I’ve read before that Canadian guys are complaining that when they complain against unionized or regulated professionals who happen to be women, they get warned by police and lawyers not to proceed with the complaint.
Women shouldn't be in the military. When the UK Navy a couple decades ago announced both female and male in the UK Navy would serve on Submarines everyone went uh-oh they'll all be at it,it'll be bad for morale. And the female Commanders responded,our people may be women but they're not girlies,these are stern strictly business strong women of purpose. So then a few months ago a report came out saying that there are hundreds maybe thousands of "sexual abuse" claims in with the Navy that have been lodged by those women serving with men,the complaints are not being investigated due to staff shortages etc,the usual reasons. But turns out the female complainants were not being jumped on in the bilges or touched up in the corridors. Women were of their own volition entering relationships,often short lived ones,with men they were serving with and it was causing all sorts of jealousies and rifts and emotional breakdowns. And of course all that can be represented as sexual abuse perpetrated by men against women when it's not.
I need to take exception to that thinking. Are there challenges? Yes. There sure would a lot of talent missing if we just said “no women”. I prefer fixing this. I spent 15 years as a medical supervisor and I have never and would not ever dismiss issues of any sort much misogyny or reported sexism.
There are many men (I use that word advisedly) using this piece to inform your readers that they are voting Harris/Walz. The Low T brownshirts seem to enjoy the digital penetration they receive by those they crave but will never have.
TIL that women are 54.6% of registered voters in the United States. If you're a savvy politician, you play to the audience, right?
It is heartbreaking, but it is our reality. First step is to accept it for what it is.
I have no idea what the second step might be. Women have controlled the majority of votes in the US since the 1980s or earlier. Gynocentrism is the *root* of our political processes.
Thank you, Janice! I made the mistake (after someone brought up Trump’s recent comment about “blow jobs changing Harris’s and Hillary’s lives) of bringing the subject of your piece about Harris up with a few family members, and there was instant female fury that I dare question Harris’ professional/political journey! The recurrent theme was “Just because she “dated” Willie Brown, that didn’t mean he helped her/opened doors for her politically.” “That a woman doesn’t need to sleep with a man to get ahead.” “You are calling her a whore?” “What about what Trump did?” “What about what men expect?” Perhaps the strong reaction was b/c Trump has been so bombastic, that any criticism of her is just a bridge too far. But, to your point, it IS verboten to question a woman’s abilities or behavior. It’s all about women’s “rights” and the baked-in feelings of being oppressed by men. The men in the group stayed silent for fear of being verbally shot down. We have a long way to go here! No wonder why men are going their own way.
Clearly not as low as Kamala, who uses kneepads. But, less flippantly, what do you mean? What is low about an article that talks about sordid corruption? Isn't that the kind of article we need?
You are defending an actual prostitute by attacking without basis the author. Why? what is your secret? How many abortions have you had? Or do you just feel you need to say nasty stuff to be in with the in crowd?
Kamala, like most feminists, is all in favor of sexism—except when it doesn’t work in her favor. And we’re expected to pretend that women are always the victims and never the perpetrators of sexism.
Let the record show that women are also the slut- and fat-shamers par excellence; men who listen to women can't help but pick up on this. Of course, that's just internalized misogyny that my Y chromosome somehow makes me responsible for.
Today the CBC put on its front page that Canada faces a femicide epidemic because a young criminal murdered his barely legal girlfriend, or the victims were the fallout in organized crime.
ALL my false accusers, including the fembot 'judge' who put me in jail because I objected to being stolen-from by . . . ANOTHER female, have been women.
When I was young, other males would try to bully me perhaps, but at least it was direct and confrontational. The women sneak around and make deals with the feminist 'judges'. Though it is the cowardly male cops (often with feminist daughters) who enforce the evil that women do to men.
I hate them all and am looking forward to my turn coming, which it will. cheers, m
My violent ex defies the law at every turn. And, despite all her crimes against me and others, she walks free ignoring court orders to leave me alone, plea deal be damned. I feel ya. Good luck.
Right back atcha, sir. The stuff I have heard and learned from divorced men about collusion between ex-wives and the corrupt feminist family courts is so sad, and so evil. They need to be cast into hell and I hope I am one of those who is allowed to do that, when the time comes. Keep your chin up, amigo. m
You are simply wrong. The only women who hate men have been horribly abused by men. On the other hand men hate women for a variety of reasons, feeling unable to compete(which can be fixed by study and application and hard work), feeling intimidated sexually (which can be resolved through good therapy), feeling fear which turns into anger (which is a hallmark of you having been abused, which also requires therapy to resolve), or occasionally by such deeply buried homosexuality that you hate women because you are not attracted to them, and it couldn’t be your fault, so it must be their fault(again, therapy to accept who you are, and learning to love yourself just the way you are, so that you can love other people just the way they are, in spite of what you may have been taught). If you want to get close to a woman, here is a recipe. 1. Never underestimate the value of good personal hygiene. Go get Dial deodorant soap, Axe shampoo in whatever scent smells good to you, and some old fashioned cologne, like Old Spice, or Stetson, and Crest toothpaste. (I specify these brands because they are readily available, and makes the decision easy.) Shower and shave every day. Brush your teeth after every meal. Get a haircut once a month. If you have the $$, go to a day spa and get a pedicure once a month. Get two pair of Levi’s or work pants of your choice, and two pair of khaki pants one dark blue, one some other color, not black. Get 4 white police shirts and 4 navy blue polo shirts. Wear clean clothes every day. Go to where women are. Join a book club at the library or senior center-you are not looking for sex, but for female friends. Volunteer for Meals on Wheels, or the local Animal Shelter, or the local Good Will or equivalent organizations, or your local Church free lunch program. Women love men who are clean, polite, and interested in what the women have to say. Try it, you might like it.
Arrogance and condescension are always best served with a huge dose of ignorance. Someone who is so homophobic that they believe same-sex attraction needs to be buried in shame is truly pathetic. Where is my calendar? Is it 1950? That was all I needed to hear to know who we’re dealing with here. I feel sorry for those inmates. They deserve better.
I believe if you observe the Republican members of the House of Representatives, and the Senate, it is possible to notice several such individuals. This is less common than it used to be, as you note, but in certain denominations of Christianity, people are taught that homosexuality is a sin, and a crime against God, and I have worked with a couple individuals to struggled with accepting this aspect of themselves. You never know what people are dealing with until you take the time to let them tell you.
Don’t know where you got that out of anything I said. Again instead of trying to define me in such a way that you can comfortably ignore every thing I say, may ask me a question? I was raised by a father who was raised by his great grandfather, a Civil War Veteran, so I think a lot of my early political education left me in my core a true Lincoln Republican, of the early 1860’s variety. That man gave up his Quaker life to join the Army and fight for the right of every person to have freedom and self-determination. I’ve never had any use for Marx. What in what I have said makes you think any of what I say has to do with Marx at all?
Comes from almost 2 decades working with criminals, many of them sex offenders, and their victims. Experience with a specific population, I admit. But people are pretty hardwired to want to connect to others. There is generally a reason people have a hard time connecting with other people, generally fear of one sort or another. Physiologically and psychologically, all anger is driven by fear. To resolve the anger, confront the fear. Easy to say, extremely hard to do. Call me names and discount me all you want, what I say applies to most people most of the time. If you encounter one abusive person, that is it, that person is abusing you. If everyone you meet seems to trigger the same reaction in you, more likely the problem lies within yourself, you know? Often seems easier to externalize the problem and keep blaming the “other” of your choice, but this is dishonest, and a person does themself much more damage clinging to lies, in the long run, it just makes them crazy. They get lost in the lies. The truth will set you free.
If I take what you say seriously - and I have no reason not to - the answer is simple: you cannot generalize from a prison population to all men. That virtually guarantees the falseness of most of your conclusions. So what now? Are you going to provide a better rationale for your sweeping claims? Otherwise we're stuck here, no?
I am simply offering a baseline. If you do good personal hygiene already, pat yourself on the back. But the number of people who do actually brush their teeth after every meal is a smaller set of the population as a whole, than those who never brush their teeth at all, so it’s worth saying again. If you understand the importance of displaying your status by your wardrobe, excellent. If you don’t believe that wearing clean tailored white shirts will result in you being treated with more respect where-ever you are, try it, you might like it. It’s a good idea to wear colors other than black, like grey, navy, khaki, whatever, because it signals you put a little thought into what you are wearing instead of just following the path of unthinking least resistance. Plus, you will be less tempted to skip washing them. Men who understand personal hygiene and signaling social status have fewer difficulties with understanding women’s interest in personal hygiene and fashion, and hence, having a baseline for how to interact with women. To get back to the original thing that triggered me here, people referring to Kamala Harris as a slut or a prostitute, or making these pronouncements about her being useless or whatever, I just figured it would be useful to clarify some points of reference. Help clarify if there is anyone here who really believes any of that, as opposed to those who perceive her to be an actual threat to the current partisan agenda, and are trying to find least common denominators ways to discount her. But also, in this age of so much low quality and false info floating around, offer a bit of perspective to those who might benefit.
KH is not a slut; she is a prostitute, and a nasty person/woman/bitch. Before you answer this post, 1) look up the definition of the P word, 2) explain why she seems to be in the top 1% for staff turnover.
You write as if many women don't have hygiene issues or a poor selection of unflattering outfits in their wardrobe.
Triggered? That's a worrying word. Kamala used sex to gain power. Fact. A reprehensible fact no less disgusting than Weinstein's abuse of sex and power.
I wonder if you were triggered by the discussions about Trump's penis ( its size and unusual shape) on CNN and other news outlets? I wonder if the naked statues of Trump depicting him with a tiny penis and planted on a street corner in New York city was triggering and sexist.
Perhaps the ongoing mockery of Trump's hair, skin colour, weight and sexual prowess triggered you? This is far beyond anything any female politician has ever had to endure, yet not one person has branded this denigration of Trump's body sexist or uncalled for. It has been applauded and promoted endlessly with relish.
Your double standards ( as are so many women's) are astonishing.
Why do you think I am hostile to anyone? I get impatient with people who jump on a bully bandwagon because they can’t be bothered to think for themselves, but that is exactly why I get into these sorts on conversations, to interrupt the group think and generate some new ideas. I am hostile to actual criminals- it’s part of why I stopped working in mental health, I couldn’t be as helpful to them as I should have been, so I moved on. I am of the strong opinion that criminals should be removed from society. It why I get a little hit about people pretending that Trump’s clearly criminal behavior isn’t all that bad, and if they poke around hard enough that can do both sides now look at anyone else being bad. Look for corruption among all other politicians, and if you find it, let’s shut it down But don’t give the obvious criminal in the middle of all this a pass, you know what mean? You don’t have to agree with me, but just know that is where I am coming from.
Oh, I see you now. Trump's criminal behaviour? If it existed, why do they have to keep making up false charges which even make some Democrats blush?
You dare to talk of criminality when Trump has been preceded by Obama, Clinton and the Bush boys? These men have committed war crimes and made tens of millions of dollars while in office as has Biden. This is clear proof of their criminality without even needing the documents which no doubt exist.
“Show me a man that gets rich by being a politician, and I'll show you a crook.”
You replied to a comment that has literally nothing to do with men seeking sexual attention from women by asserting your lengthy list of what men need to do to deserve female attention in your heteronormative, gynocentric vision of the world. That says a lot about your insecurities and hostilities. If we’re honest, it tells us a lot more than you intended to reveal. You owe it to yourself to take an honest look in the mirror and stop attributing your problems to men’s refusal to conform to what women think they should be.
"Comes from almost 2 decades working with criminals." To me that explains everything you're saying. As I understand it, something like 50% of all prison inmates are psychopaths.
Yeah, I know I am wordy. Sorry about that. But sometimes it takes some words to get past generalizations and down to brass tacks. Thanks for the yes vote on hygiene!
I mean horribly abused. For example, a woman who was attacked, raped repeatedly by three men and left to bleed to death with a broken beer bottle shoved up her vagina, but her husband got home in time and saved her life. She never recovered from the PTSD of that attack, and was unable to tolerate being touched by a man, even her husband after that. I do forget I have a different frame of reference about the term abuse than may be current in this firm.
Stop! What's your point? I know of mothers who cooked their babies in an oven and one back here in Australia who hacked her 8 kids to death. I know of another Aussie woman who killed and cooked her ex husband and attempted to feed him to his own children without them knowing what she offered.
Bad shit happens and it's just as often a female doing it.
You work with a tiny tiny minority of men and dare to pass judgement on the entire gender?
You are going to be really embarrassed of yourself when you sober up. No one can write so incoherently and spitefully without being under the influence of some form of substance. Once sober maybe you should talk to someone about your anger issues so you don’t continue to live your life in misery and unhappiness.
