I am no fan of 9-9-9 and not particularly of Herman Cain, but his present woes say more about us than him. Nobody other than the participants knows what went on in his “encounters” with these complainants, and the entire episode is a cautionary tale in the perils of the odious and far too widespread practice of “settling”. But honestly:
There were also descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable.
What does that mean? Because, if you’re going to destroy a man’s life over it, it ought to mean something. A “gesture” that is not “sexual” but that makes women “uncomfortable” enough to threaten sexual harrassment?
But then everyone’s “uncomfortable” these days, aren’t they? On the Sunday gabfests, those sanctimonious pills Bob Schieffer and Tom Brokaw were a-huffin’ an’ a-puffin’ about Cain’s gross irresponsibility in allowing his campaign manager to “promote” smoking in a political ad. Mark Block is apparently the new Joe Camel. It was a close call but the nauseating Schieffer edged out Brokaw in moral finger-wagging, flaunting his own credentials as a cancer survivor. So what? Unlike Schieffer, I quit smoking at 17, when I figured out that a less dorky haircut would do far more for me with the chicks than pretending I enjoyed unfiltered cigarettes ever would. Yet for the first time in decades I feel a sudden craving for nicotine, possibly while making non-sexual gestures of an uncomfortable nature.
What ought to make America “uncomfortable” is that it’s broke and it’s heading for collapse. But, judging from the preoccupations of our media, very few Americans are discomforted by that. On the other hand, even if we were solvent, I very much doubt that a society made up of social arbiters with Brokaw and Schieffer’s tender sensitivities and with millions of its citizens ever more ready to be discomforted by an ever wider of ever more inappropriate if entirely non-sexual gestures would be likely to survive. Or even remain capable of basic social interaction.
Let’s hear what these gestures were. Then we can mandate sensitivity training to eliminate them. Which will stimulate the vital sensitivity-training sector of the economy.
PS While we’re at it, why are so few Americans “uncomfortable” about being held hostage by JetBlue for seven hours on the tarmac at Hartford, Connecticut? All the coverage is pansy-boy stuff about how if they hold you for over three hours without food, water or functioning bathrooms you might be eligible for government-mandated compensation. Big deal. Why can’t you just say “Screw this, I’m outta here”? The fact that hundreds of airline passengers are “comfortable” in complying with this nonsense is way more ominous for the future of the republic than Mark Block blowing smoke rings.
Sexual Harassment is in the eye of the beholder.
If someone decides they want to make trouble for you, or just that it's a Tuesday, they can often file an anonymous grievance with Human Resources - and you're lucky if Sensitivity Training is all you get.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Sexual Harassment is in the eye of the beholder."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs a federal civil service employee, I was subjected to sexual harassment training every year, and the trainers came right out and said that...in those words. But no one knows what happens if a grievance is filed: a female co-worker who was harassed beyond belief by her supervisor filed a grievance with the EEO person. This person was a friend of said supervisor's wife. I guess you can tell how that one ended up.
It is probably true that there are plenty of frivolous SH complaints, and that the whole concept is subject to abuse. But it is certainly true that there are plenty of bosses who coerce sex out of their employees, or offer job-related benefits in exchange for sex. Perhaps the SH laws need reform, but they should not be scrapped.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's posted a few stories down in the corner:
Cain said he recalled just one incident. “She was in my office one day, and I made a gesture saying — and I was standing close to her — and I made a gesture saying you are the same height as my wife. And I brought my hand up to my chin saying, ‘My wife comes up to my chin.’” At that point, Cain gestured with his flattened palm near his chin. “And that was put in there [the complaint] as something that made her uncomfortable,” Cain said, “something that was in the sexual harassment charge.”
Clearly Herman Cain is history's greatest monster.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseClearly. LOL! ~rollseyes~
If that was it - SERIOUSLY! The woman wasted the time of her HR, Mr. Cain's time and got money for it.
That's exactly how SH go and why the SH should basically be repealed or seriously revamped so that nuisance complaints and lawsuits cannot be made.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHerman Cain probably accompanied his hand gesture with his slow motion smile from the smoking ad.
It doesn't matter what hand gesture you make - it will look like sexual harassment when coupled with Cain's mischievous grin.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOMG! How DARE he grin!!!!! How inhuman! Any man who dares to grin is an evil pervert!!
....UGH...give me a break!! I am so sick of this garbage. He didn't do anything wrong. Shoot, people are all whacked out nowadays. I was even falsely accused of sexual harrassment once about 10 or so years ago and I did NOTHING wrong. And I am a woman too! So, it isn't even men who are the targets of this stupid stuff. It sounds like they are trying to do the same thing they did with Clarence Thomas. If there is a conservative black man, they have to use some sort of ploy to attack him wherein he can't turn around and show that his opponents might prove they are actually the racists. Dems don't like conservative blacks because deep down they think blacks shouldn't be independent and think for themselves. They want them to continue being manipulated and used by Dems...Remember, Dems were the Copperheads, the KKK and the makers of Jim Crow laws...and we all know that LBJ's Great Society nearly destroyed the nuclear black family worse than anyone could have ever believed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRefresh my memory: didn't Gloria Steinem and other feminists of the left clearly establish in the case of Bill Clinton that you can actually go as far as molesting a woman and it's OK as long as you back off when she says No?
So, what's the deal here? Is this another case of "only when it's a Democrat"?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSteinem, et. al, stated that a male was permitted "one free grope." Clearly the implication was that said male had better be a liberal democrat. If you are not a liberal democrat, you are not even permitted to grope yourself.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere's my thought on it. He's a guy, especially one who grew up in an era when there was not sensitivity training. He found out the hard way that you can't be a jerk who makes sexuality commonplace and a part of casual conversation.
That's it. He was at worst once a jerk and did some insensitive things.
I don't know why we expect our Presidents to never have been jerks or never said or did anything insensitive. If this was happening his entire career it would indicative of something. Personally, I find offensive the idea that our Presidents must be perfect.
Now, I'm not saying we should ignore a candidates morals. I think we need to return to a time of electing people of good character. But we also need to stop jumping on every character weakness that pops up like a bunch of jackals taking out the weak member of the pack.
We should ask all the candidates with character flaws to sit down, and tell those who are still standing we have no use of them and they should go home. Those who are still sitting should be considered.
I'm more annoyed at the hedging and defensiveness rather than a flawed person saying they are less than perfect and unfortunately offended someone in the past with their insensitive remarks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I am no fan of 9-9-9 and not particularly of Herman Cain, but his present woes say more about us than him."
Who is "us"?
Mr. Cain currently is running for the Republican nomination. If you are not eligible to vote in your state's Republican presidential primary or caucus, then the matter isn't about you at all.
The affair is "about" Mr. Cain and the other persons directly involved in this incident, the reporters and unemployed commentators (such as Mr Steyn) who want to babble about it, Mr. Cain's supporters, his Republican opponents and their supporters. Maybe it says something about them. But everyone else? Doesn't say anything about them.
Besides, Mr. Steyn isn't even an American - I'm not sure what business it is of his who the Republican Party nominates for the Presidency or who the American people elect. I don't care who the Prime Minister of Canada is as long as he leaves us alone.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Us" genius is humanity and our country. And Steyn does belong to that group. Do you?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, Steyn may be part of humanity, but he is an alien and doesn't belong to this country.
If you aren't a principal in the matter and don't have a say in the selection of the Republican presidential nominee, then any controversy about Herman Cain isn't "about" you.
But "humanity"? Seriously?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSounds to me like Steyn hurt someone's feelings.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhose feelings could he possibly have hurt? That response doesn't even make sense. I was criticizing him for including himself in an "us" of which he clearly is not a member - not for hurting anyone's feelings, being insensitive, boorish, etc.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCool your jets, twit
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDuring an EEOC investigation of alleged sexual harassment by a manager of a small variety store in Provost, Utah, the Charging Party stated that her principal complaint was that the manager "looked at her." When asked why that amounted to sexual harassment, the CP replied "you could tell what he was thinking," and added, "if you were a woman, you'd know what I mean." (She was 18 years old at the time.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen I complained that what she described wasn't sexual harassment, but was absurd, miracle dictu, the EEOC investigator agreed.
Accusations and confidential settlements don't tell us much, but Cain probably should have been a little more ready to respond to the inevitable lefty/media smears.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAgreed. The settlements sound like they were nuisance value settlements, and time will tell. But he should have been more prepared. On the heels of the abortion comments, a disturbing pattern of "winging it" seems to be emerging.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLet's apply Dennis Prager's classic moral-compass evaluator question: Would you rather find out that your kid smoked a cigarette or cheated on a test?
Given that most political ads display pandering, sloganeering, cheap shots, smears, innuendo, and outright lying, I'd say that we know exactly how Brokaw and Schieffer's moral compasses are oriented, and it doesn't speak well for them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse