November 29th, 2017

And the latest firee is…

Matt Lauer of NBC.

That is, formerly of NBC.

Lest you rejoice because you don’t like Matt Lauer, consider this:

Matt Lauer allegedly sexually assaulted a female NBC staffer during the Sochi Winter Olympics in 2014, sources told Page Six.

An NBC insider said Lauer’s alleged victim complained to HR on Monday: “This happened so quickly. She didn’t go to the media, she made a complaint to NBC’s human resources, and her evidence was so compelling that Matt was fired on Tuesday night. The victim says she has evidence that this has also happened to other women, but so far we don’t have evidence of that.”

Another source tells us that the decision to fire Lauer was made late Tuesday by NBC News chairman Andy Lack.

The woman’s lawyer, Ari Wilkenfeld, told ​t​he New York Times they met with NBC officials Monday evening.

“My client and I met with representatives from NBC’s Human Resources and Legal Departments at 6 p.m. on Monday for an interview that lasted several hours. Our impression at this point is that NBC acted quickly, as all companies should, when confronted with credible allegations of sexual misconduct in the workplace,” Wilkenfeld said.

We have not been told the substance of the assault. That word covers a great deal of ground, from something mild to something very very serious, and many things in-between. We also have no idea what her evidence was. It might have been very compelling—for example, emails from Lauer alluding to the assault (apologizing for it, excusing it, but at any rate admitting in some way that it had occurred). Or it may not be compelling evidence at all. The assault is alleged to have occurred three years ago, so it couldn’t be something in the nature of recent bruises or DNA evidence, for example. And certain kinds of DNA evidence—something akin to Monica Lewinsky’s blue dress—wouldn’t be likely to indicate whether the event was consensual or an assault.

We just haven’t a clue. All we know—at least, all reports indicate—that the accuser went to the NBC legal brass one evening, was interviewed at length, and Lauer was gone the next day. The rest is a mystery. That’s too soon for an investigation to have occurred, if the evidence wasn’t definitively probative rather than merely “credible.”

Yes, we’ve seen that word I discussed on Monday, “credible”—surface here. The context was this, from a statement by the accuser’s lawyer, “…NBC acted quickly, as all companies should, when confronted with credible allegations of sexual misconduct in the workplace.”

“Credible” merely means “believable.” All allegations are believable if they allege something physically possible: the two people were in the same place at the same time, they had the opportunity to be alone; that sort of thing. At least as I read this, any person (I won’t even limit it to women, although I assume it would be mostly women) has the power to get anyone fired by making a “credible” allegation against him (I won’t limit it to men, although I assume it would be mostly men). Is that the standard we want to see?

I seem to be an outlier in this as in many other things, but it’s not the standard I want to see. At the very most, a suspension and an investigation might be appropriate. But unless these charges are not just “credible” but are pretty much proven and relatively serious rather than trivial, a firing is the equivalent of a kangaroo court, as well as a dangerous precedent.

I’ve been saying it and saying it and saying it, but I feel like this is not the way things are going. For me, it has little to nothing to do with who is being accused and whether I like that person or not or what the person’s politics are. I don’t like it no matter who it topples. Lauer may be as guilty as the day is long, but I want him to have at least something resembling due process, even though NBC is not a court of law and should not be held to the standards of a court of law.

NBC News chairman Andy Lack, who apparently made the firing decision, also had this to say [emphasis mine]:

“On Monday night, we received a detailed complaint from a colleague about inappropriate sexual behavior in the workplace by Matt Lauer. It represented, after serious review, a clear violation of our company’s standards. As a result, we’ve decided to terminate his employment,” Lack wrote.

“While it is the first complaint about his behavior in the over twenty years he’s been at NBC News, we were also presented with reason to believe this may not have been an isolated incident,” he continued.

Our highest priority is to create a workplace environment where everyone feels safe and protected, and to ensure that any actions that run counter to our core values are met with consequences, no matter who the offender.

“We are deeply saddened by this turn of events. But we will face it together as a news organization — and do it in as transparent a manner as we can.”

Transparent? Hardly. We don’t know what the charges were. We don’t know who the accuser was. We don’t know what the evidence was. We do know this was done with lightening speed, and that there have been no other complaints.

As for an environment were “everyone feels safe and protected,” if I worked at NBC—particularly if I were a man, but actually whatever sex I might belong to—I would feel the opposite of “safe and protected.” I would feel that any enemy I had would have the power of making up a “credible” story about me and that I would be fired at a moment’s notice.

I read somewhere recently a description of the current spate of sexual harassment allegations that went something like this: The Sexual Revolution has entered its Reign of Terror phase. Obviously that’s hyperbole; no heads are literally rolling. But it’s an apt metaphor, although a better one might be The Feminist Revolution has entered its Reign of Terror phase.

I hold no love for Lauer, and if he’s guilty of sexual assault I would support his firing. But I don’t see how that could be known at present.

In the linked article there’s another hint of what might be going on here—a rumor that the NY Times may have been researching stories on Lauer. So perhaps NBC wanted to get ahead of the Times.

The last part of the article I linked features quotes from colleagues of Lauer’s who have known him for years, some of them women. They are clearly devastated. They just as clearly are trying to thread the needle and state the proper PC respect for the accuser—an accuser who has not been named, so they haven’t officially been told who she is (but whose name they may know through rumor or suspicion). It’s a daunting task, as you might imagine, since they’re clearly shocked and stunned and just found out the news.

For example, the woman who was given the job of reading the statement from Lack on the air was a colleague of Lauer’s and had just been given the statement (and the news itself) moments before she went on air. That’s kind of cruel, IMHO; she didn’t even have a chance to compose herself:

A visibly shaken Guthrie, who has worked with Lauer since 2012, said she was informed about his ouster just a few moments before going on the air.

“We just learned this moments ago, just this morning. As I’m sure you can imagine, we are devastated and we are still processing all of this,” she said.

“And I will tell you right now, we do not know more than what I just shared with you…

She added: “We are heartbroken. I’m heartbroken for Matt — he is my dear, dear friend and my partner, and he has been loved by many, many people here. And I’m heartbroken for the brave colleague who came forward to tell her story, and any other women who have their own stories to tell.”

Lots more in that vein from other women at NBC. This one is the one that strikes me as best—withholding judgement on everyone and not assuming anything:

Guthrie’s co-host Hoda Kotb called it a “tough morning,” noting that she has known Lauer for years and “loved him as a friend and a colleague.”

“It’s hard to reconcile with what we are hearing with the man who we know, who walks in this building every single day,” Kotb said. “We were both woken up with the news, kind of pre-dawn, and we’re trying to process it and trying to make sense of it — and it’ll take some time for that.”

If you’re playing on the team and you hear something like this, it’s apparently way too dangerous to openly question whether there has been a rush to judgment, or to say we need to know much more in order to evaluate the truth or falsehood of the accusation. It’s also dangerous to do that in public or on Twitter these days, or you risk the wrath of the PC patrol. After all, you might be next. Who knows where the Reign of Terror (or the KGB) will strike?

44 Responses to “And the latest firee is…”

  1. vanderleun Says:

    So so out of date. The latest is Garrison Keillor. Hard to keep up. This thing is starting to run like those youtube videos of 15,000 or more dominos falling.

  2. vanderleun Says:

    It is hard to keep up…/

  3. R.C. Says:

    Look, people.

    You’re just going to have to put up with a molester or a harasser or a rapist or two. in some of these jobs.

    I mean, sure: I realize that the Vice Presidency isn’t exactly a full-time job.

    Even so, Mike Pence doesn’t have enough spare time to do television news, and be Senator from Minnesota, and perform dull book-tour interviews, and produce all the Hollywood blockbusters! The man just doesn’t have the time!

    And apparently, there’s nobody else left in D.C., New York, or Lake Wobegon who isn’t a predator.

  4. Kyndyll G Says:

    What fails to be understood by so many people is that the true injustice of the Salem witch trials was permitting actionable legal charges that had no element of proof and which could not be refuted. Shortly after this farce ran its course, contemporaries realized the horrible mistake that had happened and spectral “evidence” disappeared from the American legal system.

    How long will we have to put up with this? We have returned overnight to Salem when “because somebody said something” becomes its own evidence. As noted, anybody – but in the current environment especially any woman, against any man that she dislikes or wants out of her way – can ruin anyone. This isn’t justice.

  5. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    The normal reaction to an unjust firing is deep anger. That Lauer evidently did not and is not fighting his termination is telling.

    Since Lauer is a celebrity, releasing a statement categorically denying the charge and, that he’s directed his lawyer to immediately file a wrongful termination lawsuit would be an obvious response.

    I imagine he stands to lose millions if he doesn’t contest a firing for purportedly… just cause. But… if NBC is going to pay him the full amount remaining in his contract, then it is likely that the evidence is not that solid.

  6. arfldgrs Says:

    It’s also dangerous to do that in public or on Twitter these days, or you risk the wrath of the PC patrol. After all, you might be next. Who knows where the Reign of Terror (or the KGB) will strike?

    funny how the things that we end up not wanting to deal with and such end up fulfilling the predictions of the people who were neutered from the argument…

    ALL of this can be tracked to single points of people and articles and things taught about 10 or more years ago in college… and if you thing this is a bit odd and extreme, wait till the microagression crowd gets dominant..

    This is what Red Terror was in a way -but more Red Terror Light, where the range of action is clipped at the point of law permissiveness… NOT due to any other limit which is not believed to be otherwise.

    however Neo has the wrong agency…
    The agency that did what she is alluding to was the Checka, not the KGB…

    “The greater the terror, the greater our victories.” – Lavr Kornilov

    Do not look in the file of incriminating evidence to see whether or not the accused rose up against the Soviets with arms or words. Ask him instead to which class he belongs, what is his background, his education, his profession. These are the questions that will determine the fate of the accused. That is the meaning and essence of the Red Terror.
    — Martin Latsis, Red Terror

    if you want i can show you the origins of things and were people could have said sometning (but many of them had never been born given the changes)…

    people been avoiding this subject as a whole connected thing (the united part of the fronts!!), so they dont see or want to see that eugenics, democide, importation of this, redefinition of things to get us used to soviet thinking and repression a normal, and on and on..

    people been documenting it, but back when it wasnt this crazy, you would call them crazy, feminists would shame or ostracise them… politics would make claims of their being funded well and so on. .

    harrasment? see K McKinnon… she is a lawyer that reformed law and such to help this along

    the reasonable man doctrine being changed to the reasonable person being changed to the victim perception?

