Sadly even the Pence rule won't save a man, as Janice showed in her article about the astronomer Jeff Marcy, "The Feminist Black Hole Swallow Non-Compliant Women, Too"
I'm not a fan of F1 ("televised traffic" as one comedian described it), but this did trigger a memory of visiting my older cousin's house in the late 1970's. She was employed as a model by a brand of cigarettes which sponsored one of the leading F1 teams at the time, and earned good money for doing little more than draping herself across the bonnet of a fast car and smiling, which - for a not particularly bright council house girl - wasn't the worst fate imaginable. Through this, she met and married one of the tobacco company advertising executives and lived in the luxurious (if rather Austin Powers styled) house I visited, shortly before they both moved to California and a life unimaginable to her siblings.
Feminists, naturally, would see this as a story of exploitation and objectification. From what I recall of my cousin, she was a sassy and vivacious young woman in full control of her destiny. The male gaze only seems to be a problem to women who never attract it.
"Feminists, naturally, would see this as a story of exploitation and objectification".
Likely so. Yet, guaranteed is that they (corporate feminism) will have conveniently overlooked how the reverse is far more true - that the man is used for his status for the benefit of the woman.
As a woman who wasn't particularly attractive when young, I have pondered this issue a lot: why do women complain about being admired and complimented and ogled? I can only conclude that perhaps if one is extremely attractive when young, it can be tiresome, and likely even frightening/angering, to have non-stop and sometimes aggressive sexual attention. At age 21, all one's evolutionary instincts are probably telling most young women to be careful around men. If, everywhere they go, the men are falling all over them, perhaps they do genuinely find it a burden.
Some women describe horrors (leering men touching them on the subway, making ugly propositions, etc.) that, if true, would indeed be very unpleasant, but are frankly difficult to believe.
I have to conclude that at least some of the complaints are just pro forma.
"As a woman who wasn't particularly attractive when young...". Your profile photo tells a different story, Janice. However, I could believe that your sharp intellect might have intimidated more than a few admirers.
Some women seem to delight in portraying themselves as victims of unwanted male attention. The benefits to the woman claiming victimhood are at least two-fold in that (i) she enhances her perceived desirability and virtue, which enhances her status among her peers, and (ii) she makes herself the centre of attention in a way that is likely to maximise sympathetic comments, reaffirming her place in the group. It can also serve as a form of damseling, if she wants to attract a man's attention. There is no obvious downside because the chances of being caught out lying are remote.
Two people had an awkward, tawdry affair so a man and an entire sport need to be blamed for it. Never mind that the woman acted like a typical homewrecking whore on the lookout for some other woman's successful husband. That doesn't matter at all, in the final analysis.
"No matter the findings of the investigation, a very powerful man in F1 acted in a way that made a subordinate woman uncomfortable enough to report his behavior and seek redress, and that is a power imbalance that F1 needs to address if it intends to continue its current growth.”
Interesting how this logic is never applied when the woman is the person in power.
There is a simple solution to this problem. Apply the logic of adultery. Adultery is a 2 way street. In a case like this, any misconduct was mutually engaged in and thus any punishment must be shared. So...if Horner must be sanctioned...so must Hewitson. Frankly, an even better response would be to follow up on that sanction by barring male drivers/teams from hiring women at all...and vice versa. Women won't be harassed in the workplace if they aren't present at all. At this point, why would anyone hire or even be willing to work around women?!
It looks to me as if Hewitson's primary intention was to break the marriage apart and become the wife. She offered sex in order to bait the trap, but lost interest when she had to face the fact that he wasn't going to leave his wife.
Plan B: get a consolation prize by filing a complaint and characterizing herself as a victim.
Yup, even on a sympathetic reading--in which Hewitson was not being calculated about it, found herself falling in love with a married man whom she thought was falling in love with her, and thought perhaps he and Geri were over--that's what it boils down to. Unless there is some evidence that is not indicated in the WhatsApp messages, her decision to complain about him cannot be justified. Again, to try for the most sympathetic reading, maybe she thought she could be moved somewhere within the organization if she complained. It's possible that she found it very difficult to continue working with Horner, didn't want him punished, and simply wanted to make sure she could continue working for Red Bull but in some other capacity. But that doesn't look likely.
I believe the traditional term for someone like her is 'homewrecking whore'. Even if she can't pry him away from his wife, she'll still ruin the marriage.
