Some folks don't like twitter, but this account will nourish your annoyance for the topic every day.

I've had partners before. Multiple ones even. And some of them are no longer partners. But that was a business relationship.

This reminds me of the lady (or should I say fellow to be less gendered?) who was obsessed with bathroom signs. She insisted it wasn't a woman in a dress but a woman in a cape. Because obviously women are running around in capes everywhere (or at least more so than dresses).

From Crid's twitter link:

16 USC §§703, 707 & 50 CFR §21.60(g)(4)(i) make it a federal crime to use explosives to engage in population control of light geese.

Wait, wut? how about heavy geese? and are they defined?

No capes!

The obvious problem with partner, which you see when it's applied in everyday life, is that it doesn't convey any significance to the relationship. You don't know if the relationship is intimate, cordial, accidental, or formal.

But that seems to be what Hazra likes about it - otherwise people will steal her soul or something.

Something that I've observed about Progressives..

1. They tend to be extremely self-centered, like adolescents

2. And they have a strongly external locus of control - they really believe that they are being controlled by other peoples' thoughts and 'society'.

Meh, this smells a little like writer's block vs. deadline, with a minimum number of words to fill. The SJW angle is just a bonus.

"First Partner"?

No way! The spouse of an elected official should just be that - spouse! Nothing more.

To suggest something like "partner" is going to make us consider the candidate's spouse when we vote. Kind of like when we had Billary in the white house, we had Hillary doing things that she was NOT elected to do.

Living up to certain preset notions is what civilization is all about. People like Hazra aren't eliminating preset notions, they want to be able to change the presets at will, and force the rest of us to obey.

Introducing someone as a "partner" leaves the relationship vague. As mormon points out, one does not know from the introduction if the person a business partner, a romantic partner, or a sports partner (i.e., racquetball partner)? No level of intimacy or guardrails for further conversation are established. Can I subsequently ask the "partner" is the person is seeing anyone?

Before gay people were openly accepted, many of them utilized the "partner" reference just for that vagueness.

Terms like "wife" or "husband" or "boyfriend/girlfriend" do not required clarification and define a relationship for those outside that relationship - i.e., define the bounds of conversation, the bounds of intimacy. With those guardrails one is less likely to commit a social faux pas, like mentioning the partner's office sexual conquests.

...Jennifer Siegel Newsom, the wife of the coffee table coaster we elected California governor, Gavin Newsom, has requested that she be called "First Partner."

Personally, I might have gone for "First Mate."

Eschewing "First Lady" is little more than virtue signaling - i.e., "look at us, we've made the Governor's mansion more friendly for non-traditional relationships and gender roles; and gotten it ready for a female governor. Aren't we special?"

“When a man's partner is killed he's supposed to do something about it. It doesn't make any difference what you thought of him. He was your partner and you're supposed to do something about it..."

I think this is an attempt by the non-normative crowd to diminish the status of legal spouses. Yeah, I actually am my husband's "partner" in a business sense because we have some real estate holdings (besides the house) together, but in our personal lives I'm his wife, period. He has other business partners. He only has one wife, and I only have one husband. It's not a casual relationship. We are actually-really-and-truly married legally and in our church, and nobody gets to take that away from us to make themselves feel better about the less-committed/less-recognized status of their own relationships.

"First lady" is an honorific, not a title. That's why it's not capitalized (or shouldn't be); it's the equivalent of "girlfriend" or "wife," not Major or General.

"Partner," as others have pointed out, is unclear; it can refer to a personal arrangement, a business arrangement, a square dancer you've never met before, and on and on.

"A long-winded edict in op-ed form"? That describes Quillette perfectly; I must remember it.

From Wikipedia:

...In 2008, (Elton) John stated he preferred civil partnerships over marriage for gay people. However, by 2012, John had changed his position and become a staunch supporter of same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom. He was quoted as saying: "There is a world of difference between calling someone your 'partner' and calling them your 'husband'. 'Partner' is a word that should be preserved for people you play tennis with, or work alongside in business. It doesn't come close to describing the love that I have for David, and he for me. In contrast, 'husband' does."...
_____________________________________

Dan Savage also said (20 years ago, before he married Terry Miller) that he used "boyfriend" precisely because it made homophobes mad.

But I think old-fashioned types (such as Miss Manners) have a point when they imply it's silly and childish for adult heterosexuals to use terms like boyfriend and girlfriend, since they're NOT teens, after all. Journalists, at least, have to have a certain level of decorum when they're writing about people and their significant others, so it would careless to use terms willy-nilly fashion.

"First lady" is an honorific, not a title. That's why it's not capitalized (or shouldn't be); it's the equivalent of "girlfriend" or "wife," not Major or General. ~ Kevin at February 26, 2019 10:44 AM

Well, I like capitalizing it because in the middle of a sentence, it helps to distinguish between a specific woman and any generic woman who happens to be first in line - i.e., "The first lady wore red" vs. "The First Lady wore red." YMMV

"evocatively brilliant"? No - "linguistically flaccid" is more like it. As Mark Twain said, [t]The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter—’tis the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning." Mrs. Newsom is definitely on the "lightning bug" part of the spectrum. And not only is it linguistically flaccid, but it is also presumptuous, in that she seeks to impose an awkward linguistic construction upon the rest of us. Nobody but the most "woke" is going to feel comfortable using the phrase "first partner" -- and not for any exclusive or discriminatory reason. The phrase is simply inelegant - the linguist equivalent of being all knees and elbows. If she really doesn't like the term "First Lady," a better alternative would be to simply refer to her as "the Governor's Spouse."

They dislike the very idea that people in a marriage might have roles and responsibilities. They want all relationships to be equal to their casual, non-committal, unfulfilling ones.

"As heterosexuality gets edged away from the purview of normative sexual behaviour,..."

Read that sentence again. The implications are startling: "We're going to make ordinary lovey-dovey heterosexuality relationships socially unacceptable." Further implication: "After that, we're going to make it illegal."

(Further further implication: "Those rules apply to you. Not us. We make rules. We don't follow them.")

This is postmodern feminism and #Metoo in a nutshell. To destroy committed heterosexual relationships. Don't think the goal is any less.

""Partner," as others have pointed out, is unclear; it can refer to a personal arrangement, a business arrangement, a square dancer you've never met before, and on and on."

Exactly. The term "First lady" is evocative and filled with meaning - whether one likes chat meaning or not. "First partner" in is ambiguous, amorphous and therefore not evocative at all.

Any adult female who rejects the term "lady" leaves only one other choice of reference -- "miserable bitch".

It is nice that they self-identify right up front -- so they can be avoided.

"First Partner? Lady, let me tell you something: You were not the first!"

Well that's cute.

How about the voters demand to addresss her as 'cuckquean' instead.

I've never used "partner" to refer to any girlfriend I've had, nor has any girlfriend referred to me as such.

However, it doesn't bother me at all if someone else chooses to refer their boyfriend or girlfriend that way. The term that I can't stand is "significant other." And even more horrid is POSSLQ.

And, while this isn't a term to describe a person, I also can't stand it when one person in a couple says "we're pregnant." (There's an exemption, of course, if it's a lesbian couple and both of them are pregnant at the same time. )

I disagree with others that if someone introduces another person as their "partner" you don't know what that means. I think that, in most cases, if someone's "partner" is their business partner, they will introduce them as their "business partner."

These people have never had anything important to do.

I find this part interesting: "It has a nice, positive ring to it, and neither party feels the suffocating or debilitating pressure of trying to live up to certain preset notions." In marriage there are in fact certain obligations. You agree not to cheat on them, to take care of them if they are sick, to not be a lazy bum. Most of the obligations are subject to negotiation such as will the husband work while the wife stays home and who will do dishes. But if you are so needing freedom that you find these obligations suffocating and debilitating then please don't get married, you are a still a child.

In marriage there are in fact certain obligations. ~ cc at February 27, 2019 8:35 AM

Not all those obligations are inside the marriage. Marriage imposes certain responsibilities on society as well. Chiefly among these is the recognition of and respect for the sanctity of that marriage. That's why there used to be laws about alienation of affection.

In addition, a "wife" cannot be compelled to testify against her "husband" -- and now, vice versa -- as there is a certain expectation of privacy and intimacy recognized by law inside a marriage; one that is not recognized in a mere "partnership."

We, as a society, are part of a marriage. We are not part of a "partnership."

Hazra: "As heterosexuality gets edged away from the purview of normative sexual behaviour,..."
__________________________________________

Cousin Dave: Read that sentence again. The implications are startling: "We're going to make ordinary lovey-dovey heterosexuality relationships socially unacceptable." Further implication: "After that, we're going to make it illegal."
_____________________________________________

Ever heard the saying: "The message sent may not be the message received"?

