Feminism

#MeToo Is Turning Into a Witch-Hunt

Taking down decent men on flimsy grounds like Freep editor will discredit it.

|

Movements collapse when they become more interested in collecting heads than advancing their cause. Unfortunately, the very

Feminist March
Lev Radin/ZUMA Press/Newscom

worthy #MeToo movement against sexual harassment and abuse might have just reached that point.

Last week, #MeToo took down Pulitzer Prize-winner Stephen Henderson, the editorial page editor of the liberal Detroit Free Press (or Freep as it is called locally). Henderson was fired for "inappropriate behavior"—even though no women actively complained about it—that allegedly violated the newspaper's "zero tolerance policy." But if this standard—both too vague and too strict—is going to be religiously enforced on workplace interactions in the post-Harvey Weinstein era, few men—or, women, for that matter —will ever feel safe in their jobs.

Henderson is something of an icon in Michigan, where I live. He is a prolific writer and a popular media personality. I first became acquainted with him when I was a scribe at the Detroit News conservative editorial board in the mid-1990s and he on the liberal Freep board that he later headed. He also hosts Detroit Today for WDET, a local NPR affiliate, where he occasionally invites me to spar over ObamaCare and charter schools (on which we vehemently disagree) and discuss immigration reform and President Trump's draconian law-and-order agenda (on which we largely agree).

Henderson's travails began when he ran an editorial at the Freep calling on Democratic Rep. John Conyers to resign after credible allegations surfaced that not only had Conyers sexually harassed female staffers in his employ, but then used $27,000 in government funds to offer one a no-show job in exchange for dropping her complaint before the U.S. Congress Office of Compliance and signing a legal paper attesting that Conyers had done no wrong. Henderson's editorial incensed some of Conyers' local supporters, including Rev. W.J. Rideout III, a local firebrand, who accused Henderson of sexual harassment.

Rideout offered no names of victims or substantiation or details, which is why his own TV show has been indefinitely suspended for lacking "journalistic standards." Still, his allegations triggered an internal probe by the Freep. Henderson explained on his show subsequently that he "supported and encouraged" the investigation because he had nothing to hide. He says he racked his brain for every relevant interaction with his colleagues over the last 10 years and reported whatever he could think of "candidly and openly" to the investigators.

The Freep's fishing expedition eventually turned up two interactions that HR decided were inappropriate. Both occurred in social situations outside of the workplace. One involved a "sexually themed" conversation and another an interaction with someone who was his co-equal in another department. We don't know much more besides that. And while obviously some graphic or threatening "sexually themed" conversations with colleagues would indeed be grounds for termination, that really shouldn't be the case here. After all, neither woman, according to Henderson, ever filed a complaint against him or even wanted the company to take any action, a version of events that Freep and its parent company, Gannett, has not disputed. (Gannett declined to comment for this article, and a message left for the Freep publisher, Peter Bhatia, was not answered.) WDET has conducted its own investigation and come up empty, and is therefore not nixing Henderson's show.

There is still much we don't know about Henderson's situation. More may well come out. But as things stand, the flimsy accusations—and the process that led to their airing—make Henderson's firing seems like a massive overreaction.

Sexual harassment is a serious issue, especially in the workplace. All people deserve to have a comfortable work environment free from harassment. Many of the high-profile heads that have rolled since the #MeToo movement emerged clearly deserved their comeuppance, including, of course, Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, whose multi-decade, sexual predation triggered it all. So did actor Kevin Spacey (who is accused by 24 men, including a 14-year-old boy, of unwanted advances), NBC's Matt Lauer (who apparently had a button under his desk to automatically lock the door when he was propositioning co-workers), and PBS's Charlie Rose (who allegedly groped women and exposed himself to them). There were multiple victims and a clear pattern of extreme behavior in all these cases.

But the basis for the defenestration of others is much less clear. Celebrated humorist Garrison Keillor's popular show The Prairie Home Companion was axed by Minnesota Public Radio because Keillor put his hand on the bare back of a distraught woman whose shirt was loose, as he tells it. The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza was let go for "improper sexual conduct" that he claims consisted of a consensual relationship with a co-worker. But even in these cloudier cases, the women came forward and launched their complaints. That doesn't seem to be the case with Henderson. The Freep launched an investigation based on allegations by an unaffected outside party with a grudge—not any of the women involved. And the women who its investigation did finally fetch up, as best as one can tell, demanded no action against Henderson. It's no wonder that Henderson is now exploring a lawsuit.

All of this suggests that the climate of censoriousness that #MeToo has generated spooked the Freep so much that it wanted to take no chances. But there is something quasi-totalitarian when a company starts going after employees for victimless behavior that has been retroactively branded as inappropriate. It might also end up targeting women who engage in "sexually themed" conversations—replacing the fear of sexual harassment with that of HR inquisitions.

Henderson's plight is the clearest case yet of #MeTooism run amok. Jenna Wortham wrote in The New York Times that she is unperturbed by the excesses of the movement because she wants "every single man to be put on notice" and "feel vulnerable" just the way women do. But a movement that thoughtlessly and reflexively throws decent men under the bus will discredit itself and hurt its ability to take down the real abusers. That's a pity, because a responsible reckoning to hold genuine monsters accountable is something that women do indeed need.

This column was originally published in The Week.

NEXT: Universities Are Raising a Generation of Trumplets

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. There is still much we don’t know about Henderson’s situation. More may well come out. But as things stand, the flimsy accusations?and the process that led to their airing?make Henderson’s firing seems like a massive overreaction.

    You admit you don’t actually know they details of the investigation. So on what basis are you declaring it an overreaction?

    Are you some how suggesting a private organization has some sort of obligation to turn the details of it’s internal decision making processes to you so that you can review it’s choices? It’s not obligated to justify its decisions to you.

    1. Exactly. At times like this, I defer to asymmetric information.

      Like, it seemed premature to fire Matt Lauer… until the rumors like his office rape dungeon dildo bag came out #metoo.

      Kinda like Al Franken’s decision to resign before the ethics investigation… wait, I’m sorry: before he’s forced to resign against his better judgement because really he knows he’s innocent I promise.

      1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

        This is what I do… http://www.onlinecareer10.com

      2. Re: “So on what basis are you declaring it an overreaction?”

        The writer did not declare it an overreaction, said it SEEMED to be.

    2. I’m sure you take the same attitude toward private organizations accused of discriminating against women or minorities.

      Wait, no, on this very site under those circumstances you take the exact opposite position and even favor government involvement because you’re really just a bigoted hypocrite.

    3. Start earning $90/hourly for working online from your home for few hours each day… Get regular payment on a weekly basis… All you need is a computer, internet connection and a litte free time…
      Read more here,….. http://www.startonlinejob.com

  2. Prog on prog “violence”. Enjoy the schadenfreude.

    1. Ugh. Everything u write is consistently stupid.

  3. Conspicuously absent from #MeToo-women who are sexually harassed by other women, and men by other men-but it does not fit the prog’s narrative, so it must not exist!

    Interestingly, an old ex of mine who used to brag about how easily she could get guys into the sack is now part of #MeToo, so individual agency also seems to be lacking.

    1. Um… Kevin Spacey?

      1. He is, so far, the only one, out of now, what, thousands?

    2. #MeToo has, as expected, devolved into a progressive meme. More proggies will attach to the movement in order to be seen as part of the group. The group will turn on itself soon enough, and then will collapse and move on to the next proggie outrage.

      1. The Age of Socialism is about to give way to the age of ‘bumper sticker brains’. Put another way, idiocracy is here, now – with a little help from teachers unions.

    3. The one time I put my childhood experience out there I was greeted with abuse. Maybe I shouldn’t have mentioned that a woman was responsible.

    4. and men by other men-but it does not fit the prog’s narrative, so it must not exist!

      I think most men are too sane and emotionally stable to wallow in self-pity over the fact that someone may have grabbed their crotch or butt 30 years ago. I experienced what many of the #MeToo women experienced, and I didn’t and don’t care.

  4. I agree it’s gone too far. But I think it’s been healthy and even protects us from terrorism. Because the jihadis actually start to feel sorry for us.

  5. “…, NBC’s Matt Lauer (who apparently had a button under his desk to automatically lock the door when he was propositioning co-workers), …”

    Supposedly, the button only locked the door from the outside, not the inside. No one was being locked in.

    1. Stop interrupting the narrative with facts – – – –

      1. Supposed facts.

    2. Reportedly many execs had such buttons to limit interruptions. That only makes it slightly less creepy when used to hide sexual coercion.

    3. Well that’s okay then. I mean, wouldn’t want someone to come barging in if he gets lucky amirite?

      1. Well that’s okay then. I mean, wouldn’t want someone to come barging in if he gets lucky amirite?

        I’m sure that’s a vision none of his staffers would have wanted to see. Especially if they had just eaten lunch.

    4. A number of things have “buzzers” to let people in: jewelry shops, secondary security areas for banks, etc. But that’s a door that is locked by default, and the button is to open it. A button to lock a door, and from the inside? Did NBC think this was an insurance policy to prevent open discovery of the illicit as a form of advanced damage control [avoiding scandal not by preventing acts but discovery]? This kind of setup is something Steve Howe likely wished for, as he put a bus up his nose with full media fanfare. The collusion on this seems willful to me, and NBC needed to fire itself. Guess Lauer will have to sue for 120M and settle for half… or he can start putting pen to paper. He’s going to need help though…not much writing skill between those formerly overpaid ears. I have never seen anything on the outside of a door that works without a key but a cipher lock or keycard access – that might make sense, but does not mesh with anything I have read.

  6. Sexual harassment is a serious issue, especially in the workplace. All people deserve to have a comfortable work environment free from harassment.

    What????

    NO, THEY DON’T!

    Not ONE person has a right to a job, let alone the right to a “comfortable work environment free from harassment”. What would that mean for employment in places like the Bunny Ranch, or a Nudie Bar? What would the concept of ‘harassment’ mean or entail?

    If a person feels ‘harassed’, that person should tell his or her employer to stuff it and seek employment somewhere else or use his or her time for other endeavors. Ultimately, who suffers is the employer, by losing a valuable and profitable employee.

    A job is something an EMPLOYER offers to potential employees. The job thus belongs to the EMPLOYER, not the employee. You might as well give in to the notion that only “Muricans should have ‘Murican jobs because “Making America Grating Again” and “Dem Illegulz Who Takum Er Jebz Should Be Put In Boxcars and Railed To The Sonoran Desert To Die”. Do you want to give your intellectual rivals something to make their pabulum from?

    1. Saying that a person deserves something is different than saying a person has a right to something.

      1. “All people deserve to have a comfortable work environment.”

        You mean … like … ditch diggers? NO, THEY DON’T! You deserve to try to get a job, as is, from a potential employer, as offered. “Dishwasher wanted, boss likes to grab ass.”

        The current hysteria is the part of the left’s coming undone after losing the election, which they supposed was going to be the crowning achievement of their corrupt, self-serving (electing a woman president) way to perpetuate their love affair with all things government. They want to get Trump, but can’t do it right now, and they’re willing to try EVERY avenue. Thus: “He colluded with the Russians,” and “He conspired with the Russians,” and (now) “He grabbed women.” They have to purify themselves first before they will feel justified in getting the idiot now occupying the White House.

    2. So is your claim that improved workplace conditions over the centuries happened because employers decided to be nicer people? Or do you feel that we should never have moved beyond the conditions of feudalism and 19th century factory work in the first place?

      1. Re: Tony,

        So is your claim that improved workplace conditions over the centuries happened because employers decided to be nicer people?

        They did it because they were greedy and didn’t want to lose talent due to rotation, and what does that have to do with the notion that people have a RIGHT to something that is not theirs to begin with? If you don’t have an argument FOR that, then just say so instead of throwing red herrings.

        1. Why should anyone accept a regime that confers maximum rights on employers and no rights on employees? That’s arbitrary. It has nothing to do with the anarchy you endorse, except insofar as it would be natural in anarchy for the powerful to impose their will over the powerless.

          Guess slaves, serfs, and sweatshop workers should be grateful their betters decided that it would be more profitable to improve their lives above hellishness. Oh no that never happened. It took wars, democracy, and laws to do that.

          1. “Why should anyone accept a regime that confers maximum rights on employers and no rights on employees?”

            The employer and the employee have exactly the same rights: the right to form a contract with each other, the right to end this contract, the right to enforce this contract against the other partie through the court system…

            “So is your claim that improved workplace conditions over the centuries happened because employers decided to be nicer people?” No, it is mainly because the general enrichment enabled by capitalism changed the job market conditions.

            1. The employer and the employee have exactly the same rights

              A nugget of naivet? that may as well be the very core of what makes libertarianism dumb.

              It’s the same ridiculousness that has you arguing that North Koreans have the same rights as Americans. The ability to actually enjoy any rights is, for some unexplained reason, immaterial.

              Employers and employees have a natural power imbalance. The wealthy have more power than the poor. Thus without any intervention, they have more de facto rights.

              Just think of labor laws as yet another innovation of the human spirit, like the assembly line or microchip. And then think of anyone who wants to eliminate them as a sort of luddite.

