Why is humankind so silly as to continue to judge our candidates based on issues so marginal to their ability to lead?I would never vote for Herman Cain, mainly because I've found him to be unintelligent, vague on the issues, and more evasive even than the typical politician. But before accusations of unwanted advances, he was on top of the GOP heap. Why in the world should he said/she said, old accusations about such matters bring down any human being, let alone a leader?
For me, the most outrageous example is of course, is Bill Clinton who was impeached, yes impeached, because he lied about having had consensual sex with a temptress. And smart up-and-comer Elliot Spitzer had his political career ended merely because he saw a high-priced prostitute and didn't admit it. Would you?
How ironic that is in an era in which sexuality from gay marriage to open marriage, YouPorn to transexuality have become matter-of-fact. HERE is a list of 20 such U.S. politicians merely since the sexual revolution of the '60s. *
In part, this is yet another feminist power grab: Women milk a slight--real or trumped-up--for all they can get: "You played around with me? Okay, now give me what I want or I'll bring you down." And among journalists, a man refusing to write about such "invasions," risks being called insensitive by his female colleagues, which in this terrible job market for journalists, is enough to ruin his career.
Feminists say that women have what it takes to rise to heights in the workplace, yet some of those same people can't seem to endure an "unwanted advance," or the psychological aftermath of consensual sex with their boss without running to their lawyer or to the press.
Let us take this Herman Cain "scandal" as an opportunity to look inward and ask ourselves whether we're viewing sex "scandals" fairly. More important, shouldn't we redouble our efforts to select and judge our leaders based on factors more central to their ability to lead than whether they propositioned their secretary, oops, "administrative assistant?"
Update: I've just become aware that Cain is now being accused of having offered a woman a job if he had sex with her. If that is true, in my opinion, that rises to the level where it should be considered in assessing his fitness to lead.
4 comments:
This hyper PC world has made it impossible for men in the workplace. We have one-sided accusations of sexual harassment. No context (was their any flirting involved on the womens' parts, for example?) and no vetting of the accusers (who are these women? what are their backgrounds? how were these women contacted? why have the allegations only surfaced now [well that's pretty obvious])? There should be some standard of evidence (Tweeted pix, for instance, or a stained dress), otherwise it's just baseless slander.
Four women have now come forward accusing McCain of inappropriate behaviour. Should they simply "put up or shut up"?
It is a unique privilege to serve as a public official. You become the "face" of the people you represent. It is reasonable, therefore, for someone running for public office to have their character scrutinized. If elected he/she will be in the position of representing a cross-section of individuals. If the elected official enters office with a predisposed lack of respect for a class of individuals then he/she cannot adequately represent the needs of all people.
"Feminists say that women have what it takes to rise to heights in the workplace, yet some of those same people can't seem to endure an "unwanted advance," or the psychological aftermath of consensual sex with their boss without running to their lawyer or to the press."
That just about says it.
I also recall reading in Warren Farrell's The Myth of Male Power that women get more protection from off-color remarks on the job than men get from being seriously injured and killed on the job.
In all such allegations we should assume that anonymity = bogus. If the women won't or can't be named, then such accusations sink to the level of the Stalin–era Soviet Union, in which an (often) anonymous denunciation by a neighbor or acquaintance could send someone to the gulag or the execution squad.
To take the principle a step further: the problem in the US today is that in too many jurisdictions, such accusations without accompanying evidence in claims of assault, rape, or child molestation are sufficient to land a man in prison or even, in some extreme cases, death row—just as in Stalin's regime.
This dovetails with your thoughts on reforming the justice system. I hope your pending discussion touches on this issue.
Post a Comment