Friday, April 20, 2012
Secret Service and Man Shaming
So with interest I have watched yet another "sex scandal" grow in the media. The last one being Anthony Weiner's apparent "wiener" shot which got him in trouble and out of office. Then it was women leading the charge over his 'horrific" behavior. The view of many of my male compatriots was that he was an idiot and certainly deserved whatever ire was directed his way from his wife and perhaps the female that received the photo against her after the fact, wishes. But for the rest of us, it simply was not our business. Besides, as far as politics went, Weiner was one of the "better" democrats who had recently made a strong presentation on the house floor against yet another bit of Republican nonsense. It didn't make sense to any of us to drop kick one of your best players. But so it goes.
Now the media is obsessed with the fact that a few of the Secret Service agents in Columbia decided to get drunk and get laid while on what I presume to be their time off. I understand that they, while being on location aren't entirely "off the clock" but we know that they definitely have the right and the option to do personal business.
For some odd reason it comes as a shock to people that there are men who, when traveling overseas, get laid. Some pay for it and some don't. Not all men do it, but it happens. Some countries are, unfortunately, sought out specifically for sex. In the case of these Secret Service agents the country in which they were in has legalized prostitution. It is to the extent that hotels, at least this one, actually provide what I'll call "hoe be gone" wake up calls to guests to have the registered women leave per hotel policy.
I assure you that these men were not the first Secret Service members to have indulged in a locally legal activity. Why do we know about this now? Because one of the fellows got into an argument with one of the women. There are conflicting stories as to how much he owed and how much he agreed to pay. That is not really a point of contention with me. I. Do. Not. Care. There is only one valid concern with this that I can see: Did the actions of the Secret Service agents endanger the president or whomever else they were assigned to protect? That is it.
Since I'm operating under the assumption that these professionals "entertain" themselves in this manner on a "regular" basis, I am going to believe that these men did not act in a way that they believed would have compromised presidential security. I could see if they had done something as obviously stupid as take the prostitute along on the scouting missions but I doubt they did anything of the sort and I do not believe that the president (or any other before him) was in danger from the agent's use of "escorts". It would be one thing if these guys broke a local law (which as far as I know is not the case). It would be an entirely different thing if these guys were taking some locally legal mind altering drug that could impair their judgment long after it has been ingested, but sex? I am certainly open to having an investigation done though.
This morning I saw Sarah Palin on the television set commenting about how one of the agents is "fired" in response to a Facebook comment he made during the time he was assigned to Sarah Palin for security. Apparently this fellow was "checking Palin out."
The only thing I could think of is "and, so?" Have we gotten to a point in society where folks are actually under the belief that men do not "check" all women "out"? And that such "evaluations" says less that bill about how good or bad they are at their jobs?
Let's look at the Palin example. Regardless of how "hot" or "not" this agent may have thought she was, he clearly did his job. It is clear that he made no comments directly to her or her entourage at any time. It is clear that he did nothing that made her feel uncomfortable. If he had we would know about it wouldn't we? Of course. So it is clear that he did his assigned job professionally and completely and without incident. So why do we even give a damn whether he "checked her out"?
Well "we" give a damn because a growing segment of the population feels that they have a right to police the eyes, ears and minds of males, specifically heterosexual, masculine, males. You have many women who are of the opinion that they don't want men looking at them in a certain way (not physically but mentally). Too bad. It's not your eye and it's not your brain. The same way women do not want to be told what to do or what others can do to their bodies is the same way I could give 2 shits what someone wants to tell me I should and should not look at in public and what I should and should not think.
But this goes even further into the conflation of personal and employment life. What this guy said on his Facebook page (and I'm curious as to who violated the privacy of this individual and exposed his wall post to those who were not in his circle) isn't relevant to his work. It isn't relevant to your work unless you admit to committing a crime.
For example, when this Secret Service flap happened, pictures of Hilary Clinton were shown with her dancing and drinking. First thing I was wondering was why we needed to see that. Second thing was that for people who are morally opposed to alcohol consumption and dancing (yes those people exist) such behavior could be seen as "immoral" and "reprehensible" in whatever group they are in. Should we be subject to their particular codes of conduct when we judge whether they are effective at doing their jobs? I don't think so.
At the end of the day, after all the talking heads get a chance to get their time on TV, rational heads should prevail. They should be concerned with one thing and one thing only: Did these individual's behavior jeopardize the safety of the president? Did the behavior damage the relationship between Columbia and the US? If neither of these things have happened, given that having a prostitute is legal in the host country and none of the females were minors, people should shut up and sit down. The only explaining so far that needs to be done is to any of the wives of these men and that assumes the wives don't know how they get down when "on assignment".
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
All The Men Are Stupid
A couple of weeks ago I finally got to watch Crazy Stupid Love. No, there were no ladies in attendance. I actually wanted to watch the movie.
Shut up.
I generally stay away from "romantic comedies" because, well they are exercises in extreme fantasy that are faker than the flying kicks in your average kung-fu flicks. But somehow I still manage to watch those....but I digress. I simply don't identify at all with most of them hence their non-appeal.
My exceptions to date have been The Ugly Truth..which did in fact have a lot of ugly truths; and Hitch, one of my all time favorites.
Bite me.
No really, Hitch is like Cinderella for men. The fat nerd gets the princess. I mean what average shmuck would not root for this dude? And if you can't identify with the fat nerd, you can identify with the cool black guy lady killer. I'm not telling who I identified with, but I will say that I'm not teaching ANY guy how to "come in" 9/10ths of the way with MY mouth. OK?
Right then.
So this brings us to the topic du jour. I understand that Crazy Stupid Love is a comedy but the overtones of "the men are stupid" theme was just too much for me to bear. If feminists can bitch and complain about the portrayal of women in movies, then dammit I gotta stick up for the men.
Dammit.
So in the very beginning the tone is set when Steve Carell's wife decides to tell him that she slept with a co-worker and wants a divorce. All in one sitting. Steve being the "I have no balls" man as his character is, doesn't shout, scream or you know, leave her ass in the restaurant. No, he gets driven home by The Hussy...I mean, wife...who insists on continuing the conversation over Steve's objections. Does he tell her to "shut the fuck up?"like you know...any self respecting man who's been faithful would do? Noooooo...he calmly says "I really don't want to hear this" and then bails out of the moving car. Yes, the moving car.
Yes, I did laugh.
But seriously Steve? Your wife announces, in public, that she's fucking her coworker AND wants a divorce and YOU bail out the car?
From that point on I knew this was going to be a "the men are all stupid" kind of movie.
To add insult to injury, who gets thrown out the house? The cheating hussy? No, Steve the honest cubicle office man who's been crying in the bathroom where everybody can hear and who's been faithfully providing for his family.
What. The. Fuck?
I thought for SURE that there was some baby involved here. Some kind of rational explanation as to why The Hussy ought to have remained in the marriage home. Nope, the kids are way old enough to know mom is a ho and had to go. But I suppose the target market, clearly not me, would not have enjoyed watching the rest of the movie if The Hussy had to spend the rest of the movie trying to get back with Steve.
Anyway.
So Steve, now paying mortgage and rent I suppose, does the "loser in the bar" bit. I admit, I did the "loser in the bar bit" thing once. It's kind of hard to pull off when you don't actually drink alcohol, but....anyway, where was I? right..So he's at the bar where "The playboy" resides.
Of course The Playboy (tm) is the superficial "misogynist" who's entire life's goal is to bed as many women as possible, seeing how he's "won" the gender war. And of course he needs to meet the "right" woman who will make him see the errors of his ways and become more like Steve "I have no balls" Carell's character.
This guy informs Steve that his wife is fucking the co-worker because Steve has lost "it". Yes folks it is Steve's fault why his wife was fucking around. He was too boring. Remember that fellas. If you get boring you deserve what's coming to you.
*eye roll*
Then there is the neighbor. The father of the girl who babysits for Steve. He finds Steve at the bar where he whispers, WHISPERS that his wife has told him he can't socialize with Steve anymore.
What?
So to recap.. Steve's wife fucked the co-worker and announced it in a public place and asked for a divorce and Steve is the one to be shunned?
The fuck out of here.
So Steve's character, after a wardrobe change and a hefty bar bill (Side note: you folks actually spend THAT much on alcohol?), finally gets laid and proceeds to bed about 9 women. Remember this is a man...and I use the term lightly, who was just informed that his wife has been boinking the co-worker and wants a divorce. At a PTA meeting it comes out that he's had a few women and what does The Hussy do? She gets mad.
Excuse me?
How does the "I fucked the co-worker and now I want a divorce" wife have ANY say on who Steve fucked after getting that kind of news? How does she even have the RIGHT to be mad? Exactly HOW does that work?
Does Steve say "fuck you Mrs 'I fucked my co-worker'? Noooooooo...He's trying to apologize and shit.
What is this? Is this what women are watching on Lifetime TV? Are they actually thinking that this type of shit is acceptable? Is this the "new man" shit that's being promoted?
Fuck all that in it's entirety.
Do I need to even discuss the boy with the unhealthy fixation on the flat ass, flat chested babysitter? Do I? For the entire movie I was saying to myself...but she's not even THAT cute kid.
Back to The Hussy. After Steve has got his testicles off, the Hussy starts to "date" the co-worker she was fucking? Really? And invites him over? Really? Really? And during this "get together" the father of the "crush object" runs in on the assumption that Steve has been molesting his daughter. This because his wife, the one who apparently runs things in that house, presented him with a card with a "compromising" photo of the daughter and addressed to Steve.
Now you'd think that he'd first and foremost ask his daughter what the hell this is. Nope. Steve must be a molester.
*all kinds of sigh*
So the men don't think. They are two faced ('cause playboy is good for everything but your daughter), prone to violence and don't stand up for themselves. I guess this is what passes for good romantic comedies these days.
So there we have it. All the men are stupid.
Shut up.
I generally stay away from "romantic comedies" because, well they are exercises in extreme fantasy that are faker than the flying kicks in your average kung-fu flicks. But somehow I still manage to watch those....but I digress. I simply don't identify at all with most of them hence their non-appeal.
My exceptions to date have been The Ugly Truth..which did in fact have a lot of ugly truths; and Hitch, one of my all time favorites.
Bite me.
No really, Hitch is like Cinderella for men. The fat nerd gets the princess. I mean what average shmuck would not root for this dude? And if you can't identify with the fat nerd, you can identify with the cool black guy lady killer. I'm not telling who I identified with, but I will say that I'm not teaching ANY guy how to "come in" 9/10ths of the way with MY mouth. OK?