In other words, just because the reader of Hazra's words might want to be utterly paranoid and come to the same conclusions you did, doesn't mean that was what Hazra meant. It's possible, at least, that Hazra was (clumsily) referring to the fact that having a GAY sex life used to be illegal in the U.S., before 1962. (Only 21 states had decriminalized it by 1989 - and Lawrence v. Texas wasn't won until 2003.) "Purview" is a legal term, after all - if not always.

Who, exactly, says that there's anything wrong with OTHER people having happy, committed heterosexual relationships, if they want them? Outside of internet rumors (and trashy talk shows) started by unemployed gossips?

I remember at least some MRAs complaining bitterly about the growing number of women who planned to stay single and/or childfree, but am I really supposed to believe that there are more het men than het women who want marriage and children? (Never mind MRAs, who often claim to have gone MGTOW but then spend all their time whining about women instead of having fun.) Or that even the men who say they want children REALLY would be willing to do half the unpaid dirty work, if she wanted that arrangement?

As Sylvia Lucas wrote in her blog: "He Says He Wants Kids – But Does He Mean, 'I want YOU to have kids'?"

https://sylviadlucas.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/he-says-he-wants-kids/#more-604

"It's possible, at least, that Hazra was (clumsily) referring to the fact that having a GAY sex life used to be illegal in the U.S."

No, it is not possible -- if the definition of words have any consistent meaning at all. Hazra's sentence is nonsensical gobblygook. However, it does (clumsily) imply antipathy to heterosexuality. So, Cousin Dave is right on target, Lenona, and is anything but "utterly paranoid."

Oh, and by the way, you're ingrained misandry is showing again. You object to men having rights, I get it.

"Who, exactly, says that there's anything wrong with OTHER people having happy, committed heterosexual relationships, if they want them? "

Well, we have that last paragraph that Amy quoted. Read it again:

"The contemporary usage of the term is loaded with political correctness. As heterosexuality gets edged away from the purview of normative sexual behaviour, most societies have relaxed their sanctions and have embraced homosexual preferences and practices."

What she's saying is that, in the future, you will not take a live-and-let-live attitude towards homosexuality. You will embrace it, applaud it, cheer for it. At the same time, you will tut-tut traditional heterosexual relationships. (And in particular, you will regard men in such relationships as rapists.) And remember, law is a trailing indicator for culture. You will, as Reynolds often says, be made to care. One way or the other.

Okay, so Saonli Hazra is a writer for some Web site that most people have never heard of. But she's clearly angling to be an "influencer", and in the kabuki theater that is the Left today, the more outre your opinions towards traditional anything are, the more likely the Left's leaders are to cling to you. Keep in mind that building slippery slopes is the Left's stock in trade. At the time that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, the leftists all swore up and down that it would never, ever, lead to racial quotas or preferences in hiring. Within five years, it did. And the Left cheered, and denied that they had ever said anything else.

"As Sylvia Lucas wrote in her blog: 'He Says He Wants Kids – But Does He Mean, 'I want YOU to have kids'?'"

Yes, absolutely, there are guys like that. The opposite also exists -- "She says we're going to have kids, and that they will be HER kids, even though I'll be responsible for supporting them."

I'm going to try to turn over a new leaf here. Let's make a deal: let's both try not to judge either gender by citing the worst examples of same.

YOU object to unconscious women having legal rights, as I recall...

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2016/06/11/outrage_leads_t.html

(See June 11, 3:38 pm)

Do you also believe that LGBT activists plan to make heterosexual relationships illegal? Really? I call that paranoid. It's even paranoid to imply that they will be made "socially unacceptable," when heterosexuals will likely always be in the majority. As in, you know, born that way?

Also, there is, of course, racial hostility toward white people, but if you're part of the majority, how can you be socially unacceptable TO the majority, if you see what I mean?

Some MRAs have good points, such as demanding that male victims of statutory rape should not have to pay child support - and then there's the paternity fraud issue. (Trouble is, as critic David Futrelle has pointed out, too many MRAs would rather make noise and make themselves famous than help real, individual men in need. Or men as a group, for that matter.) Others, however, talk far too much about things like the need to take the vote away from women - or abolishing statutory rape laws. (They clearly don't really want female offenders to be punished harshly; they just want male offenders to STOP being punished. Not gonna happen. Parents will never allow it.)

That last one was for Jay R. Just to clarify.
_______________________________________________

I'm going to try to turn over a new leaf here. Let's make a deal: let's both try not to judge either gender by citing the worst examples of same.
______________________________________

Very kind. How about also not suggesting that MOST people involved in MeToo care more about destroying happy, consensual adult relationships than about putting a stop to harassment and assault, on or off the job?

