Great stuff as usual, Roy, but one thing-- Ryan Cooper isn't a Republican, or a conservative, or a wingnut. He's The Week's left wing, and shares progressives' longstanding distrust of Cuomo (like yours!)
Oh, I promise you he's the anti-Linker. I mean, c'mon, that dude used to work for Giuliani, and now he's their house Reasonable Centrist (lately, he has been very concerned!). Seriously, I've been reading him with great enjoyment for the past year-- he's a recent find. I'd suggest starting here: https://theweek.com/articles/949567/americas-narrow-idea-freedom-literally-killing
Very, very well said. I think the GOP hypocrisy accusation against Dems about sexual harassment comes from the same place as their rage when white liberals support BLM and racial equity. They themselves can’t conceive that any person would REALLY support such things, so they assume it must be just social justice warrior posing.
They lack morals and political policies (other than self-aggrandizement), yes, but the also lack imagination and self-reflection. I mean, the party that raised up Donald fucking Trump to the highest office in the land can’t be very good at examining their own beliefs and recalibrating when necessary.
As for Cuomo, he sounds like a standard-issue sex pest and should be gone. With these guys, as soon as the second accusation surfaces you know the floodgates are about to open.
Cuomo's arrogance and ambition have made him a lot of enemies over the years. His "don't I sound like a really loud version of Mario?" oratory style was always enough for me. The Independent Democratic Conference bullshit, where a bunch of Democratic state senators broke away to caucus with Republicans, turning Democratic majority control over to Republicans, all with Cuomo's tacit approval and something he exploited, made him an even bigger target. With the nursing home deaths cover-up suddenly there's blood in the water, so he's ripe for something like sexual harrassment accusations. (The latter have been particularly weak tea IMO -- A strip poker joke? "Can I kiss you?" Although I would have loved to hear Trump defend himself by saying "I always ask first, 'Can I grab your pussy?' Then I do it anyway.')
I wouldn't be sorry to see him defeated, but I'd hate to see any Democrat resign over the current shite. Not when all the Madison Cawthorns in GOP-land remain in office.
Sexual harassment doesn’t just occur when some guy propositions you for sex. As a young woman growing up and living first in NYC and then Philadelphia, I can count the number of times a man pushed the harassment to the point of demanding sex just on the fingers of one hand with fingers to spare. But the number of times I was subjected to squirm-inducing suggestive comments or was inappropriately touched, fondled, or groped are so numerous I can’t even begin to count them. Sexual harassment occurs when men are absolutely indifferent to women’s discomfort and women’s bodies are treated like public property.
I once had a bunch of conservative friends claim that sexual harassment was no big deal and women were making too much out of men "just being complimentary." So I told them to imagine the following scenario:
You work with a man who is built like a linebacker. Someone who could easily overpower you physically. And this man is gay, and he starts making sexually suggestive comments about how he'd like to spend some time with you. Are you feeling a little uncomfortable now?
So you go to his boss and that boss just dismisses your concerns. And your co-worker becomes a little more aggressive. Remember that this is someone who could completely overpower you. How uncomfortable are you feeling now? How about when that co-worker follows you into the restroom? Or the supply closet?
I had that discussion once with a dude who kept trying to show me his dick at work. It ended up being him--a guy who could easily have overpowered me, and we worked in teams of two so I was with him alone all day--yelling about how much he fucking hated gay people as well. (He knew I was bi. It was part of why he wanted to show me his dick. Which yes, he did a couple of times.)
This is a conversation you guys have to have with each other. Women can't do this, because that is the exact problem. So thanks.
This is probably true, though. Even if you try, it's still entrenched, so you guys probably can't shun each other into good behavior. It can help, though, and I don't think it can be done without it.
It's a well documented fact that men are scum and the patriarchy is past the point of being of much benefit. Seriously. The sooner it's overthrown, the better.
The patriarchy can go to hell, but dudes are generally okay. Had one myself for a very long time. We joke, but it really isn't all of you, or an inherent thing about you.
Thanks for doing this, but with conservative men I worry it’s as likely to play into their homophobia as make them reconsider their entitlement. I don’t know what the most effective response would really be guy to guy, but I do know the behavior won’t stop until men lose status with other men for engaging in it.
I think it may work okay if you, the person doing it, has the ability to walk them through the whole scenario. I just got yelled over and we never got back to the subject of Why This Isn't Cool until he showed me his dick again.
Look, I've seen dicks. A lot of them, including a hell of a lot I didn't want to see. I can mostly ignore it. I can only cope with so much trauma, so there's a lot of shit I taught myself to ignore when it was happening on a regular basis.
So this wasn't a big deal, idiot showing me his dick. It's the implied threat of what else can happen. (This is the same problem I have with "Gimme a kiss" and "Can I smell your hair.") I wasn't *traumatized* by it. But it just gave him something else to lowkey make me hate my job and my day with, so I gave up.
And he's probably still out there doing this shit to people, and to gay men because I made that link explicit without actually showing him the problem.
You have to commit to fighting with the bully if you're going to make them stop, because if you give up halfway through it just reinforces their bullshit. And you have to be able to commit to that, because if they can force you to give up halfway through, it not only reinforces it but it gives them that ego surge that makes them exponentially worse. And as a woman, and as a gay person, and as a smaller person, I couldn't win that. I probably knew that, but my entire life is desperation warring with resignation. That time the desperation won. And because it wasn't enough to make it stop, resignation is much more likely to win now.
And then they've taught you the lesson.
You guys, you cishet guys, have to do this work. But you have to do it carefully and thoughtfully, and some people need you to show them what they're doing a different way.
