Who's That Girl?

 

This snippet from Trump's deposition in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case is very interesting: he mistakes Caroll for Marla Maples, his second wife, in a photograph. It's pretty funny to me that he confused a woman that he  insists is "not his type" with a woman he actually married. She's a tall, slender blonde. That seems to be his type. And he also doesn't want to render his DNA. But then again, he tried to pretend he didn't know her at all. 

But the more disturbing thing in the released deposition is that he tries to maintain that she enjoyed the idea of being raped:

Trump called Carroll “sick, mentally sick”. And he mischaracterized an interview Carroll had given on CNN, falsely claiming she had talked about enjoying being sexually assaulted. “She actually indicated that she loved it. OK? She loved it until commercial break,” Trump said. “In fact, I think she said it was sexy, didn’t she? She said it was very sexy to be raped. Didn’t she say that?”

Trump’s political fate may  decided – by a Georgia gran jury

Read more

Kaplan then tried to elicit from Trump that he had raped her client.

“So, sir, I just want to confirm: it’s your testimony that E Jean Carroll said that she loved being sexually assaulted by you?”

Trump answered: “Well, based on her interview with [CNN’s] Anderson Cooper, I believe that’s what took place. And we can define that … I think she said that rape was sexy – which it’s not, by the way.”

What Carroll had described is that she prefers to use the word fight, not rape because some other people “think rape is sexy”.

It doesn't escape me that rapists often tell themselves that their victims really wanted it, and that a narcissist might have a hard time understanding that if he was feeling it, that his victim wasn't also feeling the same way. And the way his response is constructed disturbs me, because it can be interpreted that he acknowledges something happened. 

Wow. The American Psycho is Strong With this One.

 

Mnnnkay, people, I was holding out by posting and deleting the dirt on Mr. First Trump campaign manager guy, because both he and Kristi Noem are fame whores with other shit on their plates besides whether they had an affair or not. I wasn't strapped in for the whole story yet, and I also f'd up the html. My bad.

So here's what is apparently up with them: 

I mean, she's distracting from whether she used a campaign donation to send South Dakota National Guard to the border and whether she used her clout to try to get her daughter a real estate license, so what's an affair with Slappy McTrumpWorld other than a way to deflect from the rotten job she's doing? Can we verify she's knocking boots with Corey Marathon Man Lewadowski? Well we can verify she says she certainly isn't anymore. 

But what of Lewandowski--how is he doing? Well, he was accused of sexual harassment and stalking, but it might be worse than that:

Trashelle Odom, of Boise, Idaho, the wife of a construction company executive, claimed in the police report obtained by DailyMail.com that the married Lewandowski said that he 'was from a bad part of Boston and to have killed people,' while seated next to her at the charity dinner at the Westgate Hotel in Las Vegas on on September 26. 

Odom claimed that on the night of the dinner - which she was personally invited to with South Dakota Gov Kristi Noem by American socialite Jackie Siegel - she was frightened when he allegedly told her: 'When I was 10, I stabbed someone over and over again, killing him. She added that the father-of-four told her that when he was older, he 'stabbed a man in the back of the head, also killing him'.

I don't even know who names their little baby girl "Trashelle" ("It's a family name, in the old country it was Sporcalina" my brain suggests)  but the real story is that the guy who pushed a female Breitbart reporter also thinks it's cool to talk about murdering people. And has also been accused of assault before. And even so, Trump had to be begged to let go of this creep. (And where does one apply to make Trump get rid of Jason Miller, also an incredible freaking creep? Who, whilst he is actually for now employed, should pay child support for his actual kids?)  

Anyway, Kristi Noem is a terrible governor who has let COVID-19 ravage her state and might have dreams of running for higher office and Corey Lewandowski is like a made man of a crime family. He fucked up so he's going to lay low, but if he can still earn, he'll get up top again. And a persecution narrative might even help him. 

But still and all--multiple knife murders? Like, is someone on this weird case or what?  Is that just a very toxic masculine man's pillow talk or is this a very messed up real life crime drama and shit? Inquiring minds want to know.

It Will Be an Awkward 14 Days

 

The decision to schedule his resignation announcement to coincide with the results of the Senate vote on the infrastructure bill was yet another of Governor Cuomo's failures to, as they say, "read the room". While finally having an end to the running joke of Infrastructure Week always coming off with no actual infrastructure legislation, surely he didn't think that the bill, however much of an accomplishment it is, was going to offset the press his resignation announcement got?

Are you kidding? Of course, it was going to be the big news of the day regardless of whatever other big things happened today, and actually, it took a little of the shine that should have gone to the legislative achievement. Yay--bipartisan things are happening in government. Also: man vents petty bullshit before leaving major office amid multiple scandals.

And yes: that's what he did. Just like the very best time to make his resignation announcement was 1 pm EST last week, the very best thing he could have said was, "Yes, I'm leaving for the good of the state's business and I'm leaving it in very capable hands", and absolutely not appear for several harsh moments like he was about to swear to dig in his heels forever.  Making statements that he was the one being wrongly persecuted and seemingly certain that he was sure his behavior was right, it was the women who were wrong (as if understanding only that he was no longer getting away with behavior that had gone without correction for some time), he seemed like a person confident that he'd leave, but he'd be missed.

