Bill Cosby... Finally

[Paingod]

Again though, that doesn't discredit feminism as a concept, only someone who purports to be a feminist. They aren't the same thing.

Anyone who goes too far on a topic is going to make it look bad. My wife is a feminist, and she focuses most of her anger at men ... because she spends a lot of time railing against how vile men are over and over, I tend to turn her lectures into Charlie Brown's teacher in my mind "Wawa, Wawa wawawaWAwa..." ... now when I think "feminist" I start to automatically tune out. I don't mean to, but I've heard it all so much and she does nothing about it except complain. If she actually did something and didn't just gripe, I could get behind that and help. Instead I come across and insensitive.

I want to be an "Equalist" and want everyone to just shut the hell up and treat everyone else equally... but there doesn't seem to be a Jeopardy category for that. Apparently this is a very "White Male" way of thinking and is frowned upon by people who aren't white males and can never be white males. I suppose my way only works if we're all in the same boat, doing the same thing.

I think I just wandered into left field.

[Isgrimnur]

LordMortis will get you a glove.

[Rip]

The parts that interested me most was...

abusive behavior by powerful men signifies their sense that female power is much bigger than they are!

emotionally infantile–they’re engaged in a war with female power.

abusive and criminal behavior is the result of their sense of inadequacy.

symbiotic, push-pull thing with his wife, where he went out and did these awful things to assert his own independence. But for that, he required the women to be inert. He needed them to be dead! Cosby is actually a necrophiliac–a style that was popular in the late Victorian period in the nineteenth-century.

to give a woman a drug, to make her inert, to make her dead is the man saying that I need her to be dead for me to function. She’s too powerful for me as a living woman. And this is what is also going on in those barbaric fraternity orgies, where women are sexually assaulted while lying unconscious.

This is why women are having so much trouble dealing with men in the feminist era. They don’t understand men, and they demonize men. They accord to men far more power than men actually have in sex. Women control the sexual world in ways that most feminists simply don’t understand.

[El Guapo]

I am also skeptical of a lot of that stuff - I'm not really sure what it means to be at "war with female power", and in any event I am dubious about how she feels confident in being able to diagnose the deep underlying causes of their behavior without (as far as I know) speaking to or acting as the therapist to either. That depends somewhat on what she is basing her conclusions on, which isn't obvious from the article.

I am also wary of deep theoretical explanations of personal behavior. Especially in Clinton's case - sure, it could be that he had many affairs because he was threatened by female power and had mother issues, or....it could be that he enjoyed having sex with many different women.

[Scuzz]

That's a boatload of crazy that only comes in the vicinity of some substantive points.
...
Good lord.

Yep. What really bothers me is not that people are crazy, it's that people like cheeba will assign this person's views to feminism in general, or to those opposed to sexism in general, and then rail against this person's position like it defines equal rights and so equal rights aren't a good thing, or worse, a bad thing.

I'm comfortable in my sense of right and wrong, and acknowledge and attempt to limit (at least the damage caused by) my sexist tendencies. If someone screams bloody murder at me, I'm comfortable re-evaluating my behaviour and either a) agreeing that I was out of line or b) deciding my behaviour was fine.

If this person spoke to me with the level of crazy she apparently enjoys, I would dismiss her opinion outright. Again though, that doesn't discredit feminism as a concept, only someone who purports to be a feminist. They aren't the same thing.

I would agree with your view. I am kind of the same. I will admit to saying and doing things that upon further review were sexist in nature. I will then try to not repeat that mistake. But having someone "yell" at me about the rights and wrongs of sexist behavior is off putting.

I have recently been introduced to the idea of micro-aggressions, and while some may make sense to me others seem like pathetic cries for attention, in my opinion anyway.

[geezer]

That may be, but this piece is full of crazy.

That's disappointing.

I would suggest reading it again and separating the ideas from the rhetoric. She is filled with a bit of vitriol.