This is why men refuse to reciprocate whenever a female coworker shows signs. It's most likely odious with ulterior motives, and if not, still ends up with a false harassment accusation in the end.
The most prudent advice I ever heard in my 42 years in HR in corporate America on the topic was from an old Egyptian Auditor who often quoted Egyptian market place sayings including “Never get your meat where you get your potatoes.” A bit crude but it makes the point. Sexual harassment in the US is whatever the woman says it is. Her willing initial participation has no bearing.
“Having women work with men is like having a grizzly bear work with salmon…dipped in honey.”
Of all the tropes, buzzwords, and feminist-inspired jargon that exist in the modern world, and specifically surround these type of cases, “power imbalance” has to among the most ridiculous and nauseating.
Evidently, I’m just supposed to pretend that men in positions of power and authority within these teams/organizations are just imposing their will upon poor, unwilling damsels in distress. These women play absolutely no part in their involvement with these men, all of whom - completely coincidentally - seem to be several rungs above them on the corporate ladder or organizational hierarchy. Furthermore, they posses no power, influence or agency in any situation involving them.
Their alleged powerlessness relieves them of any complicity. It’s the gender relations version of “racial minorities can’t be racist.”
How great would it be to invoke the concept of “power imbalance” when a female team executive is caught fucking the team bus driver, or perhaps the guy who replaces the urinal cakes in the locker room?
Something tells me I’ll be waiting a while.
It’s like mom used to say:
“Wish in one hand, shit in the other…see which one fills up faster.”
I'm delighted to discover that there is a name, "grumble bragging," for the outlandish self-congratulatory and yet victim-baiting sport where women--often not great beauty queens--lament the degree of infatuation they inspire in all men who cast their gaze upon them. I've worked with many women--some of whom I've even considered friends--who engage in this ridiculous conduct. In most instances, it's difficult for me to believe that they construed the slightest gesture or facial expression from a man as evidence of his burning lust for them. I'm all in favor of body positivity, but is the female (feminist) ego so radicalized that these women feel comfortable making such preposterous claims and attributing libidinous intentions to any man who happens to enter their visual field? Any man would be laughed out of the room for making analogous allegations about women's uncontrollable desire for them, but the practice seems to go unchecked for women, regardless of their age or appearance. In the most heartbreaking instance, I saw a colleague--a beautifully kind-hearted man--suffer a stroke and soon after pass away when a female colleague (who should have been thrilled if there's a man anywhere on the planet who would get turned on by looking at her) targeted him with this pernicious game.
Aww, horrible story about your colleague; some women are really vipers. At best, it is an all-too typical female weakness, the desire to be desired. But we have allowed it to become a highly destructive weapon in the hands of many unlovely women.
The 'power imbalance' is actually the reverse - if you believe in evolution, women have evolved to have a number of, shall we say, 'features' that men are attracted to, whereas men have only one: their naivety.
Good. But there is also the biological matter that men will almost invariably win against a woman in a bare-knuckle bout - or against two or three women, for that matter. In that area, men certainly have the advantage of a "power imbalance".
In a civilized society (in a very broad sense), the power imbalance you mentioned keeps men from taking advantage of their superior strength. It is feminism that insists on kicking away the foundations of civilization - kicking away at the social constraints on men, until there is nothing left to stop them from acting on their strength.
I agree, this tendency for feminists to push the boundaries of civil behaviour by verbally abusing physically stronger men is increasing. Despite the fact that it's probably always been a factor in male-female relationships, there do seem to be more and more women willing to test the limits of male equanimity over recent decades. To me, that's a form of abuse as well - women taking advantage of the cultural assumption that they can say whatever they like without much likelihood of physical retribution. I often wonder how many men have been involuntarily pushed to the point of resorting to physicality in exasperation as a result. Biologically, anger and verbally abusive behaviour towards others only works because of the deep-seated, implied threat of physical violence.
Absolutely, I wonder that too. Then the man slaps the woman across the face or pushes her out of his way (as she blocks the door, shouting abuse at him, telling him how much he disgusts her, threatening him, deriding him, insulting him), and he is suddenly the villain in a domestic abuse case. No use saying she provoked him, that will simply be more evidence of his perfidy.
Blackstock, who writes about autoracing for Jalopnik, a website about automobiles that hates automobiles. Sister (sibling, I supposed we have to say now) website to the late Jezebel and now sold-off Deadspin.