The "What if" thing works well on bullies who are mostly just going "Well, why is that so bad?" and not nearly so well on the ones going "That's why it's fun." I hate to put this on you, but you have to be able to figure out which lesson will backfire with which asshole. If it helps, you can usually ask the women around you, because we're pretty good at spotting it.
I dunno. Everything's a mess, and I need to quarantine myself emotionally today, I guess, because I'm going to upset a lot of people who aren't me if I don't. I'm struggling a bit. Please don't take it personally. It might help to know that I deleted like three paragraphs there of WAY TMI. This, amazingly, is what I thought was useful. Sorry.
Cuomo sounds like a typical entitled male with an inflated ego, and not anyone I'd want to know personally. I just don't think his boorishness -- as revealed so far -- rises to a level that requires his resignation as governor. If more accusers come forward describing how he "inappropriately touched, fondled, or groped" them then that's a different story. As it is, if we want Democrats to have power so that we and they can make a better world, or at least escape the cruelty of the depraved Republican enterprise, then it's insanely self-destructive to expect that they will be perfect human beings for every minute of their lives. If we do, we consign ourselves to live under the worst Republican slimeballs. Last I looked, 23 women accused Trump of actual sexual misconduct, including rape, and the GOP couldn't give a shit.
Ironically, in my house it's my wife who's most adamant that Cuomo shouldn't resign over these accusations.
As I have noted elsewhere, it is tragic that THIS is what might get him out of office. He should have been turfed out long ago when he disbanded the state ethics commission because it was going to look at him.
It’s disproportionate. Between this and his Covid shit show I think we here in NY may well be done with him. And being an asshole and a scumbag shouldn’t require resignation. And if it is, where do you draw the line or is an inhuman level of perfection the only behavior tolerable?
I was with you until the bit about Republicans trying to be less berserk than Trump. Instead I think they embrace the suck. Nunes, Jordan, Cruz, Rubio, Johnson, Taylor, Paxton, etc. Not to mention my MAGA neighbors (no masks! let my kid play sports! impeach Biden!). There’s a level of amorality among Republicans that isn’t unique with Trump. They love him because he’s as selfish, spiteful and ignorant as they are.
"There’s a level of amorality among Republicans that isn’t unique with Trump. They love him because he’s as selfish, spiteful and ignorant as they are."
All of this. We're supposed to notice and call out the Cuomos in the Democratic Party *because* we know that this is SOP for the Republicans.
Yet, without any citation or reference, the geniuses at Axios says by not forcing Cuomo to resign, the Dems are being hypocrites. And for the life of me, such as it is, and up on the news as I am, I can't remember a comparable Republican who resigned over bad behavior. Maybe Mark Sanford was the last?
JFC, they’re cool with a POTUS directly responsible for the deaths of approximately a quarter million people from Covid, who has been subverting the last election since before the first vote was cast, who invited a violent riot in the Capitol and ensured there’d be insufficient security present and you think any of them have any sense of morality or decency? Seriously?
I get you, but seeing them try to ape Trump and wind up looking like/being Ted Cruz -- a nerd playing a jock -- I think the discomfort of most of them is obvious to me. (Bred-in-labs creeps like Madison Cawthorn are a different story.) Their discomfort comes not from a moral place, because as I said they have no morals, but from a social one: The alpha sets the tone and every poor monkey must follow.
Ones like Cawthorn are scary. An absolute nuclear reactor of ambition coupled with a moral and ethical black hole and a sociopathic mind. A younger, more evilly charismatic Greg Abbott.
He has charismatic rapey Mitch McConnell vibes. I don't usually hope people get hit by a car and die, but he's going to have a body count if he gets to where he wants to go, so....
He already got hit by a car (more or less) and turned it into an "inspiring comeback from adversity" backstory. He's like a combination of Bob Roberts and Greg Stillson. Here's hoping all the sex pest allegations, along with the Eagle's Nest stuff, keep him from advancing any further.
Yeah, it's why I added the last part. I could have wished coronavirus death on him, but the fact that his friend *pulled him from the car* and he still lies that he was "left to die" means this is the sort of poetic justice my goddess can get behind.
Cawthorn, Abbott et al aren't anywhere as scary as the voters who keep electing them and their ilk -- a party proven to be completely unfit for office.
"I think all politicians I don’t like should resign, and for the same reason: because I don’t like them."
Similarly, I think all Republicans (in an ideal universe, not suggesting any acts by anyone) should be smite (smited? smote?). From a certain a POV, one can argue that the pandemic was a plague from god but the Republicans didn't get the message, choosing to respond with various forms of denial.
As for Andy:
He got all of Mario's bad traits, none of the good (although other than being eloquent, I cannot recall what he did actually good; I think there some things): Petty, vindictive, arrogant.
That said, the first two women are complaining about him being a pig and a dick, a scumbag, if you will. The third, of course, is complaining of Andy being handsy -- committing an actual battery -- but, TBH, it was at a reception which is a little bit like a parallel universe with slightly different rules, if you know what I mean. But my point is, as a licensed asshole, I find resignation a disproportionate punishment. Better to be successfully primaried by someone electable because god knows NY's Republicans are as awful as all the rest. I should say, that position is based on being an asshole so if someone seriously thinks being an asshole-while-Democrat deserves being forced to resign for what Andy did, okay.
As for Kathleen Rice: Previously Nassau County DA with a highly sketchy record, apropos prosecutors in higher office. So her opinion re Andy, well, fuck her opinion.
"So their shtick is to claim Cuomo proves liberals are all hypocrites..." Mike Allen, one of the DC press corps' great fellationists (or is that fellaters??) said that by not insisting on Andy's resignation, the dems are engaging in complete hypocrisy. Inexplicably, Allen neglected to cite a single supporting instance. (I checked on the link to confirm.) Again: Dunno that resignation is the proper response for being a pig or piece of shit.
