Filthy Rhetoric That Is Not Safe for Work

“No, he did not ask me to have sex.” — Anita Hill, in reference to Clarence Thomas, 1991

So I’m driving my weekly drive to a farm store north of where I live, on a road paved by guys who piss outside, in a car made by guys who tell filthy jokes on their breaks, looking at houses built by guys who whistle at women, when I chance upon a billboard set up by guys who vocally proclaim their love of tits, a sign that sounds an alarm about a very important issue:

You were probably misled by the “very important issue” phrase at the end of that last sentence.  What I meant was that it’s a very important issue if you’re an unthinking, easily offended twit.  Actually, it’s an important issue in an entirely different way as well: It is naked misandry.  It has nothing to do with protecting much-needed paychecks for desperate women who operate at near-poverty/slave wage levels or they’ll starve.  It is the degradation of male sexuality in its entirety.  It puts women in charge at the expense of men.

It’s much more than that, even.  It threatens the economy, and thus the livelihoods of a great many men.  Once those livelihoods and lives are sufficiently threatened, it will go on to indirectly threaten the livelihoods of the women making the accusations, and the great many women who don’t.  Then it will go on, like a cancer, seeking out some other vital organ in the body of voluntary society, and the only thing left will be the police state a few twitty-headed women and their alpha male boy toys have helped to, um… erect.  When the veil of niceness no longer needs to be held up, those males will show the remaining sentient women the very meaning of “sexual harassment.”  Let’s pray that never happens.

Once more, we aren’t talking about women having their jobs threatened if they don’t have sex with their big, mean, penis-hauling bosses.  Nor are we discussing in any way, shape or form the dilemma of any man who finds himself in the same quandary with a gay male or straight female boss.  (Heaven forbid.)  Leaving aside the fact that no one has a “natural right” to a job that is merely a private contract between two people who consent to certain terms, and that your big, mean boss is more than willing to let you go get another job if you want; if we focus solely on the narrow definition of “sexual harassment” provided above, then we’re talking about a phenomenon that affects hardly anyone at all.  We will find, however, that modern feminism, in keeping with modern feminist tradition, has expanded modern feminist sexual harassment law to include just about anything that a modern feminist doesn’t like, or that she claims many modern years later not to have liked, and left out entirely what any man out there may not like.  In short, with sexual harassment law, it is men who are screwed, not women.

How screwed?  Here’s how: “Harassment can include ‘sexual harassment’ [Why is it in quotes?] or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.”  In other words, sexual harassment is primarily composed of sexual harassment, and may include sexual harassment.  The law doesn’t define what constitutes “physical harassment of a sexual nature.”  It doesn’t even bother to address non-sexual physical harassment (probably because it’s condoned in government schools).  But if you need more specifics, “it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general.”  Start writing down what those offensive comments might be, and then memorize the list.  No Freudian slips allowed.  Discussion of the men’s movement at work is verboten.  Lovely German word: verboten.  Making offensive comments about men in general ist nicht verboten.  Dieser ist gut, ja? (Don’t mention the war!)

Where exactly did this particular insanity start?  Someone interested in doing more than three hours’ worth of research per article could probably tell you, but when you’re in training for being an old codger, it’s usually sufficient to reminisce about your own experience with the bastardization of bastard law.  For my generation, at least, that would put us around the cultural landmark of the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas, What-a-plague’s-been-thrust-upon-us Hearings in front of senatorial bastards.

For you young tykes who aren’t old enough to remember the endless television footage of he said/she said, it basically boils down to this: Hill (the woman) claims, to this day, that Thomas (the man) made a few lewd references in front of her, asked her out on dates several times, never explicitly stated that her career as a tax-feeder was threatened, and then she continued to hang out with him in spite of his crudeness and interest in dating her.  This makes him unacceptable as one of the Nine Gods the left currently worship.  Thomas says it’s all bullshit.

To be as even-handed as I care to, Hill’s testimony is similar to that of other women.  Thomas’s former girlfriend, Lillian McEwen, claims that he had said “inappropriate” things about female employees in the past: “She said she saw ‘nothing good’ coming out of talking to reporters about Thomas, whom she said she still occasionally met.”  She’s still friends with the lecher.  Unbelievable.  Whose fault is that, ladies?  And this is not a woman who felt her job was threatened.  Imagine that.  “She spends her days in her Southwest townhouse. She frequently meets up with friends for movies, golf and other outings. Regularly, she stops by the National Museum of the American Indian for lunch.”  Yes, she’s suffering horribly for her silence.  A real Bradley Manning.  “Through the years, McEwen said, she has remained reasonably friendly with Thomas.”  Later in the same article, it’s the familiar refrain: “In her Senate testimony, Hill, who worked with Thomas at two federal agencies…”  All together now: Are you making this up, honey, or was it, in reality, no big deal at the time?  In short, there doesn’t appear to be anything here to worry about, ladies.  Remind me again: Why are we listening to you?

Maybe we’ll find out by going back to the Washington Post article and listening patiently to Woman #3: “[Anita Wright’s] story was corroborated by a former EEOC speechwriter, who told investigators that Wright had become increasingly uneasy around Thomas because of his comments about her appearance.

“But Wright also had problems that made committee Democrats nervous. She had been fired by Thomas, and previously by a member of Congress. She also had quit a third job in government, accusing her boss of incompetence and racism.

“Concerned about Wright’s credibility, Biden lifted a subpoena for her to testify at the hearing. Instead, transcripts of the interviews with Wright and her corroborator were simply entered into the record, drawing only modest press attention.”

How nice of Biden.  He’s so very concerned about women.  According to a referenced entry in Wikipedia, however, “Angela Wright, who worked with Thomas at the EEOC before he fired her, decided not to testify but submitted a written statement alleging similar behavior, which Wright characterized as strange behavior but not harassment.  Also, Sukari Hardnett, a former Thomas assistant, wrote to the Senate committee saying that although Thomas had not harassed her, she did feel that he had inspected her as a female [emphasis mine].”  Stop inspecting females, guys.  They wear the tight outfits because they shrink in the wash, and the makeup is only to conceal hideous battle scars.

Rumors abound ‘round this eventful tale: right-wing and left-wing conspiracy theories, female jealously, untamed male sexuality, the Patriarchy, pubic hair, soap-operatic drama, you name it.  People ought to be aware, though, that this story never would have become such big news, and probably never would have been “leaked” out of the FBI to begin with, if the man in question leaned more toward the feminist side.  In fact, it could probably be whittled down to the abortion issue, if Madeleine Kunin’s opening remarks can be taken at face value.  Since he’s much more of a “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” kind of guy, he caught hell.  He’s an anti-woman, pro-bigotry, anti-gay, hard-line judge, a throwback to a time when men “disrespected” women.

I can’t speak for women who don’t want to wait nine months to be rid of unwanted children, but here’s Thomas’s danger to us homos: “In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Thomas issued a one-page dissent where he called the Texas anti-gay sodomy statute ‘uncommonly silly.’ He then said that if he were a member of the Texas legislature he would vote to repeal the law. Since he was not a member of the state legislature, but instead a federal judge, and the Due Process Clause did not (in his view) touch on the subject, he could not vote to strike it down. Accordingly, Thomas saw the issue as a matter for the states to decide for themselves.”  Thomas wants to allow the coercive, death-oriented, conservative-minded “citizens” of Texas to go on ahead being silly if they want.  Being a fag with a car, I can leave Texas fairly easily, or stay and “do it” on the sly.  (Never actually gone there, and in spite of some of the beefcakier pics I’ve seen of a few Texans, I probably never will.)  I can’t leave America nearly so easily.  That’s why I don’t want a bunch of federal boobs passing laws, either.  If a guy, who understands the principle of not running to government every time you’ve got a bee in your bonnet, is also a guy who allegedly likes the other kind of boobs and allegedly enjoys sexual banter with women who appear to have no problem with it, then I’ve got no problem with him.  Neither do the women, until years later, when his alleged hypnotic spell has finally worn off, and it all of a sudden hits them what that “pubic hair” comment really meant: “You mean it wasn’t an appeal for greater sanitation measures in the cafeteria?!  Oh, my God!!” Nonsense.  The reason these women don’t want him on the court is because the same idiotic state governments might outlaw one of their favorite issues.  He threatens their control of the federal, alpha, hydra-beast.  He has to go.

Here’s the “sexually harassed” one concerning a comment she made to someone else about Thomas’s fitness to sit on the bench: “I found him to be more open-minded.  So that in that sense, I believe that he was better suited for a judicial position at that time than now.  And that’s all that I was referring to, that particular comment, or line of concern about [Thomas’s] qualifications for being on the court.”  In other words, when he allegedly made the reference to a large penis, she found him fit to be a judge, and now, not so much.  But she dances and dances around this one like Black Swan in heat.  Here’s more verbatim:

“Q. In your statement and in your testimony here today, you have said that you were concerned that Judge Thomas might take it out on me by downgrading me or by not giving me important assignments. I also thought that he might find an excuse for dismissing me.

“As an experienced attorney and as someone who was in the field of handling sexual harassment cases, didn’t it cross your mind that if you needed to defend yourself from what you anticipated he might do, that your evidentiary position would be much stronger if you had made some notes?”

“A. No, it did not.”

“Q. Well, why not?”

“A. I don’t know why it didn’t cross my mind.”

Another Q. for you: Go home and figure it out before you bother us again.  In the meantime, here is another limp-wristed reason for not standing against a pornography-eating, one-eyed monster: “A. During the time that I was at Oral Roberts University I realized that Charles Colthey, who was a founding dean of that school, had very high regards for Clarence Thomas. I did not risk talking in disparaging ways about Clarence Thomas at that time.”  Even the hint of a controversy, anything unpleasant in casual conversation, and women are no longer equal to men, but scared little girls, whose tea party has been interrupted by a dirty-minded ogre with hairy, smelly armpits.  (Send him to my tree house, ladies.)  So much for commonality and solidarity with other women, who will now be subject to the same abhorrent behavior, all because Hill was too afraid to open her lawyerly mouth.  Allegedly.

In my view, the worst thing he allegedly did was ask her out multiple times when she said, “No” to begin with.  He allegedly did this ten times, according to her, in a span of approximately two years.  That’s annoying, but less than one proposition every two months.  A man can do a lot to impress a woman in two months.  You never know.  Try again.  I did, five times with one girl.  She kept saying, “I’d love to, but…” which, to my literal mind, meant she’d love to.  No, she wouldn’t.  Maybe her gaydar went off.  Good for her.  I would’ve ruined her life.

Men who are sincerely interested in women do this because women have been known to change their minds, especially women who follow you from one job to another: “I want a career!  No, wait.  I want a family!  No, wait.  I want someone else to take care of them during the day so I can have both.  I also want the men I work with to be nicer.  Except when I feel like laughing at a dirty joke.  I’ll tell you when.”

“I want a career, too!” cries Luisa Mendoza, mother of six because her iglesia tells her esposo not to wear condones on his pene or he’ll go to el infierno.

“Sorry, honey, but I need someone to look after the kids while I’m subjected to one horrid reference after another to human genitalia.  (That ‘pene‘ remark was totally uncalled for, by the way.  You’ll be hearing from my lawyer.)  Your career is in the daycare center taking care of the kids I want sometimes.”  And since women know so much about all sorts of harassment, the woman with the lesser “career” will know how to prevent it from happening to your kid.  Being abandoned by the primary love source for nine hours per day does not constitute “harassment”! What a wonderful world we’re building, no?  Enough fake quotes, fake banter, fake childhood hurt, and real (but lousy) Spanish.  Back to square one of this phenomenon we’re stuck with.  Here’s the “victim” driving the lecher to the airport, long after the last alleged comment about mushroom-heads-or-whatever:

“A. I really don’t recall that I voluntarily agreed to drive him to the airport. I think that the dean suggested that I drive him to the airport and that I said that I would.”  That’s called “voluntarily.”  It’s an adverb, meaning: “No one made me do it.”

And now finally, the lecher, in his pitiful defense:

“A. Senator, I didn’t create it in people’s minds. This matter was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in a confidential way. It was then leaked last weekend to the media. I did not do that. And how many members of this committee would like to have the same scurrilous, uncorroborated allegations made about him, and then leaked to national newspapers and then be drawn and dragged before a national forum of this nature to discuss those allegations that should have been resolved in a confidential way?”

“Q. Well, I certainly appreciate your attitude towards leaks. I happen to serve on the Senate Ethics Committee, and it’s been a sieve.”

“A. Well, but it didn’t leak on me. This leaked on me, and it is drowning my life, my career and my integrity. And you can’t give it back to me, and this committee can’t give it back to me, and this Senate can’t give it back to me. You have robbed me of something that can never be restored.”  Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, pal.  Men can take it.  Even if they can’t, they’re going to.  Just follow the example of a strong, principled, self-confident woman like Anita Hill, the kind of gal who, when the chips are down, gets right back up and finds herself another job.

Thomas actually believes that if what Hill said is correct, that it would constitute sexual harassment.  This is where Judge Doofus will dissent from Judge Thomas.  No, it’s not sexual harassment.  It’s just a rude, crude boss.  If you don’t like it, tell your boss, “I don’t like comments like that.”  If you’re too chicken to discuss it with a man you’ve followed through two assignments, why not talk to his immediate supervisor?  Better yet, spend five minutes in the bureaucracy you’ve embraced and find another meaningless position with a nice-sounding title.  Don’t worry.  We’ll all pay for your cushy job without complaint.  Get yourself a female, Mormon, virgin supervisor who isn’t secretly a horny lesbian.  As I pointed out in another article: “This is why feminism will never achieve equality: They demanded entry into a male-dominated workforce that was created, designed, maintained, debated, defended, embraced, and enjoyed by men.  Since the vast majority of men are straight, this is how many of them act around each other [emphasis mine].”

I felt harassed at one job.  Not sexually; just in general.  A bunch of the higher-ups were apparently counting the minutes I spent outside on breaks, and whether or not I got on the Internet when there was no work to do (which was usually seven and a half hours out of every work day, a slump that they themselves openly acknowledged).  I quit just as soon as I found out, after landing another job fairly easily, because I’m good at what I do.  I also stopped drinking water so that I wouldn’t be seen going to the bathroom too much, during the “two weeks’ notice” bullshit thing you have to do.  How’s that for a hostile work environment?  There’s not going to be any tell-all book or Oprah appearances.  They were just jerks, so I left.  The end.

But Clarence Thomas is an educated black man whom the political left has no use for, so he can be thrown to the dogs.  To these people, only a few men, and just a handful of black men, are worth anything.  Once you step out of line, no matter your obvious physical attributes of manhood, you have no value as a man, and less than no value if you’re dark brown.  If Thomas had embraced the correct political ideology and thrown it a bone (so to speak) from the bench every once in a while, he could have multiple women going down on the alleged Long Dong, Jr. every day of the week and twice on Sunday, and no one would make a peep.  That’s what it’s all about.  That’s what the billboard is all about.  It’s not about anything else.  And just for the record, he says it never happened. He also happens to be highly credible and consistent, unlike some people.

To me, all men are beautiful, black men especially for aesthetic purposes; but all men for much, much more than that.  They make stuff.  They fix stuff.  They help out.  They hang out.  Sometimes they tell dirty jokes.  Sometimes they think you’re cute.  Usually, when you say, “I don’t like jokes like that,” they stop.  If they don’t, there’re usually doors you can walk through.

I sometimes envy the poor Southern black men who get their food every day with a fishing pole alone, tugging whatever they catch back to a shack that keeps out the rain and little else.  Sounds rather idyllic.  Sounds rather increasingly idyllic to me.  No easily-upset-yet-strangely-mute women to work or deal with.  I find myself severely tempted sometimes, but not before making enough money to put up my own billboard:

Recommended Content

%d bloggers like this: