cheap. But the stuff the government touches gets very expensive.
So the individual revolts, too. He stops buying. And if the government creates perverse economic incentives long enough, he loses his job and can’t buy stuff.
And that’s where were at in America.
America is profoundly in debt. America is jobless. America is sitting on the capital it does have.
Obama is making everything worse.
And yet, America is primed for some success–if the GOP can muster something. A steady hand, reduced government interference, positive rhetoric, assurances that businesses aren’t going to be raked over the coals (or given an unfair advantage either), etc.
In a word: growth.
That requires political change and a person willing to articulate a sunny, hopeful message to encourage growth but willing to make some tough decisions–i.e. cut government spending.
More on why this is not likely to happen in the next post.
Boomer Blame
Monday, November 14th, 2011
Very interesting (but rather wrong) piece about the younger generations blaming the Boomers by Walter Russell Read by way of Monty at Ace. The comments are far more insightful.
Says Alex Scipio:
Sorry, Prof. Mead, but you have widely missed the mark.
When the 18-yr olds, the lead Boomers, were given the vote in 1972 and shortly began their careers in office, the Debt was $400B. For this America had purchased and/or conquered a continent, invented air and space travel, modern manufacturing, fertilizers and pharmaceuticals, invented and commercialized computers and telecommunications, and won every war we had tried to win.
The Boomers? Have invented nothing. Have discovered nothing.Have generated wealth only in bubbles based on intenet (also invented by their parents as ARPANet) fantasy.
Sure – Boomers are in everywhere pretending that they have anything good to say or any worthwhile thoughts. But take a look around. The world of the past 50 years is a steady decline of cultural and societal courtesy, manner, education, volunteering, education, exploration, education (did I say education?).
Even better, John Lynch concludes:
I’m Gen X, and I’ve been stuck listening to Boomer [folderol] my whole life.
Now the Boomers are all doom and gloom. That’s not because the world is really all that much worse off than it’s ever been. It’s just the impending death of the Boomer generation. They’ve mistaken their own decline for that of the nation and the world.
The Boomer generation has always thought that nothing happened until they arrived (see that beautiful piece of propaganda, Mad Men) and are equally convinced that nothing will happen once they are gone. All the environmental millennialism has its origin in the Boomers. From The Population Bomb to Global Warming they’ve persistently believed that not only are they a social force but a cosmic one as well.
The world will survive their passing. I’m already enjoying the lack of 60s music on the radio and the blessed silence about Woodstock and the Vietnam War. My generation has accomplished far more, with less noise, and we won our war.
History will not be kind.
A couple thoughts:
1. I blame the parents of these indulged brats. The WWII/Great Depression parents, in an attempt to shelter their children from all difficulty, brought up a bratty, superficial, spoiled generation.
2. Learn the lesson. Children today have even more wealth and good fortune (for a while) than the Boomers started out with. The OWS-ers are astonished and dismayed because their Boomer parents sold them the same tripe they believe about themselves. So these little snowflakes are upset that the world is not interested in their brand of special.
Discipline, hard work, responsibility, right and wrong, common sense, diligence, fidelity, and humility don’t go over big but they’re characteristics that win over the long-term.
Overindulgence makes for rotten grown-ups.
Herman Cain And Sexual Harassment: Am I In A Conservative Twilight Zone?
Wednesday, November 9th, 2011Have conservatives lost their minds? Am I really hearing talk show hosts picking apart women who have asserted that Herman Cain engaged in sexual harassment? Am I seeing bloggers and journalists trot down the race card road?
I have been utterly appalled this last week. Mind you, and before getting into all this, here’s some of my history: When the Duke LaCrosse story came forth and after examining all the facts, it was evident that the whole thing was preposterous and a disgusting false charge against innocent young men. So zealous about the case was I that two mothers of boys accused of the heinous crimes wrote me emails to thank me for standing for their boys.
The stench of sexual assault and harassment charges lingers around even innocent men and it is an objective evil when this happens. Not only are innocent men tainted for the rest of their lives with doubt, women who have been abused and assaulted fear charging their aggressor for being accused of making up the story.
False charges are an abomination.
True charges denied by a serial abuser are an abomination, too.