And here's the thing I can harp on regarding leadership endlessly: no matter how competent a leader is, there just isn't anyone so indispensable that corrupt or abusive behavior needs to be tolerated. In fact, the test of leadership sometimes is not being indispensable at all, but in having brought together a team united in purpose and communication to continue doing the work when you're not even there because they are empowered and motivated to do that.  And corrupt and abusive behavior actually impair the work and hurt the trust that needs to exist in a good system.

We don't have to settle for or tolerate abusive behavior in the workplace or from our government leaders--period. We don't have to look at people starry-eyed and forgive them for completely egregious screw-ups when good people exist who won't do those things.  

Cuomo has given himself 14 days to wrap his affairs up before moving on. It was not the legitimate stories of the 11 women he knows he behaved inappropriately to that I think motivated his resignation, but the final understanding that this was not his only failing, and that others would surely cast doubt on the aura of steady leadership his COVID-19 press conferences last year created. He cut his losses late. He might hold out hope for a second act, but I doubt it would feel triumphal. 

Arrogance and Andrew Cuomo

 

There was a moment today when I thought, very briefly, upon hearing that Andrew Cuomo was going to make a statement at 1 p.m. after the details of the investigation into the allegations of his sexual harassment had been made public, that maybe, just maybe, he was going to do the right thing. Surely, I thought, like a poor innocent fish, he's just taking a minute to draft his resignation comments and will be getting his ass out of office with some basic dignity intact because if he tries to hang on, shit is going to get nasty from here on. 

He certainly did no such thing. He made a disgusting appeal to his age and ethnicity and tried to maintain that no, everyone just misunderstood him: actually, he is a big supporter of women. The current throughout--these lying women are just trying to jam me up. With no explanation of what set them off (other than the simple truth) or how their coming forward about what they went through benefits them in the slightest, except that he not be in a position of power anymore, and not be able to continue to do harm.

And here's the grotesque thing--this was a prepared statement that came along with a montage of Governor Kissyface showing physical affection to a wide assortment of people, as if to say, see? This is just how he is. How can you imagine that any of this was inappropriate? 

Well, thanks to the visual representation, I can imagine it a bit more vividly, so thanks for that. It's astounding. Someone cut that together and thought "This is helping." But clearly, that was put together before AG James' announcement.

Gaetzgate it is, then

I want to preface this with two quick, semi-funny things that happened lately, which are, in quick order: Matt Gaetz Tweeted in response to Elon Musk's play on words that his scandal would be called "Elongate" with the suggestion that his own scandal should be called "gaetzgate" and the rumor that Gaetz wouldn't be running for congress again, but might take a role at Newsmax. 

That's what the literature folks call "foreshadowing", I guess, because Rep. Gaetz is apparently part of an investigation into something to do with sex trafficking--it's murky, and Gaetz helped the picture in its murkiness by going on Tucker Carlson and performing a quick study in how not to do professional reputation rehab on the fly. 

Actually, all Gaetz's responses to the story are weird as hell, but just to break it down, we have on one hand a story about one sexual relationship with one 17 year old that seems to have possibly emerged as a part of a story about another Florida politician engaged in sex trafficking. 

On the other hand, what Gaetz's statements seem to have done is implicate himself into a scandal involving not one underage girl, but possibly more than one, an attempt to paint himself and his family as victims of an extortion plot that involves some kind of sting operation with an old-fashioned "wire" (I don't think anyone duct tapes solid state gear to their chest hair anymore, but I could be wrong as I am a cavegirl) and sort of tried to enmesh his friendly on-air media rehab counselor, Tucker Carlson, in his shit by saying stuff like, "We've had dinner together, you, me, your wife and one of my victims..." (like, not verbatim, but that's how f'd up it sounded) and like, "bitches, right?" (also not verbatim, but he implied Tucker Carlson was also accused of creepy sex stuff, and since Carlson knew exactly what he was talking about, well. then).

Oh, and he implied there were possibly pictures of him with underage prostitutes which was not at all a thing alleged yet, so I guess, way to get out in front of that one!

So, I guess we need to confront that Gaetz might not be the sharpest tool in the shed and also has troubling judgment. Like, very troubling judgment. As in, I don't even get what his deal is, but it's definitely some kind of deal, there, and I'm not even usually one to judge. And he's good friends with Jim Jordan, and if I haven't said it yet enough, that guy's a coward and a creep. 

Now, this might not be going anywhere, but let's keep in mind, it started under the Trump Administration and was opened by Bill Barr, so there had to have been a real story, there, not some political beef. Although who knows if the Trump Administration wasn't low enough to leverage support by making members of congress vulnerable that way--even presumably tame and even well and truly owned-seeming ones. And maybe that explains a lot of how Trump got his support from some of his most rabid followers anyhow: leveraging the compromised, or at least, providing them an umbrella. He after all was never particular about who he did business with. Even to an extent that should have long ago scandalized his Qultists. 

So, I guess we're having Gaetzgate, now. 

Derpal Nerple

OOOOOOKKKKKKKKK pic.twitter.com/4I29XhPrQI

— Dan Linden (@DanLinden) November 4, 2019

Honest to goodness, I know I'm supposed to be rounding up actual news stuff to recap and comment on after the traditions of my bloggy wont, but this is simply the weirdest "hands-on" public behavior between a politician and a sports figure I can recall (not that I track such things). A reach-around "tune in Tokyo"? It starts as a kind of quick shoulder squeeze and then?

This is just a week out from the odd, impulsive thing where Trump set candy on the top of a kid's minion costume (where it predictably slid off). He seems to have bad impulse control. It's sort of cringe in these two episodes, but in a kind of "Oh, he's being awkward" kind of way. Tell him not to look at the eclipse--he looks at the eclipse. Derp, right? And sometimes inappropriate, yes? Especially when it comes to physical contact, apparently, like his history of awkward handshakes.

It's funny, except sometimes it's not. I think about Trump's impulse control, and how he uses his physical presence a lot. It stops being funny when you realize that his impulse control and physical boundary issues permeate how he treats people in other ways, and the power he has, not just in funny one-off ways, but in ways (like threatening to out the whistleblower, or smearing Lt. Col. Vindman) that can negatively impact people's lives and careers. I guess that's why these "sports-guys visit the White House because it's an honor" things seem so surreal to me. Not because he might paw some dude's jubblies in a strange way in front of people, or because you never know when he's going to put out a room-temperature takeaway buffet for people. It's because of whatever else he does.

Just my opinion, of course.

Hindsight is 50-50

How @alfranken got railroaded: my story here https://t.co/zNzRMPRoa2

— Jane Mayer (@JaneMayerNYer) July 22, 2019

While I really think Jane Mayer generally does great work, this piece does nothing for me. I felt like Tweeden's political bias was irrelevant to whether or not her claims should be taken seriously at the time, and still do. I think it was pretty clear at the time that conservative media was positively gleeful about reporting a liberal senator as having been accused of sexual harassment, and that dynamic, while interesting, isn't surprising to us after years of their paying attention to "but Bill Clinton's penis" (which was, in its day, somehow even more ubiquitous than "but Hillary Clinton's emails").

What remains the case is that there were more allegations, that numerous senators called on Franken to resign, that he made that decision himself, that once he resigned, no further investigation was going to happen (or would satisfy the right wing radio scandal-mongers) and that looking back in anger, regret, or anything else will simply never tell us "what might have been". Hindsight isn't 20/20, it's 50-50.

For me, the bigger picture was the accused sexual harasser/rapist in the White House, the accused pedophile Roy Moore, and the ability to take seriously claims that we believe and stand with women who report sexual harassment on the left. It couldn't be a "both sides" issue. Life isn't fair.

I think Franken was right to resign when he did instead of dragging it out, and I can totally understand his regret now, just as I can understand how his friends and supporters feel about that. I think it definitely is that case that right wing media cynically seized on it, and whether it was true or not never would have mattered, and the same people who wanted Franken's scalp, would go on to defend Kavanaugh or any other conservative figure under allegation of sexual wrongdoing. We don't know what would have happened had anything been just a little different.

And for what it's worth, people who want to blame any of this on Senator Gillibrand can pretty much stuff it.

This is Awkward

So, I'm going to be upfront about this--I am the wrong person to talk about whether former Vice President Joe Biden is too much of a Handsy McHandserson because I am by nature, sort of hug repellent. I've never had a problem telling non-creepers things like "Hey, just a handshake!" or "I don't do lips!" I am an introvert and have negotiated smooches into air kisses and hugs into back pats on the fly. Look, you can't pull me into the big hug once I've dug my feet in, and if I give the right glare, you never, on the peril of your very soul, think you ever would want to. 

(This is entirely different from people who I've consented to be intimate with in private settings, but PDAs from randos are basically a firm limit. Then again, I've had forty-odd years to sort out my boundaries. There are body language treaties I can draw on since forever. And I say "non-creepers" because there are people who do not recognize your clues, but will do physical stuff in private and hands free stuff that are fucked up, and they are not normal, nor would I say one comes across those types all that much.)

That said, I am pretty sure I could telegraph (or even hiss sotto voce) that one ought to not make a lip landing on the top of my noggin or rub noses--but wow. Why are those things even in danger of happening? The top of the head in some cultures is deeply taboo. It's infantilizing. It's the heads of children you touch--to tousle their wee heads to show you are proud of them though they are small or kiss them to tuck them in. That would be children you know very well, and certainly not adults you might not know all that well. I can see someone who is not already hung up about getting touched freezing, and not knowing quite how to deal with that sort of "outsider" physical expression. Rubbing noses is some shit I can't even at all with. Noses are weird. Reputed ethnographic stereotypes about northern indigenous folks discuss nose touching, but this is just not a regular thing I have come across.  I don't recommend it during allergy season. Noses could be loaded. 

I don't think allegations about Biden are exactly of a "Me too" nature--they are "me too-ish". What he does physically regarding people isn't sexual in nature, but it is gendered. It is more avuncularly affectionate than many people are with their natural uncles, but it isn't nephews he's showering with noggin smooches and careless kuniks. It's the nieces he's loving to pieces, and that is possibly an unconscious bias, but one that has to be recognized. We've discovered lately that Congress has been stupid about sexual harassment, so many years after Sen. Packwood's scandal, and it's been in a somewhat smoochy and gladhandy environment an older politician like Biden might have formed his ideas about good touch and not so good touch. And those ideas might be as outdated as rumaki and Jello salads. It isn't intentionally harmful in his case--it just isn't really good. 

