I know Donald Trump. Though we have never met, I know him well.
Sad to hear that Mr. Harper has so many sleazy friends that he needs to tell us that in addition to third parties taking the blame if Trump is elected, men will also take the blame.
If Trump is elected there will be no blood on the hands of third party candidates OR men...all the blood will be on the hands of the Democratic Party and complicit media that railroaded Clinton to the nomination when polls during the primaries showed Sanders doing better on November 8 against Trump and all of the other GOP primary contenders.
The Democratic Party needs to replace Clinton with Sanders in the race if it hopes to restore any credibility to the Party. This example of Harper blaming the victims while rewarding the perpetrators is taking the Clinton campaign and the Washington Post to new lows.
When they go low, we go high and vote for the Green Party, active in dozens of nations, unlike the two domestic anachronisms that Murka calls its two party system.
Ours is a paternalistic society. Men rule.
It's been this way for at least 5600 years, but it wasn't always this way.
Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV) tried to change society by bringing it back into balance (the Garden) 3500 years ago.
He attempted to marry the feminine and the masculine with his wife Nefertiti in religion, the arts, politics and in everyday life. Akhenaten and Nefertiti were run out of town by the paternalistic oligarchy that they were trying to dislodge and all things went back to their previous status quo.
The Christ attempted to bring the same female and male balance back with his wife Mary Magdalene.
He was crucified and she was written into history as a whore not worthy of mentioning.
Though I appreciate the intent to hold men accountable for verbal sexual abuse, I would add that the problem also highlights the profound impact of market driven pressures to dissociate healthy sexuality from real life.
Advertising axioms elevate the unnecessary (and veiled abusive), framed as indispensable/desireable, is in order to create product desire to be channeled into product loyalty. This in turn is generally framed in terms of earning (sic) those "hard earned dollars" to be taken by the producer of the product bought. This however is a form of 'dog whistle'. Money is a measure of how one chooses or is coerced into dedicating TIME and effort in one's life, one's life with family and community.
Virtually all of the social aberrations we face are due directly to decades and centuries of the cynical bernaysian construct flaunted as 'economic' imperative. For these to be given a pass as we as individuals and communities, not to mention a nation, come to terms with the undeniable crisis of deleterious effects being foisted, is now exceedingly close to being irresponsible and a travesty.
Perhaps education, now in its corporate takeover phase, might also be introduced into the equation. Perhaps also men of conscience might want to consider researching simple handouts, becoming familiar with the lexicon of countering the verbal abuses - and making a habit of tucking a few into a pocket when addressing 'the boys'.
Here is an example of a source:
We agree. The real problem is the Capitalist economic system which objectifies women.
Donald Trump is a caricature of everything Patriarchy stands for. It would be laughable if it wasn't so diabolical, that there are so many men out there who identify with him.
This article is a clear example of what Alfred Adler called: "The Masculine Protest." In order to fit in, boys must act like the other boys.....or else they will be isolated from social circles. So, men learn early on that they must conform to whatever the more powerful males in society declare to be "manly."
One might ask: "Why?" Why must men degrade women? Why must men use "power over," to keep women down? The answer is clear and simple: Power. To stay in power, men must use unscrupulous tactics. Otherwise, women may realize, once again, that they are just as powerful and in fact equal to, men.
Way back, when the goddess was revered, before the masculine god desecrated her image, the female was considered part of the concept of Deity. The Feminine Face of God has been subsumed, covered over, beat down, denied, desecrated, defamed, etc.
Until the world recognizes, once again, that male and female are one in the same, are in fact parts of each other, we will have imbalance.
Donald Trump should show himself in public wearing a helmet with wings on each side. That would more truly represent who he is in history. As for Hillary. She would be holding same helmet lower on her body--like directly in front of her female parts. Hillary has been compromised. They are both beholden to the gods of war.
Mr. Harper should know, and perhaps he does, that white males participate in a similar banter regarding blacks. Here is how I've seen it work on many occasions: A group of guys are thrown together for a particular purpose (the latest instance I witnessed of this was with election set-up workers) and the most overt bigot tells a racially demeaning joke and as the punch line is delivered everyone checks everyone else to see who is laughing and who is not. A test of whiteness bona fides.
At least racism is publicly frowned upon in many circles. Not so with classism. Fraternities holding race bashing parties would be kicked off campus in a New York minute whereas no fraternity has ever been kicked off campus for having white trash parties where they demean Americans in lower socio-economic classes.
Most of us have a choice of who our friends are. I have always avoided sexists, racists and classists unless I was required to work with them, in which cases I expedited my exit strategy.
"... before the masculine god desecrated her image ... "
and even that was an early version of PR narrative for power rather than actual fact - lie early and often - to paraphrase Samuel Clemmons
Boys will be boys
As long as there are so few real men
Yes, and it's creepy, and many men who do it know its creepy. Yet, it has always been a part of "being a real man" in our culture. The macho thing. But fewer and fewer are willing to engage in such talk, in spite of this. When you demean women, it's hard to avoid thinking about the fact that some of the most important people in your life are women -- mother, sister, wife, daughter. All people whom you love and respect.
Yes, and even liberals embraced classism over the past 20 years. It's weird when people talk about their support of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights while also being fine with stripping our own poor of the most basic human rights of food and shelter. (The UDHR lists food and shelter as fundamental human rights even for the jobless poor and those who can't work.)
If one is silent when there is injustice, then they share the blame. On the other side of the coin, we can't blame people for actions taken by others who happen to be of the same gender, race, age group, etc.
I've spent my life in construction and am an expert in little boy locker room conversation. Working class men talk more about food and cars and pickups than they talk about women, but most guys will get pretty crude. Trump is not very fluent in crudity, as Mark Twain wrote about his wife, he knows the words to the song but not the tune. Worse, most men will dwell on the anatomy and the various acts theoretically possible, but very few cross over into the realm of rape fantasy like the Donald. No one is surprised Trump has contempt for women, what matters more is the utter contempt he has for all beings lesser than his exalted self whether male or female they be made.
Thank you for these eloquent words, Mr. Harper. I only want to add my thought that it is also women and mothers who have a responsibility to help boys and young men treat girls and women with the respect, empathy and consideration we all deserve, as humans. Fathers and males can be role models and mentors, and can intervene when they hear the kind of talk Trump engaged in in that tape; women and mothers also have a powerful role to play.
The point of the article is that men need to step up and speak against sexist remarks. Your comments-above, that failed to address the gravamen of those remarks, suggest that they somehow passed you by or are insignificant.
I would have liked to have heard your remarks on the main topic because that's a big silence from you, a man, on a topic specifically addressed to men about how men relate to women. Is it possible that the forces that cause men to overlook those kinds of remarks in the first place may also make hearing/reading criticism of those kinds of remarks uncomfortable and difficult to relate to? Just asking.
My question is would you rather have a man who talks like a teenager with endocrinal problems, or a man who actually satisfies his teenage urges by assaulting women? Trump is an example of the first man and Bill Clinton is an example of the second!