Right then.
So this brings us to the topic du jour. I understand that Crazy Stupid Love is a comedy but the overtones of "the men are stupid" theme was just too much for me to bear. If feminists can bitch and complain about the portrayal of women in movies, then dammit I gotta stick up for the men.
Dammit.
So in the very beginning the tone is set when Steve Carell's wife decides to tell him that she slept with a co-worker and wants a divorce. All in one sitting. Steve being the "I have no balls" man as his character is, doesn't shout, scream or you know, leave her ass in the restaurant. No, he gets driven home by The Hussy...I mean, wife...who insists on continuing the conversation over Steve's objections. Does he tell her to "shut the fuck up?"like you know...any self respecting man who's been faithful would do? Noooooo...he calmly says "I really don't want to hear this" and then bails out of the moving car. Yes, the moving car.
Yes, I did laugh.
But seriously Steve? Your wife announces, in public, that she's fucking her coworker AND wants a divorce and YOU bail out the car?
From that point on I knew this was going to be a "the men are all stupid" kind of movie.
To add insult to injury, who gets thrown out the house? The cheating hussy? No, Steve the honest cubicle office man who's been crying in the bathroom where everybody can hear and who's been faithfully providing for his family.
What. The. Fuck?
I thought for SURE that there was some baby involved here. Some kind of rational explanation as to why The Hussy ought to have remained in the marriage home. Nope, the kids are way old enough to know mom is a ho and had to go. But I suppose the target market, clearly not me, would not have enjoyed watching the rest of the movie if The Hussy had to spend the rest of the movie trying to get back with Steve.
Anyway.
So Steve, now paying mortgage and rent I suppose, does the "loser in the bar" bit. I admit, I did the "loser in the bar bit" thing once. It's kind of hard to pull off when you don't actually drink alcohol, but....anyway, where was I? right..So he's at the bar where "The playboy" resides.
Of course The Playboy (tm) is the superficial "misogynist" who's entire life's goal is to bed as many women as possible, seeing how he's "won" the gender war. And of course he needs to meet the "right" woman who will make him see the errors of his ways and become more like Steve "I have no balls" Carell's character.
This guy informs Steve that his wife is fucking the co-worker because Steve has lost "it". Yes folks it is Steve's fault why his wife was fucking around. He was too boring. Remember that fellas. If you get boring you deserve what's coming to you.
*eye roll*
Then there is the neighbor. The father of the girl who babysits for Steve. He finds Steve at the bar where he whispers, WHISPERS that his wife has told him he can't socialize with Steve anymore.
What?
So to recap.. Steve's wife fucked the co-worker and announced it in a public place and asked for a divorce and Steve is the one to be shunned?
The fuck out of here.
So Steve's character, after a wardrobe change and a hefty bar bill (Side note: you folks actually spend THAT much on alcohol?), finally gets laid and proceeds to bed about 9 women. Remember this is a man...and I use the term lightly, who was just informed that his wife has been boinking the co-worker and wants a divorce. At a PTA meeting it comes out that he's had a few women and what does The Hussy do? She gets mad.
Excuse me?
How does the "I fucked the co-worker and now I want a divorce" wife have ANY say on who Steve fucked after getting that kind of news? How does she even have the RIGHT to be mad? Exactly HOW does that work?
Does Steve say "fuck you Mrs 'I fucked my co-worker'? Noooooooo...He's trying to apologize and shit.
What is this? Is this what women are watching on Lifetime TV? Are they actually thinking that this type of shit is acceptable? Is this the "new man" shit that's being promoted?
Fuck all that in it's entirety.
Do I need to even discuss the boy with the unhealthy fixation on the flat ass, flat chested babysitter? Do I? For the entire movie I was saying to myself...but she's not even THAT cute kid.
Back to The Hussy. After Steve has got his testicles off, the Hussy starts to "date" the co-worker she was fucking? Really? And invites him over? Really? Really? And during this "get together" the father of the "crush object" runs in on the assumption that Steve has been molesting his daughter. This because his wife, the one who apparently runs things in that house, presented him with a card with a "compromising" photo of the daughter and addressed to Steve.
Now you'd think that he'd first and foremost ask his daughter what the hell this is. Nope. Steve must be a molester.
*all kinds of sigh*
So the men don't think. They are two faced ('cause playboy is good for everything but your daughter), prone to violence and don't stand up for themselves. I guess this is what passes for good romantic comedies these days.
So there we have it. All the men are stupid.
Monday, November 28, 2011
Dear Babyface
Dear Babyface
a long time ago you released an album called "Tender Lover". It was 1989, I was either in high school or college. Didn't matter. I wasn't a lover, yet, so all those songs were fantasy to me. Anyway back then I thought "Soon As I get Home" was The Shit (tm). I don't know why. Well the music was the bomb. Still is. Those lyrics? That's a whole other story.
Back when I was 17 and stupid I thought that whole "Soon as I get home from work" was like an instruction manual. No lie. Not having a father around to set you straight on these things can do that to a youngster. That whole provide for your woman thing was something I vaguely identified with so that concept made sense. Besides, the last song I recall talking about the rent, went something like "nothing goin' on but..". However; since my only concern at the time was room, board, classes and why my then very long distance girlfriend was never home when I called. I didn't quite understand the gravity of the lyrics in your song. I'm older now and listening to this track causes me all kinds of head shaking. Let me explain.