              1. Labor laws is an “innovation” that you can trace back to the hammurabi code (like price control).

              2. I’m not seeing the natural power imbalance. The power balance is very case specific.

                For example:
                A professional husband and wife both working in IT and living below their means have grossly more power than their employers. They can leave anytime and the employer may be screwed if they do.

                or

                A college student working at a fast food joint for the summer for some extra spending cash also has vastly more power than their employer as their employer needs them more than they need the job especially now when they can’t seem to staff any of those places.

                or
                Someone nearing retirement but working for a couple more years to have a bit more annual spending money has more power than their employer.

                What is naive is to believe the power balance is one way. That is more proggie religion that anything grounded in reality. I have held the balance of power in my employer relationships for a good 20 years now and I doubt I am alone.

                1. You are correct, and like always, Tony is wrong.

              3. Socialists and fascists similarly characterized liberal democracy as a quaint relic. Just because something is in fashion doesn’t mean the future belongs to it.

                All your bullshit about bargaining power imbalances is funny though considering that it is laborers who are specially exempt from antitrust laws. And there are plenty to f corporations that have been ‘marginalized’ by this exemption: you just don’t see them because they don’t exist anymore, because they went out of business, and retarded profs like you who deny basic math can’t cone to terms with the fact that increasing workers’ wages or benefits by definition increases costs to the business, pushing it closer to bankruptcy.

      2. Tony|12.27.17 @ 1:44PM|#
        “So is your claim that improved workplace conditions over the centuries happened because employers decided to be nicer people?”
        Yes, shitbag. And I know you are amazed.

      3. False dilemmas make me gizz in my shorts!

        1. But Sevo just said that bosses spontaneously becoming nicer people is what caused improve working conditions. I’m all confused now what with all these differing opinions among libertarians, surely the smartest political thinkers ever.

          1. It’s almost like libertarians aren’t a hive mind! Baaaaaah!

          2. I’m all confused now what with all these differing opinions among libertarians…

            You basically summed up your perspective right here. “Differing opinions” are apparently a bad thing, according to your statement. As opposed to turning your brain off and stopping all critical thought.

            So you’re right, libertarians have a wide variety of opinions. And that’s a good thing.

          3. Tony, notice that Democrasses don’t permit or tolerate differing opinions…

          4. You like redistribution of wealth. I get it. You want to steal, but you don’t have the balls to do it yourself so you want the government to do it for you.

            I get it. It’s stupid and leads to economic ruin, but I do get it.

      4. So is your claim that improved workplace conditions over the centuries happened because employers decided to be nicer people?

        Yes.

        Or do you feel that we should never have moved beyond the conditions of feudalism and 19th century factory work in the first place?

        No thanks to government.

    3. Granted, you can argue against separate laws for workplace sexual harassment, because it’s already illegal to grope someone without permission at a bus stop or in the office. However, a workplace culture that discourages the pursuit of romance in the workplace is good company policy, because leaving a job to avoid unwanted advances is more difficult than stepping away from a stranger at a bus stop. Plenty of porn starts avoid dating coworkers off the clock.

      1. That is up to the business. A person doesn’t have a right to sensible company policies, though. You can CHOOSE to work for companies with sensible policies or not and that choice ends up having repercussions for companies to change their policies but that’s it.

      2. I think it is a very stupid policy: companies should not get involved in the romantic life of their employees, period. Maybe it is cultural: I am french and here this kind of policy is (sadly) illegal for privacy reasons.

      3. Why date them when you’re getting paid to fuck them?

    4. On the other hand, some ladies use the sexual harassment card to shut down debate on topics they bring up. A local activist once complained about population growth during a dinner conversation. I responded with a reference to making babies. Then she got offended. If a lady puts topics like abortion, population growth, sex trafficking, and pornography bans on the table, she should be prepare to talk about sex.

    5. At the moment when Ron Jeremy was accused of “sexual harassment”, the ME TOO bowel movement was dead.

    6. “comfortable work environment”

      One of the reasons men average higher incomes than women is their willingness to work in incredibly uncomfortable, and often very dangerous, environments.

  7. You mean the years-long “Republican War on Women” only showed that Democrats are unable to live by their professed ideals? Shocker.

    I’d say that feminists are always whining that women have a hard time finding male mentors in business. That will go from “a hard time” to “fucking impossible”. What man would want to take a risk like that?

    1. Most “feminists” I’ve known have also been the biggest sluts.

      1. Most males I’ve known will fuck anything with a hole or crease, feminist or otherwise.

        1. Have you tried telling them, “No, thank you,” Tony?

        2. Most internet trolls I’ve known make comments that are more reflective of themselves and the company they keep rather than anything resembling reality or topics under discussion.

          1. The hypothesis presented was that being feminist makes one a slut. I suggested that men can be sluts whether they are feminists or not.

            1. Which is irrelevant.

        3. Tony, is, apparently, between 18 and 21 years old…

        4. Most males I’ve known will fuck anything with a hole or crease, feminist or otherwise.

          Not surprising, given the social circles you evidently travel in.

      2. That’s all part of “feminism”. Be an ice-heart slut, and use abortion as a form of birth control.

        1. Let me guess, you aren’t going to make an effort to dispel the pervasive notion that Libertarianism is just an ideological social club for bitter, white, heteronormative males, are you?

    2. It’s very plausible that this will happen, and will be interpreted as “admission of guilt”.

    3. Feminists should not want “male mentors” anyway.

  8. This was rather easy to see coming down the pike early on.

    When people start reflexively place everything from water cooler work comments to forcible rape in the same grab-bag of seriousness, garbage in, garbage out. They have effectively diluted meaning to language, and in the process, diluted the gravity that the most serious cases carry.

    This has given the insincere opportunists and reactionaries a field day in propping up their own righteousness, undermining the initial, constructive cause of ending workplace harassment and abuse of power. It has played to the fetishization of victimhood that has become increasingly pervasive, and does an awful disservice to the cause of stopping harassment, and worse.

    1. Yeah, I said this same thing, that this was becoming an obvious witch-hunt (right here on this website) at least two weeks ago, and it wasn’t just because a fellow leftard buddy of mine in the JournoList became the latest victim.

      1. And of course, anyone who dared question all this a month ago was “part of the problem.”

    2. And, it ignores the well-researched fact that men in the workplace are more often sexually harassed by women than the other way around. (But men rarely take it as “harassment”, which is why you never hear about it in “the papers”.)

      1. Link? Never heard this statistic.

        Agree that men usually are not threatened by sexual advances. This reflects both men’s physical advantages and cultural acceptance that the male is normally the sexual pursuer.

  9. There is still much we don’t know about Henderson’s situation.

    Same goes for all of them. When all we have are accusations and allegedlies, can we say that we “know” anything about these cases?

    1. All women should always be believed, with the one exception of Bill “Slick Willie” Clinton’s accusers.

      1. If all women were always believed, all men would be chattel, and we would all still be living in grass huts.

  10. “Marie Antoinette’s excesses”

    I don’t think Marie Antoinette was the one putting the government into massive debt on the backs of the poor, etc., etc. She played at being a shepardess – shocking as all this is, it’s really not the same as the headchopping epidemic, wars, etc. which came in the Revolution.

  11. She’s late to the conversation. It’s been a witch hunt from the start. The only defense of this witch hunt is that it has actually caught some bad people in its net. I laugh at how many democrats and progressives are being caught in their own crusade even while begrudgingly offering them whatever defense they are due regarding the evidence presented. I award Shikha about as many points on this issue as Lena Dunham. It’s good to understand that allegations are not always correct and are often overblown. The problem with both of them is they don’t carry that skepticism naturally but stumbled into seeing some of it subjectively thanks to someone they trust being effected.

    1. I have to give credit to Shikha for coming to this realization that the metoo crusade is overblown. If only she were as reflective on other issues where she spouts nonsense, eg immigration.

  12. It’d be much worse but the women of #MeToo are currently preoccupied with twisting their body hair into dreadlocks.

  13. “Jenna Wortham wrote in The New York Times that she is unperturbed by the excesses of the movement because she wants “every single man to be put on notice” and “feel vulnerable” just the way women do.”

    Really now?

    Every time I read about a married 30-year-old female schoolteacher boffing a 16-year-old, the first thing I think about is how “every single man” needs “to be put on notice” that such misconduct is unacceptable. Or do married 30-year-old female schoolteachers boffing 16-year-olds not count as “rape culture?”

    1. Or do married 30-year-old female schoolteachers boffing 16-year-olds not count as “rape culture?”

      Of course it doesn’t, at least not to their highly arbitrary definition of “rape culture” that seems to morph based on their current biases, preconceptions and hashtags.

      1. Rape Culture was a 1974 movie about prison rape. The terminology and concepts were effectively stolen by feminism and distorted to exclude those it was meant to help. US government policies enable the sexual abuse of males in quite a few ways. Guantanamo and the enablement of the bacha bazi trade in Afghanistan are examples. Where it’s government policy that IS a rape culture in my mind.

    2. No, it doesn’t count as ‘rape culture’ since it’s not actually rape. It’s impossible to rape a consenting (sexually mature) adult.

  14. It was a witchhunt from day one.

  15. It’s a witch hunt because women no longer want powerful men to control women. They want powerful women to control women. And if you’re stupid enough to think that this is all happening so that women will finally be equal and celebrated for truly being and thinking for themselves, get an Instagram account, follow a bunch of female celebrities, and see what they post.

    Being a woman sucks. I’d much rather deal men making dumbass, sexist comments because at least it’s honest. I’ll never understand the wealthy liberal woman telling people how much of a feminist she is because she’s in control of her own sexuality. Which I guess means making millions of dollars off of selling her sexy images to emasculated men and building her brand* by making average women (who see the men idolizing her sexy images) buy her products and follow her fitness instructor in hopes of looking more like her.

    Modern feminism is so popular simply because lots of people realized how much they can make off of ‘you go girl!’

    1. The goal of feminism is the political and social equality of women and men.

      Virginia Woolf famously asked why subjects like war were appropriate for Real Literature, while domestic life was not (a notion Jane Austen disproved). If men can post pictures of their trucks and tats without scandal, why can’t the same go for the things you mention that women post? That stuff has more to do with human vacuity than gender imbalance anyway.

      We could achieve the goal of equality by making it equally likely for a man to be fired for refusing the sexual advances of his woman boss, but it’s probably best to make the practice unacceptable altogether.

      1. Your ignorance of human nature is so deep that it’s stupidity. Get your wussy-pipped jackass outta here!

      2. “…making it equally likely for a man to be fired for refusing the sexual advances of his woman boss…”

        But how could we possibly REDUCE the likelihood that a woman spurned by a man will react in a petty and vengeful manner??

      3. Political and social equality are asinine concepts. In a free society, only legal and moral equality are achievable.

        It’s also patently false that feminists want equality. What are feminists doing to achieve fairness in family courts for fathers? In fact, most of them want women to have more privileges in family courts and believe that men have less (or none at all) of a custodial claim.

        What are they doing about the workplace injury and violence gap?

        It’s bullshit and even they know it by now. Feminists want more. More privileges, more money, fewer responsibilities. They don’t want equality with men any more than nationalists want equality with other nations.

      4. The goal of feminism is the political and social equality of women and men.

        Political equality was achieved years ago. Social equality is unachievable because men and women are fundamentally different from one another in social contexts.

      5. The concept of “equality” is an illusion of the first order. Nothing …. NOTHING in the universe is equal nor balanced. Whenever one group claims they are seeking “equality” it means they are seeking to dominate the oppositional other without taking responsibility for their goal. Not dissimilar to the person claiming …. “I don’t want to judge you by saying this but” …. drums rolling …. “you are an arrogant ass”. Most of the civilized social structure functions on such illogical kind of seeking action without accepting accountability. Anyway, militant feminism seeks to dominate men. Period.

    2. It’s hard to understand modern feminists. On one hand, the message is about controlling one’s own female sexuality. On the other, it seems to still abide by the expectations of what men do.

      Some of these women want to flaunt power in the way men do, and they think that’s “empowering”. It’s a colossal contradiction, because it does nothing to embrace the femininity that is unique to women.

      So they’re going to “empower” themselves by being like a man? Isn’t that actually enslaving oneself to masculinity?

      1. These feminists believe that if they can be like a man, they can then use their still-active female “powers” to enslave actual men. Enslaving men is their ultimate aim, always was.

    3. Agnes is wise and honest. I wish she lived in my neighborhood.

    4. I’ve said for years that in today’s society it’s much easier for a woman to be prosperous than a man and a lot of women I’ve told that agreed with me. As a man, I can achieve financial success essentially by working for it. Women can work a traditional job, they can get in shape and do social media (see post above), strip, or simply marry a man who has money and stay at home.

      One of my friends in high school (cute girl) decided to work out, moved to Atlanta and then Vegas and “retired” at 32. She now owns several tanning salons, for which her work is picking up deposits and going to the bank, and raises her kids. I know several women who decided in their 30s that they needed to find a rich guy and having done so don’t work at all anymore.

  16. What I believe undermines the #MeToo movement are the women who complain because someone at their workplace makes them feel “uncomfortable.” I’ve worked in public-facing positions many times, and there were an awful lot of customers who made me feel “uncomfortable” – the ones with neck tattoos and no front teeth, for example – but I was expected to be professional and deal with the situation as it played out. “Feeling uncomfortable” is a lot different than being grabbed or pawed over, or having overt threats made regarding your job if you don’t put out. Learning a few coping skills and how to deflect might be a better use of time than running to the nearest media outlet with your story.

    1. What I believe undermines the #MeToo movement are the women who complain because someone at their workplace makes them feel “uncomfortable.”

      What undermines the #MeToo movement is the women who slept their way to the top and/or kept silent about abusers, became wealthy and powerful, and a few decades later post #MeToo comments accusing men without any proof.

      Any woman who remains silent for decades and then speaks out is a woman who is contributing to the harassment, abuse, and rape of other women. Either have the courage to speak out about sexual abuse immediately or have the good sense to at least STFU instead of revealing what a deplorable human being you are.

      1. Yes, well-written comment.

    2. Good comment. I do not have the patience nor fortitude to work “public-facing” jobs. I see most civilized fellow human-beings as little more than sheeple bleating while ever seeking a shepherd.

  17. Jenna Wortham ought to be thrown under a bus, literally.

  18. What does The Left do that doesn’t turn into a Witch Hunt?

    1. Good question.

  19. Jenna Wortham wants men to “‘feel vulnerable’ just the way women do.”
    As it turns out, a third of all sexual abuse of students by their teachers is perpetrated by women, a trend that is increasing.
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017…..eness.html
    Apparently Wortham’s sick schadenfreude is shared by hundreds of female schoolteachers. This problem isn’t limited to men.

    1. It’s all about one man, and only that one man: DT. He beat Hillary and opened the flood gates of the current hysteria. They can’t get him, YET. They’re just practicing for the big game.

      1. Oh, I think it is about Trump, but not quite in the way you think. Hillary and the Democrats have been shielding abusers and harassers of women for decades and they would have continued if they had stayed in power, by handing out jobs, funding, and sinecures to anybody who complained about someone the Democrats cared about. Trump isn’t doing that.

  20. But if this standard?both too vague and too strict?is going to be religiously enforced on workplace interactions in the post-Harvey Weinstein era, few men?or, women, for that matter ?will ever feel safe in their jobs.

    You’re never “safe in your job”; employment is always “at will”.

    As for these witch hunts, you’ll mostly worry about it if your job is based on name recognition and connections, rather than valuable skills. Freep and NPR can fire people haphazardly and for no good reason because the skills their employees have are a dime a dozen.

  21. At some point, “white” Left-wing beta-males are going to realize (hopefully) they are the dupes of militant feminists, angry black nationalists and ever-whiny homosexuals. Inside the United States, those three hate-filled identity groups compose the cultural axis of evil. I mean, they hate you if your skin tone happens to be “white” or if you are male and when you dare question the concept that homosexual rights supersede every one else’s rights.

  22. But you have to be a victim of sexual harassment to be with the in crowd #MeToo movement. That may mean trumped up or fake charges. It is just the price some men will have to be so others can belong!

  23. But you have to be a victim of sexual harassment to be with the in crowd #MeToo movement. That may mean trumped up or fake charges. It is just the price some men will have to be so others can belong!

  24. ,The whole mess,was a witch hunt from the moment accusations more then a very few years old were met with any reaction stronger than “And just why should we believe you?”

    Seriously; Weinstein is very probably a scumbag; Hollywood is the natural habitat of such. But we really need to start telling women who make usupported accusations of sexual abuse that are deades old “Well, I guess it sucks to be you.”

  25. A witch hunt can be prevented by stopping the mob. A protective measure or standard would be helpful in that regard – but Reason and NRO insist that due process principles don’t apply in court of public opinion or private business.

    We all believe in at will employment regardless of the circumstances, so the only argument that can be made is for businesses to use good judgment for the sake of fairness. But what constitutes “credible allegations”? Even aside from Roy Moore, some of the accusers allege incidents that occurred a long time ago and cannot be proven with physical evidence. How long can businesses withstand a torrent of negative attacks that can swell up to millions on FB and twitter?

    #Metoo gained a ton of momentum because Hollywood typically admitted to the wrongdoing. They’ll either seek treatment of issue soft denials like “I remember that differently”. Or they’ll deflect by coming out or blaming the NRA. The accusations knocked a number of accusers like target practice and that created an impression of a trend.

  26. Henderson could have grounds to sue if he can demonstrate he was unfairly singled out. A little investigating would likely reveal other Free Press employees who’ve done the same as Henderson but they were not disciplined or fired.

  27. “But there is something quasi-totalitarian when a company starts going after employees for victimless behavior that has been retroactively branded as inappropriate.”

    It’s the retrospective nature of it all that bothers me most. I was sexually abused as a child. It wasn’t considered a crime in that era because the culprit was female. My state did rectify that oversight around the turn of the century, decades after the fact. The state has also removed any statute of limitations on sex crimes. If I wished I could go to the police and lay charges right now. That will never happen. I’d feel like I was cheating. It’s decades ago and the woman concerned had no way of knowing that any crime was being committed at all.

    1. The ultimate in the “retroactively branded” category was the headline I saw (Was it Yahoo? WaPo?) referencing Roy Moore and allegations of “CHILD MOLESTATION”. And this was for dating a 17-year-old!! In ALABAMA!! In the 70s!!

      Hell, a 17-year-old in Alabama in the 70s was closer to “old maid” status than “child” ffs.

      This is the “definitional error” so many progs are fond of: “It’s torture” means both playing bad music loudly at someone and tearing out fingernails. “It’s racism.” means both race-based slavery and crossing the street away from a half dozen young black men. “It’s sexual harassment.” means both violent rape and holding a door for a woman. It’s a bad logical error that should be contested. Just because the same word can be used for two things does not bring the principle of identity into play.

  28. Naturally, the announcement used the vaguest possible word: “inappropriate”. That word means “not correct in my judgment.” However, anything might be frowned upon by others. Such a vague criticism can never justify the conclusion that someone has done wrong.

    If you want to demand that someone be fired or prosecuted for some action, or justify firing the person for some action, it behooves you to make an accusation that is concrete, not vague like “inappropriate”. You need to say what the action was, so we can judge how wrong it was. If you can’t or won’t describe it with something more concrete than “inappropriate”, we must presume it wasn’t bad enough to punish.

    This is not meant to defend conduct that deserves a criticism that goes beyond merely “inappropriate”.

  29. The “#Me too” is the new “Red Scare” of our times.

  30. What boss would risk hiring a woman at this point?

  31. Oh crap. Another Shikah POS. Fortunately, I detected the style within the first sentence, then checked the byline and saved myself the misery of reading the rest of the article. Those not so fortunate – I pity you.

  32. And “#metoo” has always been a witch hunt. The dumbest legislative mistake in the history of the known universe was passage of the 19th Amendment. It will eventually destroy America – at which point women will welcome “sexual harassment” because it will mean at least a man is interested in them and may actually share his food with her – for a price.

  33. We are returning to the campus based leftist witchhunts in this area(and I say this as someone who leans liberal on most issues). Women want equal rights but keep positioning women as victims in many scenarios they should have the strength to get out of. I never understood this whole “:well, he kept asking me to suck him off, so I just caved in”. It doesn’t take the perpetrator off the hook, but all it does is make him sleazy who should probably be shunned socially, not a criminal. Or the classic scenario of both people being drunk and yet somehow only the guy is responsible for the sex?
    Weinstein and Ratner are pretty much people who need to be prosecuted. Spacey is definite creep, but how much is criminal, i am not sure. Conyers bigger proven crime to me was using government money to silence one of his accusers. Sheila Jackson Lee to me has done more harm to people around her than Conyers or Franken with her nasty attitude and demeanor. Roy Moore is not a pedophile, though he is a batshit looney and creepy guy who likes teenagers.

    I dont care for Lauer, but i found stories of consensual sex by women who later just regretted their naive and.or immature decisions and decided to blame that on Lauer to be disingenuous.

  34. “Jenna Wortham wrote in The New York Times that she is unperturbed by the excesses of the movement because she wants “every single man to be put on notice” and “feel vulnerable” just the way women do.”

    And that is the working definition of a fem!fascist c()nt.

  35. I look at what’s going on today, and think back to the latest purge [proctored under the baleful eye of Hillary]. The acolytes of Alinsky removed moderates throughout most of the 90’s using tools like the hundreds of FBI files [obtained by questionable means]. Anybody remember Bob Packwood? I thought not… so it’s rinse, cycle and repeat. Why? Because the convention in 2016 was so heavily fractured. The cure? Don’t assign proper blame for an ethical cripple refusing to fold her skirt and leave the stage – no, drag the party further left to where its Mao minus the mayhem [they hope]. The bonus? As far as they are concerned, they can take a few republicans down too, so party on dude.
    Considering congressional approval hovers just above single digit, this calculus is dangerous indeed – there is almost no room to move left, which means we are witnessing a political suicide and the opening of the door to anarchy. Today’s left has abandoned God and country long ago, but now they are earnestly abandoning the people – bad things happen in any society run by the tone deaf. Bill Clinton knew that, and signed welfare reform… he could not hope to run today even under an assumed name.

  36. Actually, it is a Warlock-Hunt!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.