We don’t know all the details yet, surrounding Herman Cain’s alleged sexual harassment charges. Here’s what we do know:
So, on this backdrop, I’m going to tell you my story of sexual harassment. Why? Well, it damn sure isn’t because it’s helpful to my cause if I do. Thank God I’m 1) self-employed and 2) don’t give a poop what people think. Most women don’t have that luxury. Just leveling a sexual harassment charge can damage a woman’s credibility. She’s “difficult”. She will be trouble. So, women with legitimate complaints stay quiet. They want to move forward in the work world.
The reason that sexual harassment settlements are sealed are often for the benefit of the accuser, so her reputation isn’t destroyed by a vindictive work peer or employer.
Does that mean that there aren’t women who bring spurious and frivolous claims? Hell no. That exists, too. Obviously. I’m guessing it must happen a lot because the men of Twitter and talk radio have been venomous and utterly certain that all five of the accusers are vile skanks making up stuff to destroy an innocent, innocent man.
Some men aren’t innocent men. I know you’re thinking of your own behavior and thoughts and figuring your clumsy actions and stupid jokes qualified as harassment at some point. Maybe. Some guys have a pattern of being harassing jerks, though. One socially awkward moment does not a harasser make.
Anyway, since many of you reading this know me both through my writing and in real life, I thought I’d tell my story.
Newly married, recent college graduate, 23, and jobless, I took temporary jobs to live. You know those kids bitching at the Occupy Wall Street rallies? That could have been me. Instead, I worked minimum wage plus as receptionists and secretaries. A Theology degree won’t get you a job? The hell you say!
So, my second job after working as a receptionist at a trucking company (all the men were respectful, if crass) was at an architectural and engineering firm.
My new boss was Ken. Ken had a reputation. He had gone through something like 21 assistants in 20 years. Ken picked fights with younger workers. He came to work drunk after his five martini Friday lunches. Ken was old school.
Ken had a glass office. On two sides of his office, Ken stared out at his assistant. More specifically, he leered out at his assistant all day. It was disconcerting, to say the least. He didn’t have to say a word. He just eye-f*cked you all day long.
But that sort of behavior doesn’t rise to the level of harassment–well, at least it didn’t to me. Annoying? Yes. Disgusting to be stared at by a nearly 60 year old man all day long? Absolutely.
Then one day, Ken reached for something on my desk, after walking up behind me, and “accidentally” grabbed my breast.
I was shocked. I told one girlfriend and swore her to secrecy. Why? Because Ken was powerful. I needed the job and he had a reputation for firing uppity help. Plus, the local human resources guy was impotent and cowered before mighty Ken. Ken happened to own the biggest account in the company. He was, he thought, untouchable.
Around two weeks later, the corporate head of Human Resources, a woman, came to town for meetings. We happened to be in the bathroom at the same time and I told her what happened. She asked if I would be willing to go on the record. I said yes. She told me that they had tried to get women to go on the record for years, but they were afraid of Ken.
I knew all hell was about to break loose, but by this time I hated Ken and didn’t care. He was put on probation. Not fired. And as much as I disliked Ken, he hated me with a pure, singularly-focused hatred. He shot laserbeams through that glass at me. Hostile work environment? You betcha!
Now, you might say, “Melissa, he grabbed you, that’s assault! Why didn’t you go to the police?”
Back then, no one thought in those terms. He was just an entitled dick. The thought of going to the police never occurred to me. Even now, the idea seems laughable.
I just wanted Ken to stop. More, it made me really angry that he had gotten away with this for years.
Maybe I should have threatened a lawsuit. I can understand why some women did. As it was, I was interviewing for another job outside of this company and got out and had the satisfaction that the next woman who had to suffer with Ken wouldn’t have to worry (probably) about being abused by him.
What people now don’t understand is the way the work world used to be. Twenty years ago things were entirely different. There was a five to ten year transition where men learned and adapted to women being in the workforce –and not just in helping roles.
Twenty years ago, women were graduating with degrees and just starting to be peers to men, instead of subordinates.
Guys my age and younger have less issues. They’re used to working with women and having female bosses. The dynamics of the workplace have changed dramatically.
The world has changed and a lot for the better. Some things not for the better. But a woman in the work world does not have to deal with the bull women dealt with even a decade ago.
A friend of the former generation spoke of anger between the sexes–strident women and frustrated men. Now, men and women have far more flexibility and amicable relations.
When I see young men decry the spurious claims against Herman Cain and say that a $35,000 or $46,000 claim is small potatoes, I laugh. Really? Most of these cases were like mine and no money exchanged hands at all. That Herman Cain has two, TWO!, cases like this outstanding against him makes me think that there’s more than nothing to this story.
One woman bringing a spurious claim against an executive is absolutely plausible. Two? Come on. And now, there’s five women who have spoken out about harassment or certainly, highly questionable judgement?
It seems that conservatives would at least give these women a hearing before casting them into the lake of fire.
This case is nothing like what happened to Clarence Thomas. I’ll even give Anita Hill the benefit of the doubt and believe Thomas said something about a pube on a Coke can. That is not sexual harassment. It’s stupid. People are stupid.
Now, I recognize that everyone one of these women can be filthy, lying [fill in the blank epithet] manipulated by nefarious Democrat or establishment Republican or biased media sources to plot against a black conservative man.
Can we wait, though, to destroy these ladies until the whole story comes out? Herman Cain doesn’t think so. He’s in full nuke ‘em mode.
I understand that Herman Cain can’t prove a negative.
What he can do is this: he can prove positive assertions wrong. He can go to the Hilton and release those room records and prove his accuser is a liar instead of asserting that she is one.
The Anchoress just wrote about what Herman Cain should have said today.
So, maybe everyone can just chill a bit?
Beyond all the media bias (and there’s lots of that), there are people involved. It would be appalling if these women were victimized twice–and at the hands of conservatives who know better.
Forced Abortion: “I had no choice”
Sunday, October 16th, 2011Good old Brian of TRScoop sent me this video and I’m going to include it as a post because I want the permanence. It’s a clip from Blood Money talking about the concept of “pro choice” when many women say, “I had no choice.”
My first patient in practice told me of her experience of being forced to have an abortion. In fact, of all the many women (and many you’d never guess) who had abortions, only one woman told me she was happy she’d done it and would do it again if she had the choice.
The majority of women say that parents, boyfriends, and worst of all, husbands forced the woman to abort the baby. The trauma is devastating and long lasting.
It is a lie that women are getting to choose. Many women are victims of abortion–it is used against them.
Please watch this video and share it:
So many terrified women in crisis just need one person who will say, “It will be okay.”
Just one person.
Thankfully, I see the younger generation turning against the abortion culture. They have lost siblings to abortion. It is real to them.
We need a return to honoring adoption. Adoption is a wonderful gift–both to the child and to the adoptive parents.
Can We All Dispense With The Civility Sham Now? Obama Buddy Hoffa
Tuesday, September 6th, 2011
Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. lifted the Democrat rock and look what slithers out! Why, the very same liberal hacks who decried the lack of civility while accusing an innocent woman of being the cause of a congresswoman’s attempted murder. Also slithering: President Obama.
No reason to belabor the point: The Democrats want civility like they want a living wage. These words are so much sugary frosting on the dung pile of their By-Any-Means-Necessary actions. Videogame where you can kill Tea Partiers? As long as it serves the desired end.
Liberals want you to shut up. They want to shame you. They’ll call you a racist, sexist, bigoted, etc. They want conservatives to be in a speech straight-jacket.
Political correctness is all about silencing people who believe differently than leftists.
So, Hoffa said what they all believe:
“We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They’ve got a war, they got a war with us and there’s only going to be one winner. It’s going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We’re going to win that war,” Hoffa told thousands of workers gathered for the annual Labor Day rally.
“President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march… Everybody here’s got a vote…Let’s take these sons of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong,” he concluded.
Watch Jay Carney justify this nonsense here:
So, here’s to the new civility! May it be honest and politically incorrect!
Free speech means that Hoffa Jr. can be a screaming jerk. I say, bring on the speech. Let the world know who you are leftists. Reveal yourselves as spitting, vile thugs you are when let go.
President Obama, in his fork-tongued praise of Hoffa just lets us all know the truth: That he’s not for civility at all. He’s for silencing critics.
Remember, President Obama was a community organizer. Giving incendiary speeches, threatening folks and shaking down businesses is the Chicago way, the Teamsters’ way, the leftist way, his way.
Sorry, lefties, Americans refuse to be silent. And guess what, we look forward to the battle. Metaphorically speaking, of course.
More civility here.
