|
My original version of this posting was removed, presumably because in it I "personally attacked" (a la Huffington versus Schwarzenegger in the Sep. 24 debate) another poster with my almost benign name-calling ("you idiot") and attacking the messenger instead of the message by calling the messenger a sexist rather than calling the message sexist. I have corrected these out-of-bounds references in the self-censored version of my posting below. I apologize, and I want to say that I intend from here on in to be the champion of sexists and idiots. And I am being satirical here, and mean no disrespect whatsoever towards the moderators, since that is also not allowed by the rules -- I fully understand that the moderators are enforcing standards that they believe are helpful to constructive discussion on DU. I do believe that my posting being deleted, but sexist postings like the one I was responding to being welcome to remain, points out a fundamental problem in the censorship rules in force here, but perhaps it is simply an unavoidable unfairness in this case. I leave that question open. I certainly wouldn' want sexist comments deleted, wouldn't want the sexism covered up like that.
Since I first posted this, Camejo has spoken out publicly against Arnie's sexism, so I guess he'll get my vote after all:
"These are allegations that can't be dismissed. It's not some accidental thing that happened when he was 18 years old and he outgrew a disrespect for women. This is an attitude of abusiveness toward women. This is a pattern that is unacceptable for a person who wants to be governor of California. People should think twice before voting for him." * Green Party candidate Peter Camejo.
And Davis?
"It's not something that we are talking about. It's something for voters to decide." * Peter Ragone, spokesman for Gov. Gray Davis.
okay, here's the legal replay:
***someone in a posting just said, and therefore apparently believes*** lewd jokes and unwanted advances in the workplace are "almost benign workplace sexual harassment"? where in ***anyone's*** left-liberal Dean-supporting vocabulary ***does someone*** ever come up with the term "almost benign sexual harassment"? sexual harassment is a civil rights violation, *****! you believe there is a class of civil rights violations that are "almost benign"? How dare ***anyone say that***! How about some mild racial harassment? I'm a Chinese-American. ***Anyone*** care to rib me a little with some almost benign comments about my yellowness or my slanty eyes? care to ask me whether i'd like to do your dry cleaning or, maybe you'd like to come up to me and do some fake kung-fu moves and say, "hyawwwww" and playfully say, "Huh, I guess I better not mess with you, you'll make chop suey out of me!" -- yeah, just some benign workplace racial harassment that anyone in this day and age would just roll their eyes and make some witty comeback to defuse, right?
And what's this baloney about all the allegations against Clinton being about consensual sex? Denial leads to amnesia, I guess. He was accused very credibly of sexual assault by Kathleen Willey, and rape by Juanita Broderick. I have worked at a sexual assault crisis center, and I can assure you their accounts are very credible. This is just evidence that those of us who demanded Clinton's resignation over his history of sexual harassment and sexual assault were right in warning that allowing him to get away with it would create a hostile environment for women throughout the country, and particularly in Democrat circles. There is nothing benign about targeting someone at work, where they cannot escape because they must make their living there, for treatment that enforces historic subordination by sex, race, disability, sexual orientation, etc. I cannot believe that ***any*** self-styled liberal Democrat would need this pointed out, but apparently, thanks to so many Democrats' codependent allegiance to compulsive liar and abuser Bill Clinton, it does.
***What you said*** sounds like ***what*** the Republicans ***said when they*** went after Clinton while making excuses for Newt Gingrich, who was reported in a 1966 article in Vanity Fair as having told a campaign volunteer he was using for sex that he only wanted her to suck his cock, because then he could legally claim that he did not have sex with her. These people are all part of a sexist elite subculture that most men do not belong to but perhaps secretly admire, the subculture including politicians and celebrities who believe their status rightly gives them unfettered access to the use of women as sexual paraphernalia, along with other luxuries like cool cars, cocaine and caviar. To them, it is just a perk of their status that they have the right to rape without impunity, and with the luxury of choosing whether or not to experience the rape as rape, depending on what turns them on (and never having to be confronted with how the woman or man or boy or girl they are raping might be experiencing it, one way or the other).
maybe *** some people *** call "lewd jokes, unwanted advances" "benign workplace sexual harassment" because *** they *** are comparing it to the extravagant luxuries that men in the power subculture enjoy. it's like comparing a toyota with a porsche for *** them ***, right? why should the poor common man be denied at least his little 4-cylinder toyota, and his occasional almost benign workplace sexual harassment?
Meanwhile, I'd like someone to explain to me exactly how Schwarzenegger's political agenda differs so greatly from Bill Clinton's. His treatment of women is exactly the same as Bill Clinton's, and Newt Gingrich's. If you voted for Bill Clinton, you might as well vote for Schwarzenegger -- and I think that's precisely why so many Clinton Democrats and Clinton independents will be voting for Clinton-clone Schwarzenegger next Tuesday. 40% of voters in the latest poll say they will vote Arnie, and 15% of Democrats. 15% will vote McClintock, 3% Camejo, 32% Bustamante. 49% of California voters chose Clinton/Gore in 1996. Only 35% of Californians are registered Republicans. Do the math. I personally know Clinton/Gore voters who are all thumbs up on Arnie.
Weeks ago when Gloria Allred and Laurie Fink (in the LA Weekly) first raised the issue of Arnie's sexism in the press, Bustamante came out immediately to publicly declare that Arnie's treatment of women was his private business and was irrelevant to the campaign, no doubt hoping in exchange he'd continue to be excused for using the "N" word about blacks a few weeks ago. I guess he considers his racism a private matter as well. He doesn't care about Arnie's treatment of women, or about civil rights, obviously. Yet 32% of voters and 66% of Democrats still say they'll vote for him, and there's been no outcry from any part of the Democratic party for him to take a stand against Arnie's sexism. The Democratic Party, obviously, does not care about civil rights -- why wasn't Bustamante forced to resign as Lt. Governor for calling blacks niggers, but Rush Limbaugh has to resign for his much more subtle (but equally racist) slur? How long are we going to have a double-standard that allows Democrats to get away with blatantly racist and sexist, often illegal, conduct, just because they vote and speechify for civil rights when it's convenient for them to do so politically?
Gray Davis has done nothing today but scramble to broadcast everywhere that he's had nothing to do with the LA Times article about Arnie's sexism. No comment from his camp to the effect that women should not be treated this way -- no, no he wouldn't want to be seen as hitting below the belt, even if it turns out to be a rapists' belt. Arnie is the only one so far who's said anything to the effect that women should not be treated that way. If that remains the case, why shouldn't I change my vote from Camejo to Arnie? If he's the only one actually willing to say that his treatment of women is wrong, even if he won't admit it's sexual harassment (perhaps he thinks it's just the benign kind), then isn't he the least of all the evils running?
15% of Democrats say they'll vote for Arnie, 42% of moderates, 11% of liberals. If Clinton had done the right thing and admitted that he had acted in an illegal sex-discriminatory manner by granting an intern access to the President during working hours, and purportedly for official government business, on the basis of her willingness to gratify him sexually rather than for any legitimate business reason, and resigned his position as he should have for that illegal act, we would not have Arnie polling so well today. Democrats could speak out against him more strongly without being hypocrites. Clinton and his apologists have rendered the Democratic Party completely impotent to promote civil rights.
This is the Republican revenge for Clinton's hypocrisy, to say that if Democrats can get away with sexism, so can Republicans. Idiot Clinton supporters, including the National Organization for Women, were too stupid to realize that the whole impeachment movement was not aimed at Clinton himself or the Democratic Party, but at civil rights in general, especially women's rights. They recklessly, uncaringly and stupidly fell for the trick. If both parties are so intent on proving how little regard they need to pay to women's rights, they should both be abandoned immediately by all people who believe in civil rights, equality, or democracy.
So how about this -- will your Presidential candidate come out and denounce both Clinton and Schwarzenegger for their sexual harassment and sexual assault? If not, you have no business supporting them and calling yourself a liberal, or a Democrat, or anything better than a closet Rush Limbaugh.
joe
|