Présidentielle américaine: Attention, un sexisme peut en cacher un autre (All victimhood and apple pie: From sexual liberation to the infantilization of women in terms Queen Victoria would find reassuring)

chippendalesposterslutwalk5 slutwalk3 slut-walkslutwalkmelbournesopranos3Il faut peut-être entendre par démocratie les vices de quelques-uns à la portée du plus grand nombre. Henry Becque
Lay, lady, lay, lay across my big brass bed (…) Why wait any longer for the world to begin You can have your cake and eat it too … Bob Dylan (1969)

NEW YORK, NY - MAY 04: Jay Z (L) and Beyonce attend the "China: Through The Looking Glass" Costume Institute Benefit Gala at the Metropolitan Museum of Art on May 4, 2015 in New York City. (Photo by Mike Coppola/Getty Images)

misogynistic-album-covers-two-live-crew
bubbassexualantics
Paparazzi, catch my fly, and my cocky fresh I’m so reckless when I rock my Givenchy dress (stylin’) Oh yeah, baby, oh yeah I, ohhhhh, oh, yes, I like that I did not come to play with you hoes, haha I came to slay, bitch When he fuck me good I take his ass to Red Lobster, cause I slay If he hit it right, I might take him on a flight on my chopper, cause I slay Drop him off at the mall, let him buy some J’s, let him shop up, cause I slay I might get your song played on the radio station, cause I slay ... Beyonce
You know I thug em, fuck em, love em, leave em Cause I don’t fuckin need em Take em out the hood, keep em lookin good But I don’t fuckin feed em First time they fuss I’m breezin Talkin bout, “What’s the reasons?” I’m a pimp in every sense of the word, bitch Better trust than believe em In the cut where I keep em til I need a nut, til I need to beat the guts Then it’s, beep beep and I’m pickin em up Let em play with the dick in the truck Many chicks wanna put Jigga fist in cuffs Divorce him and split his bucks Just because you got good head, I’m a break bread so you can be livin it up? Shit I parts with nothin, y’all be frontin Me give my heart to a woman? Not for nothin, never happen. Jay Z
I have used sex as a marketing tool and it has worked. I mean, my TV show is called Inside Amy Schumer.” This blushing Victorian violet explains: “My whole life I found friends that are just like me, young girls that were just like me, like we were all whores. Amy Schumer
A cruder and raunchier America of Miley Cyrus and Beyoncé is now far more sexually sensitive than was the staid America of half a century ago — as if the dirtier we become, the more sanctimonious we end up. Past presidents, such as John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton, trumped even Trump in unleashing their reckless libidos on quite young White House staffers, an array of mistresses, and random women. But they were then young, liberal, loved by the media, and skilled incumbent politicians holding the power of the country at key moments in history. Private buccaneer Trump so far has no such mitigating arguments to contextualize his reprehensible private banter. (…) There are still agendas. Despite the defects of the two candidates, as the debate showed, the race still offers two quite different visions of how America might continue after Obama’s doubling of the debt, racial polarization, foreign-policy disasters, health-care mess, and rampant alphabetic corruption of the FBI, IRS, GSA, VA, and EPA. Hillary will double down on Obamaism, not because she necessarily likes Obama, but because as a past Obama servant she is embedded within his legacy and has mortgaged her political soul to the far Left. (…) The turn-offs of the two candidates are a matter of relative taste and ideology: The more conservative message delivered with uncooked vulgarity, or progressivism baked in refined and polished corruption. Oddly, Obama is the real winner: The more the two sling mud, the more an absentee Obama by default looks better — as long as he stays near comatose, out of sight and sound, and leaves us with the idea rather than the reality of his failing presidency. (…)  Republicans perhaps delude themselves into thinking that if they had nominated another — and more moral — candidate, there would have been far less exposure to left-wing hits. McCain and Romney were unusually decent people by any standard. They ran exemplary, gentlemanly campaigns. They were political moderates of sober speech and judicious temperament. Both lost. Had Rubio or Cruz been nominated, by this juncture we would be reading of their deplorable personal sins — in the manner of John McCain pseudo-extramarital affair or of Romney’s supposed tax avoidance, slurs about the non-federal-income-tax-paying 47 percent, or his various crudities from dog mistreatment to wearing holy underwear. There is no honor among thieves. The law-abiding right wing has excused WikiLeaks scoundrel Julian Assange as a speaker of truth to power in attacking Hillary. Similarly, Russian hackers are now hardly seen as saboteurs of a U.S. campaign, on the theory that they damage Hillary so far more than they do Trump. Leftists, who pose as protectors of privacy, don’t care that Trump’s private taxes were leaked. No one worries that recordings of his private profanity of more than a decade past were dug up — any more than Obama worried about leaking private divorce records in his 2004 primary and general elections. The ends justify the means. Nothing is private, nothing sacred. All that is different is that unethical disclosures and lies are bragged upon rather than excused. So a repugnant dolt like Harry Reid still boasts that his lying about Romney’s tax returns helped sink his campaign. (…) An expiring Trump has revealed yet another life, and may find yet another with a final strong debate. But barring a news bombshell, the cruder, more conservative candidate will still probably lose to the more dishonest and more liberal candidate. Money, the media, and the establishment in cahoots are hard to beat. Hillary has all three. Victor Davis Hanson
Now why might it be that men regard women as sex objects? Surely the ravenous purchase by females of stiletto heels, push-up bras, butt-hugging mini-skirts, plunging necklines, false eyelashes, hair extensions, breast implants, butt implants, lip implants, and mascara, rouge, and lipstick to the tune of billions a year has nothing to do with it. Females would never ever exploit their sexuality to seek attention from men. (…)  How surprising that Trump and Bush noticed Zucker’s legs! As documented in the video, she is wearing a skimpy purple dress, with an extremely short hem cut on the bias, a low neckline and fully exposed back. She is in high heels to accentuate her bare legs. The ratio of exposed skin between Zucker, on the one hand, and Trump and Bush, on the other, is perhaps 100 to one. But all that bare flesh must simply be because Zucker has a high metabolism and gets exceedingly warm; she would never want to broadcast her sexuality to men or have men notice her. The fact that she swishes her hips when she walks must just be a quirk of anatomy. (…)  If any of these newfound exponents of female modesty felt any comparable nausea at the blatant display of female sexuality and, dare I say it, “pussy,” in Beyoncé’s acclaimed rock video “Formation,” say, they kept it to themselves. Beyoncé and her female chorus line rhythmically thrust their butts, crotches, and breasts to the camera, while Beyoncé brags of her sexual prowess (…) Sounds like a sexual quid pro quo, ripe for a harassment lawsuit. The “Formation” video, which inspired Beyoncé’s Super Bowl halftime performance in January (to another universal swoon from the entertainment industry), also shows a very young girl engaging in some precocious twerking, a grotesque travesty of childhood. No objections to that destruction of the innocence of childhood from the DNC. President Obama has singled out Beyoncé for praise, and the singer is a big Hillary Clinton supporter, to not a word of protest from Clinton regarding her status as a role model for young girls. Bill Clinton met with Beyoncé and her husband, rapper Jay Z, in September. If Bill or Hillary thinks the lyrics of Jay Z’s “Big Pimpin‘” “horrific,” in Hillary’s words, they are not letting on (…) The Washington Post primly headlined its scoop on Trump’s bus conversation with Bush: “Trump recorded having extremely lewd conversation about women in 2005.” The New York Times’ follow-up story also labelled Trump’s remarks “lewd.” If either of those paper’s critics have ever objected to such lewdness in popular culture, it has escaped attention. Have they objected to college campus sex weeks, which routinely invite porn stars to offer how-to demonstrations on S & M sex? Do they squirm with discomfort when campus administrators pass out tips on the use of sex toys to achieve better orgasms? Not on the record, at least. (…) The sudden onset of Victorian vapors among the liberal intelligentsia and political class at the revelation of Trump’s locker-room talk is part and parcel of the Left’s hypocrisy when it comes to feminism and sexual liberation. A routine objection to Trump is that he makes, in the words of the New York Times, “gutter attacks on women.” But why should women be exempt from Trump’s gutter attacks on anyone he wants to humiliate? (…) But the feminists can’t have it both ways: declaring that women should be equal to men in all things and then still demand a chivalric deference to female’s delicate sensibilities. Either women are the same as men or they’re not. It is particularly galling to see the selective resurrection of Victorian values from the same crowd that has been pushing transgender locker rooms on the world, in an effort to destroy the last shred of girls’ innate sexual modesty. This opportunistic, on-again, off-again appearance of traditional sexual values characterizes the campus-rape myth as well. Needless to say, actual sexual assault is both criminal and intolerable. But college co-eds insist on the prerogative of maximal promiscuity at the same time that they revert to the role of helpless damsel in distress, when, after drinking themselves blotto to lower their sexual inhibitions, they regret a boozy hook-up and declare themselves raped. The logic is always that the male was responsible for the female’s well-being; the female cannot help drinking herself to a reckless state. It is for the chivalric male to look out for her. Following the release of the studio bus tape, Trump said in his defense that Bill Clinton “has said far worse to me on the golf course.” That may be the most credible thing that Trump has ever uttered. But both Republicans and Democrats are fatally compromised in their responses to the Trump tapes, deliberately released right before the make-or-break second presidential debate. Republicans, having flogged the Bill Clinton sex scandals way past any possible point of relevance, are now not well positioned to dismiss these comments (nor are they trying to), though there is a huge difference between the reality TV star Trump bragging about his libido on a studio bus and Bill Clinton exploiting the power of the presidency to seduce a young intern. But Democrats are the most shameless in their outrage over the Trump braggadocio, having dismissed Bill Clinton’s White House and gubernatorial escapades for years, and standing as the party of maximal sexual liberation, unlike the Republicans. The New York Times rejects the relevance of Clinton’s predatory White House behavior on the ground that “Mr. Clinton is not running for president.” But the Times did not find Clinton’s behavior significant when Clinton was in office, either. Ideally, no man would ever paw a female or push himself on her. The default norm of sexual modesty, coupled with the chivalric ideal that gentlemen should treat females like ladies, used to be the most effective defense against such high-testosterone behavior. Feminism, however, has declared both modesty and chivalry sexist, leaving females to improvise a response to the inevitable excesses of the male sex drive, when they are not trying to leverage it to their own advantage. The only good thing to come out of this tacky episode may be the jettisoning of the ongoing resurrection of the tired Clinton White House escapades by Trump and his supporters. Otherwise, it stands merely as a reminder of how enduring the stance of offended female virtue is, even in the age of crude sexual exhibitionism. Heather Mac Donald
Go beyond the current campaign to the wider culture, and this uproar over Trump’s comments reflects the sexual schizophrenia that for decades has corrupted our understanding of women’s sexuality. When feminism took off in the Sixties, it was all about empowering women to have the same sexual agency as men. All the taboos against female sexual behavior were dismantled, the dreaded “double standard” was discarded, and women started acting just like men. They are free to choose their partners, and the frequency and variety of sexual acts, without judgment from prudish patriarchs and Christian “fundamentalists.” They can go to Chippendales shows and leer and grope the strippers with the same gusto as the wise-guys in the Bada Bing. They can watch pornography on television, and read best-selling soft-porn sadomasochistic novels and then enjoy a girls’ night out to enjoy the movie version. They can drop F-bombs with abandon, objectivize men into sexual commodities, dress like prostitutes, and banter about their conquests. And any criticism of female promiscuity is demonized as “slut-shaming.” Around the Nineties the bill started coming due for this uncritical abandonment of traditional morality. Sexual disease, frequent abortion, children without fathers, and the psychological costs of being objectivized and degraded by men––who were delighted to find that women were now their sexual equals––were all the bitter fruit of liberation. The response to these unforeseen consequences was the new Victorianism, as Rene Denfeld’s perceptive study called it. The sexual freedom would remain, but now men were expected to observe a whole host of minute rules and limitations in order to protect women from the consequences of their own free choices. College students had the right to get drunk at frat parties and make a bad sexual choice of an equally drunk sexual partner, but were absolved by being transformed into victims of sexual predators who were now held to a higher standard––just like in patriarchal Victorian times. Apparently the Victorian feminists didn’t understand that if men should know better, then at some level they are better. Women were now the equal of men, but simultaneously not as resilient or strong enough to own the consequences of their behavior. Our larger public culture is equally schizophrenic. We have easy access to porn, a fashion industry that dresses even pre-teens like prostitutes, television shows and movies filled with casual sex, and an obsession with sexual beauty that drives a whole industry of surgical enhancement. Yet at the same time, we rigorously police our language and jokes for infractions of “sexual harassment,” which is what any woman at any time for any reason believes creates a “hostile and intimidating workplace,” in the words of the law. And we have redefined “sexual assault” to include bad decisions one would think a confident, strong, adult woman would see as a learning experience and try to avoid. Instead we infantilize women in terms Queen Victoria would find reassuring. Democrats promote this identity of victimhood because it delivers political dividends. Remember Obama’s 2012 “Life of Julia” campaign cartoon? The message was the federal government can be a woman’s husband, boyfriend, and father, with the result, of course, that women would be just as dependent as they were in the dark days of patriarchy. Or think of Hillary’s main argument for becoming president: it’s time to elect a woman and correct the continuing injustices of sexism––despite the fact that today on average women are better educated and live longer than the average male. But conservatives should know better and not jump so quickly to validate a dishonest narrative that benefits the other side. True conservatism knows the traditional wisdom that talk is cheap, and that actions speak louder than words. And true conservatism recognizes that freedom is the highest secular good, but that there is no true freedom without acceptance of the consequences of one’s actions. This latest Trump episode illustrates how clearly our sexual schizophrenia marks the decline of conservatism and the dominance of progressivism in our culture and politics. Bruce Thornton

Vous avez dit le beurre et l’argent du beurre ?

Alors qu’en cette veille de la fête où nos amis juifs se rémémorent l’institution qui donna au monde le terme et la théorie pour débusquer le phénomème dit de bouc émissaire mais aussi l’actuelle fétichisation de la victimisation …

S‘acharnent sur le seul Donald  les anciens partisans d’un ex-président qui avait en son temps pas moins d’une quinzaine d’accusations d’abus voire de viols de femmes…

Pendant qu’au nom sacro-saint de la victimisation et avec les conséquences catastrophiques que l’on sait …

C’est, après le coup du premier président noir, celui de la première femme que l’on prétend nous faire …

Comment ne pas voir avec les commentateurs Bill Thornton et Heather Mac Donald …

Tant le deux poids deux mesures …

Que  l’hypocrisie et la véritable schizophrénie …

D’une société qui après avoir revendiqué à grands cris dans l’habillement comme dans le comportement ou le langage …

L’égalité pour les femmes d’une irresponsabilité, sur fond de marches des salopes, jusque là réservée aux hommes …

Prétend aujourd’hui, condamner au nom d’une pudibonderie qui n’aurait rien à envier aux Victoriens …

Les seuls hommes en question quand ceux-ci s’avisent de les prendre au mot ?

Trump, Politics, and Our Sexual Schizophrenia Conservatives should know better than to so quickly validate a dishonest narrative that benefits the other side
Bruce Thornton
Frontpage Mag
October 10, 2016

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

A few minutes into Sunday’s debate Donald Trump’s decade-old crude sexual banter with a reporter from an entertainment show was mentioned by the CNN moderator. Donald again apologized for the comments, and Hillary immediately pounced on Trump’s misogyny, throwing in his alleged racism and Islamophobia. To his credit, Trump ignored her slurs and attacked her record. When Democrat loyalist Martha Raddatz pressed on, Trump let loose with a powerful contrast with Bill’s record of abuse––which Hillary side-stepped.

Welcome to another debate on everything except the issues. Consider the reporting on Trump’s comments, which is the mother of all dog-bites-man-stories. I don’t know what cocoon you have to come from not to know that every single day millions of men––and women–– of all ages, races, and sexual persuasions exchange vulgar, crude banter about sex. And you’d have to be particularly dumb, or duplicitous, to be shocked that a New Yorker with a flamboyant and braggadocios personality who is involved in casinos, reality television, construction, and beauty pageants probably would do so on a regular basis. Or, if not dumb, then a partisan hack indulging in rank hypocrisy in order to gain political advantage. Welcome to another episode of America’s political hypocrisy and sexual schizophrenia.

The Dems, of course, and their minions in the media are hyping this story for obvious reasons. Their candidate has a long history of lies and money-grubbing, possesses no political charisma, and touts no policy proposals other than the same dull progressive clichés and failed ideas. Donald’s juvenile sex-talk is a perfect distraction from the steady drip of revelations about Hillary’s email and server scandal, pay-for-play foundation, video evidence of her questionable health, and news reports from abroad documenting daily her disastrous management of foreign affairs while Secretary of State.  And don’t forget the WikiLeaks release of her Wall Street speeches transcripts, which show her political duplicity and cozy ties to the 1%.

What makes this latest bout of misdirection particularly hypocritical is the glaringly obvious record of Bill Clinton’s sexual depredations, from his time in Arkansas to his sex-tourism on convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s Lolita Express. Most men engage in smutty talk of exaggerated sexual conquests and fantasies about future trophies. But we know of only one who as governor and then president abused his power to fulfill his sordid wishes in the Arkansas State House and the White House, besmirching the dignity and honor of an office supposedly devoted to serving the people and upholding the Constitution. And few women, when their guilty husband is exposed, unleash a nuclear bombardment of harassment and vilification of the sort famous “feminist” Hillary Clinton launched. The same woman who is now calling Trump’s banter “horrific” was described by her own courtier George Stephanopoulos as someone who will “savage her enemies,” as she did the victims of Bill’s sexual assaults.

But once again, the Democrats and their Republican fifth column think words are more important than reality. Indeed, Planned Parenthood, recipient of much Democrat largesse and political cover, said, “What Trump described in these tapes amounts to sexual assault.” But real sexual assault like Bill Clinton’s gets a yawn when the perpetrator is politically simpatico. I understand why the Democrats do it, but the Republicans’ motives elude me. They seem to be driven by some standard of “conservative” purity of the sort for which they regularly criticize the Tea Party, or by class prejudices that find Trump and his supporters vulgar, stupid upstarts who refuse to listen to their betters. They may be jumping ship to preserve their careers and influence, or making an electoral calculation about getting the woman’s vote. They seem to forget that squeaky-clean Mitt Romney was savaged as a sexist for his “binders” full of the resumes of qualified women. Memo to NeverTrumpers: no matter what a Republican does, no matter how much he panders, he will always be a racist and sexist capitalist pig.

There’s something else, though, going on––some Republicans’ bad habit of accepting identity-politics narratives about race or women, and then preemptively cringing to prove that they are not benighted racists or sexists deserving of political and social shaming. That is, the same gutlessness in the face of political correctness that in part fueled Trump’s improbable rise to become the Republican candidate for president.