LOL. Once again, discounting the person because offended by the message. Stop looking for ways to discount me because there is something about my thoughts that you can’t figure out how to refute. You could say I generalized too much. You could say the population I worked with are so different from non-criminal men that my thoughts don’t apply to the population you are thinking of. If you really have a hard time understanding what I wrote you could ask for clarification of some points. But no, you accuse me of being drunk (not the case, for the record, I might have a glass of something at a celebration of one sort or another, but I don’t really drink. I just don’t like it.) Bullying tactics like that are ineffective with me since it has no basis in reality. As opposed to your response to what I said, which suggests that something in there was intolerable to you, because it hit too close to home. Which is something we can work with. Increased insight is always a wonderful thing. What part of what I said bothered you the most?
"Go to where women are. Join a book club at the library...you are not looking for sex, but for female friends. Women love men who are clean, polite, and interested in what the women have to say. Try it, you might like it."
Gee, what red-blooded man could resist such an offer! The joy of listening to what women have to say, free of sex entirely! Perhaps on weekends they'll let us traipse along behind them at farmers markets and antique shops, carrying their purchases. My only worry is, can my old ticker stand the excitement!
Gee thanks for the dating advice Nurse Ratched but I think I'll pass. You see, I'm not one of your captive inmates to be lectured by women on personal hygiene, grooming, and how to pick up old crones like yourself. Let's face it, the only way you can get near a man is when he's locked in a cell.
Another instance of define me so you can discount me, based on nothing but your discomfort at something I have said. How about trying a real conversation? I have thrown out a lot of material there.
"If you want to get close to a woman...get deodorant soap...shampoo...cologne...Shower and shave every day...Brush your teeth after every meal...Get a haircut once a month...get a pedicure once a month...Get two pair of Levi's...two pair of khaki pants...4 white police shirts...4 navy blue polo shirts. Wear clean clothes every day."
Probably the last thing I expected to find in Janice's forum was grooming advice for the lonely bachelor! What's next...recipe tips?
Shows a certain lack of imagination. Easier to neglect to wash. Look like mechanic’s uniforms, which is fine while you are working as a mechanic, but might as well relax in something else when off the clock. Navy blue is friendlier, charcoal grey is associated with money in people’s minds.
Dial soap and Axe shampoo are horrible recommendations full of endocrine disrupting chemicals. Go with tallow soap and an organic shampoo. Same for the toothpaste and deodorant. Organic, paraben, sulfate free options are widely available.
Shut up imbecile! Those guys in Canada and Australia lament that a typical empowered broad wouldn’t even want a man near their farts if the man doesn’t own a luxury condo with a few Lambos by age 21.
I’ve seen this phenomenon elsewhere. I know a woman, now a venerable pillar of society in a country not located on the North American continent, who had the reputation of being the corporate mattress until she was able to snaffle an up-and-coming politician, who ended up as head of the government. She used her “first lady” position to position herself as an important public figure.
I call this phenomenon “horizontal advancement.” It’s a skill some women have developed into a science. After all, why make an effort to achieve power when you can obtain it with open legs or mouth?
It was a matter of amusement to see her frequently in the company of her husband’s then mistress. When she eventually found out, after her husband acquired a new mistress, she started an affair with her husband’s principal intra-party rival, causing immense anguish to his then wife, while presenting herself as the primary voice of feminism, women’s “empowerment,” and female solidarity.
Now, I happened to know all these people, and was on the gossip circuit, but the sexual shenanigans were remarkably amusing.
Back in the day, we had a similar phenomenon in the Australian Federal Government. The lady in question was affectionately known as 'the screw that holds the Cabinet together'.
This is a typically male form of insouciant verbal play that will soon, I'm quite sure, be defined by our various Anglosphere governments as violent misogynistic extremism and punishable by up to 5 years in prison!
So what does one person’s sexual peccadillos have to do with someone else’s? Aren’t we discussing why Harris thinks Trump should be in jail, and why Trump wants everyone to talk about anything other than Trump’s sexual crimes?
...that isn't a particularly strong argument, David. You didn't address any of her points; simply resorted to personal attacks. Pretty sure that's a thing you learn in debate. I don't know about...Adult Education...are you referring to Ongoing education classes at a community or online college?
I've published around 40 books, including bestsellers, and over a thousand articles and essays, many of which deal with precisely this subject. I'm no longer interested in replying point by point to the gravamen of intellectual midgets and moral cretins who are basically a waste of time. You want an immediate response? I don't have an hour to sacrifice on this bilge. You want a considered response, one with years of painstaking research behind it? Rerad my work.
...were those books on debating? Because you don't seem to be making any points except how you don't have to make points because all who disagree with you are cretins. It would have taken as much time to actually respond as it would have to insult everyone. Good luck with your publishing - I hope it's as successful as your arguments.
Give it a read and then react. As it happens, most of the salient arguments have already bern made by thoughtful and erudite commenters on this aite. And Janice's rhesis speaks for itself. There is little to be said for bloviating sentimentts and personal exhalations and more to be said for meticulous research and strict investigative protocols. Im sorry to say this, but you have a long way to go.
I see so much deflection to say “What about what Trump did?” This doesn’t make anyone like Harris more. It’s obviously making lite of her flaws, and people can see it. Plus, the media has been more biased than ever.
Oh, come now. Focusing on alleged sexual misconduct by Harris is obviously a move to distract from Trump’s very real problem with the $90,000,000 judgement against him in the E. Jean Carroll case. And the Stormy Daniels case. The both sides, but it is so much worse because she is female, narrative really grabs some people. There is sexual poor decisions. There is sexual unethical activity. And there are sexual crimes. These are different levels of concern. Aren’t they?
He was ‘convicted’ not of a sexual crime but of slander. jury awarded the woman who falsely claimed rape and he called her a liar $90M for this slander. Definitely a record.
He was also being blackmailed by a woman and he paid her some amount of money. This was paid by his lawyer and he paid his lawyer. He wrote ‘legal fees’ on the cheque stubs. 34 cheques. He was convicted of an undefined crime. The judge threw out a number of possible crimes he might have done and told the jury it didn’t matter which crime he committed. They didn’t have to have 12 people agree on any one crime. As long as each agreed he did something wrong they should vote guilty. He now faces 135 years in prison for writing ‘legal fees’ in a cheque stub for a sum he wrote to his lawyer. This is such legal malfeasance the judge should be jailed as should be the prosecutor.
Jesus wept. You are a fraud. You cannot be serious regarding that insane E Jean Carroll who said rape was sexy and The Apprentice was her all-time favourite show years after Trump allegedly raped her? Listen to her for five minutes and you see how criminal and political the charges against Trump are.
Stormy Daniels? Another exposed as a liar who even Bill Maher dismissed as a fake hack trying to get a buck and he hates Trump even more than you do.
That's it?
I suppose you believe Maralargo is worth 18 million bucks too?
I worked with sex offenders, including pedophiles, for many years. When a man is arrested and found responsible for one sexual crime, and he is fortunate to be offered a treatment program rather than “lock him up and forget about him”, the average number of prior offenses they admit to is 14. The defamation suit against him by E Jean Carroll, which offended his sense of entitlement so much that he couldn’t shut up about it, and now has a $90,000,000 judgement against him, is the case where he has been found liable and punished, financially. His behavior, the “grab them by the pussy”remarks, his repeated discussion of “dating” his daughter, are classic entitled offender moves, bragging that “this is what I am thinking and you can’t stop me.” The documented inappropriate crossing of boundaries with young women in those pageants and on the TV show he ran, are also danger flags for perpetrators. You can Google that there are lists of 11,13, or more complaints and cases filed against him for sexual offenses that were dropped or petered out one way or another. It takes tremendous energy to bring a suit against a man as wealthy and relentless at Trump, and he is careful. He detached himself from Jeffery Epstein at some point, but there are still articles available about teenage girls who report they were procured for Trump by Epstein. You can look all that up for yourself. I have worked with men who kept count, and told me proudly of how many teenager girls, or prepubescent boys that had molested. The highest number was 156. A really good reporter could probably get Trump to tell them on mike how many women he has”had” and how many of them were young, and probably how many of them were “willing”. I can’t say exactly how many women and girls, in addition to E Jean Carroll, Trump has offended against, but based on the readily available public record, the statistical probability of him having committed multiple offenses against multiple victims is very high. Don’t leave your daughters alone with him, particularly if they are that blonde type he goes for.
The jury found her credible enough that she eon. $5,000,000 judgement. He was so offended that he was brought to account, that he couldn’t shut up about it, and she won again, brining the total to almost $90,000,000 judgement against him. This increases the idea that she is credible, and that he continues to lie about his sexual history. It amazes me that people are willing to assume that every woman who gathers the fortitude to go public with a story like this must be lying, bit that any man who is finally charged with sexual misconduct must necessarily be telling the truth when he says he didn’t do it. Research suggests that 4 times out of 100, women lie about a rape allegation-most often during acrimonious divorce proceedings, or other situations where large amounts of money are at stake. 96 six times out of 100, the woman is not lying. Men consistently say they didn’t do, often in the face of DNA or filmed evidence to the contrary. Why would you think E. Jean Carroll would lie about such a thing, and wreck her life going through the process of trial, if it wasn’t important?
So the fact that a jury in a civil case found him guilty of character defamation is proof, to you, that he's guilty of sexual assault yet the fact that a jury in a criminal case of sexual assault found him not guilty means nothing to you?
How about Carroll saying on national television, in an interview with Anderson Cooper (not a big Trump fan), that Trump definitely didn't rape her and that rape was sexy? Do you think she was lying about that (obviously you do) and, if so, how does that make her credible?
If you think court judgements are proof of guilt, how is it that you're ok with a judge not admitting Carroll's denial that she was raped, on national television, as evidence by the judge in the civil case? Think about that one for a minute: In a case involving her claim that she was sexually abused by Trump, a judge ruled that a national television interview in which she stated, categorically, that she wasn't was ruled inadmissable evidence by the judge.
Again, this is why no one, here, takes you seriously.
Trump's famous line was "they let you grab them by the pussy!" and nobody understood that this was an indictment on women and in no way anything Trump should have apologized for.
Saying, "they let you" means it was consensual. It highlights how women are willing to do anything to get in bed with a rich and powerful celebrity. None of these women would let the janitor grab them by the pussy. They wouldn't even see the janitor if he was standing in front of them for he is of no value in their eyes.
Now that is shameful and something to be sorry about.
Help us here, what sexual crimes of POTUS DJT? Not that EJ Carol person, no one truly believes her story, the jury was selected to convict him to prevent him from running or serving. He’s been married 3 times, both of his ex’s are satisfied with their divorce settlements,& all 3 were of age of consent. That is more than can be said for pedophile Joe.
Trump's sexual crimes? You dare go there? Bill Clinton and Joe Biden have both been accused far more plausibly by women than any of the utter rubbish hurled at Trump, yet the media and people like you ignore it because you are obsessed with the orange man.
How dare you pretend you care about sexual assault when you simply use it a s a weapon to attack someone you don't like.
Feminists continually complain that America is a misogynistic society because we have so many more male congressman, senators and presidential candidates than we do women. What they don't talk about, however, is a rather interesting observation. Most of the male politicians we see had to build their careers by rising through the ranks from smaller offices to more important offices based on the merit of winning elections. Of course there are some who have a leg up as the child of a famous politician...but I have yet to see a single male politician who rose as the "husband" of a famous female politician or who "slept" their way up the political ladder. On the women's side...I can think of quite a few women whose careers were entirely based on their marriage to a powerful male politician (Hillary Rodham Clinton) or to sleeping their way up the ladder (Kamala Harris). This raises a few rather interesting questions:
1. Why do women believe that sleeping their way up the ladder or being married to a prominent politician constitutes qualification for higher office?
2. Why do women who so strenuously object to sexual misconduct in the workplace not demand that their fellow women be held accountable for such conduct?
3. Do women not perceive that the negative stereotype of women sleeping their way into successful roles actually raises LEGITIMATE question about ALL women who hold such positions and drive the very suspicion against the qualification of female candidates that feminists complain about?
As with so many feminist complaints...they are based on projection of responsibility for problems that arise from the misconduct of women onto men and society in general.
How so? Please enlighten us as to what offices Michelle Robinson campaigned for and was elected to on her own merits? How many votes did she receive? What accomplishments does she have to show for her time in office? Would any of us even know her name had she not married Barack Obama and replaced the Robinson with Obama...wife of the president? To say that Michelle Obama is presidential material rests solely on her riding Barack's coattails...not her own accomplishments.
mostly it’s the Right that keep floating this idea. Dunno if it’s to get people outraged or what the story is, but she’s made it repeatedly clear that while she’s happy to do “her part”, she has zero interest in politics herself. No equivocation.
I think the third point is precisely why feminists react to censor any such discussion either by burying it or through accusations of "misogyny" (being a "misogynist" is about to be a terrorist offence here in the UK). Of course its not just "sleeping" your way to the top because there are also "affirmative" action" policies! All of which have to be kept under wraps.
I’m in the uk too, and your comment about being accused of perceived misogyny making you a terrorist reminded me that the whole feminist movement evolved from actual real terrorism back before the First World War. These acts, which were on a par with IRA attacks, killed at least five innocent people and destroyed the lives and careers of many others. The irony is astounding.
This terrorism, plus the white feather movement is well worth studying. You’ll never read or hear about it in the mainstream gynocentric media.