It's a whole media empire based on hysterical bigotry, misery and general unhappiness. When I used to read thar family of websites it struck me just unhappy the tone was of nearly every article. No wonder they're failing even without the lawsuits.
I guess it's just part of Left culture to complain endlessly. I got tired of it.
Interesting, thanks for this. I always imagined that a car and racing magazine would be pro-car and pro-racing! Silly me.
I haven't paid any attention to racing since I was 18, when my boyfriend was very interested, and we used to watch races on TV every weekend. How horrifying to think of even it being policed by feminists.
" If it’s a field that men built and enjoy, it must be in need of a shame-filled reckoning. " Spot on once again. Women think that they deserve the fruits of men's labor, and they whine and shame and threaten when they don't get it. Men invented automobiles and pioneered automobile racing, so how is it that they are obligated to share it with women?
Unfortunately (fortunately), men (mainly in the west) also invented philosophies of equal rights, individuality, non-discrimination, cultural openness, and so on--biting us all in the bum now, it seems, as the feminists and their many allies seek to destroy that culture.
Yes, that is true, and let us not forget how much we owe to Western political philosophers, the freedoms we have, the wealth we enjoy. Underwriting the rights of every individual means that a society will be subject to sudden political mood swings. But I can't see any way around it. Marcuse came up with a formula for ending tolerance with those who are intolerant, but "intolerant" very easily becomes the opposing political party, and thus justifies using the legal system and government force to silence and persecute. All roads lead to Banana Republics once that we give up on classical liberal principles. So it seems that we have to fight in the free market of ideas and opinions no matter what. We can only demand that governments and now Big Tech companies who host public squares act as honest referees.
In this case like many other similar ones, it seems to me the most unethical behaviour was that of the complainant who deliberately made public a relationship that she willingly engaged in under a verbal or at least implied and clearly understood contract of privacy. Such breaches of confidentiality have been occurring even when women have accepted large amounts of money for which they signed agreements to remain silent about certain matters. To then go public about those matters is violent treachery yet feminists and journalists avoid acknowledging the woman's wrongdoing, rather they exalt her as some brave flag bearer.
Sure, if laws were broken by an accused, that may void any actual or implied contract of confidentiality but that is rarely the case. Even then, accepting money for promising to keep quiet about past events and moreover later breaking that promise will often be more serious in both wrongdoing and harm caused than the alleged offending was. In addition, the complainant's motivation (e.g. greed, jealousy, revenge for rejection) will often add another layer of ignobility.
There is currently no law against having an extramarital affair (for either party) or for a workplace relationship other than one involving coercion. With regard to a heterosexual workplace relationship that left the woman aggrieved over it ending, feminists treat it as a crime committed by the man but usually no crime was committed at all. With regard to extramarital affairs, modern marriage and relationship laws don't acknowledge the breach of contract involved, at least when a woman does it in either role. (This calls into question the point of marriage now; it's not even a contract.) Instead, Courts will assert the woman's rights as an autonomous individual and will pay lip service to the impact of her betrayal on her husband, indeed more likely punishing him for the emotional abuse of objecting to her behaviour. Other women will claim that it's unreasonable to deny a woman the right to act on her passion regardless of past promises. Not so much for the cheating man though. He should have kept it in his pants, his wife the betrayed damsel in distress must be rescued, her forms of violent objection empathized with and forgiven, or when the man was in the other role as a wife's secret lover he was probably responsible for leading her astray.
I am in favour of laws against marital unfaithfulness involving sex with another person, for both (or all) parties involved unless the married couple have signed a lawful contract to permit open relationship. Law defines and enforces morals as its main purpose so why not that? The harm from marital infidelity is great on partners and especially children suffering broken families. I don't advocate severe punishments, on the contrary, perhaps comparable to that for a moderate traffic violation. However, the fact a law was broken should be on a person's record to warn future potential partners and taken into account in relationship property settlements and other situations. I am also in favour of treating marriage as a contract, for such contracts to be individually tailored to each relationship according to the wishes of the parties (based on a standard, default contract), with clear penalties for breaches as is the case for business and other contracts. Most people will disagree with me about all this; fair enough, we're all entitled to our opinions, but I believe honest, full consideration would lead them to the same conclusions.
>> "the most unethical behaviour was that of the complainant who deliberately made public a relationship that she willingly engaged in under a verbal or at least implied and clearly understood contract of privacy."
Bravo, well said. 👏👏👏💯
When someone willingly engages in a certain activity with a person, then files a complaint against that person for said activity after they said no to escalating or advancing said activity, that is betrayal, hypocrisy, manipulation, entrapment, & deception, in their worst forms. It is the intentional weaponization of victimhood.
Comparing the "harm" that was done to the "victim" versus the harm that is being inflicted upon the "perpetrator," the magnitude of suffering could not be more disproportionate. She didn't suffer at all before the complaint; afterwards, she was "suspended with pay" - basically, she was given a paid vacation.
Her wishes were respected - it should be obvious there was no abuse of power. Whatever culpability is present is shared equally between them. Nevertheless, his career & reputation have been irreparably destroyed, while she is lauded for her "bravery" in "standing up to her oppressor." What has happened to our world, that dishonesty, betrayal, & ruination are praised & celebrated, simply because the victim is a man?
Cancelling people whose offenses have no bearing upon their ability to perform their jobs is one of the best ways I can think of to destroy the productivity & success of a nation. Granted, a race car driver offers less of an essential service to society than, say, a doctor, professor, or lawyer, but the principle still applies. Hopefully society will realize this before it's too late.
Agreed: unless there is evidence not in the WhatsApp messages, the accuser has no case at all, and it is ridiculous for her to be celebrated as some sort of heroine because she now seeks to destroy Horner's marriage, career, and reputation. The damage, as you outline, is massive.
I am reminded of the big story breaking this week – that whole Fani Willis/Nathan Wade saga. And I am confounded by the fact that the balance of power angle has never been in play in that case, presumably because of the assumption there can’t possibly have been any coercion on Willis' part. Yet when the man is the one with the power to hire and fire, it is always assumed that he has to have used coercion to get an employee to sleep with him.
So here we have a story about a workplace affair that has gotten wall to wall attention across the entire media spectrum, and not a word has been said throughout the many weeks the story has been in the news, about the power imbalance in their relationship.
Yes, exactly. No one would even think to see Nathan Wade as having been pressured into making those night-time visits to Fani Willis's home. Imagine the howls of laughter that would ring through the newsrooms and courtrooms. Yet if it had been the other way around, you can bet that Willis would be pontificating at length on the unbearable coercion she endured, just like Anita Hill did all those years ago.
What I like about Fiamengo articles (aside from the content) is how she scrupulously cites sources--with internal links--for all her important claims. Unfortunately, that habit is all too rare in social media.
(1) This is, when you get past the feminist blather, an adulterous relationship of a very common type. It ran into the usual problem of such relationships: The married partner’s unwillingness to leave their spouse. What he have, in consequence, is another example of the phenomenon of the “scorned woman.” Instead of simply blowing up Horner’s marriage, Hewitson decided to destroy his career and his reputation as well. Bringing in the feminist heavy artillery was the tool she used to achieve that.
For establishment feminists, this was a marvelous opportunity to punish men engaged in a profitable pastime appealing mostly to other men, and in which few women want participate. That men have a space to exercise, demonstrate, and test manliness is something that demise as a movement cannot bear.
(2) You are absolutely right that feminists want to subjugate men in every way possible, and one way is to destroy anything that men enjoy, and most women don’t.
Absolutely so, this seems to have been simple adultery. Either both parties should be disciplined, or neither--but that is not the way our gynocentric culture rolls.
The female urge to destroy what men enjoy is limitless.
That’s, sad to say, absolutely true. A woman who is vengeful, destructive, and hateful will have social approval. The man being punished, destroyed, and injured will be condemned by a chorus of harpies (with some
castrati included tomake it seem like a consensus).
While I think Pense is a RINO,
I think his attitude to female staff is 100% correct.
Never have dealings with them unless totally necessary.
If you need a 24 hr PA use a dude.
We can no longer trust women not to destroy our lives on a whim.
”If you need a 24 hr PA use a dude.”
That won't work. The courts do not smile upon businesses that will only hire a dude.
If the ratios are correct you can have your core staff as whoever you wish.
The only problem is the big decision making.
I think I'd rather have company HQ somewhere else besides the West.
Of there wasn't a proxy war in Ukraine, I'd choose Russis.