Just be careful you aren't falling into the Krugman trap. He gets a lot of abuse because people disagree with his philosophy. I've been guilty of it myself. But not paying attention to his ideas is doing a disservice to the reader.

Having general respect (if not always agreement) for your ideas, and with only a passing familiarity with Paglia's work, I've spent the last few days reading more about her, and of course, from her, and I have to say that from what I see, her over-the-top rhetoric that Rip, Guapo and others here have issue with does really seem to be about par for the course with her. (And this interview with Salon is a particular mess, IMHO - internally inconsistent at best, nothing buy hyperbolic bomb-throwing at worst.) Honestly, I find the Coulter comparisons that's I've seen to be appropriate, if overstated. Arrogant and self-reverential, seemingly with a greater desire to create a reaction than advance any cohesive thesis.

So help me out here - what am I missing? I get that her (admittedly reasonable) ideas that women and men are fundamentally different on a biological level, and that certain gender roles are seemingly preferable for general happiness might have been seen as radical in their lack of adherence to the 80's and 90's feminist ideals, but beyond that, what? What makes her stand out as a "second-level" thinker to you?

[noxiousdog]

So help me out here - what am I missing? I get that her (admittedly reasonable) ideas that women and men are fundamentally different on a biological level, and that certain gender roles are seemingly preferable for general happiness might have been seen as radical in their lack of adherence to the 80's and 90's feminist ideals, but beyond that, what? What makes her stand out as a "second-level" thinker to you?

Because she can have that opinion while also being a radical liberal feminist while still maintaining credibility for decades. She's not pandering to a demographic like Coulter. She's able to express an argument that her target audience typically doesn't want to hear and yet they invite her back and read her books.

I fully admit that part of it is that I tend to agree with her philosophy, so I'm predisposed to like her. But so do a lot of people that would dismiss her completely if her message came from a different source. Whether that's because she has credibility or just well thought out ideas, I couldn't tell you, but I've always been impressed by her.

[nasai]

This is why women are having so much trouble dealing with men in the feminist era. They don’t understand men, and they demonize men. They accord to men far more power than men actually have in sex. Women control the sexual world in ways that most feminists simply don’t understand.

That is so legit. Right on target.

[geezer]

This is why women are having so much trouble dealing with men in the feminist era. They don’t understand men, and they demonize men. They accord to men far more power than men actually have in sex. Women control the sexual world in ways that most feminists simply don’t understand.

That is so legit. Right on target.

Except this is hardly radical, or novel. I don't know any women that would look at this statement and think anything other than, "well of course..."

[geezer]

So help me out here - what am I missing? I get that her (admittedly reasonable) ideas that women and men are fundamentally different on a biological level, and that certain gender roles are seemingly preferable for general happiness might have been seen as radical in their lack of adherence to the 80's and 90's feminist ideals, but beyond that, what? What makes her stand out as a "second-level" thinker to you?

Because she can have that opinion while also being a radical liberal feminist while still maintaining credibility for decades. She's not pandering to a demographic like Coulter. She's able to express an argument that her target audience typically doesn't want to hear and yet they invite her back and read her books.

I fully admit that part of it is that I tend to agree with her philosophy, so I'm predisposed to like her. But so do a lot of people that would dismiss her completely if her message came from a different source. Whether that's because she has credibility or just well thought out ideas, I couldn't tell you, but I've always been impressed by her.

But is she really that radical? Or even that much of a feminist? To my mind, she's almost an "anti-feminist" if we are limiting "feminism" to the Gloria Steinem era, and if we're not, she's making a basic argument (men and women are different") that would, literally for millennia (with the exception of say the late 70s to about 5 years ago) be met with the response of, "no kidding."

And now here's my prejudice, but Molly Ivins states it much better than I - "(Paglia)'s an asshole." Seriously - she is so full of herself that it's almost unbearable.

(In all seriousness, Ivins did say that about her, and she's right, but here is a more substantive critique.)