In France there has just been an attempt to blow up a synagogue and in Germany an indiscriminate stabbing with three victims dead. Both islamist. While in my home City hundreds were injured and dozens killed by an islamist terror attack. Yet our government decides to divert anti terrorism resources to combat "misogyny". The evidence for this? A lone shooting in California and an "influencer" living in Romania. Manchester was the home of the Pankhursts, Including Mr. Pankhurst who was in fact the founder of the campaign his wife then took over after his death, and led into terrorism. As you say the true history is not known, like for instance that the same Mrs. Pankhurst was a Parliamentary candidate for the Conservative Party at the time of her death! I defy anyone to come up with any terrorist attack clearly motivated by "misogyny", ever, in the UK. Whereas there have been those motivated by feminism. The founder of the Womens Refuge, Erin Pizzey, was forced to flee the UK in the early 80s due to credible bomb threats.
All of this is on the cards as soon as governments announce 'special measures' to combat terrorism. You can violate human rights against citizens if they are terrorists. So the simple trick is to label more and more of them terrorists.
… because if you complain about such women who have slept their way up, you are almost certainly labeled as jealous, backstabbing and plenty of other unpleasant things within the female ‘empowerment’ arena. Plus it can indeed be very hard to prove such sexual misconduct and so most people would be very careful to call it out the way it should be called out, simply as evidence is tricky to come by (though not in the horizontal Momala case). Great article!
True...and often that is exactly what happens because many women are notoriously petty...see the treatment of Caitlin Clark as an example. The underlying problem women face here is that the negative stereotypes of how women behave both in matters of pettiness and sexual impropriety as a means of advancement are all fundamentally accurate descriptions of the conduct of women as a group. Until women are prepared to look in the mirror and acknowledge that "we" are the problem...they will continue to be judged that way...and they should be.
One could also ask: Why do women believe that sleeping with a man or even being married to a man entitles her to half or more of what that man earned or acquired before ever meeting her?
Women acquire status among other women based on the status of the bloke they are having sex with. In Australia we had a social media phenomenon involving the wives and girlfriends of footballers. They were often seeing more media coverage than the players themselves. In most cases their only real achievement was jumping into bed with a noted athlete.
…and to add insult to injury, the man who gave the woman the “free ride” will shortly be facing court for accepting “payment in kind”…or rape as it is called when the woman decides it was a “bad choice” decades later
Wasn't Trump found guilty in a civil case where his accuser came forward after many years, her only evidence being her testimony? She got the usual outrageous financial award. Case still under appeal.
Trump was accused of what would be a criminal offence but tried under Civil Proceedings where the burden of proof is much lower. This is an abuse of process expect to see much more of it.
Agree! That E.Jean Carroll case was only brought b/c NYS passed a politically convenient “one year look back statute” where, despite expiration of statute of limitations, you could bring sh/sa allegations from decades ago. She NEVER, EVER filed a complaint against him until this one year statute was passed. Carroll was represented by high priced lawyers at no cost to her. The media was totally biased in her favor. The bar has been now set so low for vetting these types of allegations for credibility, that the sky is the limit for mendacity! Metoo, including, feminism has morphed from a movement to a business and is now a lucrative racket! Just believe all women because women would never lie “about such things.” Nothing could be further from the truth.
You are calling a lady a liar, who has no reputation during her career as a liar, who shared her story about Trumps abuse to friends and family at the time it happened ( and they all testified under oath) to literally defend a pathological liar who lies about EVERYTHING and who paid a porn star to lie about having sex with him and who literally admitted in the Access Hollywood tape that he grabs women by the pussy, which is why he was found guilty in a court of law, by a jury and a judge for doing exactly that!! Add the 2 separate defamation cases, and your are defending the most pathetic man in America!! God help you
Moronic! He said THEY LET YOU grab them by the pussy. Why do people keep deleting those words? I think we all know. His actions were consensual. All of the shame rests with these whores who let a rich and powerful celebrity touch them anywhere yet if the janitor tried the same thing they would cry rape!
It all depends on how much fame and money you have. It's disgusting and far more objectifying than what men do. At least they admire the women's body rather than her bank account.
No he is not, at present…it has not yet become expedient to do so (and, of course, the expediency may not ever arise)…but the world is still young and, based on recent history, he is not yet out of danger, is he?
When I was in a comatose, brain-dead state, I thought if Willie Brown saw potential in her, "Maybe she is okay." Then I woke from such fantasy and realized that, yes, she slept her way to the top meaning she was qualified to do so without such a ladder. How Governor Newsom was a protege of Brown is unknown, but he does have great hair.
Living in CA and seeing how it has been destroyed under one-party leadership, I literally get PTSD from Dem ads. Family and friends who live in Red States with blue centers have the luxury of complaining about the Republicans. In Blue areas, if you complain, you risk censure. In true Hegelian fashion, we emancipate ourselves by submitting to totalitarianism. I love Naomi Wolf, but her last piece that whined about Vance's cat lady statement made my head hurt. Like good foot soldiers for the Neo-Marxists, those cat ladies are doing the work, and if we can't call them out we are doomed. They are not endangered species at risk of extinction. We are the endangered species at risk from then.
Don’t try to make sense of it. This entire article (and the fist-pumping supportive comments that followed it) is an exercise in sweeping generalities the author states as hard truths, while cherry-picking the circumstances under which we should apply any point she makes.
For example, when refering to Trump grabbing pussy, the author opines that woman may reasonably be attracted to powerful men. But when Harris dated Brown, no such possibility was considered: she MUST have been with him ONLY for calculated professional gain. When he supported her run for AG, it couldn’t POSSIBLY have been because he recognized her talent, it must’ve ONLY been payback for a roll in the hay.
This article is singularly ugly and poorly “reasoned”. But by all means let’s apply the <wink!><wink!><nudge!><nudge!> approach to explaining the professional rise of a smart hardworking woman, rather than use a crtical thinking approach.
A young woman accepts two plum political appointments from the much-older, powerful man she is sleeping with; but pointing that out as evidence of sexual exploitation is "singularly ugly and poorly 'reasoned.'" I'm not convinced.
I’m not surprised you’re not convinced [sidebar: convincing you was not my goal, considering the basis of your entire career], since the only conclusions you appear to accept as valid are the ones that support the determination you’ve already made in advance.
Declaring that your personal assumptions about what events COULD mean (or what you WANT them to mean) constitute factual “evidence” is flawed logic, Professor. Or did you skip class that day?
It is well known, and no one disputes, that Kamala Harris accepted two well paid patronage appointments from the man she was sleeping with. In any sane world, such conduct is unethical. You fail to show otherwise.
Since you seem determined to mis-read what I’ve written, let me try ONE more time: despite your attempt to put words in my mouth, NOWHERE have I defended either Willie Brown’s decision to offer Harris the jobs, nor have I defended Harris’ decision to accept them. What I have said is - after you salaciously recounted events laden with rumor and innuendo - you declared that those events MUST mean she slept her way to the top. NO other interpretation was possible.
Really?
Your conclusion is based on a a basic logical fallacy rather than on any critical thinking. Your pre-determined belief in what might generously be considered a LIKELIHOOD (confirmation bias much?) is NOT sufficient to be irrefutable confirmation of your accusation.
And yes, I’m holding you to a higher standard than just any muckraking rumormonger, given your education and professional standing. You wrote your OPINION piece as though you were reporting facts. Judging from the comments I read, many of your readers don’t see that distinction.
And as a side observation: it’s easy for any of us to say we would have the fortitude to refuse a promotion offered by someone with whom we shared both a personal and professional relationship, because it might “look bad”. IRL many of us would likely believe we’re a great fit for the position and tell ourselves the offeror certainly relied more on their professional judgement than on the personal connection. And who’s to say?
What person would pursue a career in defending men and their rights when it could only be detrimental to her career and subject her to endless abuse and harassment? What possible benefits can be derived from taking such a course of action?
Only one- telling the truth and being able to sleep at night.
“defending men” does not have to be done by gratuitously sliming a woman who is a public figure.
And while Fiamengo gets her share of pushback, it’s a stretch to paint her as some selfless champion of men. She gets plenty of support and adulation for her stance, all the more because she is a woman.
nowhere did I say “sex had nothing to do with it”. I’m saying that stating as FACT that Harris slept her way to the top and is some kind of whore is smarmy, lazy gossip trying to pass itself off as a well-reasoned conclusion. You can think it possible or even likely all you want, but it is FAR from a certainty.
And I see no difference in that reasoning, regardless of gay or straight.
Willie Brown had to know that. If Harris just had a thing for Willie and wasn't ambitious, why would he help her rise to the top in spite of being an idiot?
No, she whored herself out and he probably was ok with it because it made her better arm candy and increased his social esteem.
You are so right. I saw an interview with Mr. Brown. A very recent interview. He praised the VP and spoke of her with genuine affection. He mentioned all the other people he helped politically and wondered why those relationships and his influence on the launching of their careers are overlooked. He also said VP Harris was brilliant and fun to be around. Which is why he dated her having been separated from his wife for almost a decade.
Women who tear apart women for their choices and assume they know what motivated their choices is so disheartening.
Why? Men rip other males apart all the time and don't talk about the "brotherhood" or betraying their gender. They don't view it as disheartening because we view people as individuals rather than belonging to a tribe.
Why do women speak as if they are meant to act as one entity and act first as a woman and second as an individual with unique thoughts and inclinations? It is so childish.
Imagine that the roles were reversed and a 60 year old married woman took up with a 29 year old man and then gave him unfair career advantages from her position of power. He would be considered an object of abject derision and she a pathetic cradle snatcher who couldn't get a man of her own socioeconomic station.
I think that that is probably the correct way to view Kamala and Willie as well. He could only get attractive young women through his wealth and power and she could only gain wealth and power by . . . how did Janice put it--climbing up his slippery pole?
I loved Janices 'slippery pole' words.. I had a good laugh.
I've seen men in their twenties derided for having sex with legal age females in their 'teens'..
The use of the word Teenager is interesting I find in the online Media when they want attention.
Forty year old sleeps with Teenager.
Forty year old sleeps with female.
Forty year old sleeps with legal aged woman.
A play with words, but it seems so easy to judge someone who has sex with someone which the law declares is 'legal' but the person is still officially a Teenager - which by the way I've never voted on this aspect in all my 40+ years of being a voter....
I've noticed that interestingly and I'm in UK,the word "teenager" is rarely used these days and even the concept seems to be gone. Which im actually glad about. I hated being a "teenager" especially as I wasnt,not how tv etc showed me being a teenager was. Now it's "child" especially if they've had sex and they or their parents want recompense. Up to age 18. But it's all very fuzzy now. Age 16 in the UK is The Legal Age of Consent for engaging in sexual activity. A few years ago the age for engaging in male homosexual activity was lowered to this age for equality. But in the case of Guiffre v. Andy Duke of,I heard lots of woman callers in to phone ins telling how they had their first experience of sexual intercourse aged 18,19,21,23 and not only was it painful,horrible,demeaning,not what they had been led to expect,not romantic,etc etc because that is how it actually is in real life mostly but those women calling in were at the time the Hollywood provided rose tinted spectacles fell off were not only above the legal age of consent but actually legally adults (18 in UK) and in employment. And I think that growing up in our society meant they were not ignorant about body parts or which but went where but the shock and horror of finding out it's not like in the movies,well they were all claiming the status of "child". I didnt know. No one told me. There should be more protection. Well,there used to be until the 1960s Sexual Revolution swept the protection away using mockery and fake rational logic. That's what the Pill was invented for,not to HELP women but to remove protection.
In another wonderfully ironic twist, the Harris/Brown "relationship" simply proved that what Trump said was absolutely true! I am sure that Willie Brown not only grabbed Kamala by the pussy, but did any number of other things with it. The fact that she willingly participated in the little game of "park the submarine" with Willie when he was pushing 70 years of age and married and she was approaching her thirties is merely another reminder that she is utterly without scruples, morals or a shred of mere human dignity. And she wants to be president? Actually, I have my suspicions that she really doesn't want that job, and fortunately for her, all she will be is another figurehead like her predecessor, Shoeless Joe Biden. She had no choice in her selection, just like Joe had no choice in his defenestration. The democrat party/globalist cabal ran the show for Biden and will be doing the same for Harris should she find herself with her childless catlady persona in the White House. To conclude with a short digression, what kind of a man is Kamala's husband, Emhoff, that he married a publicly outed whore. I might suggest he is a bit of a... cuck. Sad to see how American womanhood and manhood have fallen.
This entire discussion and those participating in it are nauseating. Try using your imaginations for something more constructive and beneficial to humanity. What a waste of time.
Oh go away. This from a likely Trump hating fanatic who wished he hadn't turned his head. Were you nauseated by all of the focus on Trump's penis when Stormy Daniel's was promoting her book on CNN?
Living in the DMV, you eventually realize that Washington, D.C. may very well be the “People Who’ve Succeeded Massively Through No Fault of Their Own” capital of the world.
Like mom always said:
1) It’s not what you know, it’s who you blow.
2) Government and corporations are like giant septic tanks. All the big pieces of shit float straight to the top.
Putting aside any moral/ethical debates about cheating on spouses and/or being the “other” woman/man, there’s a fundamental, unignorable difference between someone who exploits their power and status for increased sexual opportunity and someone who exploits their sexuality for increased power and status.
If I felt that Kamala Harris was a competent and capable candidate that would effectively perform the duties of the position she is seeking, I wouldn’t care if she held weekly orgies with the entirety of the legislature on the south lawn of the White House.
Unfortunately, until “fluffer” becomes an officially recognized position on POTUS’s staff, or they install a glory hole in the Lincoln Bedroom, there are exactly zero available jobs at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue that I want to see her occupying.
What is that fundamental, unignorable difference? I don't see them as so different. Biology and evolution gave sexual power to women over men (generalizing) and using men through sexuality is similar to men using women by attracting them with power and status. That's different from misusing power, e.g. demanding sex under threat of employment dismissal or demotion.
My use of the word “exploits” in my first post may have been unclear or ill-advised.
Perhaps better/more clearly stated, there’s a fundamental and unignorable difference between a woman who exploits her sexuality to obtain and/or further her own power and status and a man who indulges in/enjoys (exploits) the increased sexual opportunity that commonly becomes available to him as a result of obtaining greater power and status.
In a general sense, women will exploit their sexuality to advance themselves into positions that they would not be able to access by their own merit. Conversely, men must generally advance themselves through some sort of (more) meritocratic process to obtain their status and power, at which point they generally find increased sexual opportunity.
I’m not concerned about a hypothetical man who got to the “top” and takes full advantages of the fruits of his labor and the fringe benefits that commonly accompany the ascension of the socioeconomic ladder and status hierarchy.
I’m greatly concerned about a hypothetical woman who, through a combination of a willingness to spread her legs and existing as a non-Caucasian female in 2024, has found herself within a heartbeat of the presidency.
Women get infinitely more out of the “sex for power/status” trade than men do, and it comes with much more potentially deleterious effects for society as a whole.
That's a good distinction, though it does take "two to tango." A corrupt man with power colludes with a corrupt woman with sexual charm to promote her into a position of power that affects the rest of us. Both are to blame, but the man likely got into power through merit and is somewhat competent, while the woman probably has no qualifications whatever for holding the job.
Excellent column, Janice. You are so right about the whitewashing (is it now racist to use that term?!) of women sleeping their way to the top - as we used to call it.
"sexual exploitation" and "female sex privilege" it is evident yet not spoken about at all.
Time to revive Esther Vilar and "The Manipulated Man". quote <"Men have been trained and conditioned by women, not unlike the way Pavlov conditioned his dogs, into becoming their slaves. As compensation for their labours men are given periodic use of a woman's vagina."> unquote
I've seen photographs of her when she was young, and she looks fairly average, really --- but bedding a womaniser is not difficult for a woman of average looks. This is something women tend to overlook or choose to ignore: women have options that men do not have, simply because of the disparity in attraction of the average woman and average man.
Average-looking men are not attractive to women: studies have found that women today regard four in five men as being unattractive. Thus the majority of men would be unable to gain preferment or wealth by offering sex to a woman. By contrast, men are not picky when it comes to sex: many fat or ugly women make money selling their bodies to men. In transactional sex between male and female, the latter is almost invariably the vendor. Women are able to trade sex for gain, but the vast majority of men are not.
It is a form of female privilege.
Females will virtue-signal by "confessing their privilege" over approved minority groups, but Hell will freeze over before they will acknowledge any of the numerous privileges they have over males.
I don't think most women, even if they are attracted to a man, would allow that attraction to be translated into preferment for the man. The impulse to dispense largesse to an object of desire would seem more generally male. Fani Willis offers a counter-example, however, and perhaps there are more like her than I suspect.
I think Willis probably gave Wade the job because it was convenient for their sexual relationship. Also, women value social and professional prominence in their partners even if for purely selfish reasons. It could have been a sort of reverse hypergamy to give him more power and wealth than he could've gotten on his own. At the same time, it gave her all sorts of power and control over him.
I hate the hypocrisy. Actually here in our little Duck Pond (Denmark) we have had women complaining that a new legislation has been passed that makes conscription mandatory for both men and women (in Denmark women have been exempt). It is supposedly against women’s rights that we are NOT being discriminated against.
Another astonishing example of hypocrisy is the EU regulation that made paternity leave mandatory for the member states.
Apparently women are all for the equal rights unless we have to give some of them up for the men to obtain the same, because apparently it is only the women who should have the privilege of long maternity ([paternity]) leave, even though we have one of the lengthiest paid leave (as far as I know) in the world, we actually have as much time on paid leave as the fetus spends time in womb, that is 9 months (and if the baby is born premature leave is extended to nine months after EDD.
If women care about equal rights then why don’t they revel with joy over the fact that now in the EU (and especially in Denmark where in the big perspective we are SO lucky and indeed privileged in our days, of course that is mainly thanks to earlier generations who worked and our different form of tax system etc. but still). If you are supporting women and wants women to work as much as/in same positions as men, isn’t it then GREAT for women (and the baby) that now they CAN without their offspring having to being “forced” (by circumstances and in most countries due to no fault of the mother) to be home with grand parents because mom & dad HAS to work to earn money to get by, but can actually bond with the baby’s father?
Due to other circumstances I was the one staying home (we had a complicated pregnancy with weekly hospital checks and our son was hospitalized almost nonstop and premature and by that time 8 years ago there wasn’t mandatory paternity leave and the Danish Tax Agency (or whatever the Danish equivalent to the IRS would be called in English) wasn’t very keen on giving my husband extra leave so for us it wasn’t a choice. But I’d actually had to stop my education realizing that being in the neonatal ICU preparing for exams and at home while juggling with hospital checkups, physiotherapy for baby etc I had to be realistic (he was to be kept at home and no daycare etc two years due to severe risk of infection, and still he is in high risk of lower lung infections and is often quite ill, spent 6 weeks in an incubator last fall due to pneumonia).
But to me those laws is actually showing that we take it at least somewhat seriously when we talk about equality between men and women, though unless they have changed it now, to become a cadet on the Police Academy there is different standards for the physical admission test in regards to the distance/time women need to beat v men, but at least that is when the applicants have come so far to have passed the first hurdles, though to me I think it’s worth it to have fewer female officers if the “price” is that they have equal standards for the test (and I have female friends who have met the criteriae above women’s level and actually aced the test for the time of men and where some of the fastest and well accomplished as the male cadets.)
I’m sorry for this long comment, I guess I just wanted you guys out there to know that we actually are some women who (and I know you know that) don’t mean that women’s rights means that women should have positive discrimination. And the article is perhaps a bit coarse in the language, however I do think it points out the double standards quote well and maybe the slightly provocative tone raises a debate that otherwise wouldn’t be had among some people, that is how I read it anyway. :-)
The issue with raising children is what is known as "Maternal Gatekeeping".
I am a retired nurse I hypothsesied this about a decade before I saw any research, but it was not a popular topic of conversation with my nursing colleagues.
I am reasonably successful. And pretty average looking. There are many women who openly hit on me once they knew I was doing well. It wasn’t cuz I am hot. One woman I know hated a person in my loose social circle. He had a net worth of about $100M. Hated him. She was telling me about it at a party. He showed up. She went over and acted slutty around him. She stood close to him and bumped her boobies up against him etc. I called her on it. She said ‘Oh we joke around like that. He’s an A******, and I have told him that to his face.’ As I write this it just now hit me! She had slept with him and he dumped her! Ha! That never occurred to me until now.
Oh, I fully agree, Jeffrey. It is the LEAST of her failings as a potential commander in chief. But it's the thing I feel able to comment on, and the double standards deeply irritate me!
Some of the comments below give sad proof of why appeals to female fury are such a potent and disastrous political weapon.
"Some of the comments below give sad proof of why appeals to female fury are such a potent and disastrous political weapon."
Remarkable, isn't it? Such great heat, in so short a span of time.
And so easily generated, too.
Someone should investigate its potential as a source of renewable energy.
LOL
https://open.substack.com/pub/truesquare/p/substack-mises-institute-online-fraud?r=4fgmg4&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I’ve read before that Canadian guys are complaining that when they complain against unionized or regulated professionals who happen to be women, they get warned by police and lawyers not to proceed with the complaint.
You mean the way the
Military has always dismissed women’s complaints of sexual harassment?
Women shouldn't be in the military. When the UK Navy a couple decades ago announced both female and male in the UK Navy would serve on Submarines everyone went uh-oh they'll all be at it,it'll be bad for morale. And the female Commanders responded,our people may be women but they're not girlies,these are stern strictly business strong women of purpose. So then a few months ago a report came out saying that there are hundreds maybe thousands of "sexual abuse" claims in with the Navy that have been lodged by those women serving with men,the complaints are not being investigated due to staff shortages etc,the usual reasons. But turns out the female complainants were not being jumped on in the bilges or touched up in the corridors. Women were of their own volition entering relationships,often short lived ones,with men they were serving with and it was causing all sorts of jealousies and rifts and emotional breakdowns. And of course all that can be represented as sexual abuse perpetrated by men against women when it's not.
Dumbest comment of the day award 🥇
Ya talking about me,SISTER!
No, that would be yours.
I remember when this started.
Hundreds of pregnancies.
Navy wives "common sense women" knew what would happen.
They protested women going on subs with their husbands to little avail.
I need to take exception to that thinking. Are there challenges? Yes. There sure would a lot of talent missing if we just said “no women”. I prefer fixing this. I spent 15 years as a medical supervisor and I have never and would not ever dismiss issues of any sort much misogyny or reported sexism.
Facts
WTF are you even talking about?
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2019/06/04/a-west-point-cadet-just-had-his-rape-conviction-overturned-leaving-him-free-to-return-to-the-school/
Never should have let women in combat roles in the military.
Fall back position: women in the military in combat positions but no dumbing down of standards = a very small percentage in combat roles.
“Always dismissed” you say?
Well that’s just another lie!
One word: Prostitute.
Lord, please protect us from being led by the PIC, the Prostitute in Chief.
Looks like we found the cat lady
Yeah like that.
A guy spent two years in prison for something that didn't happen and that amounts to dismissing women's complaints of sexual harrassment to you?
BTW, I'm glad to see the reports of your death were greatly exaggerated.
https://youtu.be/bnL1iPdQVuc?si=fv1kUPUCEV7vw9OS
Hogwash
Oh, I see now that the shoes on the other foot ……
What's a 'shoes on'?
She's under the impression things were always great for men.
It's a typical bigoted viewpoint.
'The shoe is on the other foot' is an idiom meaning that a situation has been reversed, such as someone you used to owe money to now owes you money.
Yup. Definitely helps when the person using the idiom knows how to use an apostrophe.
Oh, I see. I should have picked up on the sarky pedantry, which I thoroughly enjoy using, myself.
But it hasn't been reversed.
Men are still expected to have the responsibilities they've always had and have lost the rights which accounted for them.
The automatic right to custody of children was based on them providing for them.
Now they are still expected to provide for them without automatic custody.
Voting was connected to military service.
Men are still expected to fight if needed.
She needs to learn about the Apex Fallacy.
Something new and is this it?
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Apex_fallacy
So it was never equality that feminists were after? It was power.
I'd rather say they wanted all the cushy stuff without all the nasty consequences and responsibilities.
Modern feminism since 1920s has been deeply influenced by the Marxist mindset.
Thomas Jefferson taught me that everything is a power struggle - there's no such thing as equality.
Revenge fantasy? Imagine my shock to hear it's not about equality 😲 ! Learning from the past is hard!
Standing ovation in my loungeroom here Down Under. Great comment filled with a deliciously rare thing called facts.
About time…that’s what they have told women for a couple hundred years.
Snopes has nothing at all to corroborate what you said.
So you're dumb enough to take Snopes seriously.
Edit: just looked at your account, sorry I didn't realize it was a parody, I should have figured out from your Umbridge-style picture.
Link? I just did a search but found nothing about it at all. Going to check Snopes now
Yes, your article seems to have stirred up the hornet's nest!
Well said!
https://open.substack.com/pub/truesquare/p/substack-mises-institute-online-fraud?r=4fgmg4&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
There are many men (I use that word advisedly) using this piece to inform your readers that they are voting Harris/Walz. The Low T brownshirts seem to enjoy the digital penetration they receive by those they crave but will never have.
TIL that women are 54.6% of registered voters in the United States. If you're a savvy politician, you play to the audience, right?
It is heartbreaking, but it is our reality. First step is to accept it for what it is.
I have no idea what the second step might be. Women have controlled the majority of votes in the US since the 1980s or earlier. Gynocentrism is the *root* of our political processes.
Thank you, Janice! I made the mistake (after someone brought up Trump’s recent comment about “blow jobs changing Harris’s and Hillary’s lives) of bringing the subject of your piece about Harris up with a few family members, and there was instant female fury that I dare question Harris’ professional/political journey! The recurrent theme was “Just because she “dated” Willie Brown, that didn’t mean he helped her/opened doors for her politically.” “That a woman doesn’t need to sleep with a man to get ahead.” “You are calling her a whore?” “What about what Trump did?” “What about what men expect?” Perhaps the strong reaction was b/c Trump has been so bombastic, that any criticism of her is just a bridge too far. But, to your point, it IS verboten to question a woman’s abilities or behavior. It’s all about women’s “rights” and the baked-in feelings of being oppressed by men. The men in the group stayed silent for fear of being verbally shot down. We have a long way to go here! No wonder why men are going their own way.
How low can you go, Janice? Do tell, which Trump patriarch you're sleeping with?
Thanks--another powerful zinger from the sisterhood.
Perhaps “NN” stands for “Notably Narcissistic”
Clearly not as low as Kamala, who uses kneepads. But, less flippantly, what do you mean? What is low about an article that talks about sordid corruption? Isn't that the kind of article we need?
No rebuttal of the facts. Just a typical and predictable personal attack on the messenger. What part of Janice's article do you dispute?
NN? Nanook of the North?
Please do eat the yellow snow.
You are defending an actual prostitute by attacking without basis the author. Why? what is your secret? How many abortions have you had? Or do you just feel you need to say nasty stuff to be in with the in crowd?
Mind your own damn business🤡🥊🥊
Its so sad that American women are being sexually exploited by their boss.
Kamala, like most feminists, is all in favor of sexism—except when it doesn’t work in her favor. And we’re expected to pretend that women are always the victims and never the perpetrators of sexism.
Yup. Women are the MAIN perps of all kinds of sexism and plain old hate towards anything male.
V. refreshing to see Janice take the opposite stand.
Let the record show that women are also the slut- and fat-shamers par excellence; men who listen to women can't help but pick up on this. Of course, that's just internalized misogyny that my Y chromosome somehow makes me responsible for.
This has nothing to do with a chromosome and everything to do with hate
Today the CBC put on its front page that Canada faces a femicide epidemic because a young criminal murdered his barely legal girlfriend, or the victims were the fallout in organized crime.
Everything is twisted to ensure that N. American females are kept in an ongoing state of hysteria and rage.
'Femicide' is an appalling abuse of language.
You are a whiny bitch
My entire life, I am 59, ALL my abusers have been women.
ALL my false accusers, including the fembot 'judge' who put me in jail because I objected to being stolen-from by . . . ANOTHER female, have been women.
When I was young, other males would try to bully me perhaps, but at least it was direct and confrontational. The women sneak around and make deals with the feminist 'judges'. Though it is the cowardly male cops (often with feminist daughters) who enforce the evil that women do to men.
I hate them all and am looking forward to my turn coming, which it will. cheers, m
My violent ex defies the law at every turn. And, despite all her crimes against me and others, she walks free ignoring court orders to leave me alone, plea deal be damned. I feel ya. Good luck.
Right back atcha, sir. The stuff I have heard and learned from divorced men about collusion between ex-wives and the corrupt feminist family courts is so sad, and so evil. They need to be cast into hell and I hope I am one of those who is allowed to do that, when the time comes. Keep your chin up, amigo. m
Godspeed!
You are simply wrong. The only women who hate men have been horribly abused by men. On the other hand men hate women for a variety of reasons, feeling unable to compete(which can be fixed by study and application and hard work), feeling intimidated sexually (which can be resolved through good therapy), feeling fear which turns into anger (which is a hallmark of you having been abused, which also requires therapy to resolve), or occasionally by such deeply buried homosexuality that you hate women because you are not attracted to them, and it couldn’t be your fault, so it must be their fault(again, therapy to accept who you are, and learning to love yourself just the way you are, so that you can love other people just the way they are, in spite of what you may have been taught). If you want to get close to a woman, here is a recipe. 1. Never underestimate the value of good personal hygiene. Go get Dial deodorant soap, Axe shampoo in whatever scent smells good to you, and some old fashioned cologne, like Old Spice, or Stetson, and Crest toothpaste. (I specify these brands because they are readily available, and makes the decision easy.) Shower and shave every day. Brush your teeth after every meal. Get a haircut once a month. If you have the $$, go to a day spa and get a pedicure once a month. Get two pair of Levi’s or work pants of your choice, and two pair of khaki pants one dark blue, one some other color, not black. Get 4 white police shirts and 4 navy blue polo shirts. Wear clean clothes every day. Go to where women are. Join a book club at the library or senior center-you are not looking for sex, but for female friends. Volunteer for Meals on Wheels, or the local Animal Shelter, or the local Good Will or equivalent organizations, or your local Church free lunch program. Women love men who are clean, polite, and interested in what the women have to say. Try it, you might like it.
Wow, thanks for this. The bottomless arrogance and condescension are salutary.
You’re not an author, you’re just an internet hack!
You beat me to it.
Arrogance and condescension are always best served with a huge dose of ignorance. Someone who is so homophobic that they believe same-sex attraction needs to be buried in shame is truly pathetic. Where is my calendar? Is it 1950? That was all I needed to hear to know who we’re dealing with here. I feel sorry for those inmates. They deserve better.
I believe if you observe the Republican members of the House of Representatives, and the Senate, it is possible to notice several such individuals. This is less common than it used to be, as you note, but in certain denominations of Christianity, people are taught that homosexuality is a sin, and a crime against God, and I have worked with a couple individuals to struggled with accepting this aspect of themselves. You never know what people are dealing with until you take the time to let them tell you.
Ye Gawds, I can see your Marxism shining through.
Talking to indoctrinated bots like you is pointless.
You have no facts, you have nothing but talking to criminals.
If you were right about women hating men because they were done wrong, then the flipside also holds true.
Every man who has had a girl have an abortion against his will should hate women.
Every man passed up for promotion because of gender quotas.
Every many who gas has been fleeced in the family courts.
Every man who has been stripped of his home and children should hate women.
But we don't.
Don’t know where you got that out of anything I said. Again instead of trying to define me in such a way that you can comfortably ignore every thing I say, may ask me a question? I was raised by a father who was raised by his great grandfather, a Civil War Veteran, so I think a lot of my early political education left me in my core a true Lincoln Republican, of the early 1860’s variety. That man gave up his Quaker life to join the Army and fight for the right of every person to have freedom and self-determination. I’ve never had any use for Marx. What in what I have said makes you think any of what I say has to do with Marx at all?
Comes from almost 2 decades working with criminals, many of them sex offenders, and their victims. Experience with a specific population, I admit. But people are pretty hardwired to want to connect to others. There is generally a reason people have a hard time connecting with other people, generally fear of one sort or another. Physiologically and psychologically, all anger is driven by fear. To resolve the anger, confront the fear. Easy to say, extremely hard to do. Call me names and discount me all you want, what I say applies to most people most of the time. If you encounter one abusive person, that is it, that person is abusing you. If everyone you meet seems to trigger the same reaction in you, more likely the problem lies within yourself, you know? Often seems easier to externalize the problem and keep blaming the “other” of your choice, but this is dishonest, and a person does themself much more damage clinging to lies, in the long run, it just makes them crazy. They get lost in the lies. The truth will set you free.
If I take what you say seriously - and I have no reason not to - the answer is simple: you cannot generalize from a prison population to all men. That virtually guarantees the falseness of most of your conclusions. So what now? Are you going to provide a better rationale for your sweeping claims? Otherwise we're stuck here, no?
I am simply offering a baseline. If you do good personal hygiene already, pat yourself on the back. But the number of people who do actually brush their teeth after every meal is a smaller set of the population as a whole, than those who never brush their teeth at all, so it’s worth saying again. If you understand the importance of displaying your status by your wardrobe, excellent. If you don’t believe that wearing clean tailored white shirts will result in you being treated with more respect where-ever you are, try it, you might like it. It’s a good idea to wear colors other than black, like grey, navy, khaki, whatever, because it signals you put a little thought into what you are wearing instead of just following the path of unthinking least resistance. Plus, you will be less tempted to skip washing them. Men who understand personal hygiene and signaling social status have fewer difficulties with understanding women’s interest in personal hygiene and fashion, and hence, having a baseline for how to interact with women. To get back to the original thing that triggered me here, people referring to Kamala Harris as a slut or a prostitute, or making these pronouncements about her being useless or whatever, I just figured it would be useful to clarify some points of reference. Help clarify if there is anyone here who really believes any of that, as opposed to those who perceive her to be an actual threat to the current partisan agenda, and are trying to find least common denominators ways to discount her. But also, in this age of so much low quality and false info floating around, offer a bit of perspective to those who might benefit.
KH is not a slut; she is a prostitute, and a nasty person/woman/bitch. Before you answer this post, 1) look up the definition of the P word, 2) explain why she seems to be in the top 1% for staff turnover.
You write as if many women don't have hygiene issues or a poor selection of unflattering outfits in their wardrobe.
Triggered? That's a worrying word. Kamala used sex to gain power. Fact. A reprehensible fact no less disgusting than Weinstein's abuse of sex and power.
I wonder if you were triggered by the discussions about Trump's penis ( its size and unusual shape) on CNN and other news outlets? I wonder if the naked statues of Trump depicting him with a tiny penis and planted on a street corner in New York city was triggering and sexist.
Perhaps the ongoing mockery of Trump's hair, skin colour, weight and sexual prowess triggered you? This is far beyond anything any female politician has ever had to endure, yet not one person has branded this denigration of Trump's body sexist or uncalled for. It has been applauded and promoted endlessly with relish.
Your double standards ( as are so many women's) are astonishing.
Perhaps your hostility is rooted in the lack of attention you are receiving from men, so you’re eager to project it? Get help.
Why do you think I am hostile to anyone? I get impatient with people who jump on a bully bandwagon because they can’t be bothered to think for themselves, but that is exactly why I get into these sorts on conversations, to interrupt the group think and generate some new ideas. I am hostile to actual criminals- it’s part of why I stopped working in mental health, I couldn’t be as helpful to them as I should have been, so I moved on. I am of the strong opinion that criminals should be removed from society. It why I get a little hit about people pretending that Trump’s clearly criminal behavior isn’t all that bad, and if they poke around hard enough that can do both sides now look at anyone else being bad. Look for corruption among all other politicians, and if you find it, let’s shut it down But don’t give the obvious criminal in the middle of all this a pass, you know what mean? You don’t have to agree with me, but just know that is where I am coming from.
Oh, I see you now. Trump's criminal behaviour? If it existed, why do they have to keep making up false charges which even make some Democrats blush?
You dare to talk of criminality when Trump has been preceded by Obama, Clinton and the Bush boys? These men have committed war crimes and made tens of millions of dollars while in office as has Biden. This is clear proof of their criminality without even needing the documents which no doubt exist.
“Show me a man that gets rich by being a politician, and I'll show you a crook.”
― Harry Truman
Not hostile at all to men per se. Everyone’s doing the best they can.
You replied to a comment that has literally nothing to do with men seeking sexual attention from women by asserting your lengthy list of what men need to do to deserve female attention in your heteronormative, gynocentric vision of the world. That says a lot about your insecurities and hostilities. If we’re honest, it tells us a lot more than you intended to reveal. You owe it to yourself to take an honest look in the mirror and stop attributing your problems to men’s refusal to conform to what women think they should be.
"Comes from almost 2 decades working with criminals." To me that explains everything you're saying. As I understand it, something like 50% of all prison inmates are psychopaths.
Commenting on someone else's 'Stack should adhere to rules, the first being brevity. If you want to expatiate, do it on one's own 'Stack.
I do agree w/the pointers in hygiene.
Yeah, I know I am wordy. Sorry about that. But sometimes it takes some words to get past generalizations and down to brass tacks. Thanks for the yes vote on hygiene!
Enough. Please. You have made your points.
Give someone like that a millimeter they'll take a kilometer.
“The only woman who hate men have been horribly abused by men”. Um… ok misandrist.
I mean horribly abused. For example, a woman who was attacked, raped repeatedly by three men and left to bleed to death with a broken beer bottle shoved up her vagina, but her husband got home in time and saved her life. She never recovered from the PTSD of that attack, and was unable to tolerate being touched by a man, even her husband after that. I do forget I have a different frame of reference about the term abuse than may be current in this firm.
then I suppose it follows that the reason any men hate women is because of Lorena Bobbitt. next topic please!
Stop! What's your point? I know of mothers who cooked their babies in an oven and one back here in Australia who hacked her 8 kids to death. I know of another Aussie woman who killed and cooked her ex husband and attempted to feed him to his own children without them knowing what she offered.
Bad shit happens and it's just as often a female doing it.
You work with a tiny tiny minority of men and dare to pass judgement on the entire gender?
You are going to be really embarrassed of yourself when you sober up. No one can write so incoherently and spitefully without being under the influence of some form of substance. Once sober maybe you should talk to someone about your anger issues so you don’t continue to live your life in misery and unhappiness.
LOL. Once again, discounting the person because offended by the message. Stop looking for ways to discount me because there is something about my thoughts that you can’t figure out how to refute. You could say I generalized too much. You could say the population I worked with are so different from non-criminal men that my thoughts don’t apply to the population you are thinking of. If you really have a hard time understanding what I wrote you could ask for clarification of some points. But no, you accuse me of being drunk (not the case, for the record, I might have a glass of something at a celebration of one sort or another, but I don’t really drink. I just don’t like it.) Bullying tactics like that are ineffective with me since it has no basis in reality. As opposed to your response to what I said, which suggests that something in there was intolerable to you, because it hit too close to home. Which is something we can work with. Increased insight is always a wonderful thing. What part of what I said bothered you the most?
You write incoherent verbal diarrhea.
Nothing is more infuriating and moronic than people who talk about their personal experience and extrapolate that to an entire demographic.
"Go to where women are. Join a book club at the library...you are not looking for sex, but for female friends. Women love men who are clean, polite, and interested in what the women have to say. Try it, you might like it."
Gee, what red-blooded man could resist such an offer! The joy of listening to what women have to say, free of sex entirely! Perhaps on weekends they'll let us traipse along behind them at farmers markets and antique shops, carrying their purchases. My only worry is, can my old ticker stand the excitement!
Start off looking for friends, intimacy will follow.
Gee thanks for the dating advice Nurse Ratched but I think I'll pass. You see, I'm not one of your captive inmates to be lectured by women on personal hygiene, grooming, and how to pick up old crones like yourself. Let's face it, the only way you can get near a man is when he's locked in a cell.
Another instance of define me so you can discount me, based on nothing but your discomfort at something I have said. How about trying a real conversation? I have thrown out a lot of material there.
Stop. Don't you get it when someone does not wish to engage with you? If you don't stop harassing readers, I will have to ban you.
"If you want to get close to a woman...get deodorant soap...shampoo...cologne...Shower and shave every day...Brush your teeth after every meal...Get a haircut once a month...get a pedicure once a month...Get two pair of Levi's...two pair of khaki pants...4 white police shirts...4 navy blue polo shirts. Wear clean clothes every day."
Probably the last thing I expected to find in Janice's forum was grooming advice for the lonely bachelor! What's next...recipe tips?
Haha, indeed.
So sexist to only allow women one route to sexist hatred while allowing men so many...
How do you get that?
This woman loves people who can maintain a numbering system after starting a list with “1.”
You’d be surprised how many people are walking around who can’t read, or count.
What’s wrong with black pants?
Shows a certain lack of imagination. Easier to neglect to wash. Look like mechanic’s uniforms, which is fine while you are working as a mechanic, but might as well relax in something else when off the clock. Navy blue is friendlier, charcoal grey is associated with money in people’s minds.
So don’t wear charcoal grey?
Dial soap and Axe shampoo are horrible recommendations full of endocrine disrupting chemicals. Go with tallow soap and an organic shampoo. Same for the toothpaste and deodorant. Organic, paraben, sulfate free options are widely available.
Yes, I just mentioned cheap readily available items for people who really have no frame of reference.
Shut up imbecile! Those guys in Canada and Australia lament that a typical empowered broad wouldn’t even want a man near their farts if the man doesn’t own a luxury condo with a few Lambos by age 21.
Thanks for the advice no one asked for. Well played.
Whoaaa, Slow down on the amphetamines.
I've known quite a few smelly women.
Desperate BS!
Where did you get that idea???
I’ve seen this phenomenon elsewhere. I know a woman, now a venerable pillar of society in a country not located on the North American continent, who had the reputation of being the corporate mattress until she was able to snaffle an up-and-coming politician, who ended up as head of the government. She used her “first lady” position to position herself as an important public figure.
I call this phenomenon “horizontal advancement.” It’s a skill some women have developed into a science. After all, why make an effort to achieve power when you can obtain it with open legs or mouth?
It was a matter of amusement to see her frequently in the company of her husband’s then mistress. When she eventually found out, after her husband acquired a new mistress, she started an affair with her husband’s principal intra-party rival, causing immense anguish to his then wife, while presenting herself as the primary voice of feminism, women’s “empowerment,” and female solidarity.
Now, I happened to know all these people, and was on the gossip circuit, but the sexual shenanigans were remarkably amusing.
Hence the nickname Horizontal Heiress.
Or HEELS UP HARRIS
Back in the day, we had a similar phenomenon in the Australian Federal Government. The lady in question was affectionately known as 'the screw that holds the Cabinet together'.
I shall refrain from suggesting she knew very well how to get a head
The former AttorKnees General?
This is a typically male form of insouciant verbal play that will soon, I'm quite sure, be defined by our various Anglosphere governments as violent misogynistic extremism and punishable by up to 5 years in prison!
The Boudoir Tango is an art form
So what does one person’s sexual peccadillos have to do with someone else’s? Aren’t we discussing why Harris thinks Trump should be in jail, and why Trump wants everyone to talk about anything other than Trump’s sexual crimes?
I recommend a course in Adult Education. To argue well is an art. You need to learn it.
...that isn't a particularly strong argument, David. You didn't address any of her points; simply resorted to personal attacks. Pretty sure that's a thing you learn in debate. I don't know about...Adult Education...are you referring to Ongoing education classes at a community or online college?
I've published around 40 books, including bestsellers, and over a thousand articles and essays, many of which deal with precisely this subject. I'm no longer interested in replying point by point to the gravamen of intellectual midgets and moral cretins who are basically a waste of time. You want an immediate response? I don't have an hour to sacrifice on this bilge. You want a considered response, one with years of painstaking research behind it? Rerad my work.
...were those books on debating? Because you don't seem to be making any points except how you don't have to make points because all who disagree with you are cretins. It would have taken as much time to actually respond as it would have to insult everyone. Good luck with your publishing - I hope it's as successful as your arguments.
Give it a read and then react. As it happens, most of the salient arguments have already bern made by thoughtful and erudite commenters on this aite. And Janice's rhesis speaks for itself. There is little to be said for bloviating sentimentts and personal exhalations and more to be said for meticulous research and strict investigative protocols. Im sorry to say this, but you have a long way to go.
I am not trying to argue. These are all honest questions. My frame of reference is so different than yours.
Yes, because your frame of reference isn't grounded in reality.
I see so much deflection to say “What about what Trump did?” This doesn’t make anyone like Harris more. It’s obviously making lite of her flaws, and people can see it. Plus, the media has been more biased than ever.
Oh, come now. Focusing on alleged sexual misconduct by Harris is obviously a move to distract from Trump’s very real problem with the $90,000,000 judgement against him in the E. Jean Carroll case. And the Stormy Daniels case. The both sides, but it is so much worse because she is female, narrative really grabs some people. There is sexual poor decisions. There is sexual unethical activity. And there are sexual crimes. These are different levels of concern. Aren’t they?
He was ‘convicted’ not of a sexual crime but of slander. jury awarded the woman who falsely claimed rape and he called her a liar $90M for this slander. Definitely a record.
He was also being blackmailed by a woman and he paid her some amount of money. This was paid by his lawyer and he paid his lawyer. He wrote ‘legal fees’ on the cheque stubs. 34 cheques. He was convicted of an undefined crime. The judge threw out a number of possible crimes he might have done and told the jury it didn’t matter which crime he committed. They didn’t have to have 12 people agree on any one crime. As long as each agreed he did something wrong they should vote guilty. He now faces 135 years in prison for writing ‘legal fees’ in a cheque stub for a sum he wrote to his lawyer. This is such legal malfeasance the judge should be jailed as should be the prosecutor.
Jesus wept. You are a fraud. You cannot be serious regarding that insane E Jean Carroll who said rape was sexy and The Apprentice was her all-time favourite show years after Trump allegedly raped her? Listen to her for five minutes and you see how criminal and political the charges against Trump are.
Stormy Daniels? Another exposed as a liar who even Bill Maher dismissed as a fake hack trying to get a buck and he hates Trump even more than you do.
That's it?
I suppose you believe Maralargo is worth 18 million bucks too?
What sexual crimes, in your mind, do you think Trump has committed?
I worked with sex offenders, including pedophiles, for many years. When a man is arrested and found responsible for one sexual crime, and he is fortunate to be offered a treatment program rather than “lock him up and forget about him”, the average number of prior offenses they admit to is 14. The defamation suit against him by E Jean Carroll, which offended his sense of entitlement so much that he couldn’t shut up about it, and now has a $90,000,000 judgement against him, is the case where he has been found liable and punished, financially. His behavior, the “grab them by the pussy”remarks, his repeated discussion of “dating” his daughter, are classic entitled offender moves, bragging that “this is what I am thinking and you can’t stop me.” The documented inappropriate crossing of boundaries with young women in those pageants and on the TV show he ran, are also danger flags for perpetrators. You can Google that there are lists of 11,13, or more complaints and cases filed against him for sexual offenses that were dropped or petered out one way or another. It takes tremendous energy to bring a suit against a man as wealthy and relentless at Trump, and he is careful. He detached himself from Jeffery Epstein at some point, but there are still articles available about teenage girls who report they were procured for Trump by Epstein. You can look all that up for yourself. I have worked with men who kept count, and told me proudly of how many teenager girls, or prepubescent boys that had molested. The highest number was 156. A really good reporter could probably get Trump to tell them on mike how many women he has”had” and how many of them were young, and probably how many of them were “willing”. I can’t say exactly how many women and girls, in addition to E Jean Carroll, Trump has offended against, but based on the readily available public record, the statistical probability of him having committed multiple offenses against multiple victims is very high. Don’t leave your daughters alone with him, particularly if they are that blonde type he goes for.
Trump was never convicted of any sexual crime.
Haha yeah no wink wink
You claim you're such a good judge of character, particularly with regard to male abusers, yet you believe E. Jean Carroll is a credible accuser?
You see the problem, there, with taking you seriously?
The jury found her credible enough that she eon. $5,000,000 judgement. He was so offended that he was brought to account, that he couldn’t shut up about it, and she won again, brining the total to almost $90,000,000 judgement against him. This increases the idea that she is credible, and that he continues to lie about his sexual history. It amazes me that people are willing to assume that every woman who gathers the fortitude to go public with a story like this must be lying, bit that any man who is finally charged with sexual misconduct must necessarily be telling the truth when he says he didn’t do it. Research suggests that 4 times out of 100, women lie about a rape allegation-most often during acrimonious divorce proceedings, or other situations where large amounts of money are at stake. 96 six times out of 100, the woman is not lying. Men consistently say they didn’t do, often in the face of DNA or filmed evidence to the contrary. Why would you think E. Jean Carroll would lie about such a thing, and wreck her life going through the process of trial, if it wasn’t important?
So the fact that a jury in a civil case found him guilty of character defamation is proof, to you, that he's guilty of sexual assault yet the fact that a jury in a criminal case of sexual assault found him not guilty means nothing to you?
How about Carroll saying on national television, in an interview with Anderson Cooper (not a big Trump fan), that Trump definitely didn't rape her and that rape was sexy? Do you think she was lying about that (obviously you do) and, if so, how does that make her credible?
https://www.newsweek.com/watch-anderson-cooper-interview-judge-blocked-donald-trump-showing-1863998
If you think court judgements are proof of guilt, how is it that you're ok with a judge not admitting Carroll's denial that she was raped, on national television, as evidence by the judge in the civil case? Think about that one for a minute: In a case involving her claim that she was sexually abused by Trump, a judge ruled that a national television interview in which she stated, categorically, that she wasn't was ruled inadmissable evidence by the judge.
Again, this is why no one, here, takes you seriously.
If I was innocent, I wouldn't shut up about it either. Perhaps the fact he was so outraged tells you something.
It terrifies me to think you work with criminals.
"I worked with sex offenders, including pedophiles, for many years."
Then you should be aware that more than half the men imprisoned for rape were sexually abused by a woman when younger.
You are past ridiculous. You are a bore.
Trump's famous line was "they let you grab them by the pussy!" and nobody understood that this was an indictment on women and in no way anything Trump should have apologized for.
Saying, "they let you" means it was consensual. It highlights how women are willing to do anything to get in bed with a rich and powerful celebrity. None of these women would let the janitor grab them by the pussy. They wouldn't even see the janitor if he was standing in front of them for he is of no value in their eyes.
Now that is shameful and something to be sorry about.
Help us here, what sexual crimes of POTUS DJT? Not that EJ Carol person, no one truly believes her story, the jury was selected to convict him to prevent him from running or serving. He’s been married 3 times, both of his ex’s are satisfied with their divorce settlements,& all 3 were of age of consent. That is more than can be said for pedophile Joe.
Trump's sexual crimes? You dare go there? Bill Clinton and Joe Biden have both been accused far more plausibly by women than any of the utter rubbish hurled at Trump, yet the media and people like you ignore it because you are obsessed with the orange man.
How dare you pretend you care about sexual assault when you simply use it a s a weapon to attack someone you don't like.
It's a highly inbred little country. I knew them too.
Feminists continually complain that America is a misogynistic society because we have so many more male congressman, senators and presidential candidates than we do women. What they don't talk about, however, is a rather interesting observation. Most of the male politicians we see had to build their careers by rising through the ranks from smaller offices to more important offices based on the merit of winning elections. Of course there are some who have a leg up as the child of a famous politician...but I have yet to see a single male politician who rose as the "husband" of a famous female politician or who "slept" their way up the political ladder. On the women's side...I can think of quite a few women whose careers were entirely based on their marriage to a powerful male politician (Hillary Rodham Clinton) or to sleeping their way up the ladder (Kamala Harris). This raises a few rather interesting questions:
1. Why do women believe that sleeping their way up the ladder or being married to a prominent politician constitutes qualification for higher office?