As for the Dr. Seuss thing, does anyone who doesn't make a living spewing BS 4 $$ or the idiots addicted to being exposed to said BS care that the owners of the copyrights decides to stop having six poorly selling books published anymore? Or that maybe said copyright owners feel that said books are bad for the brand?
And I said at some blog's comments section, offering a solution because I'm not just an asshole:
"The estate should sell limited rights to some conservatives to re-illustrate and republish the books without anything on them identifying or reference to Seuss. Might be of less value to the conservatives than the real things; still, there'd be a market for them. I know it wouldn't be the same to them. Still."
All good, but see above: This isn't a moral issue, but a political one. Just as you implied that the Dr. Seuss isn't really a moral issue but a market one. People these days are fond of mislabeling these things.
I’m saying as a documented asshole and scumbag, I don’t a forced resignation is appropriate, or good for the people of New York. Whether political or moral or ethical.
And the mislabeling thing: far more from conservatives, no? They can’t say anything without likely perverting the language.
"one can argue that the pandemic was a plague from god but the Republicans didn't get the message, choosing to respond with various forms of denial."
If God is real, then He/She/They/It should come back down here and set things straight instead of letting humanity argue over which self-contradictory holy book that sets impossible standards is the right one.
The racism is there (it's always there) but I don't think it's driving the bus. I believe the deeper engine is fear. These are my people. They see a future where they are less and less at the center of all things, and it triggers every insecurity a person can have. Much like slave masters fearing the wrath of their property, they assume the larger culture will "cancel" them completely given half a chance, since that's what they'd like to do to anything that makes them uncomfortable.
Well, what have they done other than cancelling everyone that isn't sufficiently like them?
And, you know, they're right to be at least somewhat concerned because they'll soon be a minority where the majority isn't so much POC but victims of whites' historic, systemic abuse.
I'm concerned that sexuality is being criminalized for political advantage and not just in the political sphere. I also don't see Cuomo's fumblings as comparable in any way to the sinister power play of the sadist Drumpf. 'Can I have a kiss?' used to be and still should be an acceptable proposition. It certainly isn't similar or really comparable to an abusive situation except when the paradigm is being stretched to make a case.
Sacrificing capable people on the ever-expanding altars of political correctness and sexual ethical mazes seems to be a game only Democrats are playing.
Of course the perfectly ruthless opposition will exploit it at every opportunity.
Well, like Clint Eastwood said, deserve's got nothin' to do with it. I meant what I said: This isn't a moral issue, but a political issue approached by moral people. I might agree with you if I were deciding the employment status of an executive, but it's irrelevant to this case: to maintain their viability the Party has to address it. That their opposition is a bunch of crooks and freaks is just an added degree of difficulty.
I think the harrassment allegations are getting wide support because his career might already be mortally wounded by the nursing home cover-up allegations.
I've been kissed by people going "Can I have a kiss" even when I didn't want to say yes. But I knew saying no would make a scene, change it from something I could remember as a weird jokey thing into an actual aggressive and angry attempt to control me, even if in a very minor way. I knew that because it's happened before. Not all guys, of course, but this is also how those things happen that are a lot like rape, where you don't say no because that would mean you're going to get raped instead of just having shitty sex with someone you will never be alone with again if you have to fucking walk four miles home from a party to get away from them.
Am I stretching the paradigm? Maybe. But it's worth remembering that women have so much abuse history that we don't see our choices as "I can say yes or no and either is fine". Even if we personally don't have that history firsthand, we have had it pounded into us, and this is what rape culture is. Not just guys thinking "I'm just being cheeky or persuasive", but also women--and gender minorities--knowing that that's basically what we're here for and we can't change it.
We also know we'll get harassed about it afterwards if we say anything and blamed even if we don't, so it's hard to step out there and say "Look, this shit isn't okay." So we take whatever shit we're about to get from whoever latched onto us to get it over with. We don't have any good choices. Remember that, please, when you give us choices that maybe aren't as free as you think.
I love you guys, but this is a blind spot many men have because you mostly haven't been made to see it.
Yes. Asking a staffer or fellow employee (someone you are not on a date with) “can I have a kiss?” is not “cheeky,” it’s inappropriately aggressive because it makes the questionee uncomfortable in just the way you describe.
It distresses me that some of us are falling back on “cantcha take a joke” mitigation of stuff I was hoping we’d see an end to in this era....
Years ago I was a paralegal at a law firm with six male attorneys and a mostly female support staff. One of the attorneys was a smart, funny guy who could be sardonic, even sharp, but I noticed women tended to gravitate toward him.
I figured it out when one of the younger women confided in several of us that there'd been a spirited discussion in the break room about the movie "The Untouchables". This young woman wasn't familiar with the movie at all, but was too embarrassed to admit it in front of the group, so she'd gone to this particular attorney afterwards and asked him "What is Elliot Ness?" And he told her. He didn't mock her or mansplain, he just 'splained. She appreciated that he didn't talk down to her.
I realized that's why most of the women kind of liked him. He'd look at you when you spoke, he'd listen, then he'd respond to what you said. He wasn't standing there judging you or obviously formulating his response. And he never ever acted flirtatiously, always only appropriately friendly.
After I left the firm, I got to know him and his wife better, and it turns out that he had plenty of thoughts and colorful opinions about the attractiveness of everyone. The pertinent point was that at the office, he never tipped his hand. That's a lot of what makes the "flirtatious" crap so tiresome: so many men *have* to make sure that they see that *you* see that they're being flirtatious, that you're aware that they're thinking of you in a sexual way. It's not always intended to unnerve a woman, although sometimes that's the not-so-fun part - embarrassing you and keeping you off-balance.