So Paul Ryan, who earlier called Trump a “racist,” said that Trump’s comments were “sickening.” No, Congressman, using the power of the presidency to get sexual favors, and then perjuring yourself when questioned about it, is sickening. Calling yourself a feminist and telling us that victims of sexual assault “have a right to be believed,” when you have “savaged” victims of your own husband’s depredations, is sickening. So too with all the other Republicans, including party chairman Reince Priebus, who have eagerly jumped on the holier-than-thou bandwagon. So too with the NeverTrumpers, who have started a campaign to get the candidate to step down. All their ostentatious dudgeon is based not on proven actions, but on sexual big-talk as common in our Republic as flies. When there’s clear evidence that Trump has in fact sexually coerced or assaulted women, then will be the time for condemnation.

Go beyond the current campaign to the wider culture, and this uproar over Trump’s comments reflects the sexual schizophrenia that for decades has corrupted our understanding of women’s sexuality. When feminism took off in the Sixties, it was all about empowering women to have the same sexual agency as men. All the taboos against female sexual behavior were dismantled, the dreaded “double standard” was discarded, and women started acting just like men. They are free to choose their partners, and the frequency and variety of sexual acts, without judgment from prudish patriarchs and Christian “fundamentalists.” They can go to Chippendales shows and leer and grope the strippers with the same gusto as the wise-guys in the Bada Bing. They can watch pornography on television, and read best-selling soft-porn sadomasochistic novels and then enjoy a girls’ night out to enjoy the movie version. They can drop F-bombs with abandon, objectivize men into sexual commodities, dress like prostitutes, and banter about their conquests. And any criticism of female promiscuity is demonized as “slut-shaming.”

Around the Nineties the bill started coming due for this uncritical abandonment of traditional morality. Sexual disease, frequent abortion, children without fathers, and the psychological costs of being objectivized and degraded by men––who were delighted to find that women were now their sexual equals––were all the bitter fruit of liberation. The response to these unforeseen consequences was the new Victorianism, as Rene Denfeld’s perceptive study called it. The sexual freedom would remain, but now men were expected to observe a whole host of minute rules and limitations in order to protect women from the consequences of their own free choices. College students had the right to get drunk at frat parties and make a bad sexual choice of an equally drunk sexual partner, but were absolved by being transformed into victims of sexual predators who were now held to a higher standard––just like in patriarchal Victorian times. Apparently the Victorian feminists didn’t understand that if men should know better, then at some level they are better. Women were now the equal of men, but simultaneously not as resilient or strong enough to own the consequences of their behavior.

Our larger public culture is equally schizophrenic. We have easy access to porn, a fashion industry that dresses even pre-teens like prostitutes, television shows and movies filled with casual sex, and an obsession with sexual beauty that drives a whole industry of surgical enhancement. Yet at the same time, we rigorously police our language and jokes for infractions of “sexual harassment,” which is what any woman at any time for any reason believes creates a “hostile and intimidating workplace,” in the words of the law. And we have redefined “sexual assault” to include bad decisions one would think a confident, strong, adult woman would see as a learning experience and try to avoid. Instead we infantilize women in terms Queen Victoria would find reassuring.

Democrats promote this identity of victimhood because it delivers political dividends. Remember Obama’s 2012 “Life of Julia” campaign cartoon? The message was the federal government can be a woman’s husband, boyfriend, and father, with the result, of course, that women would be just as dependent as they were in the dark days of patriarchy. Or think of Hillary’s main argument for becoming president: it’s time to elect a woman and correct the continuing injustices of sexism––despite the fact that today on average women are better educated and live longer than the average male.

But conservatives should know better and not jump so quickly to validate a dishonest narrative that benefits the other side. True conservatism knows the traditional wisdom that talk is cheap, and that actions speak louder than words. And true conservatism recognizes that freedom is the highest secular good, but that there is no true freedom without acceptance of the consequences of one’s actions. This latest Trump episode illustrates how clearly our sexual schizophrenia marks the decline of conservatism and the dominance of progressivism in our culture and politics.

Voir aussi:

Trumped-Up Outrage

The Left condemns the GOP candidate even as it celebrates crudity and sexual exhibitionism throughout the culture.

Heather Mac Donald

October 9, 2016

Democrats and their media allies, joined by many Republicans, are calling on Donald Trump to withdraw from the presidential race after a newly released, decade-old tape of a frat-house-level conversation between Trump and television host Billy Bush in 2005, in which Trump boasted of his heavy-handed pursuit of females. Trump describes trying unsuccessfully to seduce a married woman by taking her furniture shopping, speaking in the crudest terms. He brags that because he was a star he could “grab [females] by the pussy” and claims to Bush that he starts kissing beautiful women “like a magnet. Just kiss.  I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it.  You can do anything.”  Bush eggs him on:  “Whatever you want!” (Bush being a more admiring confidante than Leporello to Don Giovanni).

The response has been swift and apocalyptic. Hillary Clinton tweeted: “This is horrific. We cannot allow this man to become president.” Vice Presidential candidate Tim Kaine told reporters: “It makes me sick to my stomach.” Slate’s science editor wrote that “I feel sicker after seeing it than I can remember feeling in a while.” Another Slate columnist writes that Trump and Bush “can’t see their female colleagues as anything but collections of fuckable or unfuckable body parts. They exhibit a complete disregard for women’s humanity, agency, and internal lives.”

Now why might it be that men regard women as sex objects? Surely the ravenous purchase by females of stiletto heels, push-up bras, butt-hugging mini-skirts, plunging necklines, false eyelashes, hair extensions, breast implants, butt implants, lip implants, and mascara, rouge, and lipstick to the tune of billions a year has nothing to do with it. Females would never ever exploit their sexuality to seek attention from men. Bush and Trump, driving to the set of Days of Our Lives on a studio bus, comment on the legs of actress Arianne Zucker who is coming to meet them: “Oh, nice legs, huh?” Trump says. “Your girl’s hot as shit, in the purple,” Bush says. How surprising that Trump and Bush noticed Zucker’s legs! As documented in the video, she is wearing a skimpy purple dress, with an extremely short hem cut on the bias, a low neckline and fully exposed back. She is in high heels to accentuate her bare legs. The ratio of exposed skin between Zucker, on the one hand, and Trump and Bush, on the other, is perhaps 100 to one. But all that bare flesh must simply be because Zucker has a high metabolism and gets exceedingly warm; she would never want to broadcast her sexuality to men or have men notice her. The fact that she swishes her hips when she walks must just be a quirk of anatomy.