[noxiousdog]

But is she really that radical? Or even that much of a feminist? To my mind, she's almost an "anti-feminist" if we are limiting "feminism" to the Gloria Steinem era, and if we're not, she's making a basic argument (men and women are different") that would, literally for millennia (with the exception of say the late 70s to about 5 years ago) be met with the response of, "no kidding."

And now here's my prejudice, but Molly Ivins states it much better than I - "(Paglia)'s an asshole." Seriously - she is so full of herself that it's almost unbearable.

(In all seriousness, Ivins did say that about her, and she's right, but here is a more substantive critique.)

This would devolve into which academic is more correct and I've not read enough to form an adequate opinion. That critique stems from a fairly unknown art writer, other than the obvious part that Paglia can be an asshole. That's probably true, but doesn't really comment on her logic and philosophies.

Instead, I'd say it's pieces like this that made me like her. It is not a partisan hack job, it's a thoughtful analysis and critique. Agree or disagree with her, you can tell she's intelligent and has thought about things.

But we are going in circles here.

[EvilHomer3k]

If I have to read what others think of someone and search for meaning in their rantings when my first thoughts upon reading interviews is that they are an asshole that's batshit crazy I'm not going to go any further than that. This isn't art. It's just someone who figured out that click bait can make you famous before the internet was littered with "You won't believe what comes next" ads.

[El Guapo]

If I have to read what others think of someone and search for meaning in their rantings when my first thoughts upon reading interviews is that they are an asshole that's batshit crazy I'm not going to go any further than that. This isn't art. It's just someone who figured out that click bait can make you famous before the internet was littered with "You won't believe what comes next" ads.

But what does come next??

[tgb]

A friend of mine reminded me of this last night. Remember when he (not Cosby) was funny?

Very much NSFW

[Carpet_pissr]

OMG...I forgot how well he does Cosby. That is impressive.

Too bad the audio is not better.

[noxiousdog]

If I have to read what others think of someone and search for meaning in their rantings when my first thoughts upon reading interviews is that they are an asshole that's batshit crazy I'm not going to go any further than that. This isn't art. It's just someone who figured out that click bait can make you famous before the internet was littered with "You won't believe what comes next" ads.

You don't have to do anything. It just makes you look like people who think Paul Krugman is stupid.

[geezer]

But is she really that radical? Or even that much of a feminist? To my mind, she's almost an "anti-feminist" if we are limiting "feminism" to the Gloria Steinem era, and if we're not, she's making a basic argument (men and women are different") that would, literally for millennia (with the exception of say the late 70s to about 5 years ago) be met with the response of, "no kidding."

And now here's my prejudice, but Molly Ivins states it much better than I - "(Paglia)'s an asshole." Seriously - she is so full of herself that it's almost unbearable.

(In all seriousness, Ivins did say that about her, and she's right, but here is a more substantive critique.)

This would devolve into which academic is more correct and I've not read enough to form an adequate opinion. That critique stems from a fairly unknown art writer, other than the obvious part that Paglia can be an asshole. That's probably true, but doesn't really comment on her logic and philosophies.

Instead, I'd say it's pieces like this that made me like her. It is not a partisan hack job, it's a thoughtful analysis and critique. Agree or disagree with her, you can tell she's intelligent and has thought about things.

But we are going in circles here.

Yes, I will readily concur that she is intelligent and thoughtful. I simply dispute the idea that she's as much *more* intelligent and thoughtful than the "rest of us" as she thinks she is, and I think her attitude regarding her own certitude does a disservice to her ideas.

FWIW, I don't have nearly as much of an issue with the essay you just linked to as the one that started this conversation. You can see the vast differences in tone and intellectual consistency between the two, I assume.

I wonder if part of the issue is that her ideas have, to some extent "won." Like her or hate her, it's undeniable that she craves attention and loves reactions, and maybe this latest persona is her reaction to needing to reset the boundaries of "radical."

[noxiousdog]

Yes, I will readily concur that she is intelligent and thoughtful. I simply dispute the idea that she's as much *more* intelligent and thoughtful than the "rest of us" as she thinks she is, and I think her attitude regarding her own certitude does a disservice to her ideas.

