This photo…
…is evidence of sexual harassment, and, to be blunt, it infuriates me.
Even after decades of laws, lawsuits, lectures, trainings, cultural messages…”Tootsie,” for God sake…too many men in the workplace believe that having a young, attractive woman working in a subordinate position gives them leave to treat her as a convenient source of cheap sexual thrills, open to hugs, kisses, pats, pinches and worse. Doing this to women places them in an impossibly uncomfortable position, forcing them to choose to “be a good sport” and ignore the disrespect, degradation, and invasion of privacy—as in endorse it, ratify it, and encourage more of it—or to risk career, workplace relationships and enmity from the powerful by saying, “Pardon me? Please keep your hands to yourself, sir. That is inappropriate.”
And it is inappropriate—worse than that, it is part of male workplace conduct that keeps glass ceilings impenetrable. It is a prime tool of male dominance and sexual discrimination. Such conduct speaks loudly to the woman under assault, saying, in essence, “you’re here by my leave, for my pleasure, at my pleasure, sweetie,” and saying to every woman who sees the resulting photograph, “See? This is the role you are expected to play, and if you don’t, well, better find a husband and start having those kids, honey, because you are going nowhere.”
Here we see the Vice-president of the United States, he of the Presidential ticket of the same party that launched its 2012 campaign with a manufactured, cynical, hypocritical “Republican War on Women” theme (don’t you dare tell me that any such convention that highlights a speech by Shameless Sexual Harasser #1, William Jefferson Clinton, can be anything but hypocritical), grasping Amie Parnes, the White House Correspondent for The Hill, during a photo op at Biden’s Christmas party. See the time-honored alarmed smile of the harassed “good sport.” Witness Parnes hands, firmly defending herself against further invasions of her personal space. She is not Joe Biden’s date, his surrogate, his power trip, his sex toy. Parnes is a reporter, a professional, and the fact that she happens to be a woman does not confer on any man, event the Vice-President, even a Vice-President with cognitive issues*, the right to treat her like his paid escort. Who does Biden think he is?
I’ll tell him what he should think he is: a role model. A high elected official whose public behavior should be impeccable, honorable, and especially legal, and who male leaders, manager and executives of any age should be able to rely upon to show how civil, civilized, considerate men act toward female colleagues and subordinates in the workplace. Instead, he is broadcasting a very different idea: “Hey, guys! Look at me! Go for it! You’re in charge! What’s the bitch going to do, slap your face?”
If I haven’t been clear, I really detest this stuff. When I worked for a large—Democratic! Liberal! –Washington association, I oversaw a large female staff, and got sick of seeing the white-haired, millionaire members with their freshly siliconed trophy wives routinely greet my staff at conventions with bear hugs, kisses on the lips, and often a copped feel. Ultimately I told all of the young women I supervised that they were to gently, politely but forcefully rebuff such advances, and if they got any complaints, send the members to me. I also told them that I would hold them responsible if they submitted, that doing so reflected poorly on me, them and the rest of the staff, and that if they wanted to be regarded as professionals, they had to insist on being treated as professionals. That was before Bill Clinton, and still we have a Vice President who behaves like this….and he will get away with it.
He will, that is, unless those female columnists and angry feminists who attacked Mitt Romney for using the awkward phrase “women in binders” as if it proved he was, well, hmmmm, another Kennedy brother, raise any tiny alarm that ol’ “Lunchbucket Joe” thinks that this is how professional women should expect to be treated in the halls of power.
I doubt we’ll hear a word. This is the real war on women, and it goes on in offices across American every day.
If Democrats do it, see, it’s harmless.
* Want more proof? (Pointer: Dot Wiggins)
From Shakesville:
[Video Description: Just scene after scene of Vice President Joe Biden meeting little girls and young women, and saying some variation on “No dates/men until you’re 30,” followed by family members laughing politely.] Apart from …the fact that there is a distinct (and creepy) difference between making that horrible garbage joke to a little girl and a woman who is in her 20s (especially while you’re sort of leering at her? ew), I can’t even begin to put into sufficiently contemptuous words how NOT the job of the Vice President of the United States of America it is to even jokingly be the hall monitor of young women’s sexuality…
____________________
Sources and Graphic: Daily Caller, Daily Mail
Ethics Alarms 
I yield to your superior ability to read a photo, but it seems that she posted the pic on her Facebook page. I wonder why.