Let's go over these lyrics.
I suppose this line works for you. I think LL did that in his "Loungin'" track
Anyway it's not that it's bad, but cliche. Really.
Hmmm...Perhaps they had an argument. I dunno. Didn't I hear LL do this one too? Anyway I want to focus on this "Pot of gold" thing because sir, we will need to revisit this line.
You swing good dick. Ok. I think every brother has used this line. But that's not the really offending line.
"I'll buy your clothes?"
What?
What?
Not that you'll buy her *some* clothes. You just said you'll buy her clothes period. Negro please. Don't you know that folk don't value what they don't earn?
"I'll cook your dinner too
Soon as I get home from work?
What kind of role reversal nonsense is this? Since apparently YOU are the one going to work; 'cause I didn't see anything about what employment she came from, YOU are going to come home after working all day and cook her food? Excuse me sir, exactly WHAT was this lazy heffa doing all day while you were out buying her clothes and working?
You'll do what?
Please explain to me how you're coming home from work, with clothes you just bought, all ready to cook dinner and it's not your place.
Explain that one to me?
Why the fuck are you doing all that shit AND paying the rent on a place you don't live in? So after all that shopping, cooking and rent paying you're supposed to go home to somewhere else? Explain this to me.
And after ALL that you still have to claim to throw a good dick? I do not understand. Really.
Do this "pot of gold" apparently needs a man with a lot of gold. I'm dying with laughter here.
Babyface. Look. With all that you wrote here it should be clear why some man left her "out in the cold." Clearly it was a trap for a sucker like you to up and find so you could do everything for this "pot of gold". See, you asked in the opener "What kind of man..." and stated that "he must have been a silly one." Let me suggest that If you don't see that your working all day, come home and cook, buy her clothes, pay her rent and throw the dick, to some lazy heffa who's entire day consists of taking the credit card stack at will for God only knows what. Then you sir are the silly one, not the supposedly now broke and bad credit having fool that left her out at the bus stop (or wherever you saw her).
Anyway. Now that I have revisited this song I just want you to know that it's been removed from my favorite slow jams playlist. I see why it was so popular back then. Pandering is always a good way to move units but damn...this is some low shit. Even for 1989.
a long time ago you released an album called "Tender Lover". It was 1989, I was either in high school or college. Didn't matter. I wasn't a lover, yet, so all those songs were fantasy to me. Anyway back then I thought "Soon As I get Home" was The Shit (tm). I don't know why. Well the music was the bomb. Still is. Those lyrics? That's a whole other story.
Back when I was 17 and stupid I thought that whole "Soon as I get home from work" was like an instruction manual. No lie. Not having a father around to set you straight on these things can do that to a youngster. That whole provide for your woman thing was something I vaguely identified with so that concept made sense. Besides, the last song I recall talking about the rent, went something like "nothing goin' on but..". However; since my only concern at the time was room, board, classes and why my then very long distance girlfriend was never home when I called. I didn't quite understand the gravity of the lyrics in your song. I'm older now and listening to this track causes me all kinds of head shaking. Let me explain.
Let's go over these lyrics.
Hey, come here for a second
I don't like the way he treats you
He doesn't deserve you
He really don't
I suppose this line works for you. I think LL did that in his "Loungin'" track
Anyway it's not that it's bad, but cliche. Really.
What kind of man
Would leave you standing in the cold
Must've been a silly one
To sacrifice a pot of gold
You're the kind of woman
That needs a man that's always there
It's not that you require a lot
Just need some tender love and care
Hmmm...Perhaps they had an argument. I dunno. Didn't I hear LL do this one too? Anyway I want to focus on this "Pot of gold" thing because sir, we will need to revisit this line.
I give good love
I'll buy your clothes
I'll cook your dinner too
Soon as I get home from work
You swing good dick. Ok. I think every brother has used this line. But that's not the really offending line.
"I'll buy your clothes?"
What?
What?
Not that you'll buy her *some* clothes. You just said you'll buy her clothes period. Negro please. Don't you know that folk don't value what they don't earn?
"I'll cook your dinner too
Soon as I get home from work?
What kind of role reversal nonsense is this? Since apparently YOU are the one going to work; 'cause I didn't see anything about what employment she came from, YOU are going to come home after working all day and cook her food? Excuse me sir, exactly WHAT was this lazy heffa doing all day while you were out buying her clothes and working?
I'll pay your rent
Your faithful lover
Soon as I get home, soon as I get home from work
You'll do what?
Please explain to me how you're coming home from work, with clothes you just bought, all ready to cook dinner and it's not your place.
Explain that one to me?
Why the fuck are you doing all that shit AND paying the rent on a place you don't live in? So after all that shopping, cooking and rent paying you're supposed to go home to somewhere else? Explain this to me.
For all that it's worth
I give good love (good love, good love, good love, good love)
And after ALL that you still have to claim to throw a good dick? I do not understand. Really.
You're the kind of woman
That needs a man with lots of cash
With a stack of major credit cards
And with me you don't have to ask
Do this "pot of gold" apparently needs a man with a lot of gold. I'm dying with laughter here.
Babyface. Look. With all that you wrote here it should be clear why some man left her "out in the cold." Clearly it was a trap for a sucker like you to up and find so you could do everything for this "pot of gold". See, you asked in the opener "What kind of man..." and stated that "he must have been a silly one." Let me suggest that If you don't see that your working all day, come home and cook, buy her clothes, pay her rent and throw the dick, to some lazy heffa who's entire day consists of taking the credit card stack at will for God only knows what. Then you sir are the silly one, not the supposedly now broke and bad credit having fool that left her out at the bus stop (or wherever you saw her).
Anyway. Now that I have revisited this song I just want you to know that it's been removed from my favorite slow jams playlist. I see why it was so popular back then. Pandering is always a good way to move units but damn...this is some low shit. Even for 1989.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
The Sanduski Sam I Am Defense
I am not a pedophile
Sam I am
I do not like boys
in that way Sam I am.
I did not touch them in my car
Sam I am
you take this too far
I did not touch them here or there
I did not touch them
not even their hair
I did not touch them in my home
everybody knows
in order to touch them
you must be alone
I did not wrestle them on the ground
I tell you again
we were horsing around
I did not put his penis in my mouth
I did not touch him on the couch
I did not touch him in the locker
I did not touch him in the shower
They are lying
Sam I am
I said it on the radio
I'm not that kind of man
now leave me be
Sam I am
I must go eat
my green eggs and ham.
Sam I am
I do not like boys
in that way Sam I am.
I did not touch them in my car
Sam I am
you take this too far
I did not touch them here or there
I did not touch them
not even their hair
I did not touch them in my home
everybody knows
in order to touch them
you must be alone
I did not wrestle them on the ground
I tell you again
we were horsing around
I did not put his penis in my mouth
I did not touch him on the couch
I did not touch him in the locker
I did not touch him in the shower
They are lying
Sam I am
I said it on the radio
I'm not that kind of man
now leave me be
Sam I am
I must go eat
my green eggs and ham.
Friday, November 11, 2011
The Boolshit
So we find Herman Cain being officially accused of sexual harassment. Some are taking Bialek's account to be that of a case of sexual assault. However; her story doesn't pass the sniff test, the hear test or most tests that you throw at it. Mind you it's not that I get any pleasure from defending Herman "Let me Upgrade ya" Cain but the "assault" angle has me disturbed and perturbed and needs to be dealt with.
Let us understand that legally assault is any physical contact that does not have consent of the touched. The key point being consent. Sexual assault is clearly assault of a sexual nature. In each case establishing consent is key to whether there is an assault or not. When we look at the events as relayed by Bialek we find that using the term assault is unfounded. Let me explain.
There is this Simpsons episode where college Marge was infatuated with a college professor who was trying to score co-ed booty. They were in his office where he declares that he would like to hug Marge and if she was OK with that. Then he went on to verbally ask permission to kiss her. The entire scene is an example of the ridiculous lengths the "consent" argument can go. In real life consent is not always explicitly verbal but is situational and implied through actions and counter actions. For example in the movie Hitch, Hitch advises his client about the 'jingly keys" phenomenon. In effect Hitch tells his client that if a woman is standing at her door and jingling her keys then it is a delay tactic meant to signal that she wants a kiss. Never mind that she hasn't said so, Hitch's client needs to "be a man" and pucker up and move "9-10ths" of the way in.
Really.
Now think about that for a minute. Imagine that upon following this advice (or seeing this film) a man gets a woman to her door and she's jingling the keys because she has a lot of them and perhaps can't make out the right one but because he's been told that such jingling is a "universal unspoken invite" to a kiss, he leans in and goes for it. Now imagine said woman being of the mind that she doesn't want a kiss and says "whoah buster...not!" Has he assaulted her? He *thought* he had consent because he was going by what he perceived were consenting cues that it was OK. The fact is that people in the course of normal human interaction read and misread cues all the time.
So let's take this to Cain. According to Bialek, she met Cain at some company event while she was an employee of the company. If I recall correctly she said that they talked regularly for the 2 day event. She made no mention of Cain making any inappropriate remarks or doing anything 'inappropriate" at that time. Later she is fired from the company. Later while seeking employment she cold calls Cain. Herman Cain who apparently had a sexual interest in this woman seizes the moment. This is not unusual in the least bit. a former employee is fair sexual game. We're going to ignore the fact that he is married for the duration of this piece.
Let's make it clear. If a person is going to refer one for a job the only thing he or she is going to need to see is your resume. Then perhaps have a formal interview, likely at the place of future employment, perhaps a business lunch followed by a yea or nay. Keep that in mind.
Herman Cain, as far as Bialek's account goes, does not ask for a resume or anything of the like that would be required by a human resources department. He immediately invites her to DC. When she arrives in DC she finds that her hotel suite has been upgraded. This is what we call a "red flag". Once Bialek determined that it was Cain and not her "boyfriend" who had upgraded her room she should have known that Cain's interest was not professional. The upgrade was "an offer", a sexual advance. Grown women should know this and know how to act accordingly.
Next Herman Cain takes Bialek to dinner. Really? This is red flag number two in my book. Again I don't see the professional reason to have dinner with Mr. Cain. I see having a business lunch but not a dinner. This was another "sexual advance". Mr. Cain is laying out the "typical" "wine and dine..then fuck" scenario. A scenario I'm sure he's done or has seen done many many times.
At this point Ms. Bialek knowing what time it was should have done the "Oh it's getting late and I need to go." Or maybe the "Oh wow...I'm not feeling so well." Or any of the other myriad excuses that women have used for years to brush off a man who is clearly in want of "dessert".