When Trump and Bush emerge from the bus, they are the embodiment of jocular decorum—this too counts against them in the eyes of the feminist brigades. Writes Slate’s Susan Matthews: “As if public Donald Trump wasn’t bad enough, this video reminds us that there’s an aspect of the man that’s even worse than what he shows to the public. You see it in the transformation Trump and his conversation partner Billy Bush undergo when they exit the bus and move from [what they assumed was] a private sphere into a public one. They are still committing acts of sexual harassment and abusing their power when they ask the actress who greets them to give each of them a hug. But they’re buttoning up—they know the tone of the conversation they had on the bus cannot be repeated in anything close to a public sphere.” Isn’t this a good thing that Trump in this case at least has obeyed the rules of public behavior? Matthews, we are to believe, would never say anything in private that she would not repeat in the public sphere.

If any of these newfound exponents of female modesty felt any comparable nausea at the blatant display of female sexuality and, dare I say it, “pussy,” in Beyoncé’s acclaimed rock video “Formation,” say, they kept it to themselves. Beyoncé and her female chorus line rhythmically thrust their butts, crotches, and breasts to the camera, while Beyoncé brags of her sexual prowess:

Paparazzi, catch my fly, and my cocky fresh
I’m so reckless when I rock my Givenchy dress (stylin’)
Oh yeah, baby, oh yeah I, ohhhhh, oh, yes, I like that
I did not come to play with you hoes, haha
I came to slay, bitch
When he fuck me good I take his ass to Red Lobster, cause I slay
If he hit it right, I might take him on a flight on my chopper, cause I slay
Drop him off at the mall, let him buy some J’s, let him shop up, cause I slay
I might get your song played on the radio station, cause I slay

Sounds like a sexual quid pro quo, ripe for a harassment lawsuit. The “Formation” video, which inspired Beyoncé’s Super Bowl halftime performance in January (to another universal swoon from the entertainment industry), also shows a very young girl engaging in some precocious twerking, a grotesque travesty of childhood. No objections to that destruction of the innocence of childhood from the DNC.

President Obama has singled out Beyoncé for praise, and the singer is a big Hillary Clinton supporter, to not a word of protest from Clinton regarding her status as a role model for young girls. Bill Clinton met with Beyoncé and her husband, rapper Jay Z, in September. If Bill or Hillary thinks the lyrics of Jay Z’s “Big Pimpin‘” “horrific,” in Hillary’s words, they are not letting on:

You know I thug em, fuck em, love em, leave em
Cause I don’t fuckin need em
Take em out the hood, keep em lookin good
But I don’t fuckin feed em
First time they fuss I’m breezin
Talkin bout, “What’s the reasons?”
I’m a pimp in every sense of the word, bitch
Better trust than believe em
In the cut where I keep em
til I need a nut, til I need to beat the guts
Then it’s, beep beep and I’m pickin em up
Let em play with the dick in the truck
Many chicks wanna put Jigga fist in cuffs
Divorce him and split his bucks
Just because you got good head, I’m a break bread
so you can be livin it up? Shit I
parts with nothin, y’all be frontin
Me give my heart to a woman?
Not for nothin, never happen.

The Washington Post primly headlined its scoop on Trump’s bus conversation with Bush: “Trump recorded having extremely lewd conversation about women in 2005.” The New York Times’ follow-up story also labelled Trump’s remarks “lewd.” If either of those paper’s critics have ever objected to such lewdness in popular culture, it has escaped attention. Have they objected to college campus sex weeks, which routinely invite porn stars to offer how-to demonstrations on S & M sex? Do they squirm with discomfort when campus administrators pass out tips on the use of sex toys to achieve better orgasms? Not on the record, at least.

Other Hillary Clinton supporters have hardly been shy about exploiting sex to get ahead. Clinton fan Amy Schumer admits: “I have used sex as a marketing tool and it has worked. I mean, my TV show is called Inside Amy Schumer.” This blushing Victorian violet explains: “My whole life I found friends that are just like me, young girls that were just like me, like we were all whores.” During a lace-clad photo shoot for Marie Claire that of course had nothing to do with projecting sexuality, Schumer joked about her sexual exploits: “My best friend would describe me as loyal . . . to the boyfriend I stole from her.” She confesses to a “weakness for orgasms.” Democratic National Convention star, Hillary fan, and pseudo-campus rape victim Lena Dunham has not exactly set herself up as a model of sexual prudence, either, nor has she shrunk from using her promiscuity as a selling point in the entertainment market.

The sudden onset of Victorian vapors among the liberal intelligentsia and political class at the revelation of Trump’s locker-room talk is part and parcel of the Left’s hypocrisy when it comes to feminism and sexual liberation. A routine objection to Trump is that he makes, in the words of the New York Times, “gutter attacks on women.” But why should women be exempt from Trump’s gutter attacks on anyone he wants to humiliate? Trump’s gratuitous nastiness to men and women alike, kicking  people when they are down, unfits him to serve as the premier civic role model for the nation’s children. But the feminists can’t have it both ways: declaring that women should be equal to men in all things and then still demand a chivalric deference to female’s delicate sensibilities. Either women are the same as men or they’re not. It is particularly galling to see the selective resurrection of Victorian values from the same crowd that has been pushing transgender locker rooms on the world, in an effort to destroy the last shred of girls’ innate sexual modesty.

This opportunistic, on-again, off-again appearance of traditional sexual values characterizes the campus-rape myth as well. Needless to say, actual sexual assault is both criminal and intolerable. But college co-eds insist on the prerogative of maximal promiscuity at the same time that they revert to the role of helpless damsel in distress, when, after drinking themselves blotto to lower their sexual inhibitions, they regret a boozy hook-up and declare themselves raped. The logic is always that the male was responsible for the female’s well-being; the female cannot help drinking herself to a reckless state. It is for the chivalric male to look out for her.

Following the release of the studio bus tape, Trump said in his defense that Bill Clinton “has said far worse to me on the golf course.” That may be the most credible thing that Trump has ever uttered. But both Republicans and Democrats are fatally compromised in their responses to the Trump tapes, deliberately released right before the make-or-break second presidential debate. Republicans, having flogged the Bill Clinton sex scandals way past any possible point of relevance, are now not well positioned to dismiss these comments (nor are they trying to), though there is a huge difference between the reality TV star Trump bragging about his libido on a studio bus and Bill Clinton exploiting the power of the presidency to seduce a young intern. But Democrats are the most shameless in their outrage over the Trump braggadocio, having dismissed Bill Clinton’s White House and gubernatorial escapades for years, and standing as the party of maximal sexual liberation, unlike the Republicans. The New York Times rejects the relevance of Clinton’s predatory White House behavior on the ground that “Mr. Clinton is not running for president.” But the Times did not find Clinton’s behavior significant when Clinton was in office, either.

Ideally, no man would ever paw a female or push himself on her. The default norm of sexual modesty, coupled with the chivalric ideal that gentlemen should treat females like ladies, used to be the most effective defense against such high-testosterone behavior. Feminism, however, has declared both modesty and chivalry sexist, leaving females to improvise a response to the inevitable excesses of the male sex drive, when they are not trying to leverage it to their own advantage.

The only good thing to come out of this tacky episode may be the jettisoning of the ongoing resurrection of the tired Clinton White House escapades by Trump and his supporters. Otherwise, it stands merely as a reminder of how enduring the stance of offended female virtue is, even in the age of crude sexual exhibitionism.

Trump, companies accused of mistreating women in at least 20 lawsuits

Here is a list of Republicans abandoning Donald Trump after the leaked tape of his vulgar comments about women in 2005. USA TODAY

One woman sued Donald Trump’s Miami resort saying she lost her job because she got pregnant.

Two others claimed they were fired after complaining that co-workers sexually harassed them.

And a number of women testified in a lawsuit that Trump himself repeatedly instructed managers to hire younger, prettier workers at his Los Angeles golf club.

The release of a video Friday showing Trump’s sexist remarks in 2005 has created a firestorm of controversy that threatens to derail his campaign. But an ongoing USA TODAY investigation of Trump’s 4,000-plus lawsuits shows that he and his companies have been accused for years of mistreating women. Allegations outlined in at least 20 separate lawsuits accuse Trump and managers at his companies of discriminating against women, ignoring sexual harassment complaints and even participating in the harassment themselves.

The details of these allegations, some not reported until now, suggest that the kinds of lewd and discriminatory actions reported last week may be more prevalent within Trump’s organization than previously known.

In one lawsuit, a female supervisor at Trump National Golf Club near Los Angeles said Trump pulled her aside one day to complain about hiring.

“I want you to get some good looking hostesses here,” Trump told Sue Kwiatkowski, she recounted in a sworn statement corroborated by many other employees’ testimony. She said he went on to say, “People like to see good looking people when they come in.” Managers acted on Trump’s directive, she and colleagues testified, to hire younger and “prettier” staff and to make sure other female workers were not seen whenever the big boss visited.

Another supervisor testified she refused to fire a female employee even after her boss threatened punishment, citing Trump’s desire for the woman to be fired because she was “fat.”

One married waitress testified that Trump always flirted with her, asking whenever she served him whether she was “still happily married.” She didn’t like it, but felt powerless to complain about a powerful, famous man like Trump.

The cases involving women are among about 130 employment cases involving Trump’s companies dating back to the 1980s, although many of them involve the individual companies’ employees and managers rather than Trump personally. A definitive accounting of women claiming mistreatment by Trump or his companies isn’t possible because many such complaints are resolved internally and never escalate to a lawsuit. And, researchers consistently have found, many women don’t report such workplace behavior at all.

Two such examples are at the heart of two of last week’s explosive stories about Trump. Monday, The Associated Press reported that Trump systematically demeaned women during filming of NBC’s The Apprentice television show, discussing in front of them which ones he’d like to have sex with and asking other men in the room which ones they’d like to have sex with, among other vulgar behavior. Friday, The Washington Post published video of Trump’s bragging, in lewd terms, with Billy Bush about his aggressive sexual advances on Nancy O’Dell, a married television host. None of those women have sued, and it’s unknown whether any of them complained to bosses at NBC or the shows’ producers.

Jill Martin, a vice president and assistant general counsel for The Trump Organization who handles the company’s labor cases, told USA TODAY last month that the number of those kind of lawsuits across Trump’s businesses is small for an organization of its size.

The Trump Organization “has a strong policy and does not tolerate harassment of any kind,” she told USA TODAY in response to questions about some of the sexual harassment lawsuits involving Trump’s companies. “We promptly investigate any claims and discipline upon substantiation of those claims and have an open door policy to encourage reporting of any discrimination.”

Sexual harassment? ‘You’re fired!’

This summer, Trump weighed in on the sexual harassment case against Fox News chief Roger Ailes by saying if his daughter Ivanka was sexually harassed, he would tell her to “find another career or find another company.” Eric Trump, vice president of The Trump Organization, added his sister wouldn’t “allow herself to be subjected to that” and would report it to human resources.

In at least three lawsuits reviewed by USA TODAY, women working for Trump companies allege that’s exactly what they did: they reported sexual discrimination or harassment and they lost their jobs. In several other cases, women described retaliation for making such complaints.

Just this summer, a woman who supervised the Trump Kids Club at the billionaire’s golf resort in Jupiter, Fla., sued Trump saying she endured “persistent, unwelcome sexual advances” by a manager. Erin Breen said she alerted human resources and her supervisor. In court, and in separate complaints to the Florida Commission on Human Relations and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Breen said Trump managers fired her two weeks after she complained.

Trump attorneys have yet to file an official response, but assistant general counsel Martin said the allegation is “without merit” and “we look forward to defeating her claims in court.”

Trump’s Chicago hotel also defended a lawsuit in 2010 over similar circumstances. A female server at Sixteen Chicago, a restaurant inside Trump Hotel and Tower, alleged she was subjected to “unwanted and offensive touchings” and “offensive sexual material” by a male chef.

Nausheen Nurani claimed she approached a general manager in 2008 about the issues and was fired two weeks later. Nurani sued and also filed complaints with the federal EEOC and Illinois Department of Human Rights. Trump’s lawyers fought the lawsuit, but a judge rejected their attempt to get the case tossed out. Trump settled the lawsuit in 2010, with undisclosed terms, a tactic that USA TODAY’s investigation has found in hundreds of lawsuits Trump has settled.

At Trump’s other Florida golf resort, a woman sued alleging she lost her job at Trump National Doral after becoming pregnant and complaining about her boss’ treatment after that. In state and federal lawsuits, Itzel Hudek claimed that despite a strong performance record, accommodations to her schedule during her pregnancy annoyed her supervisor, who she said retaliated. Ten days after returning from leave, Hudek said she was told to train another employee to do her job and then was laid off from the Miami resort.

Trump’s lawyers settled the lawsuits, but the terms are not disclosed in court records. Hudek told USA TODAY that she would rather not talk publicly about the case.

Staff not ‘pretty’ enough for Trump

While those claims involve Trump employees and no clear implication of his direct involvement, the case at Trump’s Los Angeles golf course includes a host of sworn statements by employees telling tales about how Trump himself directed managers to discriminate against women who didn’t meet his standard for attractiveness – and those managers’ acquiescence to his wishes.

In a class-action lawsuit Trump’s lawyers settled in 2013 for nearly a half-million dollars, waitress Lucy Messerschmidt alleged Trump’s club in Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif., fired her after she complained about being denied work shifts because of her age and appearance. The suit, on behalf of nearly 1,000 golf club employees over wide-ranging labor issues, features sworn statement after sworn statement claiming discriminatory hiring, firing and on-the-job treatment of women Trump and other senior managers perceived as older, less attractive or overweight.

Messerschmidt, a restaurant hostess in her 40s, said she routinely was rotated off shifts when Trump visited the golf course because he “likes to see fresh faces” and “young girls,” according to court records. She complained to bosses because she was “not being scheduled to work when Donald Trump was on the premises because of my age and Mr. Trump’s known preference for young, pretty women in the hostess position,” according to a sworn statement filed in the case.

Messerschmidt has declined to talk publicly about the lawsuit. Several other employees made similar sworn statements, including catering director Hayley Strozier, who pushed back against male superiors when told that Trump preferred younger women on duty and was disappointed in one of her bosses “as a man and as a father” for abiding Trump’s wishes to fire one female employee because Trump thought she was “fat” and didn’t like seeing her when he visited.

Employee Stacia Solis testified she noticed that – before Messerschmidt complained – younger, prettier waitresses would be assigned to serve Trump’s table, although they weren’t the most talented servers at the resort. One male employee testified he never saw a male waiter serve Trump.

Waitress Maral Bolsajian said she did meet Trump five or six times while serving at the club from 2007 until 2010. The encounters bothered her because she felt Trump was too forward.

“Mr. Trump regularly greeted me with expressions like ‘How’s my favorite girl?’ Later, after he learned (by asking me) that I was married – and happily so – he regularly asked ‘Are you still happily married?’ whenever he saw me.” Bolsajian testified that Trump “regularly” asked her to pose with him for photographs.

“I found these actions inappropriate and uncomfortable, but felt I had little recourse given that Donald Trump is not only the head of the company but also one of the most powerful, well-known people in the United States.”

The ‘American Dream’ calendar girls

In a more well-known case getting renewed attention, Jill Harth alleges Trump repeatedly made verbal and physical sexual advances while she and her future husband, George Houraney, partnered with Trump on a beauty pageant deal called the American Dream Festival.

In a federal lawsuit – filed while she and her husband were suing Trump for allegedly not paying them what he owed on the American Dream contract – Harth alleged that Trump forcibly touched her, time and again, at various meetings and parties over about a year’s time.

At one dinner party at Trump’s Plaza Hotel, she said in the lawsuit that Trump touched her thigh under the table, attempting to grab her “intimate private parts.” She alleged Trump also forced her into a bedroom at his Mar-A-Lago estate in Palm Beach, touched her “private parts in an act that constituted attempted rape.”

What’s more, in her lawsuit and in several interviews she’s given in recent weeks, Harth contends that Trump also harassed several of the models who were part of the American Dream pageant – offering them career opportunities in exchange for sexual encounters.

Harth dropped the suit in 1997 as a condition of Trump agreeing to settle the separate breach of contract lawsuit with American Dream. The terms are undisclosed in court records, though she has said in interviews it was about $100,000.

Trump’s team denied the claims at the time and attacked Harth in the press. As the allegations resurfaced, Trump told the Boston Globe in March that Harth’s claims were “nonsense” and that the sexual harassment allegations were spawned by the soured business deal.

Trump and his aides told The New York Times in May, as part of an article about Trump’s interactions with women that included Harth’s story, that her account should be discredited because she has continued to write Trump’s staff with warm wishes and asking for work as late as this fall and winter, expressing support for his presidential campaign.

Removing female dealers from floor

Beyond the lawsuits, there are other incidents documented in government records. For example, the state of New Jersey fined a Trump casino and its managers $200,000 after investigators found they discriminated against workers to cater to a rich gambler.

The New Jersey investigators said Trump’s casino managers would remove female dealers from the Trump Plaza floor because a particular high-roller gambler didn’t want women – or for that matter, black people – working at his tables when he played.

Employee Cathy Carlino testified at one state hearing that patron Robert Libutti “started cursing, screaming, banging the table, ‘I don’t want no (expletive) woman here. I don’t need these (expletive) in my game. I told you people before. Get her out of here. Why are you doing this to me?’” Lubutti, who has since died, was later banned from all Atlantic City casinos over alleged ties to the mafia. He was cited repeatedly in casino board investigations of Trump’s managers’ penchant for catering to him to keep him spending money at Trump casinos.

“There are, or ought to be, certain things that a casino hotel cannot sell or provide to a customer in order to assure his continued patronage,” then casino commissioner Steven Perskie said. “These things include honor and decency and simple human courtesy and an unwavering commitment to statutory obligations, including the law against discrimination.”

Contributing: Karen Yi and Kevin McCoy

2 commentaires pour Présidentielle américaine: Attention, un sexisme peut en cacher un autre (All victimhood and apple pie: From sexual liberation to the infantilization of women in terms Queen Victoria would find reassuring)

  1. jcdurbant dit :

    Quel gâchis quand même !

    Donald Trump astounded the entire political class of America by becoming only the third person ever to gain the presidential nomination of a major American political party without having first been an elected official, a prominent military officer, or a cabinet member, and the first to do so in 76 years. (Wendell Willkie, in 1940, never had control of the Republicans and had little chance against Roosevelt.) Senator Rubio was correct to call it “a tsunami that only Mr. Trump saw coming,” but it was also a tsunami that he largely conjured up out of less turbulent air and intensified. He raised the Republican primary vote by 60 percent over 2012, and whatever happens from now on, his achievement is historic and there must have been some astute strategic calculations behind it.

    Yet Trump seems to have no concept of how to press the strategic advantage and stay clear of back alleys and side issues in which he can only dissipate his advantages. Like a not overly smart fighting bull, he allows the Democrats to cause him to charge diagonally past his real targets and squander political capital in nonsense. The presentation of Mr. Khan at the Democratic convention, father of a winner of the Medal of Honor, was squalid and outrageous, as was the subsequent fawning of the media and the bunk about Mr. Khan’s just “happening to have a copy of the Constitution in [his] pocket.” But Trump charged and dove into a trap in which he could not win. He should have said something like “All Americans share in Mr. Khan and his family’s sorrow and in their pride, and in the circumstances it is not appropriate for me to comment on his partisan reflections on me.”

    He should have said, when Mrs. Clinton threw “Miss Piggy” at him, that “that was a regrettable choice of words about someone who had violated her undertakings on entering the Miss Universe contest.” He could have neutralized, or even won on, both issues but failed to see them as the baited traps they obviously were. This does raise questions about his judgment. Four years ago, Peggy Noonan referred to my distinguished friend Newt Gingrich, as he surged against Mitt Romney, as “a human grenade with the pin pulled, saying ‘Watch this!’” Newt is now one of the sources of sound advice around Donald. Among the others are Kellyanne Conway and Melania and the rest of his widely and deservedly admired family.

    Any student of strategy in any field, indeed any intelligent person, knows to execute Napoleon’s precept of application of maximum pressure at the opponent’s most vulnerable point. Mrs. Clinton has many vulnerabilities. No major-party presidential candidate has ever been so encumbered by questions of her probity and ethical suitability to be president. According to the FBI director, she is effectively an unindicted (for political reasons) perjurer, and the open-spigot infusion of cash into the Clinton Foundation by seekers of U.S. government favor makes her a gigantic sitting duck. She did nothing noteworthy in the U.S. Senate or the State Department despite all the prattling about her experience, and did a U-turn in lock-step with Obama on the shameful nuclear and financial giveaway to the terrorism-sponsoring theocrats in Tehran. Her election would flat line the economy, enthrone political correctness, and reduce the judiciary to the same putrefied sardine can of emasculated liberalism and corrupt incumbency that the national media have become.

    Trump started on some of these points and was frustrated to a degree by the biased moderator, who deliberately misled viewers about stop and frisk and Trump’s opposition to the second Iraq war. (Peggy Noonan was also correct last Saturday in the Wall Street Journal to warn the press again that their massive bias against Trump is unprofessional and will seriously alienate the public. It will, and the media are less likely to raise their game than Trump is.) Even after she rallied after the first quarter of the debate, Mrs. Clinton displayed the substantive vacuity of her campaign on the fatuous birther issue: It was never a racial question at all, only a matter of Obama’s constitutional eligibility for election.

    The choice is still between more of the Bush-Clinton-Obama disaster decades or positive change. This is one of the defining moments of American history. If Donald doesn’t exploit the opportunity he has created from public resentment of the Clintons’ entitlement, from the flabby Republican Bush-McCain-Romney loser syndrome, and from Obama’s national power-dive in which two-thirds of Americans now think the country is going in the wrong direction, he will have only himself to blame. He must stop scowling, stop personalizing everything and being goaded like an oaf, and stay on message; if he does all that, he will make history. The writing is on the wall and if Donald Trump blows it now, he will deserve to be deposited on the crowded shelf of the trophies attesting to the political skill, determination, and chicanery of the Clintons and their vast, and now fearful, entourage.

    Conrad Black

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440676/donald-trump-winning-still

    c

    J'aime

  2. jcdurbant dit :

    Hillary hasn’t suffered — Paglia continues — because she is a woman. She has shamelessly exploited the fact: ‘It’s an outrage how she’s played the gender card. She is a woman without accomplishment. “I sponsored or co-sponsored 400 bills.” Oh really? These were bills to rename bridges and so forth. And the things she has accomplished have been like the destabilisation of North Africa, causing refugees to flood into Italy… The woman is a disaster!’

    ‘My philosophy of feminism,’ the New York-born 69-year-old explains, ‘I call street-smart Amazon feminism. I’m from an immigrant family. The way I was brought up was: the world is a dangerous place; you must learn to defend yourself. You can’t be a fool. You have to stay alert.’ Today, she suggests, middle-class girls are being reared in a precisely contrary fashion: cosseted, indulged and protected from every evil, they become helpless victims when confronted by adversity. ‘We are rocketing backwards here to the Victorian period with this belief that women are not capable of making decisions on their own. This is not feminism — which is to achieve independent thought and action. There will never be equality of the sexes if we think that women are so handicapped they can’t look after themselves.’

    Paglia traces the roots of this belief system to American campus culture and the cult of women’s studies. This ‘poison’ — as she calls it — has spread worldwide. ‘In London, you now have this plague of female journalists… who don’t seem to have made a deep study of anything…’

    As for male/female relations, she says that they are far more complex than most feminists insist. ‘I wrote a date-rape essay in 1991 in which I called for women to stand up for themselves and learn how to handle men. But now you have this shibboleth, “No means no.” Well, no. Sometimes “No” means “Not yet”. Sometimes “No” means “Too soon”. Sometimes “No” means “Keep trying and maybe yes”. You can see it with the pigeons on the grass. The male pursues the female and she turns away, and turns away, and he looks a fool but he keeps on pursuing her. And maybe she’s testing his persistence; the strength of his genes… It’s a pattern in the animal kingdom — a courtship pattern…’ But for pointing such things out, Paglia adds, she has been ‘defamed, attacked and viciously maligned’ — so, no, she is not in the least surprised that wolf-whistling has now been designated a hate crime in Birmingham.

    Girls would be far better advised to revert to the brave feminist approach of her generation — when women were encouraged to fight all their battles by themselves, and win. ‘Germaine Greer was once in this famous debate with Norman Mailer at Town Hall. Mailer was formidable, enormously famous — powerful. And she just laid into him: “I was expecting a hard, nuggety sort of man and he was positively blousy…” Now that shows a power of speech that cuts men up. And this is the way women should be dealing with men — finding their weaknesses and susceptibilities… not bringing in an army of pseudo, proxy parents to put them down for you so you can preserve your perfect girliness.’

    Paglia says she has absolutely no idea how the election will go: ‘But people want change and they’re sick of the establishment — so you get this great popular surge, like you had one as well… This idea that Trump represents such a threat to western civilisation — it’s often predicted about presidents and nothing ever happens — yet if Trump wins it will be an amazing moment of change because it would destroy the power structure of the Republican party, the power structure of the Democratic party and destroy the power of the media. It would be an incredible release of energy… at a moment of international tension and crisis.’

    Camille Paglia

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/the-woman-is-a-disaster-camille-paglia-on-hillary-clinton/

    J'aime

Laisser un commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion / Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Google+

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google+. Déconnexion / Changer )

Connexion à %s

%d blogueurs aiment cette page :