“Who can you trust most not to show you their penis in a professional setting? Is it the candidate who doesn’t have a penis? I’d say so.”
—-Detroit attorney Dana Nessel, a Democrat and a misandrist running for Attorney General of Michigan by suggesting that all men should be assumed to be sexual harassers and predators.
In another ad, Nessel says…
I want to tell you what you can expect me not to do. I will not sexually harass my staff, and I won’t tolerate it in your workplace either. I won’t walk around in a half-open bathrobe, and I’ll continue to take all sex crimes seriously just like I did as a prosecutor.
I wonder how feminists would react if a male candidate said,
I want to tell you what you can expect me not to do. I won’t try to influence judges to make bad rulings by wearing tight clothes and wiggling my hips. I won’t take says off because I have a period, or break down in tears under stress. I won’t try to win cases by sleeping with lawyers and judges, or not report sexual misconduct because I’ve exploited it to my own advantage.
Nessel should meet exactly the same fate as a male candidate who made those bias-promoting, sexist remarks.
She’s a bigot, promoting bias, selling fear and hate, encouraging bigotry. Any Democrat, and feminist, and woman who supports this kind of rhetoric and campaign is exposed as a hypocrite and vicious opportunist.
She’s also engaging in disinformation. Plenty of women harass their employees.
I also would point this out to the unethical Ms. Nessel. The American Bar Association’s new ethics rule 8.4 g, pushed through the ABA by its member feminists even though it appears to nick the First Amendment, says that a lawyer must not…
(g) engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law.
Her statements breach this rule, for running for attorney general is undeniably conduct related to the practice of law. She should be asked directly how she squares her rhetoric with the principles articulated in that rule, which, as the comment to the rule explains,
“Discrimination and harassment by lawyers in violation of paragraph (g) undermine confidence in the legal profession and the legal system. Such discrimination includes harmful verbal or physical conduct that manifests bias or prejudice towards others…”
Being a lawyer, Nessel would probably counter that this rule has not been adopted by Michigan. That’s a dodge, and she should be asked directly if she agrees with the principle that lawyers should not engage in discrimination on the basis of gender, and if so, why is she advocating such discrimination?
Then she should be asked about Michigan’s rule 6.5, which requires a lawyer to take particular care to avoid treating any person discourteously or disrespectfully because of the person’s race, gender, or other protected personal characteristic. It also states that “A lawyer must take particular care to avoid words or actions that appear to be improperly based upon a person’s race, gender, or other protected personal characteristic. Legal institutions, and those who serve them, should take leadership roles in assuring equal treatment for all.”
Well? Square your campaign with that, you hypocritical bigotry huckster.
Boy, do I wish I were running against her.