Sadly even the Pence rule won't save a man, as Janice showed in her article about the astronomer Jeff Marcy, "The Feminist Black Hole Swallow Non-Compliant Women, Too"
I'm not a fan of F1 ("televised traffic" as one comedian described it), but this did trigger a memory of visiting my older cousin's house in the late 1970's. She was employed as a model by a brand of cigarettes which sponsored one of the leading F1 teams at the time, and earned good money for doing little more than draping herself across the bonnet of a fast car and smiling, which - for a not particularly bright council house girl - wasn't the worst fate imaginable. Through this, she met and married one of the tobacco company advertising executives and lived in the luxurious (if rather Austin Powers styled) house I visited, shortly before they both moved to California and a life unimaginable to her siblings.
Feminists, naturally, would see this as a story of exploitation and objectification. From what I recall of my cousin, she was a sassy and vivacious young woman in full control of her destiny. The male gaze only seems to be a problem to women who never attract it.
"Feminists, naturally, would see this as a story of exploitation and objectification".
Likely so. Yet, guaranteed is that they (corporate feminism) will have conveniently overlooked how the reverse is far more true - that the man is used for his status for the benefit of the woman.
Absolutely, but even the possibility of reciprocal benefit is inadmissable.
Yes. By doing so, their cover would be blown. Meanwhile, they keep milking the bull.
"The male gaze only seems to be a problem to women who never attract it."
Haha that's a gold medal quote.
That’s a good point.
As a woman who wasn't particularly attractive when young, I have pondered this issue a lot: why do women complain about being admired and complimented and ogled? I can only conclude that perhaps if one is extremely attractive when young, it can be tiresome, and likely even frightening/angering, to have non-stop and sometimes aggressive sexual attention. At age 21, all one's evolutionary instincts are probably telling most young women to be careful around men. If, everywhere they go, the men are falling all over them, perhaps they do genuinely find it a burden.
Some women describe horrors (leering men touching them on the subway, making ugly propositions, etc.) that, if true, would indeed be very unpleasant, but are frankly difficult to believe.
I have to conclude that at least some of the complaints are just pro forma.
"As a woman who wasn't particularly attractive when young...". Your profile photo tells a different story, Janice. However, I could believe that your sharp intellect might have intimidated more than a few admirers.
Some women seem to delight in portraying themselves as victims of unwanted male attention. The benefits to the woman claiming victimhood are at least two-fold in that (i) she enhances her perceived desirability and virtue, which enhances her status among her peers, and (ii) she makes herself the centre of attention in a way that is likely to maximise sympathetic comments, reaffirming her place in the group. It can also serve as a form of damseling, if she wants to attract a man's attention. There is no obvious downside because the chances of being caught out lying are remote.
Two people had an awkward, tawdry affair so a man and an entire sport need to be blamed for it. Never mind that the woman acted like a typical homewrecking whore on the lookout for some other woman's successful husband. That doesn't matter at all, in the final analysis.
"No matter the findings of the investigation, a very powerful man in F1 acted in a way that made a subordinate woman uncomfortable enough to report his behavior and seek redress, and that is a power imbalance that F1 needs to address if it intends to continue its current growth.”
Interesting how this logic is never applied when the woman is the person in power.
There is a simple solution to this problem. Apply the logic of adultery. Adultery is a 2 way street. In a case like this, any misconduct was mutually engaged in and thus any punishment must be shared. So...if Horner must be sanctioned...so must Hewitson. Frankly, an even better response would be to follow up on that sanction by barring male drivers/teams from hiring women at all...and vice versa. Women won't be harassed in the workplace if they aren't present at all. At this point, why would anyone hire or even be willing to work around women?!
It looks to me as if Hewitson's primary intention was to break the marriage apart and become the wife. She offered sex in order to bait the trap, but lost interest when she had to face the fact that he wasn't going to leave his wife.
Plan B: get a consolation prize by filing a complaint and characterizing herself as a victim.
It all looks completely calculated.
Yup, even on a sympathetic reading--in which Hewitson was not being calculated about it, found herself falling in love with a married man whom she thought was falling in love with her, and thought perhaps he and Geri were over--that's what it boils down to. Unless there is some evidence that is not indicated in the WhatsApp messages, her decision to complain about him cannot be justified. Again, to try for the most sympathetic reading, maybe she thought she could be moved somewhere within the organization if she complained. It's possible that she found it very difficult to continue working with Horner, didn't want him punished, and simply wanted to make sure she could continue working for Red Bull but in some other capacity. But that doesn't look likely.
I believe the traditional term for someone like her is 'homewrecking whore'. Even if she can't pry him away from his wife, she'll still ruin the marriage.
This is why men refuse to reciprocate whenever a female coworker shows signs. It's most likely odious with ulterior motives, and if not, still ends up with a false harassment accusation in the end.
The most prudent advice I ever heard in my 42 years in HR in corporate America on the topic was from an old Egyptian Auditor who often quoted Egyptian market place sayings including “Never get your meat where you get your potatoes.” A bit crude but it makes the point. Sexual harassment in the US is whatever the woman says it is. Her willing initial participation has no bearing.
“Having women work with men is like having a grizzly bear work with salmon…dipped in honey.”
Of all the tropes, buzzwords, and feminist-inspired jargon that exist in the modern world, and specifically surround these type of cases, “power imbalance” has to among the most ridiculous and nauseating.
Evidently, I’m just supposed to pretend that men in positions of power and authority within these teams/organizations are just imposing their will upon poor, unwilling damsels in distress. These women play absolutely no part in their involvement with these men, all of whom - completely coincidentally - seem to be several rungs above them on the corporate ladder or organizational hierarchy. Furthermore, they posses no power, influence or agency in any situation involving them.
Their alleged powerlessness relieves them of any complicity. It’s the gender relations version of “racial minorities can’t be racist.”
How great would it be to invoke the concept of “power imbalance” when a female team executive is caught fucking the team bus driver, or perhaps the guy who replaces the urinal cakes in the locker room?
Something tells me I’ll be waiting a while.
It’s like mom used to say:
“Wish in one hand, shit in the other…see which one fills up faster.”
I'm delighted to discover that there is a name, "grumble bragging," for the outlandish self-congratulatory and yet victim-baiting sport where women--often not great beauty queens--lament the degree of infatuation they inspire in all men who cast their gaze upon them. I've worked with many women--some of whom I've even considered friends--who engage in this ridiculous conduct. In most instances, it's difficult for me to believe that they construed the slightest gesture or facial expression from a man as evidence of his burning lust for them. I'm all in favor of body positivity, but is the female (feminist) ego so radicalized that these women feel comfortable making such preposterous claims and attributing libidinous intentions to any man who happens to enter their visual field? Any man would be laughed out of the room for making analogous allegations about women's uncontrollable desire for them, but the practice seems to go unchecked for women, regardless of their age or appearance. In the most heartbreaking instance, I saw a colleague--a beautifully kind-hearted man--suffer a stroke and soon after pass away when a female colleague (who should have been thrilled if there's a man anywhere on the planet who would get turned on by looking at her) targeted him with this pernicious game.
Aww, horrible story about your colleague; some women are really vipers. At best, it is an all-too typical female weakness, the desire to be desired. But we have allowed it to become a highly destructive weapon in the hands of many unlovely women.
The 'power imbalance' is actually the reverse - if you believe in evolution, women have evolved to have a number of, shall we say, 'features' that men are attracted to, whereas men have only one: their naivety.
Good. But there is also the biological matter that men will almost invariably win against a woman in a bare-knuckle bout - or against two or three women, for that matter. In that area, men certainly have the advantage of a "power imbalance".
In a civilized society (in a very broad sense), the power imbalance you mentioned keeps men from taking advantage of their superior strength. It is feminism that insists on kicking away the foundations of civilization - kicking away at the social constraints on men, until there is nothing left to stop them from acting on their strength.
I agree, this tendency for feminists to push the boundaries of civil behaviour by verbally abusing physically stronger men is increasing. Despite the fact that it's probably always been a factor in male-female relationships, there do seem to be more and more women willing to test the limits of male equanimity over recent decades. To me, that's a form of abuse as well - women taking advantage of the cultural assumption that they can say whatever they like without much likelihood of physical retribution. I often wonder how many men have been involuntarily pushed to the point of resorting to physicality in exasperation as a result. Biologically, anger and verbally abusive behaviour towards others only works because of the deep-seated, implied threat of physical violence.
Absolutely, I wonder that too. Then the man slaps the woman across the face or pushes her out of his way (as she blocks the door, shouting abuse at him, telling him how much he disgusts her, threatening him, deriding him, insulting him), and he is suddenly the villain in a domestic abuse case. No use saying she provoked him, that will simply be more evidence of his perfidy.