Well, this is Lake Wobegon so we are swimming with the big fishes.

FWIW, I don't have nearly as much of an issue with the essay you just linked to as the one that started this conversation. You can see the vast differences in tone and intellectual consistency between the two, I assume.

I wonder if part of the issue is that her ideas have, to some extent "won." Like her or hate her, it's undeniable that she craves attention and loves reactions, and maybe this latest persona is her reaction to needing to reset the boundaries of "radical."

Or to be relevant again. I hadn't thought about her in a long time.

[Toe]

[GreenGoo]

Ugh.

I snorted.

I'm a bad person.

I think it was just the animation that was funny, not the concept behind it.

Ok, I feel better.

[Moliere]

Bill Cosby Ordered to Give Deposition in Judy Huth Lawsuit

[Isgrimnur]

We're going to need more chairs:

The shame campaign against Bill Cosby continued Thursday with yet more accusers coming forward, bringing the total to more than 50 women who say he drugged and raped them.

The latest accusers were, as has been most often the case, presented by attorney Gloria Allred, who represents nearly half of the total accusers, at a press conference in New York.

The three women she introduced included one, Sarita Butterfield, who had already gone public with her accusations against Cosby but showed up to repeat them and to support the two women going public for the first time.
...
The new accusers say their encounters with Cosby either took place at the Playboy Mansion in Los Angeles or started there, decades ago, and followed a pattern described by other accusers. The women said they never told anyone their stories because they were afraid they would not be believed.

Charlotte Fox said she met Cosby when she was 23, while working on a movie as an extra, in the 1970s. She said he raped her in a room at the Playboy Mansion after she ate and drank food at a dinner he hosted.
...
Elizabeth (she did not disclose her real name), said she was an American Airlines flight attendant, 20 years old, in 1976, when she met Cosby on a flight and he invited her to the Mansion. After she later drank sake at a Japanese restaurant with him, she says she fell into a trance-like state, ended up in his hotel room, and was forced to submit to a sex act she would not detail.

[hepcat]

I hate to say this, but right off the top I'm inclined to doubt the half represented by Allred.

However, I think there's way too much smoke now to doubt there was ever fire.

[GreenGoo]

Cosby himself has admitted to the fire, so at this point it's not a question of "if" but of "how many".

It seems like his standard modus operandi, so I would expect there to be many, many victims. Serial rapist with the fame and drugs to make it a regular thing.

I'm usually fairly sceptical until facts start coming out, but if they've (including Cosby himself) convinced me he did this multiple times, new victims going public are easy to believe, for me.

[tgb]

Cosby himself has admitted to the fire, so at this point it's not a question of "if" but of "how many".

Has he admitted to anything other than giving women Quaaludes, which they may have consented to taking?

Speaking as someone who has also given Quaaludes to women in the past, as well as taking more than my share, I can attest that it is NOT the same as a Roofie. A Quaalude will not knock you out or render you unconscious unless there is a lot of alcohol involved (which doesn't seem to factor into all these stories), doesn't make you into an unwitting sex slave or a zombie.

Certainly Cosby gave these women something to drug them so he could have his way with them but whatever it was I'm going to go out on a limb and say it probably wasn't a Quaalude. If he's copping to giving women Quaaludes, it was under different circumstances, and not related to the rape charge.

[Moliere]

Speaking as someone who has also given Quaaludes to women in the past

Saving for future Grand Jury evidence...

[Isgrimnur]

Baylor rescinds honorary degree:

“Because acts of interpersonal and sexual violence contradict our very mission and values, Baylor University is investing significantly to ensure the safety of our campus,” Baylor spokeswoman Lori Fogleman said in a prepared statement.

“Through the efforts of our Title IX Office, we are encouraging victims to report acts of interpersonal and sexual violence, and making sure those suffering from the effects of such acts are provided the necessary support and services to feel safe and be academically successful. It is against this backdrop that Baylor’s Board of Regents has decided to take this action.”

