Disingenuous?
But the fact that these accusations come at the most opportune time to harm the accused indicates to me that the accusers have not healed, nor are they attempting to heal. They have merely switched roles from Victim to Perpetrator and are committing acts of revenge. On any random Monday I would happily have given these women the benefit of the doubt. Even years after the stated date of the offense, credence can be given as the length of people's processes varies. But the fact that these accusations come at the most opportune time to harm the accused indicates to me that the accusers have not healed, nor are they attempting to heal. They have merely switched roles from Victim to Perpetrator and are committing acts of revenge. Isn't it time that we teach our daughters, not to mention ourselves, to refuse to be a "horrified victim?" I mention in passing some strategies:> state in a loud, firm voice, "Take your hand off me!" or "Where is [insert wife's name here]?" for crowded social situations among peers; > grabbing the nut-sack and twisting - hard - followed by a loud, clear, "Oh my god, [insert his boss' name here]! Is he having a heart attack?" is good for work; > smack the asshole with a 5 lb dumbell - aim for the temple but the nose will do, followed by, "Oh, I am so sorry! are you OK?"
For more on the legal questions involved with la gropé Go See Xrlq
Even if you give these women full credence—(and I am guessing you are referring to the “new accusations” against Ahnald, though you don’t say so) which would require a certain amount of intellectual, shall we say, *innocence*—the issues they raise are simply not germane to this situation.
Opportunities to get out from under a political machine don’t come up very often. People have to decide how interested they are in reform which is the one thing Ahnald has promised and darned few of the other candidates have. And that will set the rest of your priorities.
Posted by on 10/06/03 at 12:07 PMIts easy to pass judgment on someone while not being faced with the same thing yourself. If those women had done what you suggest, they wouldn’t have worked again. The ones who are no longer in the industry can speak up now. Its odd that you condemn them while failing to notice that the man you seem to admire committed a crime. A poor man of any color would have gone to jail for what he did: you fail to note that the women all had witnesses, quite often their immediate bosses, who did nothing either. Sad commentary on women today that we defend him and condemn them. Clinton was impeached for doing less, but you are willing to vote for a man like that. Makes one wonder..
Posted by moo on 10/06/03 at 05:18 PMAhem. Clinton was impeached for perjury, the entire goal of which was to deny one Paula Jones her day in court, and therefore protect him against what he once claimed would have been hundreds of lawsuits from women he groped--and, in at least one instance, raped.
Arnold 1) has never been sued for sexual harassment, and 2) has apologized for his past behavior. Furthermore, 3) his allegedly offensive behavior took place years ago, rather than in the Oval Office, while on the phone to people who were discussing issues of life and death importance to our young men and women in uniform--and to the nation.
I could say more, but that will do for a start.
Posted by Little Miss Attila on 10/06/03 at 07:41 PMBeautifully said, Miss A!
Posted by Claire on 10/07/03 at 06:34 AM
Next entry: Can you say Ludicrous?
Previous entry: Here We Go Again