2. Why do women who so strenuously object to sexual misconduct in the workplace not demand that their fellow women be held accountable for such conduct?
3. Do women not perceive that the negative stereotype of women sleeping their way into successful roles actually raises LEGITIMATE question about ALL women who hold such positions and drive the very suspicion against the qualification of female candidates that feminists complain about?
As with so many feminist complaints...they are based on projection of responsibility for problems that arise from the misconduct of women onto men and society in general.
Feminism is not based on rational thinking.
By the way why do so many men (never mind women) think that Michelle Obama is somehow qualified?
Agreed...like Hillary Clinton...her sole qualification for office appears to be being married to Barack Obama.
How ignorant.
How so? Please enlighten us as to what offices Michelle Robinson campaigned for and was elected to on her own merits? How many votes did she receive? What accomplishments does she have to show for her time in office? Would any of us even know her name had she not married Barack Obama and replaced the Robinson with Obama...wife of the president? To say that Michelle Obama is presidential material rests solely on her riding Barack's coattails...not her own accomplishments.
Riding something of Obama's, anyway.
mostly it’s the Right that keep floating this idea. Dunno if it’s to get people outraged or what the story is, but she’s made it repeatedly clear that while she’s happy to do “her part”, she has zero interest in politics herself. No equivocation.
I think the third point is precisely why feminists react to censor any such discussion either by burying it or through accusations of "misogyny" (being a "misogynist" is about to be a terrorist offence here in the UK). Of course its not just "sleeping" your way to the top because there are also "affirmative" action" policies! All of which have to be kept under wraps.
I’m in the uk too, and your comment about being accused of perceived misogyny making you a terrorist reminded me that the whole feminist movement evolved from actual real terrorism back before the First World War. These acts, which were on a par with IRA attacks, killed at least five innocent people and destroyed the lives and careers of many others. The irony is astounding.
This terrorism, plus the white feather movement is well worth studying. You’ll never read or hear about it in the mainstream gynocentric media.
In France there has just been an attempt to blow up a synagogue and in Germany an indiscriminate stabbing with three victims dead. Both islamist. While in my home City hundreds were injured and dozens killed by an islamist terror attack. Yet our government decides to divert anti terrorism resources to combat "misogyny". The evidence for this? A lone shooting in California and an "influencer" living in Romania. Manchester was the home of the Pankhursts, Including Mr. Pankhurst who was in fact the founder of the campaign his wife then took over after his death, and led into terrorism. As you say the true history is not known, like for instance that the same Mrs. Pankhurst was a Parliamentary candidate for the Conservative Party at the time of her death! I defy anyone to come up with any terrorist attack clearly motivated by "misogyny", ever, in the UK. Whereas there have been those motivated by feminism. The founder of the Womens Refuge, Erin Pizzey, was forced to flee the UK in the early 80s due to credible bomb threats.
Where can I read about it?
Does the “actual real terrorism” have a name or identifier that I can look up?
There is a basic list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suffragette_bombings
And a more in-depth look into the suffrage movements containing some references to it in this talk:
https://youtu.be/DdqkuLiaR7c?si=_nCElhiIkG2zk02J
All of this is on the cards as soon as governments announce 'special measures' to combat terrorism. You can violate human rights against citizens if they are terrorists. So the simple trick is to label more and more of them terrorists.
… because if you complain about such women who have slept their way up, you are almost certainly labeled as jealous, backstabbing and plenty of other unpleasant things within the female ‘empowerment’ arena. Plus it can indeed be very hard to prove such sexual misconduct and so most people would be very careful to call it out the way it should be called out, simply as evidence is tricky to come by (though not in the horizontal Momala case). Great article!
True...and often that is exactly what happens because many women are notoriously petty...see the treatment of Caitlin Clark as an example. The underlying problem women face here is that the negative stereotypes of how women behave both in matters of pettiness and sexual impropriety as a means of advancement are all fundamentally accurate descriptions of the conduct of women as a group. Until women are prepared to look in the mirror and acknowledge that "we" are the problem...they will continue to be judged that way...and they should be.
Because they live in a world without consequence.
One could also ask: Why do women believe that sleeping with a man or even being married to a man entitles her to half or more of what that man earned or acquired before ever meeting her?
They believe it because its what they see happens!
Women acquire status among other women based on the status of the bloke they are having sex with. In Australia we had a social media phenomenon involving the wives and girlfriends of footballers. They were often seeing more media coverage than the players themselves. In most cases their only real achievement was jumping into bed with a noted athlete.
Hilarious!
…and to add insult to injury, the man who gave the woman the “free ride” will shortly be facing court for accepting “payment in kind”…or rape as it is called when the woman decides it was a “bad choice” decades later
Yes, this is the 'get out of jail free' card that most women hold when they engage in sexual exploitation of this type.
Or they just accuse the former benefactor for the publicity and a career boost.
Wow you are seriously fucked up.
Wasn't Trump found guilty in a civil case where his accuser came forward after many years, her only evidence being her testimony? She got the usual outrageous financial award. Case still under appeal.
Trump was accused of what would be a criminal offence but tried under Civil Proceedings where the burden of proof is much lower. This is an abuse of process expect to see much more of it.
Agree! That E.Jean Carroll case was only brought b/c NYS passed a politically convenient “one year look back statute” where, despite expiration of statute of limitations, you could bring sh/sa allegations from decades ago. She NEVER, EVER filed a complaint against him until this one year statute was passed. Carroll was represented by high priced lawyers at no cost to her. The media was totally biased in her favor. The bar has been now set so low for vetting these types of allegations for credibility, that the sky is the limit for mendacity! Metoo, including, feminism has morphed from a movement to a business and is now a lucrative racket! Just believe all women because women would never lie “about such things.” Nothing could be further from the truth.
Allegations were at no cost to her and at no risk. Lawyers working on no foal no fee basis. As I said an abuse of process.
You are calling a lady a liar, who has no reputation during her career as a liar, who shared her story about Trumps abuse to friends and family at the time it happened ( and they all testified under oath) to literally defend a pathological liar who lies about EVERYTHING and who paid a porn star to lie about having sex with him and who literally admitted in the Access Hollywood tape that he grabs women by the pussy, which is why he was found guilty in a court of law, by a jury and a judge for doing exactly that!! Add the 2 separate defamation cases, and your are defending the most pathetic man in America!! God help you
Moronic! He said THEY LET YOU grab them by the pussy. Why do people keep deleting those words? I think we all know. His actions were consensual. All of the shame rests with these whores who let a rich and powerful celebrity touch them anywhere yet if the janitor tried the same thing they would cry rape!
It all depends on how much fame and money you have. It's disgusting and far more objectifying than what men do. At least they admire the women's body rather than her bank account.
Private Pike.
There is not one shred of truth in anything you stated. Zero!
Private Pike.
Do you mean Willie Brown? Is he facing charges?
I was making a general point.
No he is not, at present…it has not yet become expedient to do so (and, of course, the expediency may not ever arise)…but the world is still young and, based on recent history, he is not yet out of danger, is he?
When I was in a comatose, brain-dead state, I thought if Willie Brown saw potential in her, "Maybe she is okay." Then I woke from such fantasy and realized that, yes, she slept her way to the top meaning she was qualified to do so without such a ladder. How Governor Newsom was a protege of Brown is unknown, but he does have great hair.
Living in CA and seeing how it has been destroyed under one-party leadership, I literally get PTSD from Dem ads. Family and friends who live in Red States with blue centers have the luxury of complaining about the Republicans. In Blue areas, if you complain, you risk censure. In true Hegelian fashion, we emancipate ourselves by submitting to totalitarianism. I love Naomi Wolf, but her last piece that whined about Vance's cat lady statement made my head hurt. Like good foot soldiers for the Neo-Marxists, those cat ladies are doing the work, and if we can't call them out we are doomed. They are not endangered species at risk of extinction. We are the endangered species at risk from then.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻🙏🙏
Oops typo I should have type not qualified without a ladder
(You might be able to edit your comment, clicking on the three dots to the lower left.)
This makes no sense. Are you saying that Newsome slept with Willie Brown too?
Don’t try to make sense of it. This entire article (and the fist-pumping supportive comments that followed it) is an exercise in sweeping generalities the author states as hard truths, while cherry-picking the circumstances under which we should apply any point she makes.
For example, when refering to Trump grabbing pussy, the author opines that woman may reasonably be attracted to powerful men. But when Harris dated Brown, no such possibility was considered: she MUST have been with him ONLY for calculated professional gain. When he supported her run for AG, it couldn’t POSSIBLY have been because he recognized her talent, it must’ve ONLY been payback for a roll in the hay.
This article is singularly ugly and poorly “reasoned”. But by all means let’s apply the <wink!><wink!><nudge!><nudge!> approach to explaining the professional rise of a smart hardworking woman, rather than use a crtical thinking approach.
A young woman accepts two plum political appointments from the much-older, powerful man she is sleeping with; but pointing that out as evidence of sexual exploitation is "singularly ugly and poorly 'reasoned.'" I'm not convinced.
I’m not surprised you’re not convinced [sidebar: convincing you was not my goal, considering the basis of your entire career], since the only conclusions you appear to accept as valid are the ones that support the determination you’ve already made in advance.
Declaring that your personal assumptions about what events COULD mean (or what you WANT them to mean) constitute factual “evidence” is flawed logic, Professor. Or did you skip class that day?
It is well known, and no one disputes, that Kamala Harris accepted two well paid patronage appointments from the man she was sleeping with. In any sane world, such conduct is unethical. You fail to show otherwise.
Since you seem determined to mis-read what I’ve written, let me try ONE more time: despite your attempt to put words in my mouth, NOWHERE have I defended either Willie Brown’s decision to offer Harris the jobs, nor have I defended Harris’ decision to accept them. What I have said is - after you salaciously recounted events laden with rumor and innuendo - you declared that those events MUST mean she slept her way to the top. NO other interpretation was possible.
Really?
Your conclusion is based on a a basic logical fallacy rather than on any critical thinking. Your pre-determined belief in what might generously be considered a LIKELIHOOD (confirmation bias much?) is NOT sufficient to be irrefutable confirmation of your accusation.
And yes, I’m holding you to a higher standard than just any muckraking rumormonger, given your education and professional standing. You wrote your OPINION piece as though you were reporting facts. Judging from the comments I read, many of your readers don’t see that distinction.
And as a side observation: it’s easy for any of us to say we would have the fortitude to refuse a promotion offered by someone with whom we shared both a personal and professional relationship, because it might “look bad”. IRL many of us would likely believe we’re a great fit for the position and tell ourselves the offeror certainly relied more on their professional judgement than on the personal connection. And who’s to say?
And you fail to prove anything. You have no way of knowing what was in their minds. This is pure speculation based
on nothing but your biased assumptions.
You have utterly "nailed it" here, Ann. Thanks for saying it so I can just move on. What a silly little community I've stumbled into here.
Good riddance.
Stumbled? Sure.
Kamala for president! You go girl!
What person would pursue a career in defending men and their rights when it could only be detrimental to her career and subject her to endless abuse and harassment? What possible benefits can be derived from taking such a course of action?
Only one- telling the truth and being able to sleep at night.
“defending men” does not have to be done by gratuitously sliming a woman who is a public figure.
And while Fiamengo gets her share of pushback, it’s a stretch to paint her as some selfless champion of men. She gets plenty of support and adulation for her stance, all the more because she is a woman.
nowhere did I say “sex had nothing to do with it”. I’m saying that stating as FACT that Harris slept her way to the top and is some kind of whore is smarmy, lazy gossip trying to pass itself off as a well-reasoned conclusion. You can think it possible or even likely all you want, but it is FAR from a certainty.
And I see no difference in that reasoning, regardless of gay or straight.
What talent? Harris is a literal buffoon.
Willie Brown had to know that. If Harris just had a thing for Willie and wasn't ambitious, why would he help her rise to the top in spite of being an idiot?
No, she whored herself out and he probably was ok with it because it made her better arm candy and increased his social esteem.
Exactly it’s a hit piece but then anyone can write a Substack.
You are so right. I saw an interview with Mr. Brown. A very recent interview. He praised the VP and spoke of her with genuine affection. He mentioned all the other people he helped politically and wondered why those relationships and his influence on the launching of their careers are overlooked. He also said VP Harris was brilliant and fun to be around. Which is why he dated her having been separated from his wife for almost a decade.
Women who tear apart women for their choices and assume they know what motivated their choices is so disheartening.
Why? Men rip other males apart all the time and don't talk about the "brotherhood" or betraying their gender. They don't view it as disheartening because we view people as individuals rather than belonging to a tribe.
Why do women speak as if they are meant to act as one entity and act first as a woman and second as an individual with unique thoughts and inclinations? It is so childish.