This particular guy treated women like people, and we appreciated it even without necessarily having analyzed it. Turns out it's pretty basic good manners.
“ That's a lot of what makes the "flirtatious" crap so tiresome: so many men *have* to make sure that they see that *you* see that they're being flirtatious, that you're aware that they're thinking of you in a sexual way.”
The closest things Republicans have to a consistent principle is their belief that white guys (especially rich, powerful ones) should be able to do or say whatever they want, without any criticism or consequences. However, the world is starting to change in ways that don't favor them. They can't really stop this process, so they do the next best thing, which is voting for politicians who make a big show out of rejecting human decency.
The core principle of Reaganism, still the dominant religion of the GOP, is that the federal government is inherently bad and is the problem with America not part of any solution to America's problems. That being the case, for the GOP, the non-defense functions of the federal government must be systematically dismantled.
This means, in turn, that the GOP cannot propose any program, law or regulation to address issues that arise at a national level. That's why, when the GOP is in power, they attempt to dismantle any regulation or program that serves the national public, which usually leaves the country in a terrible state that the Democrats have to repair - all without any cooperation from the GOP (indeed continued sabotage).
This would seem to be completely self-defeating for the GOP. And it would be except for their ability to eliminate or suppress the voting franchise just enough to keep them in power and to appeal to outright white supremacy and misogyny as their appeals to their voters.. And the sad fact is that this situation will likely continue if not get worse in the indefinite future.
We will be feeling the impact of the catastrophic 2010 mid-term elections and subsequent redistricting for decades to come.
"Republicans don’t really have a moral position on this, or even a political one, because they don’t have any morals or politics at all."
I don't know what that means, to not have any politics at all. If you mean, they have no intention regarding, or ideology about, contributing to the public weal, yes, that's true. But isn't politics, at least at first, about power? Who gets it, and how? In that respect, their politics consists, now more than ever, in duping the rubes via demagogy and lies, and suppressing the votes of everybody else. I don't see the ostensible non-plug-ugly, gentlemanly and ladylike contingents (Cornyn, Blackburn, Mitch, etc.) uncomfortable with that. Trump himself is an embarrassment to them, but following his lead isn't *that* different from biz as usual, is it?
Not to speak for Roy, but I took that comment to mean that the GOP has absolutely zero interest in governing. It's all just white grievance and culture war bullshit.
Their pitch to the rank and file is white grievance and culture war, but why do any of them want to even be in Congress? For the money, from sponsors, donors, patrons, future grifting and contacts, etc. (Plus it beats working.) Yes, they have zero interest in governing, but that doesn't mean they have zero interest in being in government. I took "politics" to refer to getting and wielding power to those ends.
They're taken care of on leaving office if they serve the Powers That Be and are allowed to keep unspent campaign contributions, not to mention the other benefits. That's pretty much enough reason for too many to run.
Plus it gets them the name recognition they need to join the punditocracy. They can forget about their responsibilities and focus on the fun stuff: TV appearances, speaking tours, peddling ghostwritten books. And all they have to do is keep saying the same stupid crap they've been spewing all along. Nice work if you can get it!
I don't have world enough and time but even by its simplest definition -- politics as the means by which decisions for the polity are made -- they are unequipped with politics. Power they can obtain, but they can accomplish very little with it and all of what they accomplish needs to be fixed immediately after they leave office. A lot of Trumpism gets associated with traditional conservatism, but his total lack of interest in the business of government really did set the tone: What are any of these guys doing besides neurotically saying and doing the stupidest possible thing because that's what Trump did? I can't see how it's even related to their own reelections anymore. That's not just bad politics, it's non-politics.
I'm glad Republicans have little interest in governing, because when they make an effort we get little kids in cages and tax breaks for zillionaires. Their laziness might be the only thing stopping them from implementing Holocaust II.
Ah, the ancient plea for a sane conservative party. You gotta wonder if the Republicans ever considered what the long-term cost of signing up with Nixon's Southern Strategy could be. I suppose they thought it was the best way to avoid the Birchers taking over, but I'd bet serious money they would have laughed at the idea that the rubes they were peddling this stuff to would take over their Party. How do you like your blue-eyed boy now, Jesse Helms.
Have you seen Republican women? Marjorie Taylor Green and Lauren Boehbert are the tip of the iceberg. Down here, we have Yvette Harrell. They're everywhere, like cockroaches.
Great stuff as usual, Roy, but one thing-- Ryan Cooper isn't a Republican, or a conservative, or a wingnut. He's The Week's left wing, and shares progressives' longstanding distrust of Cuomo (like yours!)
Ha. That's what they told me about Damon Linker. Well, I'll read some of his stuff,
Oh, I promise you he's the anti-Linker. I mean, c'mon, that dude used to work for Giuliani, and now he's their house Reasonable Centrist (lately, he has been very concerned!). Seriously, I've been reading him with great enjoyment for the past year-- he's a recent find. I'd suggest starting here: https://theweek.com/articles/949567/americas-narrow-idea-freedom-literally-killing
And this more recent thing is also good: https://theweek.com/articles/964530/democrats-may-only-have-chance-stop-america-from-becoming-oneparty-state
(I feel like we have to
Yeah, Cooper's okay, just not essential.
Very, very well said. I think the GOP hypocrisy accusation against Dems about sexual harassment comes from the same place as their rage when white liberals support BLM and racial equity. They themselves can’t conceive that any person would REALLY support such things, so they assume it must be just social justice warrior posing.
They lack morals and political policies (other than self-aggrandizement), yes, but the also lack imagination and self-reflection. I mean, the party that raised up Donald fucking Trump to the highest office in the land can’t be very good at examining their own beliefs and recalibrating when necessary.
As for Cuomo, he sounds like a standard-issue sex pest and should be gone. With these guys, as soon as the second accusation surfaces you know the floodgates are about to open.
Cuomo's arrogance and ambition have made him a lot of enemies over the years. His "don't I sound like a really loud version of Mario?" oratory style was always enough for me. The Independent Democratic Conference bullshit, where a bunch of Democratic state senators broke away to caucus with Republicans, turning Democratic majority control over to Republicans, all with Cuomo's tacit approval and something he exploited, made him an even bigger target. With the nursing home deaths cover-up suddenly there's blood in the water, so he's ripe for something like sexual harrassment accusations. (The latter have been particularly weak tea IMO -- A strip poker joke? "Can I kiss you?" Although I would have loved to hear Trump defend himself by saying "I always ask first, 'Can I grab your pussy?' Then I do it anyway.')
I wouldn't be sorry to see him defeated, but I'd hate to see any Democrat resign over the current shite. Not when all the Madison Cawthorns in GOP-land remain in office.
Sexual harassment doesn’t just occur when some guy propositions you for sex. As a young woman growing up and living first in NYC and then Philadelphia, I can count the number of times a man pushed the harassment to the point of demanding sex just on the fingers of one hand with fingers to spare. But the number of times I was subjected to squirm-inducing suggestive comments or was inappropriately touched, fondled, or groped are so numerous I can’t even begin to count them. Sexual harassment occurs when men are absolutely indifferent to women’s discomfort and women’s bodies are treated like public property.
I once had a bunch of conservative friends claim that sexual harassment was no big deal and women were making too much out of men "just being complimentary." So I told them to imagine the following scenario:
You work with a man who is built like a linebacker. Someone who could easily overpower you physically. And this man is gay, and he starts making sexually suggestive comments about how he'd like to spend some time with you. Are you feeling a little uncomfortable now?
So you go to his boss and that boss just dismisses your concerns. And your co-worker becomes a little more aggressive. Remember that this is someone who could completely overpower you. How uncomfortable are you feeling now? How about when that co-worker follows you into the restroom? Or the supply closet?
I had that discussion once with a dude who kept trying to show me his dick at work. It ended up being him--a guy who could easily have overpowered me, and we worked in teams of two so I was with him alone all day--yelling about how much he fucking hated gay people as well. (He knew I was bi. It was part of why he wanted to show me his dick. Which yes, he did a couple of times.)
This is a conversation you guys have to have with each other. Women can't do this, because that is the exact problem. So thanks.
100% this. Men will stop this behavior when they are ostracized by other men for doing it, and not before.
Men aren't capable, as a group, to provide enough ostracizing. They have to be removed from power.
This is probably true, though. Even if you try, it's still entrenched, so you guys probably can't shun each other into good behavior. It can help, though, and I don't think it can be done without it.
It's a well documented fact that men are scum and the patriarchy is past the point of being of much benefit. Seriously. The sooner it's overthrown, the better.
The patriarchy can go to hell, but dudes are generally okay. Had one myself for a very long time. We joke, but it really isn't all of you, or an inherent thing about you.
Thanks for doing this, but with conservative men I worry it’s as likely to play into their homophobia as make them reconsider their entitlement. I don’t know what the most effective response would really be guy to guy, but I do know the behavior won’t stop until men lose status with other men for engaging in it.
Playing in to their homophobia has to be part of it to make them understand the nature of threatening behavior.
I think it may work okay if you, the person doing it, has the ability to walk them through the whole scenario. I just got yelled over and we never got back to the subject of Why This Isn't Cool until he showed me his dick again.
Look, I've seen dicks. A lot of them, including a hell of a lot I didn't want to see. I can mostly ignore it. I can only cope with so much trauma, so there's a lot of shit I taught myself to ignore when it was happening on a regular basis.
So this wasn't a big deal, idiot showing me his dick. It's the implied threat of what else can happen. (This is the same problem I have with "Gimme a kiss" and "Can I smell your hair.") I wasn't *traumatized* by it. But it just gave him something else to lowkey make me hate my job and my day with, so I gave up.
And he's probably still out there doing this shit to people, and to gay men because I made that link explicit without actually showing him the problem.
You have to commit to fighting with the bully if you're going to make them stop, because if you give up halfway through it just reinforces their bullshit. And you have to be able to commit to that, because if they can force you to give up halfway through, it not only reinforces it but it gives them that ego surge that makes them exponentially worse. And as a woman, and as a gay person, and as a smaller person, I couldn't win that. I probably knew that, but my entire life is desperation warring with resignation. That time the desperation won. And because it wasn't enough to make it stop, resignation is much more likely to win now.
And then they've taught you the lesson.
You guys, you cishet guys, have to do this work. But you have to do it carefully and thoughtfully, and some people need you to show them what they're doing a different way.
The "What if" thing works well on bullies who are mostly just going "Well, why is that so bad?" and not nearly so well on the ones going "That's why it's fun." I hate to put this on you, but you have to be able to figure out which lesson will backfire with which asshole. If it helps, you can usually ask the women around you, because we're pretty good at spotting it.
I dunno. Everything's a mess, and I need to quarantine myself emotionally today, I guess, because I'm going to upset a lot of people who aren't me if I don't. I'm struggling a bit. Please don't take it personally. It might help to know that I deleted like three paragraphs there of WAY TMI. This, amazingly, is what I thought was useful. Sorry.
No worries!
Cuomo sounds like a typical entitled male with an inflated ego, and not anyone I'd want to know personally. I just don't think his boorishness -- as revealed so far -- rises to a level that requires his resignation as governor. If more accusers come forward describing how he "inappropriately touched, fondled, or groped" them then that's a different story. As it is, if we want Democrats to have power so that we and they can make a better world, or at least escape the cruelty of the depraved Republican enterprise, then it's insanely self-destructive to expect that they will be perfect human beings for every minute of their lives. If we do, we consign ourselves to live under the worst Republican slimeballs. Last I looked, 23 women accused Trump of actual sexual misconduct, including rape, and the GOP couldn't give a shit.
Ironically, in my house it's my wife who's most adamant that Cuomo shouldn't resign over these accusations.
As I have noted elsewhere, it is tragic that THIS is what might get him out of office. He should have been turfed out long ago when he disbanded the state ethics commission because it was going to look at him.
EDIT: 26 women accused Trump of actual sexual misconduct.
if we want Democrats to have power so that we and they can make a better world
We need to get people like Andrew Cuomo out of office
Resignation under these circumstances isn't the solution. Primarying him is. Vote him out of office. He's going nowhere from the governorship.
Why isn't resigning a solution? Cuomo has easily beat back primary challenges his last two election
It’s disproportionate. Between this and his Covid shit show I think we here in NY may well be done with him. And being an asshole and a scumbag shouldn’t require resignation. And if it is, where do you draw the line or is an inhuman level of perfection the only behavior tolerable?
More or less my point.
So not as bad as Madison Cawthorn is the level you think we should shoot for? Could you at least set the bar above the ground
I was with you until the bit about Republicans trying to be less berserk than Trump. Instead I think they embrace the suck. Nunes, Jordan, Cruz, Rubio, Johnson, Taylor, Paxton, etc. Not to mention my MAGA neighbors (no masks! let my kid play sports! impeach Biden!). There’s a level of amorality among Republicans that isn’t unique with Trump. They love him because he’s as selfish, spiteful and ignorant as they are.
"There’s a level of amorality among Republicans that isn’t unique with Trump. They love him because he’s as selfish, spiteful and ignorant as they are."
All of this. We're supposed to notice and call out the Cuomos in the Democratic Party *because* we know that this is SOP for the Republicans.
Yet, without any citation or reference, the geniuses at Axios says by not forcing Cuomo to resign, the Dems are being hypocrites. And for the life of me, such as it is, and up on the news as I am, I can't remember a comparable Republican who resigned over bad behavior. Maybe Mark Sanford was the last?
Have Republicans ever said that harassment by Republicans is bad? So no hypocrisy
JFC, they’re cool with a POTUS directly responsible for the deaths of approximately a quarter million people from Covid, who has been subverting the last election since before the first vote was cast, who invited a violent riot in the Capitol and ensured there’d be insufficient security present and you think any of them have any sense of morality or decency? Seriously?
I get you, but seeing them try to ape Trump and wind up looking like/being Ted Cruz -- a nerd playing a jock -- I think the discomfort of most of them is obvious to me. (Bred-in-labs creeps like Madison Cawthorn are a different story.) Their discomfort comes not from a moral place, because as I said they have no morals, but from a social one: The alpha sets the tone and every poor monkey must follow.
Ones like Cawthorn are scary. An absolute nuclear reactor of ambition coupled with a moral and ethical black hole and a sociopathic mind. A younger, more evilly charismatic Greg Abbott.
He has charismatic rapey Mitch McConnell vibes. I don't usually hope people get hit by a car and die, but he's going to have a body count if he gets to where he wants to go, so....
He already got hit by a car (more or less) and turned it into an "inspiring comeback from adversity" backstory. He's like a combination of Bob Roberts and Greg Stillson. Here's hoping all the sex pest allegations, along with the Eagle's Nest stuff, keep him from advancing any further.
Yeah, it's why I added the last part. I could have wished coronavirus death on him, but the fact that his friend *pulled him from the car* and he still lies that he was "left to die" means this is the sort of poetic justice my goddess can get behind.
I can’t help uncharitably thinking “The Aluminum Nazi”
Well, the car already tried and failed...
Cawthorn, Abbott et al aren't anywhere as scary as the voters who keep electing them and their ilk -- a party proven to be completely unfit for office.
"I think all politicians I don’t like should resign, and for the same reason: because I don’t like them."
Similarly, I think all Republicans (in an ideal universe, not suggesting any acts by anyone) should be smite (smited? smote?). From a certain a POV, one can argue that the pandemic was a plague from god but the Republicans didn't get the message, choosing to respond with various forms of denial.
As for Andy:
He got all of Mario's bad traits, none of the good (although other than being eloquent, I cannot recall what he did actually good; I think there some things): Petty, vindictive, arrogant.
That said, the first two women are complaining about him being a pig and a dick, a scumbag, if you will. The third, of course, is complaining of Andy being handsy -- committing an actual battery -- but, TBH, it was at a reception which is a little bit like a parallel universe with slightly different rules, if you know what I mean. But my point is, as a licensed asshole, I find resignation a disproportionate punishment. Better to be successfully primaried by someone electable because god knows NY's Republicans are as awful as all the rest. I should say, that position is based on being an asshole so if someone seriously thinks being an asshole-while-Democrat deserves being forced to resign for what Andy did, okay.
As for Kathleen Rice: Previously Nassau County DA with a highly sketchy record, apropos prosecutors in higher office. So her opinion re Andy, well, fuck her opinion.
"So their shtick is to claim Cuomo proves liberals are all hypocrites..." Mike Allen, one of the DC press corps' great fellationists (or is that fellaters??) said that by not insisting on Andy's resignation, the dems are engaging in complete hypocrisy. Inexplicably, Allen neglected to cite a single supporting instance. (I checked on the link to confirm.) Again: Dunno that resignation is the proper response for being a pig or piece of shit.
As for the Dr. Seuss thing, does anyone who doesn't make a living spewing BS 4 $$ or the idiots addicted to being exposed to said BS care that the owners of the copyrights decides to stop having six poorly selling books published anymore? Or that maybe said copyright owners feel that said books are bad for the brand?
And I said at some blog's comments section, offering a solution because I'm not just an asshole:
"The estate should sell limited rights to some conservatives to re-illustrate and republish the books without anything on them identifying or reference to Seuss. Might be of less value to the conservatives than the real things; still, there'd be a market for them. I know it wouldn't be the same to them. Still."
All good, but see above: This isn't a moral issue, but a political one. Just as you implied that the Dr. Seuss isn't really a moral issue but a market one. People these days are fond of mislabeling these things.
I’m saying as a documented asshole and scumbag, I don’t a forced resignation is appropriate, or good for the people of New York. Whether political or moral or ethical.
And the mislabeling thing: far more from conservatives, no? They can’t say anything without likely perverting the language.
"one can argue that the pandemic was a plague from god but the Republicans didn't get the message, choosing to respond with various forms of denial."
If God is real, then He/She/They/It should come back down here and set things straight instead of letting humanity argue over which self-contradictory holy book that sets impossible standards is the right one.
Don’t get me started on religion generally, Xianity much more so.
They care about the Dr. Seuss thing. The constitutional right to display racism in public is one of the few issues where they really do have some authentic emotion. (This piece which I got to from Roy's twitter feed as it happens https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/im-all-for-letting-the-free-market-decide-things-unless-it-decides-to-stop-publishing-racist-childrens-books)
Well, as I’ve said above my quota, conservatives don’t like or fully support the free market. Fuckers are very picky.
*the constitutional right to perform racism in public with no negative consequences
The racism is there (it's always there) but I don't think it's driving the bus. I believe the deeper engine is fear. These are my people. They see a future where they are less and less at the center of all things, and it triggers every insecurity a person can have. Much like slave masters fearing the wrath of their property, they assume the larger culture will "cancel" them completely given half a chance, since that's what they'd like to do to anything that makes them uncomfortable.
Well, what have they done other than cancelling everyone that isn't sufficiently like them?
And, you know, they're right to be at least somewhat concerned because they'll soon be a minority where the majority isn't so much POC but victims of whites' historic, systemic abuse.
I'm concerned that sexuality is being criminalized for political advantage and not just in the political sphere. I also don't see Cuomo's fumblings as comparable in any way to the sinister power play of the sadist Drumpf. 'Can I have a kiss?' used to be and still should be an acceptable proposition. It certainly isn't similar or really comparable to an abusive situation except when the paradigm is being stretched to make a case.
Sacrificing capable people on the ever-expanding altars of political correctness and sexual ethical mazes seems to be a game only Democrats are playing.
Of course the perfectly ruthless opposition will exploit it at every opportunity.
Well, like Clint Eastwood said, deserve's got nothin' to do with it. I meant what I said: This isn't a moral issue, but a political issue approached by moral people. I might agree with you if I were deciding the employment status of an executive, but it's irrelevant to this case: to maintain their viability the Party has to address it. That their opposition is a bunch of crooks and freaks is just an added degree of difficulty.
"That their opposition is a bunch of crooks and freaks is just an added degree of difficulty."
Degree of difficulty ~ 3.9
I think the harrassment allegations are getting wide support because his career might already be mortally wounded by the nursing home cover-up allegations.
I've been kissed by people going "Can I have a kiss" even when I didn't want to say yes. But I knew saying no would make a scene, change it from something I could remember as a weird jokey thing into an actual aggressive and angry attempt to control me, even if in a very minor way. I knew that because it's happened before. Not all guys, of course, but this is also how those things happen that are a lot like rape, where you don't say no because that would mean you're going to get raped instead of just having shitty sex with someone you will never be alone with again if you have to fucking walk four miles home from a party to get away from them.
Am I stretching the paradigm? Maybe. But it's worth remembering that women have so much abuse history that we don't see our choices as "I can say yes or no and either is fine". Even if we personally don't have that history firsthand, we have had it pounded into us, and this is what rape culture is. Not just guys thinking "I'm just being cheeky or persuasive", but also women--and gender minorities--knowing that that's basically what we're here for and we can't change it.
We also know we'll get harassed about it afterwards if we say anything and blamed even if we don't, so it's hard to step out there and say "Look, this shit isn't okay." So we take whatever shit we're about to get from whoever latched onto us to get it over with. We don't have any good choices. Remember that, please, when you give us choices that maybe aren't as free as you think.
I love you guys, but this is a blind spot many men have because you mostly haven't been made to see it.
Yes. Asking a staffer or fellow employee (someone you are not on a date with) “can I have a kiss?” is not “cheeky,” it’s inappropriately aggressive because it makes the questionee uncomfortable in just the way you describe.
It distresses me that some of us are falling back on “cantcha take a joke” mitigation of stuff I was hoping we’d see an end to in this era....
Years ago I was a paralegal at a law firm with six male attorneys and a mostly female support staff. One of the attorneys was a smart, funny guy who could be sardonic, even sharp, but I noticed women tended to gravitate toward him.
I figured it out when one of the younger women confided in several of us that there'd been a spirited discussion in the break room about the movie "The Untouchables". This young woman wasn't familiar with the movie at all, but was too embarrassed to admit it in front of the group, so she'd gone to this particular attorney afterwards and asked him "What is Elliot Ness?" And he told her. He didn't mock her or mansplain, he just 'splained. She appreciated that he didn't talk down to her.
I realized that's why most of the women kind of liked him. He'd look at you when you spoke, he'd listen, then he'd respond to what you said. He wasn't standing there judging you or obviously formulating his response. And he never ever acted flirtatiously, always only appropriately friendly.
After I left the firm, I got to know him and his wife better, and it turns out that he had plenty of thoughts and colorful opinions about the attractiveness of everyone. The pertinent point was that at the office, he never tipped his hand. That's a lot of what makes the "flirtatious" crap so tiresome: so many men *have* to make sure that they see that *you* see that they're being flirtatious, that you're aware that they're thinking of you in a sexual way. It's not always intended to unnerve a woman, although sometimes that's the not-so-fun part - embarrassing you and keeping you off-balance.
This particular guy treated women like people, and we appreciated it even without necessarily having analyzed it. Turns out it's pretty basic good manners.
“ That's a lot of what makes the "flirtatious" crap so tiresome: so many men *have* to make sure that they see that *you* see that they're being flirtatious, that you're aware that they're thinking of you in a sexual way.”
So so so much yes.
The look on her face...:
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/c_fill,f_auto,fl_progressive,g_center,h_675,pg_1,q_80,w_1200/vzdbk09ptnnnvubfiazq.jpg
Ugh, Lucianne Goldberg. I’d forgotten about that shambling, malevolent gossip who whelped Jonah Goldberg.
The closest things Republicans have to a consistent principle is their belief that white guys (especially rich, powerful ones) should be able to do or say whatever they want, without any criticism or consequences. However, the world is starting to change in ways that don't favor them. They can't really stop this process, so they do the next best thing, which is voting for politicians who make a big show out of rejecting human decency.
What you attribute to the Republicans is what the Founders designed. Some call what they designed democracy, I call it the tyranny of the minority.
No worries. I can tell a vent when I read one!
And although the Internet sucks for this, i'm sending supportive vibes.
"Oh, you say you're against sexual harassment? Then why does sexual harassment still exist? Guess you're a hypocrite, sugar tits."
The core principle of Reaganism, still the dominant religion of the GOP, is that the federal government is inherently bad and is the problem with America not part of any solution to America's problems. That being the case, for the GOP, the non-defense functions of the federal government must be systematically dismantled.
This means, in turn, that the GOP cannot propose any program, law or regulation to address issues that arise at a national level. That's why, when the GOP is in power, they attempt to dismantle any regulation or program that serves the national public, which usually leaves the country in a terrible state that the Democrats have to repair - all without any cooperation from the GOP (indeed continued sabotage).
This would seem to be completely self-defeating for the GOP. And it would be except for their ability to eliminate or suppress the voting franchise just enough to keep them in power and to appeal to outright white supremacy and misogyny as their appeals to their voters.. And the sad fact is that this situation will likely continue if not get worse in the indefinite future.
We will be feeling the impact of the catastrophic 2010 mid-term elections and subsequent redistricting for decades to come.
"Republicans don’t really have a moral position on this, or even a political one, because they don’t have any morals or politics at all."
I don't know what that means, to not have any politics at all. If you mean, they have no intention regarding, or ideology about, contributing to the public weal, yes, that's true. But isn't politics, at least at first, about power? Who gets it, and how? In that respect, their politics consists, now more than ever, in duping the rubes via demagogy and lies, and suppressing the votes of everybody else. I don't see the ostensible non-plug-ugly, gentlemanly and ladylike contingents (Cornyn, Blackburn, Mitch, etc.) uncomfortable with that. Trump himself is an embarrassment to them, but following his lead isn't *that* different from biz as usual, is it?
Not to speak for Roy, but I took that comment to mean that the GOP has absolutely zero interest in governing. It's all just white grievance and culture war bullshit.
Their pitch to the rank and file is white grievance and culture war, but why do any of them want to even be in Congress? For the money, from sponsors, donors, patrons, future grifting and contacts, etc. (Plus it beats working.) Yes, they have zero interest in governing, but that doesn't mean they have zero interest in being in government. I took "politics" to refer to getting and wielding power to those ends.
They're taken care of on leaving office if they serve the Powers That Be and are allowed to keep unspent campaign contributions, not to mention the other benefits. That's pretty much enough reason for too many to run.
Plus it gets them the name recognition they need to join the punditocracy. They can forget about their responsibilities and focus on the fun stuff: TV appearances, speaking tours, peddling ghostwritten books. And all they have to do is keep saying the same stupid crap they've been spewing all along. Nice work if you can get it!
I don't have world enough and time but even by its simplest definition -- politics as the means by which decisions for the polity are made -- they are unequipped with politics. Power they can obtain, but they can accomplish very little with it and all of what they accomplish needs to be fixed immediately after they leave office. A lot of Trumpism gets associated with traditional conservatism, but his total lack of interest in the business of government really did set the tone: What are any of these guys doing besides neurotically saying and doing the stupidest possible thing because that's what Trump did? I can't see how it's even related to their own reelections anymore. That's not just bad politics, it's non-politics.
I'm glad Republicans have little interest in governing, because when they make an effort we get little kids in cages and tax breaks for zillionaires. Their laziness might be the only thing stopping them from implementing Holocaust II.
Ah, the ancient plea for a sane conservative party. You gotta wonder if the Republicans ever considered what the long-term cost of signing up with Nixon's Southern Strategy could be. I suppose they thought it was the best way to avoid the Birchers taking over, but I'd bet serious money they would have laughed at the idea that the rubes they were peddling this stuff to would take over their Party. How do you like your blue-eyed boy now, Jesse Helms.
Have you seen Republican women? Marjorie Taylor Green and Lauren Boehbert are the tip of the iceberg. Down here, we have Yvette Harrell. They're everywhere, like cockroaches.