So is this disqualifying? Well, not exactly? It's not so much "bad wrong" as "different culture" wrong, where people have a more clear sense of touch they don't want and so many human resource department manuals all over the country have defined things like these interactions as being so much "nope" here in 2019. 

Is it something Biden can overcome--look, he's being late to jump into this race anyway and I don't think, despite the polls right now, that he will do better in actuality than he is doing theoretically. He's got a long history that I can't explain to a 20-year old any better than I could how nose-rubbing would be a thing. You just had to have lived on this earth since 1972 to kind of get it, and even then, it doesn't always make sense.  I'd rather he abstained and stuck with the great things he has done, but that is my opinion. 

But being hands-off, after all, comes more natural to me. 

We Have All Been Here Before

There's not a lot I can add to the dialogue about the piece in Babe.net about a date with Aziz Ansari except that kind of thing is pretty familiar to me as having mostly dated straight men. I don't think we talk about this thing we call dating or trying to have relationships with the opposite sex from a feminist perspective in a forthright way often enough--although Melissa McEwan's  description of The Terrible Bargain is the best thing I have ever read about the subject. 

As women, we get done dirty by men over and over again. We get talked down as being comic shrews and nags. We are chided for not wanting sex enough, but not being asked how we want it. We get asked to perform the emotional labor of making the relationship talks happen, but are scapegoated for being "serious" when we do. We are the ones who insist on the condoms, for some reason, like our reproductive propensity or our general health. We are supposed to draw the lines about what level of sexual activity is done involving our bodies, but are told we are wrong about where we draw those lines for reasons that have everything to do about our partners' satisfaction, and little to do with our own bodies. 

When we say anything in the vicinity of "No", it registers as "maybe" if we don't literally stand up and walk out. If we stay, there's still a "maybe", no matter what we say. If we consent to sex, we aren't supposed to stop it, even if we have a cramp or he's on our hair or there's a panic attack or I know my diaphragm moved or whatever. But this is obviously bullshit. What a woman feels during sex matters. And for what it is worth, yes, removing a condom is a breech of a very serious contract.  Why wouldn't a woman need to consent to the potentiality of pregnancy or STI? Why is her evaluation of her ability to deal with certain potentialities subordinate to any man's satisfaction?

Oh Look, Trump's Awake...

Maybe it's not too much to ask that the president somehow not describe a US Senator who is critical of "Trump" (love that Tweeting in third person!) due to his sexual harassment  history as "begging", willing to "do anything", and "USED"? Because those kind of sound sexist and creepy in context. Or even out of context.

This Would be an Awkward Office Situation

The news that Rep. Trent Franks, an anti-abortion "family values" warrior, was resigning because of sexual harassment didn't strike me as too shocking: holier-than-thou sorts are often bearers of disappointing personal morals because their pecksniffery is solely for other folks. But, peculiar as the actual details are, when I read that he had actually awkwardly approached female staffers about being a gestational surrogate to increase his family, it was like hearing a puzzle piece snap into place. 

He didn't do anything creepy and lewd. Gosh! He just wanted to see if there was anyone close to hand who had reproductive organs they weren't using at the moment. Since having babies was what they were for. Not in a weird, lusting in his heart way. Just in a using a woman's body according to Biblical precedent sort of way. 

Now, to get a little technical, as Franks is staunchly pro-life, in vitro is obviously not an option for his family, because not all embryos implant successfully. This leaves traditional surrogacy, in which the surrogate provides the egg and the patriarch provides the rest. This intrauterine insemination is a bit cheaper than in vitro, and can be done without sexual, um, congress. (Although, you know! It could be done the old-fashioned way, too.) But the whole upshot is that his message to some female employees was "You are female and I would like to put my sperm in you because this is what females are for, and it would be doing me a big old favor."  Not too different from how horny men just want to borrow their workplace subordinates' reproductive organs for a bit after all, is it?

And it is just as coercive. After all, it's just doing a favor. People donate kidneys and bone marrow to people they work with don't they? Except this is about making a child. That creates bonds. In a power imbalance situation like employer/employee, that can create bondage.

It's hard for me to fathom not seeing this as a wholly inappropriate thing to bring up with one's staffers, but what I know of Franks' worldview oddly put the "how" of his awkwardness into perspective. But it is really, deeply inappropriate. 

The Example

Sen. Al Franken announces his resignation as @realDonaldTrump and the @GOP continue to support accused child molester Roy Moore https://t.co/OMWQdpjOnn pic.twitter.com/cPJAvZqqw8

— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) December 7, 2017

Today, Sen. Al Franken announced he would be resigning shortly in the wake of multiple sexual misconduct allegations and the voiced opinion of several of his Senate colleagues that he should resign. Some supporters of Franken feel like this is a bum's rush, that there are certainly other political figures (Trump, Moore, Fahrenthold) who have done worse and should also be gone.

This thing of it is, it's right for Franken to resign at the point because it is. Sure, his replacement will be selected by a Democratic governor, but this really isn't a partisan game. If the principle we're following is that certain behavior is unacceptable, would Franken staying be a helpful way of showing our values? It isn't about what the "other side" is up to in deciding to strongly back an alleged child molester, or continuing to support a president who openly boasted about the sexual liberties he felt he could take.

Franken has been, no doubt, sharp and effective, and people might feel strongly invested in his seat, especially after the narrow victory that gave it to him in 2008. But there is no good reason for the drama to be prolonged just because one loves the character.