I'm sure there's a minority of hateful people involved - but maybe that's true with Ralph Nader's followers as well. Or any organization.

I couldn't believe it when Dr. Helen Smith said (a year ago) that she had hoped that MeToo would turn out to be just a fad. She's NEVER said anything truly positive about it, to my knowledge. So, it's somehow wrong for a movement to go on and on, when more and more perps keep turning up? Why? Compassion fatigue, I suppose? As Katha Pollit mentioned: "If women are being harassed at work, they usually can't afford to flounce out of the room in high Victorian dudgeon."

Not to mention that there are male victims as well, who have spoken out - NFL's Terry Crews, for one.

And, as I've mentioned, when it comes to underage male victims of women, it would help if MEN stopped saying "lucky guy."

Lenona,

So, you think that women getting so drunk in public that they pass out is just fine, right? You don't think that qualifies as "irresponsible"?

You either have difficulty with reading comprehension, or have difficulty telling the truth. Perhaps both. Either way, your emotionalism does not serve you well. You probably think your misandry is justified -- but it's not, and you should be embarrassed.

MeToo is over Lenona. It was a fad. And now it is done. In reality it was mostly a political conflict in the Democrat party between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Hillary won. The fight is over. And MeToo is over with it.

Jay R, you're just hoping no one will click on that link, aren't you. It's obvious you felt that being irresponsible is on the same level of being guilty of a crime and that the actual criminal should get a legal break of some kind (as if she assaulted him when she was barely aware of what was going on).

From the same thread:

"A con artist is just as much a thief as if he'd broken into his victim's safe-deposit box. 'The complainant showed incredibly bad judgment, Your Honor,' is not a legal defense. Why is rape different?"

As I've said before, if teenagers of EITHER sex can't stop themselves from committing assault or other felonies when tempted or under peer pressure, they need to be supervised by adults. Like small, destructive children. To put it another way, we don't trust teens with an inheritance of a million dollars - we keep it out of their reach until they're adults, if not 40 years old, sometimes. Why do we so often trust them not to abuse their power when tempted, whether it's criminal behavior or not?

As one fictional mother said to her teen: "It's not that we don't trust you. We don't trust the circumstances."
_________________________________________

Ben, that's the weirdest connection I've heard anyone make. I don't remember anyone else saying that. (Care to explain?) Or even implying that MeToo is over - especially since long-term changes don't seem to have been made yet - at least, not when it comes to protecting working-class women.

I hope EVERYONE clicks on that link. Then they will know that you are irrational and hysterical.

"Personally, I might have gone for "First Mate.""

I see your First Mate and raise you "First Lover" or "Gubernatorial Consort"

Better yet. don't call her anything. Why should we even be talking about her. The best model I've seen for a politician's spouse was Dennis Thatcher - he quietly and largely anonymously went about his life and stayed out of the spotlight, because he had no legitimate public role.

Lenona,

MeToo started with Harvey Weinstein. He had been abusing his position for decades. Nothing he was outed for was recent or novel. This was just how Hollywood had operated for decades if not multiple centuries. So why was he taken down at that time? Simple, Sanders just got screwed out of the nomination by Clinton. Some of the people who supported him were pretty pissed of about that. Weinstein was a big Clinton supporter. He gave both of the Clintons quite a bit of money over the years. Taking him down was a bit of petty revenge against Hillary for all her dirty tricks in the primary. The Clintons then retaliated and you had various Democrats from both sides of that political civil war getting taken out. Note there were pretty much zero Republicans targeted in any of this. This was a blue on blue fight plain and simple.

As for long term changes, you got fooled. There was never any serious attempt at any substantial changes. And there aren't going to be any. Protecting working class women from powerful Democrats is not under consideration. Misbehavior is already getting swept back under the rug and ignored. The Sanders-Clinton fight is over and so is MeToo.

Look at your own position Lenona. If MeToo was really about men who abuse subordinates why did it happen then? No one outed by it was a recent offender. Most of them had histories decades long. Secondly, if it was really about protecting working class women why haven't changes been made? It's been over two years. What real changes have been made? Getting a few guys fired doesn't really matter in the long run. So what real successes does the movement have? Even if you don't have final ones what partial successes? Best I can tell there aren't any. And there aren't any intentions to seriously pursue any.

Protecting women was advertising. Nothing more.

Let it be noted that whatever it is that Lenona is accusing me of, I did not post to the thread that she linked to.

I held out the olive branch. It got broken off. I'm done with it.

I hope EVERYONE clicks on that link. Then they will know that you are irrational and hysterical.

Jay R at February 27, 2019 4:51 PM
__________________________________________

You're accusing other people of having those qualities? I doubt anyone here has failed to recognize those qualities in you. Hardly anyone else here reaches to your level.
___________________________________________

Let it be noted that whatever it is that Lenona is accusing me of, I did not post to the thread that she linked to.

Cousin Dave
_________________________________________

I already made that clear, if you didn't read the 1:21 comment. I apologize for not putting Jay R's name first, in the previous comment. (I forgot how fast comments can get posted.)
________________________________________

Let's make a deal: let's both try not to judge either gender by citing the worst examples of same.
________________________________________

Actually, I don't consider men who don't want to change diapers to be the "Worst examples." They just don't want to be real parents, that's all. They may be very good men otherwise. So no, I don't judge that way.

> YOU object to unconscious women
> having legal rights, as I recall…

While struggling sincerely to live by Haidt's principles for social media improvement, it's nonetheless a pleasure to see someone keeping score.

We're here to learn what others are thinking, right? We wouldn't want anyone trying to sugarcoat it.

> I couldn't believe it when
> Dr. Helen Smith said (a year
> ago) that she had hoped that
> MeToo would turn out to be
> just a fad.

I can imagine a few sincere reasons for saying such a thing. Speculation follows, I know who she is but never made point of reading her.

Firstly, she might have noticed that the men identified tended to be beloved and admired in film and television, contexts of shallow presumption for which success and admiration are collected from distant others with whom they have no shared community, let alone personal engagement. These were famous guys, or profoundly well-known businessmen.

And even then— For every Leon Wieseltier, there were five or ten Garrison Keillors and Matt Lauers—

You THOUGHT he was a cuddly, milquetoast coffee buddy from your favorite morning chitchat program on the teevee… But ACTUALLY he was a sinister, cunning SEX PERVERT!!!

Much of #Metoo is about adolescent expression.

Secondly, and let's get serious, if our culture were as sincere about ending these atrocities through social pressure as it ought to be, and as #Metoo-ers would presumably affirm themselves to be, starlets and media would be the least of it. I'm told, with no investigation of my own to offer whatsoever, that a top target for workplace sexual intimidation is hotel cleaning women. (Including a lot or legally-vulnerable immigrants.) They get it from drunken aftermarket HVAC parts sales salesmen far from home, and they get it from their managers. I'd go out on the limb and guess that in the last year and dozens theretofore, tens of thousands of dewy drive-thru cashiers were solicited for a bee jay when they asked to have a weekend shift off for Aunt Clara's funeral.

It's not just that these much more numerous intrusions are ignored. Their perpetrators will never earn the attention of the social media enthusiasts, and their identification won't provide the gratifying populist snap of a Dustin Hoffman or an Al Franken, even for the victims. Yeah, Benjy Deckard of the Motel 6 out by the interstate is aggressive and hateful personality, and Cindy Summerjob of Tender Creek Village told everyone! Who will be surprised, let alone impressed?

You and I can, with a few seconds, identify vast swaths of the American culture for which few or even no #Metoo scalps were collected. Dentistry, healthcare, manufacturing transportation, government employment....

Ansari may well demonstrate the uselessness of #Metoo as a tool for broad social progress. He may not be a stellar guy or even any fun at dinner. (Never seen his act… I don't even know that he can tell a joke.) But I'm confident that the women in my life have been raised with enough savvy to back out of their evening with such a person if they aren't feeling the comfort they need.

Masculine obnoxiousness (and even assault) happens throughout the burgeoning forest of the Western economy and deep into the mists of our history, I'm sure we would agree.

The next meaningful step in putting an end to it might well being teaching our daughters the practical skills to see a avoid the threat… Or some other increased awareness for which #Metoo might not be applicable.





Personally, I think it needs to end or anything. A lot of the names #Metoo has listed have done things ranging from grotesque to just profoundly silly, and there's no reason women (or anyone else) should be compelled to accept the behavior of people anywhere on that spectrum. There's a lot of common hurtful behavior that's come to a stop across a lifetime because the popular mind learned to say "Oh, so THAT'S what misconduct looks like." So, yeah, why not.


But I won't harshly judge those who think otherwise, whatever their reasoning.

(I doubt Smith is impulsive about this.)

There's probably typos in there but I gotta go

That was supposed to say DON'T think it needs to end...