Imagine that the roles were reversed and a 60 year old married woman took up with a 29 year old man and then gave him unfair career advantages from her position of power. He would be considered an object of abject derision and she a pathetic cradle snatcher who couldn't get a man of her own socioeconomic station.
I think that that is probably the correct way to view Kamala and Willie as well. He could only get attractive young women through his wealth and power and she could only gain wealth and power by . . . how did Janice put it--climbing up his slippery pole?
I loved Janices 'slippery pole' words.. I had a good laugh.
I've seen men in their twenties derided for having sex with legal age females in their 'teens'..
The use of the word Teenager is interesting I find in the online Media when they want attention.
Forty year old sleeps with Teenager.
Forty year old sleeps with female.
Forty year old sleeps with legal aged woman.
A play with words, but it seems so easy to judge someone who has sex with someone which the law declares is 'legal' but the person is still officially a Teenager - which by the way I've never voted on this aspect in all my 40+ years of being a voter....
I've noticed that interestingly and I'm in UK,the word "teenager" is rarely used these days and even the concept seems to be gone. Which im actually glad about. I hated being a "teenager" especially as I wasnt,not how tv etc showed me being a teenager was. Now it's "child" especially if they've had sex and they or their parents want recompense. Up to age 18. But it's all very fuzzy now. Age 16 in the UK is The Legal Age of Consent for engaging in sexual activity. A few years ago the age for engaging in male homosexual activity was lowered to this age for equality. But in the case of Guiffre v. Andy Duke of,I heard lots of woman callers in to phone ins telling how they had their first experience of sexual intercourse aged 18,19,21,23 and not only was it painful,horrible,demeaning,not what they had been led to expect,not romantic,etc etc because that is how it actually is in real life mostly but those women calling in were at the time the Hollywood provided rose tinted spectacles fell off were not only above the legal age of consent but actually legally adults (18 in UK) and in employment. And I think that growing up in our society meant they were not ignorant about body parts or which but went where but the shock and horror of finding out it's not like in the movies,well they were all claiming the status of "child". I didnt know. No one told me. There should be more protection. Well,there used to be until the 1960s Sexual Revolution swept the protection away using mockery and fake rational logic. That's what the Pill was invented for,not to HELP women but to remove protection.
Yes Teenager is an interesting word. Maybe it was created for business purposes..
A new market concept indeed,now they're all grandmas and pas they STILL got all da money and their grandkids are broke,lol.
You're talking about Manu,that's Macron the French President,lol
In another wonderfully ironic twist, the Harris/Brown "relationship" simply proved that what Trump said was absolutely true! I am sure that Willie Brown not only grabbed Kamala by the pussy, but did any number of other things with it. The fact that she willingly participated in the little game of "park the submarine" with Willie when he was pushing 70 years of age and married and she was approaching her thirties is merely another reminder that she is utterly without scruples, morals or a shred of mere human dignity. And she wants to be president? Actually, I have my suspicions that she really doesn't want that job, and fortunately for her, all she will be is another figurehead like her predecessor, Shoeless Joe Biden. She had no choice in her selection, just like Joe had no choice in his defenestration. The democrat party/globalist cabal ran the show for Biden and will be doing the same for Harris should she find herself with her childless catlady persona in the White House. To conclude with a short digression, what kind of a man is Kamala's husband, Emhoff, that he married a publicly outed whore. I might suggest he is a bit of a... cuck. Sad to see how American womanhood and manhood have fallen.
This entire discussion and those participating in it are nauseating. Try using your imaginations for something more constructive and beneficial to humanity. What a waste of time.
Yet you're here participating in the discussion, sort of. If you think it's a waste of your time, why is that?
Sadly happened upon it.
Happened upon it? Ha ha. That's embarrassing.
And here you are, still, a week later.
Polish up your halo.
Oh go away. This from a likely Trump hating fanatic who wished he hadn't turned his head. Were you nauseated by all of the focus on Trump's penis when Stormy Daniel's was promoting her book on CNN?
Because it’s true? Stick your head back in the sand after another swig of koolaid.
I agree—Harris does NOT want the job.
Living in the DMV, you eventually realize that Washington, D.C. may very well be the “People Who’ve Succeeded Massively Through No Fault of Their Own” capital of the world.
Like mom always said:
1) It’s not what you know, it’s who you blow.
2) Government and corporations are like giant septic tanks. All the big pieces of shit float straight to the top.
Putting aside any moral/ethical debates about cheating on spouses and/or being the “other” woman/man, there’s a fundamental, unignorable difference between someone who exploits their power and status for increased sexual opportunity and someone who exploits their sexuality for increased power and status.
If I felt that Kamala Harris was a competent and capable candidate that would effectively perform the duties of the position she is seeking, I wouldn’t care if she held weekly orgies with the entirety of the legislature on the south lawn of the White House.
Unfortunately, until “fluffer” becomes an officially recognized position on POTUS’s staff, or they install a glory hole in the Lincoln Bedroom, there are exactly zero available jobs at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue that I want to see her occupying.
What is that fundamental, unignorable difference? I don't see them as so different. Biology and evolution gave sexual power to women over men (generalizing) and using men through sexuality is similar to men using women by attracting them with power and status. That's different from misusing power, e.g. demanding sex under threat of employment dismissal or demotion.
My use of the word “exploits” in my first post may have been unclear or ill-advised.
Perhaps better/more clearly stated, there’s a fundamental and unignorable difference between a woman who exploits her sexuality to obtain and/or further her own power and status and a man who indulges in/enjoys (exploits) the increased sexual opportunity that commonly becomes available to him as a result of obtaining greater power and status.
In a general sense, women will exploit their sexuality to advance themselves into positions that they would not be able to access by their own merit. Conversely, men must generally advance themselves through some sort of (more) meritocratic process to obtain their status and power, at which point they generally find increased sexual opportunity.
I’m not concerned about a hypothetical man who got to the “top” and takes full advantages of the fruits of his labor and the fringe benefits that commonly accompany the ascension of the socioeconomic ladder and status hierarchy.
I’m greatly concerned about a hypothetical woman who, through a combination of a willingness to spread her legs and existing as a non-Caucasian female in 2024, has found herself within a heartbeat of the presidency.
Women get infinitely more out of the “sex for power/status” trade than men do, and it comes with much more potentially deleterious effects for society as a whole.
That's a good distinction, though it does take "two to tango." A corrupt man with power colludes with a corrupt woman with sexual charm to promote her into a position of power that affects the rest of us. Both are to blame, but the man likely got into power through merit and is somewhat competent, while the woman probably has no qualifications whatever for holding the job.
Mom’s 1 + 2 = The Pussy Principle
🙇♀️
Excellent column, Janice. You are so right about the whitewashing (is it now racist to use that term?!) of women sleeping their way to the top - as we used to call it.
"sexual exploitation" and "female sex privilege" it is evident yet not spoken about at all.
Time to revive Esther Vilar and "The Manipulated Man". quote <"Men have been trained and conditioned by women, not unlike the way Pavlov conditioned his dogs, into becoming their slaves. As compensation for their labours men are given periodic use of a woman's vagina."> unquote
Has the book been censored? It's not available in English on Amazon. Thanks for the reference.
Amazon has in the past removed the book from sale, and then bought it back again, so it must be on the naughty list again.
There are other interesting books she wrote, that sadly have not be translated into English. Sadly I cannot read German.
I think it may be out of print. There are still some platforms that offer it as an e-book. I found this audio version on YouTube: https://youtu.be/v2687RHEhGI?si=8p4ULe1BJCihREdt
Thank you.
I found these:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1973951.The_Manipulated_Man
https://archive.org/details/the-manipulated-man_202201
https://archive.org/details/manipulatedman0000vila/page/n199/mode/2up different version it seems!!!
https://www.ebook.de/de/product/7451315/esther_vilar_the_manipulated_man.html
Try Alibris.
Are they that dumb?
to what are you referring?
"Harris was a beautiful young lawyer"
I've seen photographs of her when she was young, and she looks fairly average, really --- but bedding a womaniser is not difficult for a woman of average looks. This is something women tend to overlook or choose to ignore: women have options that men do not have, simply because of the disparity in attraction of the average woman and average man.
Average-looking men are not attractive to women: studies have found that women today regard four in five men as being unattractive. Thus the majority of men would be unable to gain preferment or wealth by offering sex to a woman. By contrast, men are not picky when it comes to sex: many fat or ugly women make money selling their bodies to men. In transactional sex between male and female, the latter is almost invariably the vendor. Women are able to trade sex for gain, but the vast majority of men are not.
It is a form of female privilege.
Females will virtue-signal by "confessing their privilege" over approved minority groups, but Hell will freeze over before they will acknowledge any of the numerous privileges they have over males.
I don't think most women, even if they are attracted to a man, would allow that attraction to be translated into preferment for the man. The impulse to dispense largesse to an object of desire would seem more generally male. Fani Willis offers a counter-example, however, and perhaps there are more like her than I suspect.
I think Willis probably gave Wade the job because it was convenient for their sexual relationship. Also, women value social and professional prominence in their partners even if for purely selfish reasons. It could have been a sort of reverse hypergamy to give him more power and wealth than he could've gotten on his own. At the same time, it gave her all sorts of power and control over him.
I hate the hypocrisy. Actually here in our little Duck Pond (Denmark) we have had women complaining that a new legislation has been passed that makes conscription mandatory for both men and women (in Denmark women have been exempt). It is supposedly against women’s rights that we are NOT being discriminated against.
Another astonishing example of hypocrisy is the EU regulation that made paternity leave mandatory for the member states.
Apparently women are all for the equal rights unless we have to give some of them up for the men to obtain the same, because apparently it is only the women who should have the privilege of long maternity ([paternity]) leave, even though we have one of the lengthiest paid leave (as far as I know) in the world, we actually have as much time on paid leave as the fetus spends time in womb, that is 9 months (and if the baby is born premature leave is extended to nine months after EDD.
If women care about equal rights then why don’t they revel with joy over the fact that now in the EU (and especially in Denmark where in the big perspective we are SO lucky and indeed privileged in our days, of course that is mainly thanks to earlier generations who worked and our different form of tax system etc. but still). If you are supporting women and wants women to work as much as/in same positions as men, isn’t it then GREAT for women (and the baby) that now they CAN without their offspring having to being “forced” (by circumstances and in most countries due to no fault of the mother) to be home with grand parents because mom & dad HAS to work to earn money to get by, but can actually bond with the baby’s father?
Due to other circumstances I was the one staying home (we had a complicated pregnancy with weekly hospital checks and our son was hospitalized almost nonstop and premature and by that time 8 years ago there wasn’t mandatory paternity leave and the Danish Tax Agency (or whatever the Danish equivalent to the IRS would be called in English) wasn’t very keen on giving my husband extra leave so for us it wasn’t a choice. But I’d actually had to stop my education realizing that being in the neonatal ICU preparing for exams and at home while juggling with hospital checkups, physiotherapy for baby etc I had to be realistic (he was to be kept at home and no daycare etc two years due to severe risk of infection, and still he is in high risk of lower lung infections and is often quite ill, spent 6 weeks in an incubator last fall due to pneumonia).
But to me those laws is actually showing that we take it at least somewhat seriously when we talk about equality between men and women, though unless they have changed it now, to become a cadet on the Police Academy there is different standards for the physical admission test in regards to the distance/time women need to beat v men, but at least that is when the applicants have come so far to have passed the first hurdles, though to me I think it’s worth it to have fewer female officers if the “price” is that they have equal standards for the test (and I have female friends who have met the criteriae above women’s level and actually aced the test for the time of men and where some of the fastest and well accomplished as the male cadets.)
I’m sorry for this long comment, I guess I just wanted you guys out there to know that we actually are some women who (and I know you know that) don’t mean that women’s rights means that women should have positive discrimination. And the article is perhaps a bit coarse in the language, however I do think it points out the double standards quote well and maybe the slightly provocative tone raises a debate that otherwise wouldn’t be had among some people, that is how I read it anyway. :-)
The issue with raising children is what is known as "Maternal Gatekeeping".
I am a retired nurse I hypothsesied this about a decade before I saw any research, but it was not a popular topic of conversation with my nursing colleagues.
I am reasonably successful. And pretty average looking. There are many women who openly hit on me once they knew I was doing well. It wasn’t cuz I am hot. One woman I know hated a person in my loose social circle. He had a net worth of about $100M. Hated him. She was telling me about it at a party. He showed up. She went over and acted slutty around him. She stood close to him and bumped her boobies up against him etc. I called her on it. She said ‘Oh we joke around like that. He’s an A******, and I have told him that to his face.’ As I write this it just now hit me! She had slept with him and he dumped her! Ha! That never occurred to me until now.
I agree, but this is a tiny fraction of what's wrong with her. I hate to see it get too much attention while the rest isn't deal with.
Oh, I fully agree, Jeffrey. It is the LEAST of her failings as a potential commander in chief. But it's the thing I feel able to comment on, and the double standards deeply irritate me!
Janice, touche!!
"The slippery pole..." 🫣
Not to be confused with high-profile positions. 🤭