Git shut of this catcalling. I be thinkin bout gettin me some serious pussy...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ys-vEZ5Vuj4/T-G-_8mVAyI/AAAAAAAAA50/S3xSAd8nfUY/s1600/Rupert-Mammoth-Cat-Si-Kucing-Raksasa-Maine-Coon_1.jpg

So Amy what do you think of the BillyBush tape? (Never listened to it, m'self, because it's BB & DT).

Locker-room talk, we might agree, is the men-in-private version of catcalling: Acknowledging the overwhelming power held by the subjects of their desire and hoping out loud that they might be permitted some gratuitous clumsiness in approaching them.

Kaus has some good links about how Arnold handled this stuff.

In the past week polls show a 20+ point drop in EC votes, presumably due to this particular crisis.

If you're trying to be patient with masculine nature generally, my question is—— You were not going to vote for Trump anyway: Is your revulsion to this week's stories deeper than what you already felt toward him?

I'm about the furthest thing possible from a troll or provocateur of any kind, but if I were still in college this would do nothing more than make we want to see just how many cards I could collect.

Do they get upset at the dogs that bark at them?

Curious if this is a "cultural" thing. Do Black women get upset at this?

A few years ago everyone who had announced they were Taxed Enough Already were constantly touted in the news as "teabaggers" who said to be "teabagging" by the MSM. Every newsie used those terms over and over and over. Trump says "p*ssy" once and suddenly every newsie is a Victorian Ms Grundy. This is ridiculous. Now they are taking applications for the next Anita Hill who will be willing to lie about Trump in unprovable allegations.

The media lies. Just like democrats lie. You can keep you plan! Sure...

What this is doing is training American men to avoid interactions with educated women. Girls from working-class families are going to have lots of opportunities to marry up, if they play their cards right.

Is your revulsion to this week's stories deeper than what you already felt toward him?

Nope.

Blogged about this recently. He's a pig. I've always found him to be a pig, ever since I first started reading about him in the papers in New York. And it's not about wealth. We have some friends who are very wealthy people -- to the extent that they have private jets, plural -- and the dad is a person of exceptional character...to the point where it led me to listen on video to his eulogy for his dad's funeral to hear what he said. (Didn't know the dad and the funeral was out of town.) That man, beyond being wise, shows over and over the way to treat other people and be kind and fair -- while being nobody's fool or patsy.

As for Trump, some men do this as a posturing thing, this blustery "I can do whatever I want with her" thing.

That and his behavior, none of it is shocking to me.

"What this is doing is training American men to avoid interactions with educated women."

What this is also doing is teaching women to be traumatized over mere speech.

I've spent a couple of years learning about the brain. I've learned about how we learn, and repeated behaviors get wired in as our go-to behaviors over time.

To tell yourself you are afraid of something that is not actually a danger means you are actually creating anxiety in yourself. The way to correct overblown anxiety is through exposing yourself repeatedly to the thing you're afraid of and to see that it is not actually dangerous. You combine that exposure with rational talk to yourself.

Notice how this is the antithesis of what's going on on campus?

PS I once catcalled a man on a bike on Main Street in Santa Monica. To be nice. He loved it.

Proving, once again, that you can easily get the measure of almost any person by the way they treat people who are forced (by position, the hope of favors or just a simple paycheck) to be subservient to them, aka 'look at how they treat the help'.

It seldom, if ever, fails. One reason (among many) I dislike HRC so much is the many tales, never really contradicted, of how she treats those she sees as being 'beneath' her.

llater,

llamas

This is ridiculous. Now they are taking applications for the next Anita Hill who will be willing to lie about Trump in unprovable allegations. ~ Steve in Tulsa at October 13, 2016 4:41 AM

They've already got two. Two women who decided that now was the time to come forward and accuse Donald Trump of boorish behavior, right after he made highlighting Bill and Hill's boorish behavior a potent weapon on the campaign trail.

Keep in mind, Trump's comments, distasteful and vulgar as they were, were said in the context of a private citizen marveling at how easy it is for a famous (and rich) man to acquire the sexual favors of women.

Bill's troopergate and intern groping actions (and Hillary's cover-up) were done in the context of a powerful public servant using government (read taxpayer) resources to acquire, by coercion if necessary, the sexual favors of women.

Who's the real sleaze bag?

Conan the Grammarian wrote:

'Who's the real sleaze bag?'

Answer - All of them. In this particular part of the swamp, they're both/all just-about as corrupt and fetid as each other.

Proving again, as I have often thought, that many men will exploit whatever advantages they have in life, be it wealth, or political power, or social capital, or good looks, to try and take advantage of women, and some men (at least) seek out and work hard to achieve these advantages for precisely that reason. We all know, or have met, the 'entitled frat-boy' stereotype. Our generous hostess can certainly flesh out the bio-evolutionary reasons for that much better than I can.