What does Bialek do? After dinner she accepts an offer by Cain to go see the location.
Really?
Why not go there the next morning?
Right.
So Bialek says that Herman Cain, after parking some distance from said building reaches over to put his hand up her skirt while pulling her head to his crotch.
BOOOOOOLSHIT.
As a commenter on Facebook pointed out, how exactly does that work?
Now we don't know what kind of car Herman Cain was driving. Did it have bucket seats or a bench seat? Do yourself a favor and attempt to reach up a leg that is next to you with your LEFT hand while taking your RIGHT hand to push a head towards your crotch.
Not easy right?
Now try that with a center console, found in many upscale cars, between the seats.
I'll wait.
Right.
So clearly Cain could not have physically done what was described *as* described. Now he could have done a double move. That is he could have first put his hands on Bialek's leg and motioned up towards her genitals. But here's the problem: Bialek said that she said "Oh I have a boyfriend."
Really?
A man has just put his hands up your skirt and your FIRST response is "I have a boyfriend"? You had a boyfriend when your room got upgraded. You had a boyfriend when you got taken out to dinner rather than a professional lunch. Didn't seem to be a problem then.
Now that sounds foul but it is what it is, when you start taking gifts that are clearly predicated on future sexual behavior that man is going to follow through because he takes the acceptance of these things as implied consent. And yes, implied consent is a legally recognized concept. For example, when you sign on the dotted line for one of those smart electric meters you have given implied consent to have your electricity use monitored and reported to law enforcement. Driving down a public street gives the police implied consent to observe anything you do in your vehicle that is in clear view. We give implied consent all the time. THIS is why describing the events as related by Bialek as assault is incorrect.
But back to the car. Anyone who has had an affair or knows of persons who have had affairs knows the "I have a wife" and "I have a husband" comment. It is generally speaking not a "no." but a "I'm kinda conflicted but I'd like to fuck" comment. Generally speaking that kind of comment becomes "oh fuck it...". Sometimes it doesn't. In Bialek's case, it became a "no".
What did Herman Cain do when he was told no? After giving his dickhead response of "you want a job right?" he stopped. Exactly what he was supposed to do when told "no". This is a clear cut case of a man who thought he had "consent" finding out that he did not and immediately reversing course. Had Cain not been a dick by trying to get sex for a job offer, he would be THE poster child of how a man is supposed to act when he is told "no".
This is an example of honoring the "no means no" regardless of how much you spent or where you took her to eat.
But was it harassment?
From what I read, Bialek was not an employee of Mr. Cain or the company he worked for. Nor was she in the process of a formal job interview. Bialek was someone who "lucked up" on a douche of a man while seeking employment who ignored all the red flags indicating that there was only one kind of "job" being offered. Cain was not some random guy on the street who made a sly brush of her buttocks. He wasn't a random guy on the street who yelled out sexual commentary to a woman he does not know and therefore has no reason to think he has consent.
Was Cain aggressive? Certainly. Personally I operate on the hands off rule. I don't touch, hug or otherwise make contact with women who have not either first done so with me or have given me explicit invite or I have a previous understanding with. But I am very much aware that this rule does not apply to everyone. I am very aware that there are some women who like and "appreciate" an aggressive man. There are even those who deem that unless a man is aggressive he is not in fact being a man. I'm not going to judge these people. What I will say is that given these varied attitudes towards sexual aggression it is unfair to project those onto other people and then judge them by our own personal value system.
Does this mean that Cain did not assault or otherwise harass women that he worked with? Of course not. When those stories come out they should be evaluated on their own merits, but this one? Booooolshit.
Let us understand that legally assault is any physical contact that does not have consent of the touched. The key point being consent. Sexual assault is clearly assault of a sexual nature. In each case establishing consent is key to whether there is an assault or not. When we look at the events as relayed by Bialek we find that using the term assault is unfounded. Let me explain.
There is this Simpsons episode where college Marge was infatuated with a college professor who was trying to score co-ed booty. They were in his office where he declares that he would like to hug Marge and if she was OK with that. Then he went on to verbally ask permission to kiss her. The entire scene is an example of the ridiculous lengths the "consent" argument can go. In real life consent is not always explicitly verbal but is situational and implied through actions and counter actions. For example in the movie Hitch, Hitch advises his client about the 'jingly keys" phenomenon. In effect Hitch tells his client that if a woman is standing at her door and jingling her keys then it is a delay tactic meant to signal that she wants a kiss. Never mind that she hasn't said so, Hitch's client needs to "be a man" and pucker up and move "9-10ths" of the way in.
Really.
Now think about that for a minute. Imagine that upon following this advice (or seeing this film) a man gets a woman to her door and she's jingling the keys because she has a lot of them and perhaps can't make out the right one but because he's been told that such jingling is a "universal unspoken invite" to a kiss, he leans in and goes for it. Now imagine said woman being of the mind that she doesn't want a kiss and says "whoah buster...not!" Has he assaulted her? He *thought* he had consent because he was going by what he perceived were consenting cues that it was OK. The fact is that people in the course of normal human interaction read and misread cues all the time.
So let's take this to Cain. According to Bialek, she met Cain at some company event while she was an employee of the company. If I recall correctly she said that they talked regularly for the 2 day event. She made no mention of Cain making any inappropriate remarks or doing anything 'inappropriate" at that time. Later she is fired from the company. Later while seeking employment she cold calls Cain. Herman Cain who apparently had a sexual interest in this woman seizes the moment. This is not unusual in the least bit. a former employee is fair sexual game. We're going to ignore the fact that he is married for the duration of this piece.
Let's make it clear. If a person is going to refer one for a job the only thing he or she is going to need to see is your resume. Then perhaps have a formal interview, likely at the place of future employment, perhaps a business lunch followed by a yea or nay. Keep that in mind.
Herman Cain, as far as Bialek's account goes, does not ask for a resume or anything of the like that would be required by a human resources department. He immediately invites her to DC. When she arrives in DC she finds that her hotel suite has been upgraded. This is what we call a "red flag". Once Bialek determined that it was Cain and not her "boyfriend" who had upgraded her room she should have known that Cain's interest was not professional. The upgrade was "an offer", a sexual advance. Grown women should know this and know how to act accordingly.
Next Herman Cain takes Bialek to dinner. Really? This is red flag number two in my book. Again I don't see the professional reason to have dinner with Mr. Cain. I see having a business lunch but not a dinner. This was another "sexual advance". Mr. Cain is laying out the "typical" "wine and dine..then fuck" scenario. A scenario I'm sure he's done or has seen done many many times.
At this point Ms. Bialek knowing what time it was should have done the "Oh it's getting late and I need to go." Or maybe the "Oh wow...I'm not feeling so well." Or any of the other myriad excuses that women have used for years to brush off a man who is clearly in want of "dessert".
What does Bialek do? After dinner she accepts an offer by Cain to go see the location.
Really?
Why not go there the next morning?
Right.
So Bialek says that Herman Cain, after parking some distance from said building reaches over to put his hand up her skirt while pulling her head to his crotch.
BOOOOOOLSHIT.
As a commenter on Facebook pointed out, how exactly does that work?
Now we don't know what kind of car Herman Cain was driving. Did it have bucket seats or a bench seat? Do yourself a favor and attempt to reach up a leg that is next to you with your LEFT hand while taking your RIGHT hand to push a head towards your crotch.
Not easy right?
Now try that with a center console, found in many upscale cars, between the seats.
I'll wait.
Right.
So clearly Cain could not have physically done what was described *as* described. Now he could have done a double move. That is he could have first put his hands on Bialek's leg and motioned up towards her genitals. But here's the problem: Bialek said that she said "Oh I have a boyfriend."
Really?
A man has just put his hands up your skirt and your FIRST response is "I have a boyfriend"? You had a boyfriend when your room got upgraded. You had a boyfriend when you got taken out to dinner rather than a professional lunch. Didn't seem to be a problem then.
Now that sounds foul but it is what it is, when you start taking gifts that are clearly predicated on future sexual behavior that man is going to follow through because he takes the acceptance of these things as implied consent. And yes, implied consent is a legally recognized concept. For example, when you sign on the dotted line for one of those smart electric meters you have given implied consent to have your electricity use monitored and reported to law enforcement. Driving down a public street gives the police implied consent to observe anything you do in your vehicle that is in clear view. We give implied consent all the time. THIS is why describing the events as related by Bialek as assault is incorrect.
But back to the car. Anyone who has had an affair or knows of persons who have had affairs knows the "I have a wife" and "I have a husband" comment. It is generally speaking not a "no." but a "I'm kinda conflicted but I'd like to fuck" comment. Generally speaking that kind of comment becomes "oh fuck it...". Sometimes it doesn't. In Bialek's case, it became a "no".
What did Herman Cain do when he was told no? After giving his dickhead response of "you want a job right?" he stopped. Exactly what he was supposed to do when told "no". This is a clear cut case of a man who thought he had "consent" finding out that he did not and immediately reversing course. Had Cain not been a dick by trying to get sex for a job offer, he would be THE poster child of how a man is supposed to act when he is told "no".
This is an example of honoring the "no means no" regardless of how much you spent or where you took her to eat.
But was it harassment?
From what I read, Bialek was not an employee of Mr. Cain or the company he worked for. Nor was she in the process of a formal job interview. Bialek was someone who "lucked up" on a douche of a man while seeking employment who ignored all the red flags indicating that there was only one kind of "job" being offered. Cain was not some random guy on the street who made a sly brush of her buttocks. He wasn't a random guy on the street who yelled out sexual commentary to a woman he does not know and therefore has no reason to think he has consent.
Was Cain aggressive? Certainly. Personally I operate on the hands off rule. I don't touch, hug or otherwise make contact with women who have not either first done so with me or have given me explicit invite or I have a previous understanding with. But I am very much aware that this rule does not apply to everyone. I am very aware that there are some women who like and "appreciate" an aggressive man. There are even those who deem that unless a man is aggressive he is not in fact being a man. I'm not going to judge these people. What I will say is that given these varied attitudes towards sexual aggression it is unfair to project those onto other people and then judge them by our own personal value system.
Does this mean that Cain did not assault or otherwise harass women that he worked with? Of course not. When those stories come out they should be evaluated on their own merits, but this one? Booooolshit.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Feminism At Its Most Thoughtless
Saw this article in The Atlantic regarding recent allegations of sexual harassment by Herman Cain. It contained this gem:
I'm glad that was written because I've been making this argument for years. Every time I try to have a specific, fact based discussion on the topic all kinds of "automated responses" are given by the so-called feminist whom apparently are convinced of their own infalibility on the subject. They should take the comment by this individual to shape up their game.