Because its a photo with the Veep? Because people post all sorts of embarrassing things on Facebook?
That could, in fact, reinforce your point.
Thanks Ethics Bob, I was going to say the same thing. Jack — I agree that the photo looks pretty bad, but photos can be misleading. I have several male bosses — and many male clients (female too) — that greet me with bear hugs or even kisses on the cheek. That is not to say that I haven’t also witnessed sexual harassment in the work place. So I do understand the difference. Notice too that this looks like a posed picture. Biden is many things, but I don’t think he is an idiot. These two just might have a closer relationship than you think. (And no – I don’t mean sex.) If it turns out that I’m wrong, I’ll bring the gasoline and the matches for you.
“Biden is many things, but I don’t think he is an idiot.”
You haven’t heard him speak have you?
I think AM writes Biden’s speeches actually ….
Not enough “fucks”, and more stupid than five Freds.
The guy is the pinnacle of modern gaff-creation technology.
If he’s not a moron, the guy has some form of dementia. There is no other way to explain the guy…
1. You shouldn’t let your superiors hug or kiss you either, Beth. I don’t let my employers kiss me. It’s a power play, and every time a male get away with it, the glass ceiling gets a little higher and thicker.
2. He’s VP, and if it looks bad, it IS bad. The appearance of impropriety applies.
3. She covers the White House! If they have a “special relationship” then that’s a conflict.
4. There is no excuse for that photo.
Biden IS an idiot. I cannot think of a public figure in my lifetime who has said so many foolish things over such a long period….and been allowed to skate, because the media protects him.
Well, I definitely will retract one of my remarks after further thought. Biden is an idiot for letting that photo be taken — because it obviously is posed (showing intent) and people are going to get the wrong idea even if he wasn’t attempting to feel her up. As for my bosses, I’ll take a hug or kiss any day over hanging out with them at a beach boondoggle/work trip. I personally find it challenging to discuss work while applying sunscreen to my chest. But the corporate world has changed a bit Jack – women hug, men hug. A French colleague just gave me the double-cheek kiss thing last week – and although that is a cultural difference, it’s still a kiss. Maybe if I were just starting out I’d feel threatened, but given that I have management’s ear and seniority, it doesn’t even occur to me to be bothered – it feels no different than a friend giving me a hug. A hug isn’t threatening to me – a pat or a pinch on the butt is threatening.
It doesn’t have to be threatening, Beth. It de-professionalizes you. It’s a pure power play, intentional or instinctive. Who initiates the kiss? Do you want to kiss these people? It’s a trap, and you shouldn’t fall into it.
On another topic, I was just about to write exactly what you did about Biden and the photo. Would Bill Clinton ever get caught in a pose like that? No, because he’s NOT an idiot. Just a lech.
Oh for Christ’ sake: The French have been double-kissing for aeons — men and woman alike. Don’t know any cultural history, do you? LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT DIFFERENT CULTURES. The French double-kiss is a form a greeting, not anything else. Grabbing a subordinate around the waist for a photo-op is NOT comparable.
“It’s still a kiss.” My my fucking word: does a double kiss on a kid’s cheeks constitute some kind of sexual harassment? And AT WHAT AGE, does it become harassment… especially in a culture different than ours? I LIKE the double-kiss — with women friend and men. What’s your hangup?
Ummmm — can you read? I don’t have a hangup with it at all. Sheesh.
http://www.shakesville.com/2011/01/ugh-joe-biden-shut-up.html
Yes he is an idiot.
Perfect, Dot. And right on point.
Beth? Bob?
I watched it — and it was creepy. But the reason that it was creepy is because it was spliced together from multiple meet and greets. Politicians use the same lines again and again — so this is his “funny grandfather” act. I don’t think he is good at it — but I also wouldn’t find it disturbing if he said to my girls. (I would find it creepy if Biden put his arms around my rib cage for a picture though.) My male relatives and friends all make the same jokes. My 5 year-old will explain to anyone that she has to go to school until she’s 24, she can’t have a baby until she’s 30, she can’t wear make-up until she’s 14, and that she can’t date until she’s 16. (As if I will have control over some of these milestones – I can only hope.) And the reason that she will rattle off this list is because she is constantly asking these questions. Her latest demand is for a pink Iphone – it’s not going to happen anytime soon, but I don’t yet have the appropriate answer to that question. Around here, kids are getting them at 12 – which I think is ridiculous.