    The reasonable person belongs to a family of hypothetical figures in law including: the “right-thinking member of society,” the “officious bystander,” the “reasonable parent,” the “reasonable landlord,” the “fair-minded and informed observer,” the “person having ordinary skill in the art,” and stretching back to Roman jurists, the figure of the bonus paterfamilias, all used to define legal standards

    the switching to using Gender as a synonym, then later using its other definitions instead… (that was written about for a few years beore it actually happened that way)

    Looseness of legal language: the reasonable woman standard, in theory and in practice

    in the 1980s when the idea went that women never lie abour rape, harassment etc.. and the law changes in civil court to make it easier to get money there even if you cang win in criminal court…

    American feminists have identified law as an instrument of male supremacy since their first national gathering at Seneca Falls, New York in 1848. Critiques of law thus became an important part of the early feminist movement, which succeeded in eradicating the most blatant examples of legal sexism

    been going on for a long time
    but what happens is this
    and i have explained it before, forget doing that again

    they were the ones that started the idea tha laws made by men are sexist and dont apply – which then was transported to the race politics and copied onthat front
    when ten fronts do the same in 15 countries, it seems like that is the right answer

    eech item if you put it together with others leads to a concious knowing of where this is going… ALL feminists pushes for egalitarianism and sex and policy reduce children.. (so they are exterminating the residents to import others to hide the numbers – controlling the outcome in society by demographics because its a front we do not protect!!!)

    the imports have grown to be the dominant group
    so they dont have to pay as much lipservice
    and are now asking the women they trickd into exterminating their families and futuire, to actually conciously do it!!! why not, they cant fight back now

    and the left has no shame..
    if you dont think the left is being goaded into all thes things… your wrong… not only that, but even more interesting.. its anotehr thing to lead to infertility..

    all this stuff is

    too bad when they were saying 20 years ago demonizing men, no one fought back but men who then were neutered… now, ALL heterosexual white males are evil as nazis from birth… good thing we didnt fight it

    [anyone but me noticed that the serial killer they caught in florida was black, and that they did not let you know anything about his victims.. no panel with pictures and such… why? on anther note, they been cleaning out the whites where i work.. they all been fired and pushed out otehr than me… women ok, russian immigre ok, jewish definitely ok, but thats that… they fired everyone that was white male over the past two years to win diversity scores.. they have negated raises for 13 years for my wife and me and that exterminated our chance to have kids… they now are ramping up more…]

    Feminist Philosophy of Law STANFORD

    Feminist philosophy of law identifies the pervasive influence of patriarchy and masculinist norms on legal structures and demonstrates their effects on the material conditions of women and girls and those who many not conform to cisgender norms. It also considers problems at the intersection of sexuality and law and develops reforms to correct gender injustice, exploitation, or restriction. To these ends, feminist philosophy of law applies insights from feminist epistemology, relational metaphysics and progressive social ontology, feminist political theory, and other developments in feminist philosophy to understand how legal institutions enforce dominant gendered and masculinist norms. Contemporary feminist philosophy of law also draws from diverse scholarly perspectives such as international human rights theory, postcolonial theory, critical legal studies, critical race theory, queer theory, and disability studies.

    read THAT and you might get a hint that there is a top down component to this bottom up move.. and then learn the top down is the hammer, the bottom up is the anvil and your caught between them

  7. arfldgrs Says:

    and people used to say i was a bit paranoid because i dont have twitter, or facebook (now with the russian scandal that was baked in by who funded it), kaspersky (now with the russian thing baked in and discovered they hacked us), and so on

    my friends said why i wouldnt
    i always said, mny family is from a soviet state and you do not want to hang a sign in the world as to who and what you are. if they decide to not like that, you will haev no way to go back in time and hide. and given the number of people who want this, the collapsing births, the hate from back home, the sex ed like bela kuhn, one day, they will win..

    and then you all will be guilty of the past now that the persent has changed to right the wrongs that were right then but wrong now.

    now you guys might realize that it wasnt just shame and things that prevented the many people knowing things from fighting with you to show it.. it was fear that defining themselves in opposition was signing their death sentence or life punishment decades before the punishment may even exist..

    but thats what you learn surviving under that…
    what did you guys learn living in freedom?

  8. neal Says:

    This is like chess. With pimps sacrificing high class hookers to stay on the board.

    That is how the game works. No pimp, no money, no nuclear options.

  9. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    “This isn’t justice.” Kyndyll G

    Feminists aren’t interested in justice for the patriarchy. They’re interested in revenge, most of all for imagined wrongs with the goal being power. They deceitfully justify it as ‘corrective’ justice.

    Many on the Left are celebrating that this year’s list of Grammy nominees has just one white woman with all the rest black. Political correctness is the only consideration.

  10. Griffin Says:

    Kyndyll G,

    We have to be getting close to the stage of the sex panic where we have a Duke lacrosse or UVa Jackie case come along after somebody’s life has been ruined. Maybe we’ll never know because of the utter flooding of the zone with allegations. Pretty amazing where we are as a society.

  11. Dave Says:

    This morning I heard an old Christmas song on the radio so full of sexual innuendo of a man trying to get a woman into bed even after she said she had to go how did the station acquire permissions from the feminists to play the song on air? Don’t know the name of the song but it is about a man trying to persuade a woman to stay in his apartment or something with lame lines like “baby its cold outside”

  12. arfldgrs Says:

    oh and you can see that men on the left, even if white are still evil.. (read chatechism of the revolutionary)…

    there are some interesting philosophical feminist documents that basically address this… and i have read them.. you can find them on your own if you want… i dont have the time.

    but basically the evil person will do anything to avoid ti and preserve the partriarchy… if they marry a foreign woman like i did, they did so to prove they are not racist when they are, and show false signs… every point in real life will be false and a way to asuage the fronts

    if they are feminists they are pretending, but still useful for a while.. and on and on..

    the point is that nothig they do can redeem them
    because they have already been deemed by mary daily and others to be removed or even exterminated… they said so outright, no gilding the lilly

    but now that their bs is mainstream
    mainstream people are shocked as to what was normal for decades outside their view!!!

    or havent you noticed that the key foundational documents that kicked off each facet of this gem was decades ago?

    The Carol Hanisch essay: The personal is political, also termed The private is political, is a political argument used as a rallying slogan of student movement and second-wave feminism from the late 1960s. [that was to get law into the house after protesting the state should get out of the bedroom]

    “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack” first appeared in Peace and Freedom Magazine, July/August, 1989, pp. 10-12, a publication of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Philadelphia, PA.

    but these are things the publid doest know and if you talk you get attacked..

    neo kgb went after the people who could warn you and went after those that wee trying to show and lay it out and so, your 50 years too late

    right now the mgtow men are reveling in shadenfreude of the others not listening and their being safe…

    the blowback is starting and whats goingto happen is that the ladies NEXT thing to go after is ACCESS… doors will be closing as people protect themselves

    and the funny thing?
    the good guys who wouldnt do this and have the most to lose with false accusations and such WILL respond and withdraw

    but the bad eggs? the ones that nothing stops, not even prison. well they are going to make up more of the populatoin that the women will deal with… they will be willing to grant access when the others will be too afraid

    so this will make things worse. not better

  13. T Says:


    Thanks for your attempt to address the credibility of these numerous charges. IMO this entire sex harassment debacle is a witches’ brew of a preference cascade and a media that loves a salacious story coupled with its knowledge that sex sells.

    The chaff of unproven accusations has melded with serious and warranted accusations to the point that one simply can not tell them apart; even best guesses are based on supposition. It is the equivalent of the Dept. of Education’s “Dear Colleague” letter on steroids as due process has been pretty much disposed of in the court of public opinion (was the court of public opinion ever any different?).

    Yet there is one thing to keep in mind: If one takes all of the employees at CBS, NBC, ABC, and Fox, the 500 plus members of congress, the innumerable number of actresses, actors and producers in the entertainment industry, etc., it is clear that, even if these multiple episodes of charges would all be true, they are but a small percentage of the whole.

    The media is clearly fanning the flames here for its own benefit and they can’t understand why the public distrusts them so, or is it that the media types thinks that such exposes will help them regain their lost credibility?

  14. groundhog Says:

    neo says At the very most, a suspension and an investigation might be appropriate. But unless these charges are not just “credible” but are pretty much proven and relatively serious rather than trivial, a firing is the equivalent of a kangaroo court, as well as a dangerous precedent.

    Wouldn’t the NBC lawyers already take that into account the legal consequences and the cost if the accused fights back successfully if the case was really weak?

  15. arfldgrs Says:

    from stanford law: [here is the wind up to the way it changed]

    Until the 20th century, however, these commitments did not protect women from a frequent source of danger, their intimates: husbands, lovers, relatives, friends, or employers. Indeed, for much of history these common threats to the personal security of women were not recognized as harms at all that it was the business of the state to address. Instead, they were frequently taken to be inevitable, a matter of right, or justifiable. Not surprisingly, a great deal of feminist legal scholarly attention and reform effort has been directed to revealing and changing the many ways in which law fails to protect women and girls against forms of violence such as rape (including date rape and marital rape), domestic abuse, sexual harassment, and other types of abuse.


    Difficulties about consent and proof attend other forms of violence against women as wll. Incest, like rape, was always illegal but rarely admitted, let alone prosecuted. Prosecutors were all too willing to drop charges when women chose not to press them, potentially confusing respect for the victim’s choices with her fear of embarrassment or coercion. And sexual harassment (like sex discrimination) simply did not exist as legal claims until the 1960s or later (MacKinnon & Siegel 2004; MacKinnon 1979).


    Sexual harassment and sex discrimination are now rather widely recognized as wrongful behavior and legal causes of action in a variety of forms.

    Despite this significant progress in formal law, crime statistics continue to verify that violence against women remains a problem of major proportions. Reporting rates are low. Conviction rates in no sense reflect a full commitment to punishing these crimes on a par with punishment of other crimes (Estrich 2001; Schulhofer 1998).

    The result of such enforcement failure, feminists contend, is that in practice men have almost the same powers over women that were historically enshrined in law.

    they used the unchanging women make x dollars disproved trope for 50 years now… and you cant find racism… unless you look at numbers..

    so for them there should be more crime found (so they kept changing definitions and things so the spreadsheets match the mind not the mind match reality!!! their whole movement is based on this kind of delusional thinking as a norm)

    not enough convicted was a big one
    as was assuming innocence of the perpetrator (unlike soviet union where your guilty and have to prove otherwise. which is one of many reasons they believe a modern communist US is better)

    its all up there and that started when most of us were kids or teens

    they spend decades coming up to answers to anyone argument you may make now (which is why you cant argue with them, you were neutered before you spoke!!)

    why hasn’t the law interceded more successfully? Feminist theorists give different answers to this question. Liberal feminists may focus on biased attitudes of police officers, prosecutors, and judges, the majority of whom are male. Other feminists point to persistent economic inequality between women and men, with resulting dependency that makes it difficult for women to leave abusive relationships or to resist harassment.

    so again, like all soviet ideals, there is these great hidden conspiracies of people who actually have no idea where the freaking meetings are.. and os on.. (however THEY are a big conspiracy and dont realize that their thing is fighting a natural orde not a alternative larger more powerful more secret better conspiracy than theirs)

  16. John Guilfoyle Says:

    Make ’em play by their own rules.

    Hey Matt!…Garrison!…you too!

  17. Griffin Says:

    This actually plays to the theory that as our society continues to disintegrate each and every event is more extreme. Probably been going on for longer but I think the Bush/Gore election started it and then it continued with 9/11, the response to that, the financial crisis and so on culminating in Trump.

    And it’s true of these cultural examples like transgenders and campus rape and the like. Everything has to be a massive important problem and everyone that disagrees with the accepted elite (left) belief is not just of a different opinion but is instead evil and must be banished from society.

  18. Molly NH Says:

    where is Gloria allred with her little roll along document container to hold the scads of info from the tearful, wronged, women.
    Judge moore will win Alabama, no evidence on him just professional crybabies & unstable (as the left was wont to call Conyers accusers)

  19. Frederick Says:

    NBC is totally within their rights to fire Matt Lauer if he’s done something inappropriate but not criminal. If he had a habit of using the N-word in meetings, for example, that’s not a criminal matter (yet) and most people would say it’s not wrong to fire him over that.

    If they want NBC to be the kind of place where accusations of non-criminal conduct, credible or not, can get you fired, that’s their right.

    But I, as a member of the public, am not going to treat the accusation against Lauer as true unless I hear what the evidence is, or unless he acknowledges his guilt.

  20. Dave Says:

    Have the left ever fathom that the higher number of crimes against women statistic has something to do with the fact that men just let things go when petty crimes were committed against them? Men don’t call the police every time we get punched in the face, women do report every petty little trivial crime though

  21. arfldgrs Says:

    Dave Says:
    November 29th, 2017 at 3:11 pm

    yeah, they did complain about that one a while back

    but the one that really gets them is “Fire”
    the big problem is that women fantasize about beign taken (or raped) by the man they want who will do that to them the way they want (so its NOT real rape at ALL)…

    I’m driving in my car, I turn on the radio
    I’m pulling you close, you just say no
    You say you don’t like it, but girl I know you’re a liar
    `Cause when we kiss, Fire

    Late at night I’m takin’ you home
    I say I wanna stay, you say you wanna be alone
    You say you don’t love me, girl you can’t hide your desire
    `Cause when we kiss, Fire

    You had a hold on me, right from the start
    A grip so tight I couldn’t tear it apart
    My nerves all jumpin’ actin’ like a fool
    Well your kisses they burn but your heart stays cool

    Romeo and Juliet, Samson and Delilah
    Baby you can bet their love they didn’t deny
    Your words say split but your words they lie
    `Cause when we kiss, Fire

    songs often have messages in them the listeners dont notice
    like the other couples that were destroyed by love as he would be once on charges

    its a hit song.

    and there are others that have no idea of the other
    kinds of lives people lead and what songs are about..

    you know the story of “Darling, save the last dance for me” ??

    it was written by a man in a wheel chair whose wife loved to dance and he would go out with her and let her dance with all the other men… but she had to save the last one (in bed) for him…

    people might be surprised at how many men in wheelchairs get carried up the stairs at the swing clubs (trapeze club) or down stairs (hell fire or up its three floors depending on what your tastes are)

  22. Griffin Says:

    The Variety story has hit and it’s something.

  23. Ann Says:

    This is the story that NBC knew was about to be published by Variety: Matt Lauer Accused of Sexual Harassment by Multiple Women (EXCLUSIVE)

  24. Dave Says:

    is it sexual assault when a woman flashes her boobs or even skirt in front of a man? I just don’t understand the double standards, why can’t a man expose his penis to a woman but seem to be perfectly fine the other way around?

  25. TommyJay Says:

    I haven’t heard that song in so long. The song arfldgrs mentions was made most popular by The Pointer Sisters. The sisters came out of a very religious family and started as gospel singers.

    But as it sometimes happens, this song was written from a male point of view by Bruce Springsteen (Mr. Politically Correct) and popularized by female vocalists.

  26. arfldgrs Says:

    Dave Says:
    November 29th, 2017 at 4:41 pm

    because those who want to be equal never wanted equality, they gave up their higher station, for a bag of magic beans, and never been happy since..

    they were taught their homes, husbands and children were a happy gulag by a woman who married a broker (i know him), who had maids, and was bored!! she had been writing for the communist press under her name Naomi Goldstein… (betty friedan)

    as the communists took over the movement (erin pizzey the woman who opened up the first abuse shelter for everyone, details this from uk till she was nearly killed and had to flee to the US)

    from there with the backing of all the publishers on the left and part of the cause since willi munsenberg and otto katz made tons of them.. (but why bother looking? no one wants to hear that!!)

    the bigger point is that the soviets started THAT form of feminism way before the west, which is why the feminists latched onto it that the soviet communist stalinist thing (or mao i guess) would make a society that would finally be fair to lesbians who saw all the men get the girls they wanted but couldnt have (which is why Grace ATkins and others says you cant really be feminist unless your lesbian)..

    you see, they had latched onto the feminism of moses harman, and his daugher and the periuods of wealthy peope (like bill gates today) going out to build communes that would allwo what they wanted..

    sex and such on tap
    what else would the politics of the elte sociopathics want? selfish sex and all that comes with that, and they tarred and feathred all their contemporaries, so you cant tell them from others.

    from the rites of the grove, to hell fire club with ben franklyn, to killing kittens, moses harmon, sanger, free love kolontai, etc.

    the whole idea was to tell the queens they had no power, and so, they would only have power through the feminists leaders and so, they usurped the womens power for their own (the same way the keeper of the sun king did!!! ie. dont tell the king his powers and keep him powerless as power passes through the other person)

    anyway.. franz boas tapped by the communists along with his darling students, one being very famous doing this thing about womens sexualityb eing just like mens. (but they found out like kinsey this was a farce latter, but doesnt matter, once it exists, like the priori of zion crap, there is a percentage that can be relied on to be scooped up in that net)

    so this multiprongeed multinational force coordinated the same actions in every western country it could to the same ends.. (or hevent you noticed these things international not national but then again, communsm is international communism, not national communism(fascim))

    all manner of mythos and extensions were made but utlmately.. the average woman was not as sexually depraved as the leftists were, they were not as free to be sexualized and so on.. ie. that was a problem to be fixed

    why? cause when they did that in the bela kuhn government he overthrew, that allowed the state to peel away children from parents and turn them..

    same here.

    but again, biology is the factor. women do NOT Want to be equal that way sexually!! that would lower them down to what? inside they know they are more valuable, but outside is the constant perspective drawn that they have the short end. and they will destroy their own for any bigger better deal they think they can get even if its a smaller worse deal dressed up…

    even worse, that you guys never talk about is the double sword in this!!!!!!!! while espousing that this is all bad and negative, on the other side they are lowering and desireing things like no age of consent!! think on that.

    but its the emperors new clothes that your wondering about. if you read the original story, the people didnt want to say the king was naked but why? we all miss that part, the story informs on how to set up a position like in chess where ego protects the lie.

    and in human society the ones with the most ego and self stuff is women… constantly looking at themselves preening as beauty is their money, and more..

    the tailors said that the cloth was so fine, only a smart person or a genius with understanding could see it… and those who were not smart, genius, and so on, were fools and would see it as invisable

    the people didnt want to be seen as fools…
    their ego and desire to control how OTHERS percieved them put a lock on their ability to negate the thing!!!

    women.. your so smart, your so progressive, your so liberated… IF yo do waht feminism says, and if not, your not even a woman. your out of the popularity game.

    i even laid out the story of the chinese court man who i said brought in a purple horse, the original story i put up as well, in which he brings in a deer, and calls it a horse.

    the courtesans not wishing to offend the emporer would say it was a deer, the others who would side with the revolutionary, would say it was a horse.

    after that, the revolutoinary killed the ones who saw a deer, because he knew they were on that side, and so, without them, he could win the overthrow

    the turn around (on penis) your asking is that the womern are being made to do things they dont like as a show of their fealty to the cause.. of which, being primates, they feel they will die without the connection. so they espouse equality as dictated, but in reality, they are offended and such by all their biology commands, and are in an untenneable position where the only releif is to attack the target and gain reward

    Biologyh is why you cant show your penis
    your the disposable sex they are the important sex

    you see, when they were oppressed men had to
    stand when they entered
    pay their bills and everything
    marry them if your brother dies and pay
    if islam, their money is theirs they make and never yours
    stand when they etner the room
    take your hat off
    help them with their chairs
    pick things up if they dropped them
    be a random on call free body guard (and die a hero if needs be)

    and more

    but ultimately, eventually their biologyu takes control
    and in that w efind they are totalitarians
    why? cause they are afraid of everything including maybes, and having control is what paranoids like soviet communists want to be not afraid.

    funny actually

  27. Frog Says:

    Kyndyll G gets it.

    But there is more: “Everyone should feel safe and protected” in the workplace? Like “safe spaces” in academia? We all need coddling? Except my daughter who as a young MD assisting at surgery has had her gloved hand pierced by a sloppy faculty surgeon’s needle three times, each time occasioning blood tests for Hepatitis(A, B, C and the list goes on) and HIV?

