It’s official: The pendulum of #MeToo claims has now swung too far. When a friendly gesture with no sexual intent is labeled a reprehensible act that should be subject to public shaming and even disqualification from public office, it is time that we all recognize that we are starting to lose perspective.
Let’s be clear before I continue: I am not talking about the crass comments by the current President that it’s okay to “grab [women] by the pussy” or inappropriate sexual relations between then-President Clinton and an intern. Those are clearly beyond the pale. But the “allegations” against Joe Biden — that he touched Linda Flores’ shoulders and kissed the back of her head — are very different.
Biden is an affectionate guy, but in a grandfatherly sort of way. He explained: “In my many years on the campaign trail and in public life, I have offered countless handshakes, hugs, expressions of affection” and never intended to disrespect or cause any harm to Flores or anyone else. But Flores has gone so far as to say that Biden’s intent is irrelevant. Kelly Ann Conway has repeated this argument, saying that it does not matter what Biden intended.
Of course Biden’s intent is relevant. It’s the most important question here. That’s why Stephanie Carter, wife of secretary of Defense at the Pentagon, has had to publicly speak out about the picture of her and Biden that is making the rounds again. As Carter made clear, "The Joe Biden in my picture is a close friend helping someone get through a big day, for which I will always be grateful. So, as the sole owner of my story, it is high time that I reclaim it – from strangers, Twitter, the pundits and the late-night hosts."
Please read the whole thing and lemme know your thoughts...
Biden is an affectionate guy, but in a grandfatherly sort of way. He explained: “In my many years on the campaign trail and in public life, I have offered countless handshakes, hugs, expressions of affection” and never intended to disrespect or cause any harm to Flores or anyone else. But Flores has gone so far as to say that Biden’s intent is irrelevant. Kelly Ann Conway has repeated this argument, saying that it does not matter what Biden intended.
Of course Biden’s intent is relevant. It’s the most important question here. That’s why Stephanie Carter, wife of secretary of Defense at the Pentagon, has had to publicly speak out about the picture of her and Biden that is making the rounds again. As Carter made clear, "The Joe Biden in my picture is a close friend helping someone get through a big day, for which I will always be grateful. So, as the sole owner of my story, it is high time that I reclaim it – from strangers, Twitter, the pundits and the late-night hosts."
14 comments:
I respectfully disagree. This is not about sex or sexual intent. This is about power dynamics. No man - especially a man like VP Biden who possesses enormous power and influence - should touch a woman in the way he did. Approaching her from behind, smelling her hair and kissing the back of her head? You cannot do that - then or now. And (I don't believe I'm writing this) I agree with KAC, his intent is irrelevant. He violated her body and her personal space and the fact that he thought what he did was appropriate makes no difference in answering that question.
Of course metoo goes to far... whenever its a Democrat. Just look at virginia. Whatever happened to a woman needs to be believed? We all know Democrats feigning outrage is just that...they are a bunch of pretenders.
What bothers me is that she didn't say anything at the time and give the guy a chance you apologize for making her uncomfortable. This was not an assault or something so obviously inappropriate that nothing should have been said. Now he is going to be called on the carpet for it? Feminists need to be careful what they ask for. The response to this could easily be to exclude women ala vice president pence. The guy gets criticized for not wanting to meet alone with women, but now it looks like his policy is grounded in insight to the modern reality that intent does not matter and that a misunderstood action can lead to ruin.
A lot to discuss here 7:54.
1. Confront him at the time? She was running for Lt. Governor and he was the Vice President of the US. She may not have had the courage given her election and the power imbalance.
2. This was not obviously inappropriate? Approaching from the back, smelling her hair and kissing her head? That seems obviously inappropriate.
3. What are "feminists" asking for? This is not a "feminist" issue. People are asking that personal space and dignity be respected.
4. Excluding women as a remedy "a la Pence." Is there nothing in between inappropriate touching and exclusion? That argument seems just silly.
The so called Me Too movement is nothing more than a disguise for snuffing our your political opponents. It is not about sexual harassment but exclusively about promoting the progressive/leftist agenda. It is nothing new. Suppression of free speech on campuses (see the latest Amherst fiasco (https://www.foxnews.com/us/amherst-colleges-common-language-document-sparks-outcries-of-educators-trying-to-stifle-free-speech) is an affront to the First Amendment but leftists really don't care. The US Constitution is nothing but an impediment to their goals and liberty be damned. Don't believe me? Check this out!!!! https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/02/cnn-christine-amanpour-fbi-james-comey-lock-her-up/
8:45 - go back to Infowars. The MeToo movement did not start as a political movement. The movement started by identifying sexual predators and harassers in various businesses and industries. And, of course, that eventually included politicians.
Also, my understanding is thaT Amherst is a private institution. As you know, the First Amendment only applies to government action. Moreover, Amherst alums are well within their rights to criticize speech by a professor that they deem offensive and vile. They are also well within their rights to demand action by the university against an employee who they believe is diminishing their institution. That being said, Amherst's President said the following:
"In times of ongoing debate, it is essential that colleges and universities protect the free exchange of different perspectives, while taking every reasonable measure to protect their communities from discrimination and disrespect…. The distinctive responsibility of colleges and universities is to protect freedom of expression so that the force of argument can help us resolve our hardest problems. The more contentious the issue, the greater the responsibility. As we undertake the exacting work of maintaining an environment on campuses in which freedom and respect are maintained, institutions will need to stand up to pressure from all sides, protecting the hard-won principles of free speech and non-discrimination and sorting out the complicated issues that arise in specific cases. These are the commitments that sustain our ability to foster critical dialogue in society."
So it does seem like she cares.
Finally, do you believe that the President's calling for his political opponents to be locked up is appropriate? He's taken an oath to support and defend the constitution. Urging the imprisonment of his political opponents without charges and a trial is a form of hate speech.
So we have thousands of storm troopers with cattle cars outside at every Trump rally in the event that someone yells "lock her up."? Orwell would must be laughing his ass off right now.
No one is talking about having "thousands of storm troopers" at a rally. Nice try though.
And, if Orwell is laughing, the founders of our country are crying about what the current occupant of the WH is doing.
Joe Biden is just not worth it. What does he offer today that six plus other younger and capable candidates do not. Name recognition? That is what the campaign is for. Foreign policy experience? That is undervalued by voters in "peace" time and is less important to competence and judgment.
Biden is a thrice failed candidate, and he will almost certainly fail again even without this woman issue. All he'll accomplish by running is to diminish his VP found stature and to put the democrats through a #metoo test. Plus, with his gaffs, age, and baggage (e.g., Anita Hill hearings and long Senate vote record), Trump will actually have better shot a reelection. Give me Klobuchar, Harris, or six or seven of the other 17 candidates who have declared instead. (Not you Beto, you should beat Senator Cornyn or win the governor's race first).
Did DOM write this after the third woman came forward or after the seventh? Looks like a lot of older men follow DOM's blog. As an older, mid 50's, man myself I am really appalled a some of the very tone deaf comments.
The legal community has been, and unfortunately still is, a very much good old boy network that fosters sexism. From women not being allowed to go to law school (At UF, women would be shamed into leaving the law library just for studying there), to not being selected for partnership, or judgeship, to unequal pay, to grown women lawyers being referred to as girls or honey, to references to appearance, to inappropriate "humor", to unwanted inappropriate touching.
So no, Me Too is not a political ploy, it is not a sinister weapon being deployed on poor, innocent, vulnerable men. Me Too is a response to DECADES of abuse. And NO DOM, it has not gone too far. How Anyone with any intelligence who watched the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing think that Me Too has gone too far is beyond me. Look around your offices. Listen to what and how things get said in court and out of court. Me Too has not gone far enough and has a long way to go.
Dear 10:34
You wrote, "The legal community has been, and unfortunately still is, a very much good old boy network that fosters sexism. From women . . . not being selected for . . . judgeship. . . "
You might consider coming to South Florida some time (it's lovely here) and visiting literally any courthouse (County, Circuit, 3DCA, SDFl, US BR). You will soon see that your suggestion that women are denied the bench is demonstrably false. Now, I won't say you were being intentionally disingenuous, because this may not be the case wherever you live. But facts matter.
As for Uncle Joe's conduct, I disagree with my friend DOM: It is wrong, it was always wrong, and the suggestion (in Biden's cringe-worthy video) that it is only wrong in light of a changing modern standard is balderdash. His intent is a thing of his heart, and I cannot judge it. But the second highest office holder in the land, in formal and official settings with strangers (and strangers' children) who are all, more or less, subordinates of some sort, should comport himself with more reserve.
That said, whatever the broad validity of #MeToo -- and it is broadly valid -- it also has absolutely become weaponized, and is mostly deployed from left to right, while being considered off limits when reversed. (I.e. Team D can deploy it against Team R, and the left wing wing of Team D can deploy it against establishment Ds like Biden. It just never seems to "take" the other way around, at least not to real effect. (C.f. Virginia))
See this is all a little more complicated, a little more nuanced, than the reflexive side-taking everyone defaults to these days. More than one thing can be true at a time: Yes #MeToo is legitimate, but no it is not deployed evenhandedly. Yes women are discriminated against in the legal profession, but no that hasn't denied women the bench (at least here, and not for a good while). Yes Joe Biden is handsy to a creepy degree, but. . . well I guess no buts there.
I am in South Florida. Facts: Next time you go the Atkins building, look at the names of all the district judges in the SD FLA. Start from the beginning and count the number of male judges vs female judges. Ancient history? Go to the court's website and count the number of current male judges - 15. the number of current female judges - 8. (not counting the Trump appointees)
TWICE as many male judges as female judges. But I suppose that is ok with you.
Federal appointments are lifetime so, yes, it's taking longer to reach parity there. But if you did the arithmetic on the past 10 or 15 years of appointments, you'd see they are about even -- at least evening out. Considerations of the demographics of the bench 50 years ago seem less than useful.
The state bench turns over much more quickly and there you see essentially perfect parity.
You stated sexism STILL operates to keep women from the bench. That "still" is the fact with which I take issue.
And it's probably not terribly fruitful to "suppose" what's "OK" with me. I think I was pretty clear, saying what I meant, meaning what I said, and not saying what I didn't mean. And, also signing my name.
Have a good week.
SO your argument is:
"Hey, it's not as horrible as it used to be."
That's pretty sad
Post a Comment