Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Making Sense of Eric Schneiderman
The former attorney general of the state of New York had a pattern of slapping and choking women with whom he was intimate. He also spat at them, demanded threesomes, insulted them, threatened them, and called one (who had dark skin) his “brown slave.” Without warning, he slammed a girlfriend so hard that he broke her eardrum. In another case, his palm left a red welt on a woman’s face that remained visible the following day.
These and other details about Eric Schneiderman were disclosed by Ronan Farrow and Jane Meyer in The New Yorker. Keep that in mind the next time someone suggests that the liberal media are untethered to reality and serve only partisan purposes. Schneiderman is not only a Democrat, he was a key Trump antagonist, and a champion of the MeToo movement.
This has left a number of feminists both furious and bewildered. It’s disorienting to see people you admired and assumed to be moral betray everything they supposedly believed in – something conservative women (and men) have experienced too. Samantha Bee, who had often lionized Schneiderman on her show, fumed “This is especially infuriating given his supposed woke bae-ness,” she said. “Schneiderman positioned himself as a feminist crusader, he championed the #MeToo Movement … he helped craft an anti-choking law even though he’s now accused of choking his girlfriends.”
The Huffington Post consulted a psychologist to help explain how it was possible that “male allies” can become “abusers.” Katha Pollitt, who once flippantly warned “never trust a male feminist,” is almost to the point of condemning all men now. “How simple life would be if only conservatives, or liberals . . . were abusers,” she wrote. “In fact, though, the only thing one can say with assurance is that they’re men. Yes, I know women can be abusers, and I know some men are great, but at the moment #NotAllMen is looking more like a wish than a declarative statement.”
Samantha Bee’s defiant conclusion is “You know who’s a better advocate for women? Women. The future is female, or at least it better be, because I am done with this.” Katha Pollitt’s resolve is similar: “I have no answers. But here’s what I’m going to do: Vote for women. Support women. Protect women. Believe women.”
In my forthcoming book, (June 26) Sex Matters: How Modern Feminism Lost Touch with Science, Love, and Common Sense, I push back against this feminist tendency to deride men as a class and to disparage masculinity itself as somehow pathological. In the 1970s, some second wave feminists like Ti-Grace Atkinson, president of the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women, were so possessed by hatred for men in general that they lost sight of basic morality. Atkinson urged NOW to take up the cause of Valerie Solanas, founder of SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men). Solanas shot and attempted to kill Andy Warhol.
The counterculture of the 1960s and 70s broke down social norms, and then regretted what was unleashed. Today, feminists are grappling with the long roster of supposedly “enlightened” i.e. feminist men who’ve turned out to be serial abusers or worse. Samantha Bee mentioned “powerful weasels” Harvey Weinstein, Garrison Keillor, and Charlie Rose. The roster also includes Louis C.K., Al Franken, John Conyers, Matt Lauer, Mark Halperin, Leon Wieseltier, Bill Clinton, and many more.
Why are feminists more despairing about these revelations concerning liberal men than conservative women are about equally ugly stories concerning conservative men?
The answer, I’d suggest, is that liberals tend to believe that one’s politics and one’s morality are the same thing. If you hold the correct views about abortion, the minimum wage, women’s equality, gay marriage, and guns, it means not just that you agree with me, but that you are a good person. A man who champions the MeToo movement would never hurt a woman, right?
There is some mirror imaging on the right. Some conservative women are stunned to discover that men they thought were adherents of traditional morality turn out to be louts and even rapists.
A key conservative insight is that character is a matter of behavior, not professed beliefs. Judge people by their conduct, not their branding. How do you mold decent conduct? Conscientious parents who teach right from wrong and a culture that reinforces those lessons. The feminists helped to weaken some of the mores and institutions that tended to control male lust and abuse. At the time, they thought they were fighting an unjust “double standard,” but the sexual revolution damaged all standards, and we continue to sift through the fallout.
Published in Politics
One more time: Urges are one thing. They are not the problem. Following through an an urge that is a betrayal of someone else is wrong. I am sorry that this can’t be seen. For the life of me, I can’t understand it. We are all fallen. God understands that. But maturity and commitment is what turns boys into men. Making fun of such thoughts does not constrain me from having them.
I’m glad to hear that. But our point is, Trump didn’t actually grab anybody by the pussy, as @kayofmt pointed out. Consensual heterosexual relations are never “creepy”( playground word!). I’m “sorry” you can only see it as a “betrayal”. But then that is the victim mentality.
I’m beginning to find this thread frankly hysterical. It’s about Eric Schneiderman. The top law enforcement officer in NY, who was to be the scourge of Trump, a champion of #MeToo, and defender of a A Womans Right To Murder Her Child ( in Utero). Who has been accused by multiple girlfriends of assaulting them, committing emotional abuse on them, making racist degrading comments, and threatening them with using his office to punish them.
But Trump!, because he made a comment in what he thought was private moment, engaging in some locker room talk, that most men have at some point made, stating whats pretty much a fact, just weren’t recorded saying it. And somehow that makes him beyond the Pale, and unfit for the august position of President.
@kozak, you re right. I am OUT.
See when Trump says “I’m going to build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it”. That’s just talk and I don’t believe him. However, based on his decades of disgusting behavior, when he says he grabs ’em by the p*ssy, I take him at his word and believe him.
And as far as are we looking for a president or a pope? I have certain standards before I will vote for anyone. Basically I don’t vote for scumbags. That’s it.
We are fated to never understand one another. I’ll confess that I am not married and never have been. It is a long story, which I rarely get into. My words stand, though, as far as I am concerned. My “playground” word applies to any man who is unfaithful to his wife, on an ongoing basis. Mistakes are one thing, as are other extenuating circumstances.
While I have no brief for hillary, and consider her rather creepy, the fact remains that Bill cheated on her many times, not being able to be man enough to curb his adolescent urges. The same thing applies to Trump. It is your right, certainly, to see betrayal as a victim mentality. But, if one believes in God, and believes in living up to promises made, than I see standing before Him, and pledging loyalty to a partner, while knowing you will betray that loyalty, as an affront to God, and a betrayal that is leading our society down a path that no one should want to travel.
Thats most politicians.
It really is. Name one that isn’t a Keynesian that just wants top get past the next election. Name a Democrat that doesn’t have to look the other way at least at cultural marxism. Name one that doesn’t have a K Street exit strategy. There aren’t many.
Trump is doing great, on net.
I’m going to give you my two cents on this. I agree with you on Trump’s sexual behavior. It is pretty repugnant, though for perspective, still better than Bill Clinton’s and immensely better than John Kennedy’s. Trump is probably the rudest, most boorish, and most insulting man we’ve ever had as a president. And he lies constantly, though the content is mostly about trivial stuff. I would dissuade anyone from emulating these character traits.
On the other hand, Trump has some superb qualities that make up for the bad stuff. If he didn’t, he would have been given the bum’s rush a long time ago. He has an ability to call things as he sees them without the slightest timidity, things that others know but are afraid to say. He calls to account corrupt people and institutions in a way that Republicans have been yearning for for decades. He is the first high-profile Republican with enough balls to consistently admonish our deplorable Press, who deserve it in spades. He is willing to unabashedly stand up for certain ideals without succumbing to liberal peer pressure. I sometimes marvel at his ability to withstand the most venomous vitriolic attacks without blinking, even better, he fights back.
So Trump is certainly a mixed bag. Both his pluses and minuses are near the extremes, which makes him very hard to get a grasp on. Few people’s character is so lopsided in opposite directions. I, for one, would not care if he went away tomorrow, just so long as we keep getting Conservative things done in our governance. I think it is futile to worship a “man” in government (or any other place). It is far better to worship “ideals.” Ideals, if they are good ideals, will never let you down.
This is not bad. From your prospective. As I see it, his “positive” traits are a lack of maturity. Children tell the truth, because they know no better. What you see are his positives, I see as a child who never learned to control himself as he aged (what most of us like to say as Matured). He gotten nothing out of his childish rants, and has only alienated people. Sure, much of the press is horrible. But what has saying so gotten him, or us, other than more idiotic coverage. We need legislation to codify the good things he has done into law. But his alienation of lawmakers has made that almost impossible. Thank God we have a Republican Majority. And his ego-building outbursts have emperiled that. What you see as good, I see as temperary emotional gratification. And is successes – many of them – can be undone with the next Democrat.
Wrong.
no one has accused Mr Trump of assault. Or of racial slurs.
mr Trump does not make a career of trying to destroy his opponents with claims of sexual impropriety. Trump is not holier than thou, as was Schneiderman.
Schneiderman. Spitzer. Weiner. What is wrong with these NYC dems?
George: I was the mod who crossed out your words. When you use a word sarcastically, it generally means the opposite of the word’s normal meaning. So making several comments in a row where you sarcastically implied Hypatia is not intelligent is most certainly against the CoC.
As I explained, J.D, I was not implying that. I realize it may have looked like that. I was just saying that she thinks very highly of herself. I believe she is very bright. Candidly, I am not a fan. But I recognize brightness.
With all due respect, I think a little inquiry – maybe privately, if that is your wish – would have been better than just assuming what I meant, and then acting upon that (erroneous) assumption.
George, it’s much easier for us mods if you are clear about what you mean in the first place, especially when speaking towards someone you are obviously not a fan of. In light of past comments that we have spoken with you in regards to (and considering we could see the full context of the conversation) it’s easy to determine a meaning that you may or may not have intended to be there.
Unfortunately, that’s the biggest problem with text communication. When we have to dig through a large number of comments, it’s not very efficient to have a conversation about every single comment to ensure we are able to read the minds of a single author, especially when said thoughts seem blatantly obvious to the casual observer (i.e. the multiple people who flagged that comment in particular).
Having said that, I would request that you, and everyone reading this, take the time to read your comment from the perspective of a stranger before you hit the comment button, especially if a comment is made during an emotional (for lack of a better word) conversation.
Thank you in advance!