” but I also wouldn’t find it disturbing if he said to my girls. (I would find it creepy if Biden put his arms around my rib cage for a picture though.) “
And this is the problem. Everyone has their own set of ‘rules’ for appropriate touching and comfort level. With no consistent Community standard (what we used to called manners, but don’t because manners are for old fogeys who need to get with the times) then NO ONE ever knows what is appropriate and what isn’t.
Because humans understood there was no consistent set of ‘hands off in this situation and hands on in that situation’ rules when each individual was considered, it made the appropriate choice to say “Keep your Hands to Yourself” and made that a relatively rock solid rule. Your person is your property and any uninvited touching was as egregious as assault (even if it wasn’t legally enforceable). Obvious exceptions existed when two individuals whose intimacy was proven time and again, such as close friends or long established colleagues and the occasional affirming or comforting shoulder touch or back slap or arm grab.
But no, since the “everyone can be intimate with each other, its cool” culture sprung out of the culturally revolutionizing era of the “screw everything about the old ways” 60s, we now have UNNAVIGABLE waters leading to this chaos of multiple standards and wondering what set of rules the person espouses who you are approaching and if your set of rules are compatible.
You raise some good points Tex, but I wouldn’t take them as far as you do though. Manners and traditions do matter though. My husband bitterly complained that I sent out Xmas cards last week (even though he didn’t do any of the work). He thinks it’s ridiculous given email and facebook. I think getting a handwritten card in the mail is thoughtful and I’m sad to see this going away. I also still send out thank you notes.
It’s not about “traditions”. Tradition implies doing things because that’s how they were always done. I’d submit that most traditions developed from well thought out actions and events that served valuable purposes. Certainly they ought to be reevaluated ALL the time to ensure relevancy. But the 60s said “it’s traditional? It’s wrong. Change it”
But it isn’t about tradition. Manners, in the case I’m discussing isn’t thank you notes. That’s a diversion. I’ll address it quickly: writing thank you notes isn’t the manners issue. Expressing gratitude for gifts IS. However one chooses to do that is a personal decision made given a wife variety of conditions. Manners demands that extended gratitude be demonstrated somehow… Thank you notes are a nice way.
Writing holiday greeting cards IS thoughtful, but I don’t think manners compels such.
On topic: hands off attitudes and an individual’s “person is sacred” attitude alleviates a great deal of this quagmire of harassment and physical discomfort generated by the “hey man, its cool” culture we now have.
Because guess what… Hey man! It isn’t cool!
I also still send out thank you notes.
*********
I was taught that way and I still send the cards.
I feel like a creep if I don’t.
My nieces and nephews send an email.
As long as I get an acknowledgement, I am good.
The old ways are dying out, unfortunately.
Hello, Jack,
You make several points, one of which is debatable.
Is it right to deny a “War on Women” when a party is oozing quotes like “Of course it’s a war on contraception” and is opposing equal pay legislation? When its Presidential nominee says Griswold v. Connecticut was wrongly decided? When the highest profile ally of the party puts a sign on his office door that says “Sexual harassment at this work station will not be reported. However, it will be graded!” When the same person says of people who speak up against sexual harassment “They’re out there protesting against what they actually wish would happen to them”?
As for your analysis of the picture, your main point, I agree that even on the most favorable interpretation it is setting a bad example.
I linked to the interview earlier this week, Fred. Romney said that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided, not Griswold. And I saw it live. He was clearly referring to Roe. I’m not sure he even recognized Griswold, which does mot speak well for his Harvard Law degree, I’ll admit.
Equal pay legislation is crap, and has always been a stunt. I’ve posted plenty on this issue. There are effective remedies for gender discrimination already. If Female X is offered Z in salary and accepts it, and Male Y with the same credentials is offered Z and holds out for Z+1, that’s not discrimination. That’s bad negotiation by X, and the law shouldn’t help her.
Now address Democratic hypocrisy on feminism.
Didn’t I acknowledge your main point?
Clinton was not “just a lech” — he abused power. It was unmistakably wrong of the Democrats not to confront him about it.
No doubt, As long as Bill is the rock star of the Democrats, the party’s claim of being “pro-woman” has no credibility with me at all. Pro-women parties don’t worship sexual predators.
The Romney-Griswold slur is special peeve of mine. One of many misrepresentations that the Obama campaign successfully pulled off, and one of the most unfair.
Who worships Bill Clinton? Sheesh.
The answer is depressing.
Rick Santorum is the one who commented on Griswold V Connecticut.
Correct. And he’s insane. But he was not the GOP’s candidate.
He was a GOP Candidate, and he was around for more than most.
But it just is another example of someone in the GOP doing relatively well for being an insane person advocating for anti-women stances like banning oral contraception. Such a person won 11 states popular votes in the primary. Kinda hard to state that the war against woman is false when such candidates are highly popular within the GOP.
Oh please.Judging any party because any one extremist—and Santorum is regarded as an extremist—is just unfair and wrong. He was running for a nomination; he held no elective position. It would be exactly as fair to judge the Democrats by Anthony Weiner. Because Eliot Spitzer is a sex addict and a felon, I don’t presume that he represents the views and character of the Democratic Party.
Santorum lost his last election in his own state. Primary voters in both parties are the fringes and the hard-liners. He was no different from Herman Cain or Newt Gingrich, and none of them qualify as GOP leaders. They make speeches and have fans. I don’t even hold the Democrats fully accountable for Nancy Pelosi, another extremist, and she’s House minority leader. Yes, Santorum is a bigot and would like the US to be a theocracy, and as a result he has no power in the party and no prospects of being elected dogcatcher.
Santorum is not just a simple extremist. He is someone who won the popular vote in 11 primary states. He stayed in the primary longer than any other of the candidates who did not receive the nomination. There are many people in the GOP who viewed him as the real “Conservative” candidate and Romney as a fake and a phoney.
Eliot Spitzer did not win the popular vote in 11 state primaries. But the views Santorum holds are in line with a significant subset of the GOP. To deny that is to bury your head in the sand. As much as the more sane members of the GOP want to deny them, the party has a large number of those people. People who to this day try to ban oral contraception.
All parties have a “significant subset” of whack jobs. Only the intractably biased pretend that their own party is more virtuous in this respect than any other, because they can’t smell their own wackos. Winning some primaries, 11 or whatever, means literally nothing. The guy has no job, no power position, nothing.I can list irresponsible extremists with elected positions in both parties from now to the apocalypse, adn every one of them are more significant than a two term Senator who was on the fringe even while he was in office. Yes, he appeals to Christian Right, and those wo think that gays are trying to corrupt America. He’s irrelevant.
Oral contraception apparently doesn’t work for a lot of women. Oops.
Two things…
1) Griswold was only 10 years old when Romney graduated with his dual degree – is it possible it wasn’t much mentioned?
2) Also, when you get further into the numbers regarding pay, women and men earn virtually the same (women a bit more, actually) until the mid to late 20’s, when women start having kids and staying home to take care of a sick kid, or making sure they get home as soon as possible at the end of the day. Any employee – man or woman – who puts in more time at the office is more likely to get the promotion over someone who doesn’t.
It sucks, but it is what it is.
Sure. I knew that Roe was based on Griswold, but I doubt that you could have quizzed me about the facts in that case and received a decent answer unless I had checked it again.
If anything, equal pay legislation benefits men because they would be as competitive as women. during the last recession, more men lost their jobs than women did.
Quote?
When I looked at this photo there was something about it that caused a familiar, sickening thud in the pit of my stomach. I had no clue who the woman was, but the placement of her hands said everything – it’s the “Really? I’m standing here in front of a room full of people, about to get a picture taken, you’ve leaned in way too close, your hands are not where I want them, so I’m going to put mine where I need to in order for yours not to wander any further and then I’m going to smile pretty for the camera. Asshole.”
I truly don’t think I’m reading too much into the photo. I have male friends with whom I’m very close, who could wrap their arms around me for a photo and it would be clear that the friendship and affection was mutual. This photo is NOT that.
Thanks, Alicia. I also think it’s pretty clear how she feels about it. Amazing how cognitive dissonance causes ethical blindness in intelligent people, but it does.
When I looked at this photo there was something about it that caused a familiar, sickening thud in the pit of my stomach. I had no clue who the woman was, but the placement of her hands said everything – it’s the “Really? I’m standing here in front of a room full of people, about to get a picture taken, you’ve leaned in way too close, your hands are not where I want them, so I’m going to put mine where I need to in order for yours not to wander any further and then I’m going to smile pretty for the camera. Asshole.”
*************
That is exactly what I saw.
She is holding his hands down to keep them off of her breasts.
No woman wants to be pawed at by a dirty old man.
My first job out of uni was at a Catholic hospital.
During my first week of orientation I was warned by other techs to stay out of the stairwells when Dr. Smith (made up name) was there and to avoid getting into a situation where I would be alone with him.
This was the dr. second from the top of the whole damn lab!
Everyone just shared this news like it was no biggie.
“Oh, well, ho hum, he’s just a silly groper.”
One day I was sitting on a wooden bench in a busy hallway and he came and sat down so close that his thigh and the whole side of his body was tight against mine.
There was no one else on the bench, this move was strictly to cause intimidation.
I was young and inexperienced in the world, not wanting to make waves, so I simply got up and left.
If the same thing happened today, I would punch him in the face.
At least we’re at a place today where we even realize that groping is a problem.
Yup. Her hand placement is clearly a defensive position; one, unfortunately, that most women have practiced at one time or another.
I tried to explain the photo to myself: “wait… maybe it’s his daughter?” – THAT’s how familiar his physical proximity is to her. My next thought was “no, that would be creepy…” Again, that should say something.
It’s the hand placement. I recognized it immediately. *sigh*
Large swathes of the Left.
I have long held that this is a perfectly acceptable solution to most of life’s problems.
Romney said “binders full of women” not “women in binders.” Context matters.
I think Alicia is correct in her reading of Amie Parnes’ body language. I don’t like to be grabbed like that by my husband. It’s an unpleasant surprise that is threatening and demeaning and the first impulse is to turn and slap the person doing it.
A hug and kiss on the cheek even a double kiss are much less demeaning. Men should be very wary of where they put their hands.
Am I reading too much into the photo? The inward leaning faces of the two men would usually be interpreted as paternal or protective, the straight look of the woman on the right could intimate ‘it’s ok for you to look, i’m here to be looked at’, the men have their arms covered, the women have bare arms, the men wear short hair (which is easy to keep) the women have long hair that is very well groomed (which is expensive), the men don’t appear to wear make-up, the women are again expensively prepared, the men wear non-descript suits, the women wear highly individual well judged outfits and expensive looking jewelery.
Does anyone feel it is unsurprising that all of these signs and practices of sexual submission end up with an open mouthed woman trying to look pretty and valuable to her virtual male gazing and female judging audience in the camera while the whole set up is telling her to ‘stay pretty and now be quite quiet while the elderly gentleman touches you’? In front of a christmas tree – a symbol of family, no less.
It may make you angry Jack. It makes me heave. And i don’t think it’s quite right to blame the victims.
Whatever happened to feminism?
Feminism was co-opted by progressives and pro-abortion activists. This cost feminism a lot of credibility and power.
Like most social movements pressing for equality and equal treatment under the law, once the vast majority of goals were reached, there was still a corps of individuals in each movement that wanted MORE, because the material manifestations of equality had not yet been achieved.
The short answer is yes. You are reading far too much into this photo. Jack Marshall is correct in stating what is clearly an inappropriate touching. Before I go too far let me address your comment that we should not blame the victims. Where in Jack’s comments did he ascribe blame to either of the women? Nowhere. You also wrongly infer that the other man has done something to warrant criticism. You know nothing of him. He could be an intern for the women on the far right. The young man on the right is doing nothing but standing in the photo with his hand in his pocket. Perhaps it’s there because he does not know what to do with it when the photographer tells them to get close. Because we do not see the woman on the far right’s left hand, we do not know what she is doing with it. Perhaps his smile is from embarrassment because she is copping a feel of his butt. I doubt it, but it is as likely as your conjecture.
With respect to each member’s couture and hairdressing your comment suggests that if they were attired in $3000 Armani suits, $400 haircuts (e.g.. John Edwards) with $10,000 Rolex’s on their wrists that would somehow justify the behavior of Uncle Joe. No it would not. That is what the entire piece was about.
Perhaps you can answer a question for me: Why do the women choose to be “expensively prepared . . . wear[ing] highly individual well judged outfits and expensive looking jewelry”, while them men did not feel the need, do so? Are you suggesting that women lack the mental capacity to understand that such looks will attract unwanted attention from lecherous old coots; or, that men have conditioned women to be subservient? Either way, you give very little credit to women’s ability to make rational decisions on how they want to present themselves to the public. By implication you suggested that women have no power to manage their own affairs which is the foundation of paternalism.
What Jack unequivocally stated was that men have no right to invade the personal space of a female for their personal gratification. I would go further to say that no person has that right. By the way, What is a “virtual female judging audience”?
Chris, thanks for that. ‘Yes’ was a good and sufficient answer. I withdraw and apologise is my short reply.
My attempt to detect hypocrisy in smaller signals without needing to wait for a ‘caught red-handed abusive’ photo was aimed wider than just Joe Biden. The post was about an integrity test for all relevant political figures.
(The only money angle was that membership of that clique appeared to be more expensive in various ways for women than men, membership to that extent would be on non-equal terms and thereby abusive in essence. No excuse for Joe, just part of the same picture. And no detrimental comment on the women concerned, if the VP has biases and problems what is a professional reporter to do to get access?
As to blaming the victims my understanding was that all women were to ‘resist’ and that they were letting the side down if any touching were permitted, or in this case laughed off. I wanted to focus on the hypocrite/abuser.)
Oh, and what do I mean by male gaze and females judgement,virtually? Just watch the twittersphere for a day or two on this. I suspect you will; get an object example. A good fraction of commentary will be about the victim, and some of the nastiest comments will be from other women. I hope I’m wrong.
I would need to see the video to see what was exactly going on with the picture in question to make a fully educated and informed decision about what is goign on here. Yes, it looks bad and it could very well be bad and people on both sides should be held to the same standards when it comes to harrassment in the workplace. Of course, Biden is not this woman’s superior but that doesn’t excuse any poor behavior by him. But I do not buy into the “perception is reality” crap. Sometimes perceptions are wrong and they should be corrected. In the modern day when you have cameras that can snap pictures very quickly you can get some interesting results that are not intended. You have discussed some of them here. And when it comes to politics especially, I am leary of jumping to a conclusion on a snapped picture because of all the horrible assumptions that people have made about pictures that have been taken about leaders on both sides of the aisle.
Come on, now, he may not be her direct superior- not her boss, as such- but you can’t pretend that there is not an obvious and unshakable power differential between the VP of the United States and a reporter, even a high-ranking reporter. That’s a clear power and authority disparity.
I think you start getting on shaky grounds if you start trying to apply the employer/employee relationship to non employees.
And, as I said, the lack fo employer/employee relationship wouldn’t exempt bad behavior by Biden.
Perhaps a better analogy would be a keeping the female reporter out of the male locker room.
In general I don’t buy the perceived power argument as much as it’s presented, but I think the POTUS/ VPOTUS is in a position of particular power, particularly since I’d guess a word from him would make her not have that job any more (maybe not fired outright, but out of the prestige of the white house position). To me, if You can get someone demoted at your say-so, you’re in a position of power over them.
If you do not buy into perception is reality, then you are rejecting a cornerstone of both government and judicial ethics. That’s what avoiding the appearance of impropriety means, and the reason for it is that appearances undermine trust as much as realty…and its the duty of public officials to uphold trust.
Surely you understand this better than this comment suggests.
And of course Biden is her de facto superior. The VP could get her fired with a word. Stop ducking the issue.
Yeah, I was taken aback even by Dan’s staking against perception is reality.
Especially when his favorite party retains so much favor because of it.
When the bell rings and you come out of the corner, you come out swinging.
Tex, that’s just your perception, not reality.
The Duke Lacrosse players were perceived as rapists. That was not reality.
The Hofstra college men were perceived as rapists. That was not reality.
The ONLY REASON to say that perception is reality is to excuse those people with the incorrect perception and their flawed actions based on those incorrect perceptions.
Yes, of course. It isn’t like large number of professors at their university publicly condemned them, or numerous people who really should have known better were on national TV shows proclaiming their clear guilt.
You’re right – reality was in no way influenced by the perception of their guilt…
My god, you’re even more stupid than I thought…
Beth, you’re going to have to give up the crown…
You COMPLETELY missed the point while calling me stupid. CLASSIC.
The Duke Lacrosse players were perceived to be rapists BECAUSE of all the public condemnation of them and their assumed guilt. The PERCEPTION was that they were rapists.
However, the PERCEPTION was NOT REALITY. The PERCEPTION was wrong. In REALITY they were not rapists. They did not do the crime.
That is why I have a problem with the idea that perception is reality, because it isn’t always and as such the only reason to say “perception is reality” is to excuse those people who have the wrong perception and accept it as their reality. Those people should not be excused. Those people should be corrected.
I wouldn’t expect a mental midget like yourself to get that, especially after this last post of yours. WOW.
What you don’t get about “Perception is Reality” is exactly why the Duke Lacross situation was so bad. The DAMAGE to the players was just as bad as though they had IN REALITY committed the crimes they were accused of.
Because the DAMAGES were REAL, we use the phrase “Perception is Reality” because IT MIGHT AS WELL BE when you consider the effects. This is why the media and any public official must guard all the perceptions around them and those they communicate because the effects of them are the same as if they were real.
That you cannot comprehend this is telling. It ranks you somewhere down around TGT levels on topics like this.
I do not just reject the idea that perception is reality. I think it is a bullshit excuse and a crutch to excuse bad behavior. Reality is reality. People with incorrect perceptions should be corrected.
Quite the opposite, “Perception is Reality” compels people to be on their best behavior.
Now, on the other issue addressed here, regardless of the behavior of Biden and if this was a picture taken out of context or a picture showing Biden committing acts that he should be scolded for, the idea that the the Republican War on Women “theme” is “hypocritical” is just ridiculous. There is one party that clearly defends womens rights and another party that wants to eliminate the progress that has been made in trying to eliminate the barriers that women face on issues of personal autonomy, workplace equality, and the simple idea that women should be treated equally under the law.
Yes.
Molesting/assaulting/ disrespecting female subordinates in the workplace is profoundly undermining to workplace equality for women. If you can’t see and admit that, you are part of the problem.
Harassment is neither a Democrat nor a Republican problem — it is universal.
No in liberal dan’s world. Sexual harrassment is a key line on party platform of the Republicans. Putting women back in the kitchen in a constant state of pregnancy and ever ready to put a beer the hands of the man of the house is espoused by the tea party.
You can look it up on the party website.
I don’t know if I should just say that is a strawman argument tex or if I should just call you a flat out liar.
It’s neither. I’m not arguing against a position you haven’t made (strawman). But it’s clear how absurd my comment is so its intent is self evident.
It’s called hyperbole. Based on your utterly ridiculous assertion above:
“There is one party that clearly defends womens rights and another party that wants to eliminate the progress that has been made”
Did you actually write that with a straight face?
Yup
Premise A: People who believe such an assertion are imbeciles.
Premise B: Liberal Dan believes such an assertion.
Conclusion:
I’ll let you fill that in.
Of course if you start off with a faulty premise (or set of premises) your conclusion will be faulty.
Nope. You made an absurd statement. Your conclusion “There is one party that clearly defends womens rights and another party that wants to eliminate the progress that has been made” is based on begging the question.
Egregiously.
You see, you lefties often use deceptive premises from which to base your hateful bigoted conclusions from. You lefties inevitably set up false dichotomies. In summary, the one you are employing here is based on the notion that Republicans want women back with the political rights they possessed, oh sometime in the early 1600s.
Wrong.
Although everything lies on a continuum, for simplicity sake, we can describe this debate with 3 conditions:
Condition A: Men have all the political rights the Founders described in the Declaration and enshrined in the Constitution. Women don’t.
Condition B: Men and Women both enjoy all the political rights the Founders described in the Declaration and enshrined in the Constitution.
Condition C: Men have the political rights the Founders described in the Declaration and enshrined in the Constitution but Women have been granted additional rights or have been conferred additional advantages in the Marketplace because Condition A lasted long enough that they need ‘help’.
You see, you’d be hard pressed to find any modern politician or leader actually espousing policy that envisions a society with Condition A in effect. The Ideal would be Condition B, and for the most part, I’d say almost complete, we are there. Of course, there is a certain element, your ilk, that is impatient that the Marketplace (which takes times) hasn’t reached the equilibrium it inevitably reaches when everyone operates with the ability they rightfully should have, so that element agitates for Condition C, to “even the score”. Only Condition C is just as unfair and leads to inequality as Condition A.
So, to justify this inequality and compelling of the market place, what do you lefties do? Just re-brand conservatives as wanting to revert to the rotten and mean society of Condition A because they don’t espouse C…even though they are content at B — WHERE WE OUGHT TO BE.
So, in short, you are a dishonest fool. Get to proving the allegations of “War on Women” or get lost you idiot.
And I did not say or imply otherwise. But the party that assumes the role of moral exemplar had better be able to point to superior, if not exemplary standards. This photo doesn’t make the grade, and not by a longshot.
See my really, really frustrated comment above.
Jack: You are confusing individual actions with party platforms.
Now that’s a strawman.
Jack asserted no such thing.
Sure he is. He is saying that the party with Bill Clinton in it cannot advocate for women’s equality nor can they call out the GOP for their policies that would harm women’s equality.
It’s also an impossible standard for any party or institution to uphold.
No it isn’t. It is not impossible for an institution or organization to not idolize an individual who exemplifies the values they claim so disgusting.
Tex — the Democratic party does not idolize Biden. We tolerate him.
But why do you tolerate him? Letting someone be a heartbeat from the Oval Office is a lot of tolerance.
Because I tolerated Biden more than Palin in Round 1 — and I tolerated Obama more than Romney in Round 2. These are package deals.
I thought the sub topic was Bill Clinton. That’s who I was referring to.
Oops.
I somehow thought this was a sub discussion of this discussion
If it were that case my comments stands.
To be fair, isn’t that image of Biden and Parnes possibly, merely hobnobbing? I don’t want any war on hobnobbing. We should hear from Parnes, no matter how incredulous we become from anything she puts on Facebook or anywhere else to explain that image – and give her the benefit of doubt, no matter how sure we are that she is lying like a cheap rug.
But that video creeps me out. I now hope I am never in the presence of Joe Biden, but especially if it’s when he attempts to paw and otherwise hit on a woman or girl who happens to accompany me.
I am not a fan of tit for tat, but I do daydream wishfully that someday, when Biden gives his unsolicited advice and petting to a little girl when they meet for the first time, she will reply to him loudly enough for all the microphones to catch: “Well, don’t let some little girl you don’t know grab your crotch, either.” I have a daughter who, when she was 6 years old, was known for saying stuff like that. She has not changed much in that way, only become more skillful and effective, and I am more proud of her every day.
I say they are closer to “nobnobbing”. Hobnobbing is socializing in a relaxed atmosphere.
Having written to other replies above: Find me one picture of ANYONE wanting to hug Hillary tightly around the waist? Only the bimboes get that homage?
Far from a Hillary fan, but look at Fox TV — the women reporters’ wear totally non-professional clothing, and you won’t wonder why sexism is alive and well, and THAT WOMEN ARE ALLOWING IT TO HAPPEN. MEN IN SUITS’ WOMEN IN SLEVELESS DRESSES (IN 65 DEGREE STUDIOS) WITH CLEAVAGE HANGING ALL OVER THE PLACE? A professional woman would simply say that she would wear a business suit to conduct her business. But no..
Sorry, but this is our (women’s) fault. Give in to sexism for a lot of money and regular spot on TV? Let Biden grip you so you can post it on Facebook?
Take the vote away from women, if this is the metier in which they choose to live, and the level of analysis and intelligence they possess. ..