I don't draw the bright line that you do between these kinds of acts when committed by a private citizen vs a public official. The issue is the imbalance of power between the harasser and the harassee - whether that power is acquired from public office or private wealth matters little in the judgement I make about them. The exact way the man could negatively impact the woman's life and career if she rebuffs him makes little difference, it seems to me.

llater,

llamas

I don't draw the bright line that you do between these kinds of acts when committed by a private citizen vs a public official. ~ llamas at October 13, 2016 7:47 AM

I wouldn't say "bright line" but it's a line worth noting.

A private citizen making sexist comments is just that, a private citizen. He has no power, other than what his wealth or position will give him, to enforce his desires. He can be sued or fired as a result of his indiscretion.

A public official, on the other hand, has the power to bring to bear on his victim the machinery of the state (at no expense to himself). Suing him means attempting to use the very same machinery he has at his disposal to bring him to heel for his discretion. It's a daunting task. How do you sue or prosecute the guy who has the state police on speed dial and used them to coerce you into an inappropriate sexual relationship in the first place?

I see it as mildly annoying rude behavior.

That said I DO smile so I don't have some psycho yell what I bitch I am. And I do think that is problematic.

That said, I find this citation thing pretty scary and uncomfortable. Perhaps I should give them a citation.

Women do not grasp how strong the sex drive is in men. While they do not think about sex every 5 minutes as some used to insist, they can't help noticing every pretty girl. Guys will literally crash their bike or walk into a post from turning to look. Feminists find this disgusting, as if sex should be some polite thing that happens only casually (actually, I'm not sure how they imagine it happening, since all flirting is "assault"). Passion isn't casual.
Consider the upside of this. Men will invest tremendous effort and resources in finding and keeping a mate. They will work 2 jobs, take dangerous jobs, paint their house, do all the dirty work. They have no problem defending their family from danger and are the ones who will run into a burning building to save them. All of this is the result of testosterone. Going out on tiny ships to kill whales with harpoons? Testosterone.

It's not just in humans that the males are the catcallers; look at a lot of the bird species. Heck ever seen a wild turkey tom strutting for the hens?

It makes for some fun times: gas station I worked at growing up, a couple of Puerto Rican guys worked there. Summertime, close the the beach, a woman comes in getting gas (yes, we pumped the gas for them), one of the guys starts talking in Spanish about what he'd like to do to/with her. After she paid for the gas, she said something back to him in Spanish made him realize she understood everything. First time I ever saw him embarrassed.

I think it also depends on if you view the street (or the village square) as an extension of your home. If you and your pals hang out on the stoop all the time, then anyone who strolls by is in your space.
Back in the day, my best friend (today a prof at UT-Austin) and I were sitting on our front steps, drinking beers and cat-chatting the Marines who jogged by. Two of them stopped and returned the banter, invited us out later. I went out with one of them for over a year. Lesson in there somewhere.

Some of these young women will soon complain that desirable men don't pay any attention to them. They will not realize the irony.

"To tell yourself you are afraid of something that is not actually a danger means you are actually creating anxiety in yourself. "

Right, and they are swinging a sword that cuts both ways. They are training themselves that ordinary everyday events are traumatic. They are also training their male cohort that interacting with the women in their environment is traumatic.

"as if sex should be some polite thing that happens only casually (actually, I'm not sure how they imagine it happening,...)"

Their model for everything is a government bureaucracy. You can have sex after you have spent two years submitting forms, paying fees, and sitting through hearings, and then waiting another year for a bureaucrat to make a decision. Of course, in the places where they have succeeded in actually implementing this, once they experience it, they find it profoundly unromantic and un-arousing. But that just leads to escalating demands for men to fix it somehow.

aka 'look at how they treat the help'

That's one of the litmus tests I put people I date thru. They don't know that I'm paying attention, but if they're overly demanding or otherwise abusive towards the "help", the odds of my calling on them again goes down.

Because sooner or later that's how they're gonna treat me.

A public official, on the other hand, has the power to bring to bear on his victim the machinery of the state (at no expense to himself).

Indeed. Qualified immunity pretty much means that the victim of such behaviour has to have a smoking gun that the behaviour was intentional targeting just because the perpetrator could. Anything short of that? Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown.

Llamas: The difference between a private citizen and a public official: the private citizen can't send a cop to bring a woman to him. That's what Bill Clinton did to Paula Jones (who also was an employee of an agency that Clinton supervised), and it's a level of coercion far beyond what's possible for a man who is only the woman's boss.

I am starting to get a little worried; are you well?