It would be great if the worst actors were the first to go, but saying "You first" is ceding the high ground. I am not interested in being as hypocritical as the other side. It means more to be right. It is also appropriate to still say Trump and Moore are unfit for office and should not serve. But I don't know that saying so affects their supporters in any way. We can say it aloud to feel good, but you can't put shame into a shameless partisan. All you can do is the right thing.

Time Person of the Year: The Silence Breakers

Find out why the Silence Breakers were chosen as TIME's Person of the Year 2017 #TIMEPOY https://t.co/jOS7zksnw7

— TIME (@TIME) December 6, 2017

I think they got this exactly right. A quick look around at some of the stories and columns of the day tells why--

Weinstein's Complicity Machine : People went out of their way to cover up and abet a powerful Hollywood insider for years.

This editorial by Gretchen Carlson (who should have been profiled by Time, as having been the one to finally bring down Roger Ailes).

This disturbing story from a recent accuser of retiring Rep. John Conyers, who appears to have made a chilling threat demonstrating just one reason assault/harassment victims don't come forward.

A new account regarding Senator Al Franken, which demonstrates why even "Nice Guys" don't live up to expectations.

This allegation from Janet Porter, senatorial candidate Roy Moore's spokesperson, that his accusers are the real criminals, showing how even some women don't believe other women.

And there is so much more. It is horrible to know how many people have suffered abusive behavior in silence--it is good to see so many not being silent anymore.

Rep. Blake Fahrenthold Used Taxpayer Funds for His Sexual Harassment Settlement

He used $84K in a sexual harassment suit. As with the Joe Barton thing, I sort of really hope no one tweets any nude selfies of the Congress critter in my direction. Also, I forsee a sexual harassment claim on the up. Revisited, or, another, more liberated claimant.

UPDATE: Rep. Barbara Comstock, R, VA, has made the sensible suggestion that the millionaire representative could repay the taxpayers and resign to make up for his unacceptable bullshit. I see her point.

UPDATE 2: Heh. This just reminded me of Sen Susan Collins going off on him for being sexist.

UPDATE 3: No, I'm serious-there is probably more where this came from.

Not That Surprised, But A Little Sick

So, given the ongoing reckoning over sexual harassment, I wasn't even that surprised at hearing that Matt Lauer had been let go from his association with NBC as the anchor of its long-running Today show. I've basically thought he was kind of a jerk and crappy interviewer for a while, and his performance moderating the Commander-in-Chief Forum last year was simply abysmal. I chalked it up to being at turns condescending and pompous, and although it looks like conservative media seems to be going with "the Liberal Media's Matt Lauer", I kind of thought he seemed biased against Dems. Maybe he has that unique mainstream media talent for being a universal putz. Anyhow, as to his sexism, it looks like there had been multiple signs, and as for the idea that Matt Lauer was so irreplaceable that NBC shouldn't have addressed his creepiness sooner, well, not so much. 

But the details are kind of sickening.  The intro to the Variety piece is damning enough:

As the co-host of NBC’s “Today,” Matt Lauer once gave a colleague a sex toy as a present. It included an explicit note about how he wanted to use it on her, which left her mortified.

On another day, he summoned a different female employee to his office, and then dropped his pants, showing her his penis. After the employee declined to do anything, visibly shaken, he reprimanded her for not engaging in a sexual act.

He would sometimes quiz female producers about who they’d slept with, offering to trade names. And he loved to engage in a crass quiz game with men and women in the office: “f—, marry, or kill,” in which he would identify the female co-hosts that he’d most like to sleep with.

But I think the stand-out creepiest part is the button under his desk:

Lauer, who was paranoid about being followed by tabloid reporters, grew more emboldened at 30 Rockefeller Center as his profile rose following Katie Couric’s departure from “Today” in 2006. His office was in a secluded space, and he had a button under his desk that allowed him to lock his door from the inside without getting up. This afforded him the assurance of privacy. It allowed him to welcome female employees and initiate inappropriate contact while knowing nobody could walk in on him, according to two women who were sexually harassed by Lauer.

I'm just trying to sort out the rationale that made it seem totally normal to have that installed in his office--to prevent someone from walking in on him. Or to lock someone in with him? And I imagine what it must be like the hear a click behind you, knowing a door has been locked, and it can't be for any good reason...

Like I said: sickening.

Not...Quite...There

In an interview with Chuck Todd on Meet the Press, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi disappointed me a little. Although she quietly pushed Rep. Conyers to give up his role in the House Judiciary Committee, she seemed to dismiss the claims of his accusers, claiming she did not know who they were.

This isn't quite what I want to see in response to claims of sexual harassment in this day and age. I respect John Conyers for his long years of service and his generally being on the side of right, too. I think he is an icon politically and has done some good. And yet, even icons fail. Even "good guys" screw up. The point is that there really isn't anyone so sacrosanct that we can dismiss the claims against them. This is why, even though the claims against Sen. Franken bear a certain whiff of rodent carnality, I'm reserving my judgement about why his accusers are being heard now--because for a long time, so many would-be accusers' voices were never heard, because they would not have been believed. Yes, maybe some claims are going to be flummery. But we can't get anywhere by dismissing people out of hand, and we need to create a process for people being heard out and supported. 

Rep. Conyers is 88 years old. Maybe you can call this ageism on my part to suggest that one of the things I find very troubling is the idea that the Representative is not quite as able as he needs to be and is not as in control of his own behavior as he should be. He is still putting up a good fight. But I want to know that the leaders of my party are truly capable of carrying out what they promise us. I need to know they understand that times are changing, and that they will need new, young, vital and unstained people to move into safe seats, get their bones made, and move up into leadership. They need to be working now to mentor and motivate people to run for House seats and become the leadership we need tomorrow. Like, Tuesday. Actual tomorrow. 

Without intending it, Rep. Pelosi kind of sent a message that if it were politically expedient, she would maybe throw accusers under the bus. That is not ok. 

I think she understood she fell short later on, after the interview, but I would have felt so much better about this if her instincts were right-on in the first place. I do have to wonder if this is in part, a generational thing--a difference between her expectations, and what I might expect. 

Another interview that was "not quite there" was an interview in The Guardian of Susan Sarandon.  Now, I don't hold Sarandon to the same standard that I would Pelosi. She is an actor first and an activist second and for a lot of things, her heart seems to be in the right place. She cares about climate and the death penalty. She knows inequality exists--she just isn't in a place to experience inequality except as a person in the upper end. So maybe her ideas of economics fail. Maybe she claims Hillary Clinton would have lead us to war as president, notwithstanding we were already in Iraq, Syria, much of Africa, Afghanistan, etc., and that the GOP choice has apparently revised the ROE of our alleged anti-terror combat to be more tolerant of civilian casualties, and the failure of Trump to even acknowledge diplomacy as an option has lead to the utter degradation of the State Department. 

I don't expect her to understand that. I wish I could. I wish the understanding that diplomacy is the better part of military valor and Clinton would have elaborated on that was a commonplace not just for her, but for, you know, people who vote in elections as a general thing. But what I shudder at is her understanding of feminism as "strident" and "shrill".  Her interpretation of what Weinstein et als being recognized as abusers means, seems stuck in the "nobody sees" camp.  She is happy to dismiss. She succeeded. Isn't victimization culture about failure? 

Sigh. 

This is what we might call "exceptional feminism"--women who prevailed despite sexism (which might being owing to white privilege, class, or connections) have experienced a privilege that many women don't, and therefore don't even entirely grasp the discussion. I feel like we need a better and broader understanding of intersectional feminism to even start these conversations without prominent voices stalling them. 

The Stress of Their Disregard

The reckoning we've been having over sexual harassment has been piling on names and stories of harassment and assault in a way that that can tend to enervate.  For some, it's a reminder of their own assault, harassment, or other abuse; for others, a discovery that the world is populated by too many abusive men entrusted with too much power over others' livelihoods; or maybe it's a mixture of both. It can be a shock to recognize the blind eye that has been turned to the abuse of others from people who considered themselves protected, or to come to terms with the degree that people with quite clear vision aided and covered up the exploitation and dismissal of the humanity of other people for their own personal reasons. 

It's a fucking lot to accept, although a lot of people who have been through it kind of already knew. The insult added to all this injury is the commentary of people who either haven't grasped the pain and waste of all this cultural sexual/sexist bullshit, or will happily lay the blame for all this at the feet of the victims. 

A lot of the handwringing has been about how the allegations against powerful men will now derail their careers and cast a pall over whatever work they've done--there's a better point to be made (as Caroline Framke at Vox has done) about how abusers have been gatekeepers that have hounded out and silenced good talented people from their fields. They could have brilliantly mentored them, building teams and encouraging fledgling enthusiasm, but chose to just be petty and treat them with a kind of disregard. I think of Charlie Rose, saying that he felt that he was "pursuing shared feelings". He, the celebrated interviewer--could not be bothered to ask the women what they felt? No--he disregarded them. Their feelings did not matter. The good, productive journalism they could have assisted in did not matter.

I feel the same sort of recognition regarding the allegations against Rep. John Conyers.  This employee was disregarded. The patterns of protection from his circle against the accuser's claims just seem too familiar to discount. Her ability to do her job was jeopardized by the very person she was working for. How can that be productive? Whatever good Rep. Conyers has done, I have to consider this sort of thing very seriously because it speaks to his effectiveness as a public servant. 

With the politicization of sexual harassment,  sexual abuse, and rape claims, the defenses are not a great look for any culture. We learn that Congress really has created a system where sexual malefactors never learn from their fuckups.  We learn that anti-gay activist Tony Perkins is okay with same-sex sexual harassment, if the perpetrator is also vocally anti-gay and in the process of gathering political power.  These are examples of disregard--people not caring who is harmed. 

In the defense of former Judge Roy Moore, the arguments go further: Pastor Flip Benham claims Roy Moore may have favored underage girls because older women were either married or tainted. It's disgustingly reminiscent of the abstinence lessons that compare a woman who has lost her virginity to chewed gum.  It disregards a woman's value as being about anything but what is between her legs. Pastor Earl Wise performs an astonishing act of victim-blaming, managing to cite the young girls being pursued as having asked for it and looking like they were 20 years old, anyway.  I would be interested to know if Pastor Wise has made this mistake about the age of young girls, himself, and whether he ever felt himself the prey of their "sweet dreams". 

What I don't hear in any of these arguments is any empathy for why these accusations are being made, or any acceptance that Moore may have behaved inappropriately at all. The accusers are disregarded. But of all shocking defenses, I have to go to Stephen Moore--who equated Roy Moore's underage predation with...being pro-choice.  Of all the nonsensical claims that could be made his has the worst math. Both the issues of reproductive choice and not getting raped rely on a respect for bodily autonomy and the world where support for reproductive liberty equals child molestation only exists where one divides both sides by the proposition that women have no rights that a man need respect.  This is horrific. Women, their right to and ownership of their bodies, are disregarded. For the sake, as near as I can tell, of tax cuts. 

And of course, President Trump likes Moore too. And he would.

This is the disregard that stresses us; the claims that we are liars when we talk about our abuse, or that our abuse doesn't matter because we are taking things the wrong way. This is the narrative that we don't know what is best for us, and the lie that our careers are only made possible by support of "great men". This is the dismissal of children's innocence. This is the blame that falls on victims. This is sexism and class war.   This is religion reinforcing a cultural crime. 

And while I hate it all, I am glad we are finally airing it out, even though there will be lies, and bullshit, and tears all around. Because too many people have been disregarded and we need to stop and recognize we all benefit when we all can live our potential. 

The above scene is Bernini's Apollo and Daphne. Daphne was a nymph pursued by Apollo who chose to be a tree rather than succumb to his advances. Things happen in mythology for reasons.  The title of this post is a call-back to the novel by Tim Powers, The Stress of Her Regard. Who got his title from here. 

A Reckoning is Never Gentle

This year has brought about a kind of collective reckoning about how people, men, mostly, have abused their power relationships with other people sexually. We're listening to women and men come out about how egregious behavior by others who should have certainly known better have hurt them and impacted their lives. I think this is a good thing. It's past time we collectively as a society wanted accountability for how people treat one another, and for the real damage done by gross, selfish, unethical and deliberately or negligently harmful behaviors to get the discussion that is due. 

And that means sometimes saying that some individuals who did really good work that you appreciated just need to get cut off--like Bill Cosby. As I relentlessly bore youse with, I am from Philadelphia, and Cosby could have gone anywhere, but he was a native son here and he went to Temple. I grew up with Fat Albert. I watched The Cosby Show and Picture Pages.   (Although A Different World, a spin-off from The Cosby Show, was definitely more my favorite show--because the original kind of has some Brady Bunch vibes, but I just liked where A Different World was coming from. Debbie Allen was the creative mind influencing later episodes of that show, and of course, I loved her since Fame.)  Like, every comedian I came across for years had to have a Cosby impression going on. His HBO specials where he discussed fatherhood and his life were great decent material.  He was a major influence on culture, and some comics today can still talk about him with reverence because he did do some great work--

But he also did so many shitty things. And eventually, that is what people will remember, because that's how it goes. And it's sad. I won't think less of his work product, necessarily, but I will have to reckon with the damage that went into it. And that is ugly. 

Same thing with Kevin Spacey--if I were to go back in time and tell 1999 me, just getting out of a theater having taken a half-day from work because I just thought I wanted to take in a movie in a mostly-empty theater and really appreciate American Beauty, that in my timeline, Kevin Spacey came out in 2017.  I loved that movie so hard. 

1999 Me: Hey, that is really great. I'm glad he's finally able to live his truth. I know it's hard to come out in his business and there's a danger of being typecast, but with his talent... 

          2017 Me: He came out to deflect from being a serial abuser and rapist of young men and boys

          1999 Me: Fuck everything he even thinks about into tiny little pieces and set them on fire. 

And I would have meant it then. And I mean it now--sometimes the truth hurts but you have to take it--even someone whose work you really like. It's true if the artist is someone you know, the way Sarah Silverman talks about Louis CK :

“One of my best friends of over 25 years, Louis C.K., masturbated in front of women,” she continued. “He wielded his power with women in -—ed up ways, sometimes to the point where they left comedy entirely. I could couch this with heartwarming stories of our friendship and what a great dad he is, but that’s totally irrelevant, isn’t it? Yes, it is. It’s a real mindf—, because I love Louis. But Louis did these things. Both of those statements are true. So I just keep asking myself, ‘Can you love someone who did bad things? Can you still love them?’ I can mull that over later certainly, because the only people that matter right now are the victims. They are victims and they are victims because of something he did. So I hope it’s OK that I am, at once, very angry for the women he wronged and the culture that enabled it, and also sad, because he’s my friend. But I believe with all my heart that this moment in time is essential. It’s vital that people are held accountable for their actions, no matter who they are. We need to be better. We will be better. I can’t -—ing wait to be better.”

What she said. So, taking in that Al Franken, who has been a solid liberal voice, and a capable US Senator, has behaved in ways that are inappropriate with respect to female coworkers in any setting, my instinct is to believe the accuser, to look at the picture without trying to deflect that he seems to be miming groping only, or that he touched her for the sake of "comedy", as if that made autonomy and personal choice about being touched less important.

Of course what he did was wrong. The thing with being a real feminist or ally is owning up to the failures of people to be who we need them to be regardless of how they mostly represent themselves as. I don't need an 80% anti harassment ally. I need a 100% ally, because that 20% is what keeps sexism and inequality going strong. I think people should acknowledge their bullshit and understand why their bullshit was wrong, and promise to never go back on their bullshit. I think Franken did a good ego-check based on his statement of apology and contrition, and called for his own senate investigation. He isn't deflecting. He's here to do the work. I can support that kind of accountability. I can also pick apart why it is stupid to carry out a mime-groping of a sleeping individual and sympathize with her dismay about what people saw fit to do around her while she was unconscious and incapable of consent and mourn how that was not transparently beyond the pale for them.

It's a reckoning. I like Al Franken and think he does good work, and am proud of him for calling for his own investigation. I don't think he's probably abusive as a general rule, and recognize that comedy can be about exploring edges, and might sometimes encroach on shibboleths, so I don't hold his comedic speculations against him as "proofs" of eventual poor behavior. I truly think proportionality is an essential part of justice.

But yeah. I also have to check in that what Franken did was sexist bullshit that took no input regarding the woman he was working with. That is wrong.

But like the vicious partisan I am, I need to also remark on this:

The Al Frankenstien picture is really bad, speaks a thousand words. Where do his hands go in pictures 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 while she sleeps? .....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 17, 2017

Yeah. Trump is still also an abuser, and has done worse than Franken as far as we have heard alleged. So I don't think Mr. Glasshouse should be using his slingshot like that right now.

$32 Million...and Continued Abuse

I'm not a lawyer and I don't really have any kind of feel for what the going rate is on settling sexual harassment suits (although I will say that Fox News seems to be the greatest source of any familiarity I have with such things), but $32 million seems like an awful lot of money. I get that he was top-rated talent for the network, but when the NYT describes something quite like this:

Although the deal has not been previously made public, the network’s parent company, 21st Century Fox, acknowledges that it was aware of the woman’s complaints about Mr. O’Reilly. They included allegations of repeated harassment, a nonconsensual sexual relationship and the sending of gay pornography and other sexually explicit material to her, according to the people briefed on the matter.

It was at least the sixth agreement — and by far the largest — made by either Mr. O’Reilly or the company to settle harassment allegations against him. Despite that record, 21st Century Fox began contract negotiations with Mr. O’Reilly, and in February granted him a four-year extension that paid $25 million a year.

you kind of wonder--how much did his shitty behavior towards women cost the network, all told? Also, didn't anyone think that maybe O'Reilly needed more than a sternly-worded clause in his contract to keep from being a total gross abusive sleaze? And also, didn't anyone give a damn what this kind of pattern of behavior meant to women who worked for the company?

Just to highlight one little piece of that excerpt, "a nonconsensual sexual relationship" really sounds like a discussion of rape. So leaving aside whatever O' Reilly's qualities were as a broadcaster--they were paying for the privilege of letting him quietly be, quite possibly, a rapist?

As with the Weinstein story, this shows the disgusting lengths to which some people will knowingly go to not expose monsters. We can speculate about the kind of details and proof that would be behind a $32 million settlement--but that O'Reilly's contract was extended that he was still talent in good standing with Fox speaks volumes about the regard held for O'Reilly's victims, past, present and future.

And make no mistake--O'Reilly was not the only cretin. From Roger Ailes to Eric Bolling, there's stories--but in O'Reilly's spokesperson's defense of him, a vicious picture emerges. From Mark Fabiani:

"Dozens of women accused scores of male employees."  Also a thing of wonder: the allegation that this story was cooked up by The New York Times to prevent O'Reilly from "competing in the marketplace". Because...?  O'Reilly is apparently not done hanging his face out for people to see, or anything else? Because he has to keep earning in case any other suits come up without the backing of a multi-billion dollar organization?

It really is obscene.

Everywhere and Nobody Sees It

I don't really follow Hollywood stuff, other than watching movies based on comic books  or that have other genre appeal to me. I guess I knew/didn't know there were rumors about Harvey Weinstein because I read Defamer, but that kind of gossipy know/didn't know state isn't the same as thinking a person is a predator, because know/didn't know is the Schrodinger's Cat of pervert. I might not, based on this information, be alone with a person or would tell a friend not to be alone with that one in a "thing in your teeth" or "toilet paper on your shoe" kind of way, but I wouldn't necessarily say "This is a guy who needs to straight up be locked up".*  I'm not the world's biggest carceral state backer in the first place, but also, there's a benefit of the doubt we give men with that reputation, after all. That lady-killer shit.  That pimp player.  You just don't exactly know. Do they force themselves, or just have the kind of charm money definitely might/could buy? 

The Ronan Farrow investigation about Harvey Weinstein, on the other hand, is the confirmation of rumors that basically doesn't happen with situational abusers like this often enough. It's like what happened with Bill Cosby, where there were just too many stories--eventually, after a kind of floodgate opened. Or Roger Ailes. Or Donald Trump, if he didn't somehow get elected president. People who take advantage of others find their ways of doing it quietly and while isolating their targets. They create ways of not getting told on, including bullying and threats of retribution. And they have a great sense for who one can fuck with, and who one can't. They don't let their shit bubble up in front of "nice society". They victimize people who don't have power, and then I guess just hope their victims don't find themselves with the power to speak out, eventually.  

And it might help to understand that men can get sexually harassed too, and find themselves dealing with questioning themselves, how they could have responded, and why they didn't report. If someone like Terry Crews, who is physically impressive and someone you would feel so certain could handle himself in any kind of confrontation,  can speak to the powerlessness that situation can put someone in, it paints a picture of how this kind of abuse can be everywhere, and people just don't try to see it. It also shows how much privilege can be a factor.