Feminism, at its most thoughtless, engendered an overbroad and unduly subjective definition of sexual harassment that includes speech and behaviors ranging from offensive remarks to actual assaults. Feminism, at its most thoughtless, equated every trivial discussion of sexual relations with political discourse and framed every allegation of sexual misconduct as presumptively true.
I'm glad that was written because I've been making this argument for years. Every time I try to have a specific, fact based discussion on the topic all kinds of "automated responses" are given by the so-called feminist whom apparently are convinced of their own infalibility on the subject. They should take the comment by this individual to shape up their game.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
The Future Apple
With the passing of Steve Jobs many are going to have their concerns regarding Apple's future move to the forefront of their minds. Anyone who was paying attention knew this was coming once the first treatment for pancreatic cancer, which has a high mortality rate, did not leave us with a Jobs that was "fuller". But this isn't about that, this is about Apple.
I saw a headline for David Pogue's NY Times piece entitled "Often Imitated Never Duplicated". I haven't read the piece but anyone with Apple Inc. on the brain has to think that this means as much within Apple as it does without. I'm not one of those people who proclaim stuff like "We would still be using DOS" or "we wouldn't have chat" or other such nonsense. I've been around long enough to see ideas I came up with as a child (and older) be implemented by someone else. No, the ideas will still flow but what is unique with Jobs and other visionary men and women is the ability and willingness to execute. Apple Inc. has been able to execute and lead but those of us who were around during the "dark days" knows that Apple Inc. has been very much an extension of Jobs. We saw what happened when other people took over the company.
I'm not saying that Apple has to go in that direction. I understand that Jobs and co has done a great deal of work of educating it's leadership and other employees on the Apple Way (tm). I'm also sure that the reason for Apple U, as I hear it's called, was created with the "dark days" foremost in the mind.
I watched the iPhone 4s video yesterday and I was saying to myself that Tim Cook is not Steve Jobs. Not that his presentation was bad. It simply wasn't "Jobsian". I've gotten used to seeing Phil Schiller et-al go and make announcements about products and personally I think Phil is more the stage manager than Cook. This underscores my concern. Whereas Jobs could command an Apple show by himself if he liked, there is already a split in the leadership. Again, I'm not saying that this is necessarily bad but it does reflect a fundamental shift at Apple. Jobs, while still in the flesh should be assumed to be the glue that held the top talent together with him gone, that mediating presence is gone and as with any organization that loses it's founding head those left often have a fraction (how ever large) of the...What shall I call it? Talent.
Some may say that I'm putting too much emphasis on Jobs. They will point out that Cook and others have been running the show for quite some time now. They will say that Apple has plenty of product in the pipeline. I agree. In the short term Apple Inc. will be the Apple we've known since the return of Steve, which is not the Apple I knew in 1989. Which is not a bad thing. The long term question is the one posed by David Pogue. Will Apple become an imitation of itself once the "Jobs products" and "Jobs ideas" have been flushed out the system?
I suppose we'll all know the answer to this question when the first non-Jobs product is announced.
I saw a headline for David Pogue's NY Times piece entitled "Often Imitated Never Duplicated". I haven't read the piece but anyone with Apple Inc. on the brain has to think that this means as much within Apple as it does without. I'm not one of those people who proclaim stuff like "We would still be using DOS" or "we wouldn't have chat" or other such nonsense. I've been around long enough to see ideas I came up with as a child (and older) be implemented by someone else. No, the ideas will still flow but what is unique with Jobs and other visionary men and women is the ability and willingness to execute. Apple Inc. has been able to execute and lead but those of us who were around during the "dark days" knows that Apple Inc. has been very much an extension of Jobs. We saw what happened when other people took over the company.
I'm not saying that Apple has to go in that direction. I understand that Jobs and co has done a great deal of work of educating it's leadership and other employees on the Apple Way (tm). I'm also sure that the reason for Apple U, as I hear it's called, was created with the "dark days" foremost in the mind.
I watched the iPhone 4s video yesterday and I was saying to myself that Tim Cook is not Steve Jobs. Not that his presentation was bad. It simply wasn't "Jobsian". I've gotten used to seeing Phil Schiller et-al go and make announcements about products and personally I think Phil is more the stage manager than Cook. This underscores my concern. Whereas Jobs could command an Apple show by himself if he liked, there is already a split in the leadership. Again, I'm not saying that this is necessarily bad but it does reflect a fundamental shift at Apple. Jobs, while still in the flesh should be assumed to be the glue that held the top talent together with him gone, that mediating presence is gone and as with any organization that loses it's founding head those left often have a fraction (how ever large) of the...What shall I call it? Talent.
Some may say that I'm putting too much emphasis on Jobs. They will point out that Cook and others have been running the show for quite some time now. They will say that Apple has plenty of product in the pipeline. I agree. In the short term Apple Inc. will be the Apple we've known since the return of Steve, which is not the Apple I knew in 1989. Which is not a bad thing. The long term question is the one posed by David Pogue. Will Apple become an imitation of itself once the "Jobs products" and "Jobs ideas" have been flushed out the system?
I suppose we'll all know the answer to this question when the first non-Jobs product is announced.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
