Saturday, August 1, 2020

Sexual Harassment and enthusiastically willing "victims"

In Sexual Harassment Training, it is an article of faith that due to the power disparity, the person who is higher in the organization is always the perpetrator and the person who is lower in the organization is always the victim.

The logic is that the person who is lower in the organization does not have the range of options available to them that are available when both partners have a higher degree of parity. They are distressed sellers.

This simple comparison, one boss and one underling ignores the fact that the events unfold in a social ecosystem.

"Jane Hathaway" from the Beverly Hillbillies

What about the other (potentially more) qualified candidates who didn't enthusiastically throw themselves into the game?

Suppose there is an office. The Boss is a heterosexual man (for the sake of simplicity) and he has eight women and three men working for him.

The Boss is shopping for a second-in-command. Two women are eager to jump into the sack with the Boss. Six are not. The three men are straight. One of the women who wants to play ball is drink-milk-in-the-dark ugly.

Quickly, how many victims are in this scenario?

The ripples spread
In conventional Sexual Harassment Training, the only victim is the pretty girl who the Boss bedded.

But what about the ten others who were never considered? Likely, one of them was a more competent candidate than the pretty girl with round-heel. The brute numbers favor that speculation.

What about the customers who receive less-than-the-best service from the department with sub-optimal staffing assignments?

Kamala Harris's fatal flaw as VP is the perception that she may have traded favors quid pro quo to advance her career.

The current climate of victimology tries to frame this as Harris being some kind of underdog who fought her way through obstacles to become a success in spite of her being a victim.

The polling suggests that there is an overwhelming number of voters who identify with those who were on the invisible, losing end of the Boss/Enthusiastic Victim transaction. They don't see anything noble about enthusiastically willing victims blocking (potentially) more qualified candidates from being considered for advancement.

In any pairing of two people, there is the potential that the very best of each partners traits will come to the forefront.

In a Biden-Harris pairing, that seems unlikely.


  1. Camel-a Harris is a whore. She let Willie Whatz-iz-name bone her for political favors and to get ahead (!). Is she currently letting Creepy Joe bone her to secure the VP slot ? That is her M.O. .

  2. Harriss' relationship with Willy Brown is common knowledge in CA. There is no 'may' there, Willy Brown confirmed the reports:

  3. I'll fix that problem -- don't do business with whack-jobs.
    Fire all females, never hire a female.
    This includes female bumblebrats including politicians and TheMainStreamMedia.

    Never hire a fruit or fairy.
    Never hire a marxist.
    Don't do business with whack-jobs.

    And while we're on the subject, I cast a wary eye toward Federal Reserve Bankers and economists.

    1. Tongue-in-cheek?

      I figure that if a person has the maturity to (mostly) keep their yap shut when people are not asking then they are not a whack-job.

      If they are like the stereo-typical vegan who MUST tell everybody and bifurcates every interaction into a desperate quest for approval or an opportunity to crap on people...then they ARE whack-jobs even if I mostly agree with their opinions.

  4. I'm afraid whichever black women is chosen for VP, will very quickly be the Prez. Biden will be cast aside because he isn't mentally capable or because he diddles little kids. I could see them impeaching Biden the second he wins.

  5. I want Joe Bad Fingers to pick Shelia Jackson Lee as running mate. The possibility for entertainment are infinite.

  6. I think they're STILL scrambling to come up with a 'viable' candidate.