Blackstock, who writes about autoracing for Jalopnik, a website about automobiles that hates automobiles. Sister (sibling, I supposed we have to say now) website to the late Jezebel and now sold-off Deadspin.
It's a whole media empire based on hysterical bigotry, misery and general unhappiness. When I used to read thar family of websites it struck me just unhappy the tone was of nearly every article. No wonder they're failing even without the lawsuits.
I guess it's just part of Left culture to complain endlessly. I got tired of it.
Interesting, thanks for this. I always imagined that a car and racing magazine would be pro-car and pro-racing! Silly me.
I haven't paid any attention to racing since I was 18, when my boyfriend was very interested, and we used to watch races on TV every weekend. How horrifying to think of even it being policed by feminists.
" If it’s a field that men built and enjoy, it must be in need of a shame-filled reckoning. " Spot on once again. Women think that they deserve the fruits of men's labor, and they whine and shame and threaten when they don't get it. Men invented automobiles and pioneered automobile racing, so how is it that they are obligated to share it with women?
Unfortunately (fortunately), men (mainly in the west) also invented philosophies of equal rights, individuality, non-discrimination, cultural openness, and so on--biting us all in the bum now, it seems, as the feminists and their many allies seek to destroy that culture.
Yes, that is true, and let us not forget how much we owe to Western political philosophers, the freedoms we have, the wealth we enjoy. Underwriting the rights of every individual means that a society will be subject to sudden political mood swings. But I can't see any way around it. Marcuse came up with a formula for ending tolerance with those who are intolerant, but "intolerant" very easily becomes the opposing political party, and thus justifies using the legal system and government force to silence and persecute. All roads lead to Banana Republics once that we give up on classical liberal principles. So it seems that we have to fight in the free market of ideas and opinions no matter what. We can only demand that governments and now Big Tech companies who host public squares act as honest referees.
Vale the enlightenment.
Women can join f1 anyway. Womenjust don't care about cars and they're not good at racing when they do.
In this case like many other similar ones, it seems to me the most unethical behaviour was that of the complainant who deliberately made public a relationship that she willingly engaged in under a verbal or at least implied and clearly understood contract of privacy. Such breaches of confidentiality have been occurring even when women have accepted large amounts of money for which they signed agreements to remain silent about certain matters. To then go public about those matters is violent treachery yet feminists and journalists avoid acknowledging the woman's wrongdoing, rather they exalt her as some brave flag bearer.
Sure, if laws were broken by an accused, that may void any actual or implied contract of confidentiality but that is rarely the case. Even then, accepting money for promising to keep quiet about past events and moreover later breaking that promise will often be more serious in both wrongdoing and harm caused than the alleged offending was. In addition, the complainant's motivation (e.g. greed, jealousy, revenge for rejection) will often add another layer of ignobility.
There is currently no law against having an extramarital affair (for either party) or for a workplace relationship other than one involving coercion. With regard to a heterosexual workplace relationship that left the woman aggrieved over it ending, feminists treat it as a crime committed by the man but usually no crime was committed at all. With regard to extramarital affairs, modern marriage and relationship laws don't acknowledge the breach of contract involved, at least when a woman does it in either role. (This calls into question the point of marriage now; it's not even a contract.) Instead, Courts will assert the woman's rights as an autonomous individual and will pay lip service to the impact of her betrayal on her husband, indeed more likely punishing him for the emotional abuse of objecting to her behaviour. Other women will claim that it's unreasonable to deny a woman the right to act on her passion regardless of past promises. Not so much for the cheating man though. He should have kept it in his pants, his wife the betrayed damsel in distress must be rescued, her forms of violent objection empathized with and forgiven, or when the man was in the other role as a wife's secret lover he was probably responsible for leading her astray.
I am in favour of laws against marital unfaithfulness involving sex with another person, for both (or all) parties involved unless the married couple have signed a lawful contract to permit open relationship. Law defines and enforces morals as its main purpose so why not that? The harm from marital infidelity is great on partners and especially children suffering broken families. I don't advocate severe punishments, on the contrary, perhaps comparable to that for a moderate traffic violation. However, the fact a law was broken should be on a person's record to warn future potential partners and taken into account in relationship property settlements and other situations. I am also in favour of treating marriage as a contract, for such contracts to be individually tailored to each relationship according to the wishes of the parties (based on a standard, default contract), with clear penalties for breaches as is the case for business and other contracts. Most people will disagree with me about all this; fair enough, we're all entitled to our opinions, but I believe honest, full consideration would lead them to the same conclusions.
Well said!
>> "the most unethical behaviour was that of the complainant who deliberately made public a relationship that she willingly engaged in under a verbal or at least implied and clearly understood contract of privacy."
Bravo, well said. 👏👏👏💯
When someone willingly engages in a certain activity with a person, then files a complaint against that person for said activity after they said no to escalating or advancing said activity, that is betrayal, hypocrisy, manipulation, entrapment, & deception, in their worst forms. It is the intentional weaponization of victimhood.
Comparing the "harm" that was done to the "victim" versus the harm that is being inflicted upon the "perpetrator," the magnitude of suffering could not be more disproportionate. She didn't suffer at all before the complaint; afterwards, she was "suspended with pay" - basically, she was given a paid vacation.
Her wishes were respected - it should be obvious there was no abuse of power. Whatever culpability is present is shared equally between them. Nevertheless, his career & reputation have been irreparably destroyed, while she is lauded for her "bravery" in "standing up to her oppressor." What has happened to our world, that dishonesty, betrayal, & ruination are praised & celebrated, simply because the victim is a man?
Cancelling people whose offenses have no bearing upon their ability to perform their jobs is one of the best ways I can think of to destroy the productivity & success of a nation. Granted, a race car driver offers less of an essential service to society than, say, a doctor, professor, or lawyer, but the principle still applies. Hopefully society will realize this before it's too late.
Agreed: unless there is evidence not in the WhatsApp messages, the accuser has no case at all, and it is ridiculous for her to be celebrated as some sort of heroine because she now seeks to destroy Horner's marriage, career, and reputation. The damage, as you outline, is massive.
Feminists have produced DNA evidence. Anyone with a Y chromosome is a rapist...
Feminist philosophers debate: if a man is alone in a forest and says something and no one hears him, is he still wrong?
Well that's the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: someone can be either right or male - but not both at the same time!
I am reminded of the big story breaking this week – that whole Fani Willis/Nathan Wade saga. And I am confounded by the fact that the balance of power angle has never been in play in that case, presumably because of the assumption there can’t possibly have been any coercion on Willis' part. Yet when the man is the one with the power to hire and fire, it is always assumed that he has to have used coercion to get an employee to sleep with him.
So here we have a story about a workplace affair that has gotten wall to wall attention across the entire media spectrum, and not a word has been said throughout the many weeks the story has been in the news, about the power imbalance in their relationship.
Yes, exactly. No one would even think to see Nathan Wade as having been pressured into making those night-time visits to Fani Willis's home. Imagine the howls of laughter that would ring through the newsrooms and courtrooms. Yet if it had been the other way around, you can bet that Willis would be pontificating at length on the unbearable coercion she endured, just like Anita Hill did all those years ago.
What I like about Fiamengo articles (aside from the content) is how she scrupulously cites sources--with internal links--for all her important claims. Unfortunately, that habit is all too rare in social media.
Thank you! I was a little lazy with this one.
Two adults were romantically involved. The man was professionally successful. When they split up, the man is deemed a sexual harasser.
Two things strike me:
(1) This is, when you get past the feminist blather, an adulterous relationship of a very common type. It ran into the usual problem of such relationships: The married partner’s unwillingness to leave their spouse. What he have, in consequence, is another example of the phenomenon of the “scorned woman.” Instead of simply blowing up Horner’s marriage, Hewitson decided to destroy his career and his reputation as well. Bringing in the feminist heavy artillery was the tool she used to achieve that.
For establishment feminists, this was a marvelous opportunity to punish men engaged in a profitable pastime appealing mostly to other men, and in which few women want participate. That men have a space to exercise, demonstrate, and test manliness is something that demise as a movement cannot bear.
(2) You are absolutely right that feminists want to subjugate men in every way possible, and one way is to destroy anything that men enjoy, and most women don’t.
Absolutely so, this seems to have been simple adultery. Either both parties should be disciplined, or neither--but that is not the way our gynocentric culture rolls.
The female urge to destroy what men enjoy is limitless.
That’s, sad to say, absolutely true. A woman who is vengeful, destructive, and hateful will have social approval. The man being punished, destroyed, and injured will be condemned by a chorus of harpies (with some
castrati included tomake it seem like a consensus).