    No, not biological safety, of course. Safety from harassment by older, even elderly white males is needed. ??? Poor little chickies can’t defend themselves.
    Now they wonder where the men have gone. Gone to get tatts to prove they’re still XY, just like in New Guinea!

    And even Neo gets lathered up: “colleagues of Lauer’s who have known him for years, some of them women. They are clearly devastated.” Devastated seems a bit strong, does it not? A bit hyperbolic, even on the edge of hysteria. (Hysteria originally meant ‘wandering uterus’, BTW)

    But who is not hyperbolic in this hyperbolic era, full of allegations, reflexive firings and PC mea culpas. The sky is falling.

    Except of course for Roy Moore, a standup ‘Hell, No!” denier of events alleged- yes, alleged- to have occurred 40 years ago. I hope for him to win. Anyone who would defy our anti-religious courts and place the Ten Commandments on granite before the public, and fight anti-personal ALLEGATIONS gets my vote.

  28. neo-neocon Says:


    If you think that statement from me was an example of “all lathered up,” I don’t think you know what “all lathered up” would really look like.

    I agree about questioning whether work can be a safe place—for who? Firefighters? Police? Prison guards? Factory workers? Construction workers? They all face a certain amount of danger.

    Of course, safety (particularly physical safety) is important, and we’ve made a lot of advances in workplace safety. And to be safe from being fired for refusing sexual advances or sexual favors is something both men and women should be safe from, if at all possible. But safety from a sexual joke or being propositioned, or from feeling uncomfortable, is not something that can be guaranteed in the workplace anymore than it can be guaranteed anywhere else, including a college (where people also seem to want to be safe even from thoughts that challenge their own beliefs)

  29. Sam L. Says:

    And, NOW,. there’s Garrison Keillor

  30. Stephen Ippolito Says:

    Interestingly, the HR department at Matt Lauer’s former network, NBC, just this morning issued a new in-house training seminar to clarify its corporate policy on what constitutes “acceptable standards” in the workplace.

    The network stated that it is hoped that all male employees, current and future, will closely study and adhere to the policy – which it says does no more than “reflect community standards generally, and the expectations of our female staff in particular”:

  31. blert Says:

    The dynamics, the tempo, indicate that Matt Lauer fessed up.

    The jig was up…

    And his gig was over.


    What many Alphas might consider frisky convo… absolutely crosses the line with today’s revenging feminists.

    The toy in question would not appear to be a vibrator.

    And it must have seemed to Matt to be something that would be well received. Fellas just don’t aim to be turned down, rejected.

    I’d rather suspect that his interest was directed at a gal who’d already established herself as a tramp… a common distinction in the dog-eat-dog media.

    However, she wasn’t quite the tramp that Matt assumed.

    I also suspect that there was a MAJOR age gap between 56 year-old Lauer and his play interest.

    Though it stands to reason that this was not Matt’s first trip to the well.

    He made the pitch because it worked so often in the past, that’s why.

    Propositioning a gal is no crime, of course.

    You have two modes here:

    She wants him, then everything is sexy, frisky and fun.

    She doesn’t want him, then he’s weird, disgusting, and a perv.

    Her feelings decide the ‘crime.’

  32. Ackler Says:

    Well, the details emerged in Variety. If even a tenth of the details are true, he should have been gone a long time ago. I agree NBC was trying to get ahead of the story. They are frantically engaging in retroactive CYA.

    Who’s next? No idea, but the impish, Schadenfredue-craving soul in me prays for Colbert. Or Stewart, but he’s kind of old news. Both are about as smug, self righteous and snotty as can be imagined

  33. Frog Says:

    Neo: I tremble at the thought of seeing you all lathered up.
    But still, you did write “They (NBC staff) are clearly devastated.”

    Devastation is what happened to Hiroshima.

    “Lathered up” refers to a horse whose heavy sweat has been turned into a lather by the reins rubbing on the equine’s neck, after severe sustained exertion, often associated with fatigue and trembling. That horse requires a rubdown or a wash, and 30-60 minutes of cool-down walking. It does not in this context mean shaving cream lather!

  34. Frog Says:

    blert: Propositioning a femme is in many circles today an actual crime, especially in the academy, if it is unwanted. Of course, absent an overture, how is one to know whether it is welcome or not? Must a male await a grope?
    This is all about demasculinizing men, most vigorously done by lesbian feminists. Who all voted for Hillary. I have posted on this here, before today.

  35. AesopFan Says:

    Dave Says:
    November 29th, 2017 at 4:41 pm
    is it sexual assault when a woman flashes her boobs or even skirt in front of a man? I just don’t understand the double standards, why can’t a man expose his penis to a woman but seem to be perfectly fine the other way around?
    * * *
    This is a peculiar double-standard, since it’s generally culturally okay in the West for men to go “topless” on the beach, but not for women. I suspect you can figure out for yourself, though, the difference in Messaging via Exposure of selected body parts.

    But, maybe this ad isn’t as good a selling point as the candidate thinks?

  36. Stephen Ippolito Says:

    It is never wise to deduce universal lessons from purely individual experiences but I doubt very much that I am alone amongst men in my courting experience of women these last 30 or so years.

    Without wishing to get too personal, there have been, (and continue to be), many, many instances over the course of my life-long bachelorhood where, out for the evening with an attractive lady, I have heard the words from her: “thank heavens, I thought you were never going to make your move” and/or “Thank God, I was beginning to think you wee gay”. Or words to that effect.

    I am not attracted to bimbos so all these ladies have been and are bright, confident, professional, assertive women – yet they have all expected and waited for me to take the initiative – as a man.

    This goes for women my own age and up to 20 years younger – which is my dating pool. It is not an approach unique to one generation alone.

    Is there not, then, a problem where women fully expect and wish men to take the initiative by making the first move at the end of the evening- yet reserve the right to cry harassment if it is unwelcome

    Mind you, my “move” does not resemble anything like the move of Weinstein and Louis CK in as much as I do not approach with my equipment in my hand, so there’s that.

  37. neo-neocon Says:

    Stephen Ippolito:

    Yes, the move itself matters. Flashing a woman with whom a man is still in the “wooing” stage isn’t a move with a high probability of success. Finesse (and it sounds as though finesse is more your style) is the key to success. Finesse, and timing.

    And it’s much better to hold back a little bit extra than to come on too strong too early. It’s not a bad idea to get a woman to the point of saying, “At last!”

    It also helps if one isn’t married, and not the boss of the person being wooed.

  38. neo-neocon Says:


    Flashing boobs is not the equivalent of flashing genitalia.

    It is a bit odd, because women have two main “private part” venues, upper and lower. Men only have one: lower. But I think will can all agree that there’s a hierarchy here, and upper does not equal lower.

  39. neo-neocon Says:


    Oh, please.

    “Devastated” is used in the emotional sense all the time without any equivalence whatsoever to anything even remotely approaching the obliteration of Hiroshima.

    As a native English speaker (which I’m assuming you are), you should know that. Devastated can mean very shocked and upset. That’s the meaning here.

    It can also mean to lay waste or destroy. That’s obviously not the way I used it.

  40. J.J. Says:

    This is scary stuff. An accusation can cost you your job. Wow!

    I was in the work force way back when a lot of this feminist revolt against dirty old men began. It was back in the Ice Ages (Waaay before global warming.) when I was flying co-pilot for a Captain who was an old southern gentleman. He called every woman honey or dahlin.’ It was one day when he said, “Thanks dahlin’,” when a flight attendant brought us coffee. This bit of sexual harassment had been ignored by all previous flight attendants but was insulting to this particular one. She wrote him up. I had to attend the hearing as I was an eyewitness to the crime. The result: The Captain got a letter of reprimand and a warning to watch his words. It did put a crimp in his style. He insisted from then on that his co-pilots talk to the flight attendants, since they knew better than him how to watch their words.

    I adopted a new way of thinking. I began a policy of addressing all flight attendants just like I would a man. (Absent the usual profanity.) That didn’t always work. Some female flight attendants thought me too stern. But I never was written up for inappropriate words. 🙂

    I’ve now read more about the Matt Lauer case. It turns out that he was a horn dog with a lot of money and power. He probably had a lot of women willing to have consensual sex with him, but felt bullet proof and attempted some unwanted advances that have finally landed him in hot water. I doubt seriously that this was the first complaint that NBC got about him. They learned about the stories that the NYTs and Variety were coming out with and decided to get ahead of the story. It appears that Lauer’s rep as a horn dog was known, but kept well out of public view.

    I would like to hear his side of the story, though. I get the feeling that a few civil suits are coming his way. He better lawyer up and get his side of the story out. He’s not only lost his $25 million per year job, he may be looking at paying some damages for pain and suffering.

  41. AesopFan Says:

    I note that, if the Left still has a use for one of their icons, “innocent until proven guilty” becomes once more the Preferred Mode.

    “Richmond released a statement a few hours after he spoke with reporters in which he expanded on Tuesday’s meeting with Conyers, saying the conversation was “very candid” and Conyers “vehemently denies” the allegations.

    “I told him that I agreed with his decision to step down as ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee at this time. I also told him that I encourage and expect him to fully cooperate with the ethics investigation,” Richmond said. “He said he would.”

    Richmond stressed the importance of granting Conyers — and all lawmakers accused of sexual harassment — the rights of due process through the ethics investigation.
    * * *
    The Left apparently is willing to sacrifice media persons and entertainers on the altar of Feminist Outrage (not to be construed as diminishing the very real complaints about very real harassment and assault) but won’t offer up anyone who has actual political power.

  42. AesopFan Says:

    In the spirit of Power Lines “cartoons of the week” —

  43. AesopFan Says:

    blert Says:
    November 29th, 2017 at 8:55 pm
    Propositioning a gal is no crime, of course.

    You have two modes here:

    She wants him, then everything is sexy, frisky and fun.

    She doesn’t want him, then he’s weird, disgusting, and a perv.

    Her feelings decide the ‘crime.’
    * * *

  44. AesopFan Says:

    arfldgrs Says:
    November 29th, 2017 at 2:59 pm

    .. it was fear that defining themselves in opposition was signing their death sentence or life punishment ..

    but thats what you learn surviving under that…
    what did you guys learn living in freedom?
    * * *
    We have learned that even without fear of death or gulags, people are still afraid of the powerful — until they are no longer in power.

    What we in the US do have going for us, is that the Government does not yet have all the power, and we want to keep it that way.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.

Monthly Archives


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge