Vice President Harris was not the first woman, and will not be the last, to exploit her sexual power for political gain. Why is this common reality excluded from public discussion?
Indeed. Fiamengo exposes the double standard that insulates women from just about any accountability and the public silence that further reinforces the deal. Using sex as a means to advance is easily seen but totally forbidden to call out except to smirk and say "naughty naughty" Thank you for calling it out. It's an interesting question how we might be able to start a pubic conversation on this. I guess you just started it!
Surely one reason this form of abuse never sees daylight is because men will almost never complain about receiving sexual favors from an attractive woman. Interesting to think about what would stop this from becoming a standard fast-tracking practice for attractive career women. The only people complaining would be those left behind.
Janice is an unusual kind of commentator: a truth teller. Here, as elsewhere, she tells inconvenient truths. This example, the use of female sexuality to advance in political life, is a good example of the way identification with "the sisterhood" does not stop some women from taking advantage at the expense of others who are more worthy.
This fits with Esther Vilar's books in particular "The Manipulated Man". Perhaps the earliest documented examples of women using their sexual power is the Greek play "Lysistarata".
Women don't play by the same rules as men, because hey, they didn't make those rules, so why follow them? Oh, when rules are to their advantage they will strictly obey, but when they aren't, they usually won't, unless maybe someone is watching.
Sense, reasons...? Ask most husbands and they will tell you, and it's a story that's long been told.
The rules are win and lose. And the cost is whatever it takes.
Impartiality to women is an unknown, a mystery - something to do with men. Vengeance, women understand. Cross them and you will meet it. Their vengeance comes with stealth and perhaps from dark shadows it leaps, a nameless assassin unknown.
And the man will ask, why? I'm not a bad man - sure I make mistakes but don't we all? Whom did I offend? Oh why?
Oh why, oh why, oh why - because he broke her rules, and what were those? If only she knew, and if only the morning mist knew from whence it came and mysterious went, but it was beautiful when it was there. Or was it?
And then there's Janice, and her like, who know, and for the knowing they are sometimes ashamed. In guilt, maybe, and Janice extends her sympathetic heart, but if men were men would this have ever happened?
In common with a number of northern European countries France passed a law that a %of company Boards be female. A few years later they found in research that there were indeed many more females on Boards. Of course what they found, again in common with others such as Norway and Sweden with similar laws, was that wives and girlfriends predominated. However the French research was noteworthy for the fact that one of the categories is "mistress". A somewhat gallic touch. Indicating perhaps a more realistic view of human relationships. So in France they are able to identify their Boards now adorned by wives, partners, girlfriends and mistresses. A nation given to florid romance yet rather more clear eyed about sex.
Everyone and their brother knows Harris slept her way to the top in San Francisco. They haven't really tried to hide it, either.
But why was Kamala, a spectacular failure on the presidential campaign trail whom no one liked or voted for, chosen as the VP? The answer seems to be that she is totally without principal of any kind and will say or do literally anything her handlers tell her to with conviction. This includes transactional sex, which I'd venture to say many people don't have a problem with.
Young or otherwise hot women who use looks and sex to get what they want is a common occurrence and is generally applauded as clever and has been for a very long time. How to marry a millionaire and countless other movies and TV show women who know how to take advantage of the male ego and sex drive in a favorable and lighthearted light. And like actual prostitution, people seem to feel this is a personal moral issue, not a legal one.
But the reason Harris' case in particular and this type of behavior in general is not talked about in official media outlets is because the MSM are now essentially DNC propaganda outlets, and the DNC plank aligns with feminist ideologues 100%. Every else laughs about it, though.
Except for one thing: Kamala Harris has never been an attractive woman, even in her 20's. That a sixty-year-old man had a sex with her is just that: an old man grabbing what he can.
You can call this anything you want, but "female sexual power" is quite a stretch.
And that raised the question whether many of the cases of alleged abuse of men in positions of power were not equally just such acts of collusion - friends with benefits of a special kind
Well done, Janice. It is good to see this taboo issue getting a public airing. Everyone knows this is happening but so few dare speak about it. I once worked in a newspaper office where an ambitious young female editor openly flaunted her ongoing affair with the male who was the big boss, creating enormous resentment. He was a friend of mine and I ended up going to lunch with him and telling him the way she was behaving was most improper. But no one else dared discuss it with either of them.
While I do appreciate being truthful as it's freeing. I'm also sharp enough to know when an article on female sexual power dynamics isn't about women using sex to advance their careers.
I'm also mindful of how, in this article, VP Harris is described to be highly incompetent with praise overtones as an attorney. If we are very serious about any politician having or not having the skills necessary to run for office, hold office and execute that office, then VP Harris should be least of all on that list.
If she warrants such, so does any politician who fails Office.
This article is disguised as a discussion piece on female sexual power, but after the line, "...of course this is none of my business..." and the author continues with conjecture and more, it engraved a prior thought that this is a hit piece on the VP.
No thanks. Though I will NEVER be a part of the Democratic ticket again, this I ain't with either.
Indeed. Fiamengo exposes the double standard that insulates women from just about any accountability and the public silence that further reinforces the deal. Using sex as a means to advance is easily seen but totally forbidden to call out except to smirk and say "naughty naughty" Thank you for calling it out. It's an interesting question how we might be able to start a pubic conversation on this. I guess you just started it!
Surely one reason this form of abuse never sees daylight is because men will almost never complain about receiving sexual favors from an attractive woman. Interesting to think about what would stop this from becoming a standard fast-tracking practice for attractive career women. The only people complaining would be those left behind.
The victims are not only the one who didn't get the job, but also all the people who deserved the most competent candidate to serve them.
Janice is an unusual kind of commentator: a truth teller. Here, as elsewhere, she tells inconvenient truths. This example, the use of female sexuality to advance in political life, is a good example of the way identification with "the sisterhood" does not stop some women from taking advantage at the expense of others who are more worthy.
Very well said. There are many such ways in which we criminalise or condemn male behaviour yet excuse female behaviour.
This fits with Esther Vilar's books in particular "The Manipulated Man". Perhaps the earliest documented examples of women using their sexual power is the Greek play "Lysistarata".
Thank you Janice for all your hard work.
Women don't play by the same rules as men, because hey, they didn't make those rules, so why follow them? Oh, when rules are to their advantage they will strictly obey, but when they aren't, they usually won't, unless maybe someone is watching.
Sense, reasons...? Ask most husbands and they will tell you, and it's a story that's long been told.
The rules are win and lose. And the cost is whatever it takes.
Impartiality to women is an unknown, a mystery - something to do with men. Vengeance, women understand. Cross them and you will meet it. Their vengeance comes with stealth and perhaps from dark shadows it leaps, a nameless assassin unknown.
And the man will ask, why? I'm not a bad man - sure I make mistakes but don't we all? Whom did I offend? Oh why?
Oh why, oh why, oh why - because he broke her rules, and what were those? If only she knew, and if only the morning mist knew from whence it came and mysterious went, but it was beautiful when it was there. Or was it?
And then there's Janice, and her like, who know, and for the knowing they are sometimes ashamed. In guilt, maybe, and Janice extends her sympathetic heart, but if men were men would this have ever happened?
In common with a number of northern European countries France passed a law that a %of company Boards be female. A few years later they found in research that there were indeed many more females on Boards. Of course what they found, again in common with others such as Norway and Sweden with similar laws, was that wives and girlfriends predominated. However the French research was noteworthy for the fact that one of the categories is "mistress". A somewhat gallic touch. Indicating perhaps a more realistic view of human relationships. So in France they are able to identify their Boards now adorned by wives, partners, girlfriends and mistresses. A nation given to florid romance yet rather more clear eyed about sex.
One of many truths, facts that feminism does not want to acknowledge.
Everyone and their brother knows Harris slept her way to the top in San Francisco. They haven't really tried to hide it, either.
But why was Kamala, a spectacular failure on the presidential campaign trail whom no one liked or voted for, chosen as the VP? The answer seems to be that she is totally without principal of any kind and will say or do literally anything her handlers tell her to with conviction. This includes transactional sex, which I'd venture to say many people don't have a problem with.
Young or otherwise hot women who use looks and sex to get what they want is a common occurrence and is generally applauded as clever and has been for a very long time. How to marry a millionaire and countless other movies and TV show women who know how to take advantage of the male ego and sex drive in a favorable and lighthearted light. And like actual prostitution, people seem to feel this is a personal moral issue, not a legal one.
But the reason Harris' case in particular and this type of behavior in general is not talked about in official media outlets is because the MSM are now essentially DNC propaganda outlets, and the DNC plank aligns with feminist ideologues 100%. Every else laughs about it, though.
If women used cash to bribe their way to promotion, we would have no problem describing it as a crime.
Why is it not a crime if they use sex?
Will we see the women who bribed Harvey Weinstein for career advancement held to account? I will not hold my breath!
Except for one thing: Kamala Harris has never been an attractive woman, even in her 20's. That a sixty-year-old man had a sex with her is just that: an old man grabbing what he can.
You can call this anything you want, but "female sexual power" is quite a stretch.
And that raised the question whether many of the cases of alleged abuse of men in positions of power were not equally just such acts of collusion - friends with benefits of a special kind
Well done, Janice. It is good to see this taboo issue getting a public airing. Everyone knows this is happening but so few dare speak about it. I once worked in a newspaper office where an ambitious young female editor openly flaunted her ongoing affair with the male who was the big boss, creating enormous resentment. He was a friend of mine and I ended up going to lunch with him and telling him the way she was behaving was most improper. But no one else dared discuss it with either of them.
While I do appreciate being truthful as it's freeing. I'm also sharp enough to know when an article on female sexual power dynamics isn't about women using sex to advance their careers.
I'm also mindful of how, in this article, VP Harris is described to be highly incompetent with praise overtones as an attorney. If we are very serious about any politician having or not having the skills necessary to run for office, hold office and execute that office, then VP Harris should be least of all on that list.
If she warrants such, so does any politician who fails Office.
This article is disguised as a discussion piece on female sexual power, but after the line, "...of course this is none of my business..." and the author continues with conjecture and more, it engraved a prior thought that this is a hit piece on the VP.
No thanks. Though I will NEVER be a part of the Democratic ticket again, this I ain't with either.