Baylor now joins a list of schools to rescind honorary degrees award to Cosby, along with Brown, Fordham and Marquette, according to the Brown Daily Herald.

[Moliere]

What does it mean to take away a fake degree?

[LawBeefaroni]

What does it mean to take away a fake degree?

It means you no longer wish to benefit from the loose affiliation an honorary degree grants you and you will no longer feature the speech it was partial compensation for in your marketing materials.

[silverjon]

I From what I've read, 'luuds were very, very much a getting off on better sex drug at the time, ala poppers/amyl nitrate.

Quaaludes gave you a feeling of serene euphoria with physical dislocation....

If they were a sex drug, they were a "having things done to you" drug, not a doing-unto-others drug.

So basically, they behave in the body exactly the same as roofies.

(First time reading thread.)

(Edit: I also accept that tgb has more first-hand knowledge, now that I'm reading the second page.)

[Jaymann]

I From what I've read, 'luuds were very, very much a getting off on better sex drug at the time, ala poppers/amyl nitrate.

Quaaludes gave you a feeling of serene euphoria with physical dislocation....

If they were a sex drug, they were a "having things done to you" drug...

So they would be perfect for the Handjob Cabin!

[GreenGoo]

I From what I've read, 'luuds were very, very much a getting off on better sex drug at the time, ala poppers/amyl nitrate.

Quaaludes gave you a feeling of serene euphoria with physical dislocation....

If they were a sex drug, they were a "having things done to you" drug...

So they would be perfect for the Handjob Cabin!

That's the bottle beside the free boner pills.

[Paingod]

So his tally is up over 50 now, apparently ... and he's doing the right thing and suing 7 of them.

An interesting thing in the article, and I wondered it too when I first saw this.

It is curious that he has filed a claim only against these seven women, when there are scores of other women who have made similar allegations of sexual abuse and assault against Mr. Cosby.

[LawBeefaroni]

So his tally is up over 50 now, apparently ... and he's doing the right thing and suing 7 of them.

An interesting thing in the article, and I wondered it too when I first saw this.

It is curious that he has filed a claim only against these seven women, when there are scores of other women who have made similar allegations of sexual abuse and assault against Mr. Cosby.

Seven of the women sued Cosby for defamation. That resulted in Cosby's counterclaim.

[Jeff V]

Seven of the women sued Cosby for defamation. That resulted in Cosby's counterclaim.

Were these 7 women famous before doing the nasty with Uncle Bill? If not, wouldn't this be..um...enfamation?

I figured these 7 were just ugly. If I were going down because of a sex scandal, I don't think I'd want the victims to be ugly. When risking ones fame and fortune, it damn well better be worth it. Maybe the other 43 are hotties, and these 7 are notties.

[Moliere]

I figured these 7 were just ugly. If I were going down because of a sex scandal, I don't think I'd want the victims to be ugly. When risking ones fame and fortune, it damn well better be worth it. Maybe the other 43 are hotties, and these 7 are notties.

Never too soon for a rape joke, eh?

[pr0ner]

Seven of the women sued Cosby for defamation. That resulted in Cosby's counterclaim.

Were these 7 women famous before doing the nasty with Uncle Bill? If not, wouldn't this be..um...enfamation?

I figured these 7 were just ugly. If I were going down because of a sex scandal, I don't think I'd want the victims to be ugly. When risking ones fame and fortune, it damn well better be worth it. Maybe the other 43 are hotties, and these 7 are notties.

JeffV, the OO bastion of class.

[Jeff V]

I figured these 7 were just ugly. If I were going down because of a sex scandal, I don't think I'd want the victims to be ugly. When risking ones fame and fortune, it damn well better be worth it. Maybe the other 43 are hotties, and these 7 are notties.

Never too soon for a rape joke, eh?

Joking about the media circus this as been for months now. I think him suing victims is ridiculous, and put it a light worthy of my sentiment.

[KKBlue]

Noticed something on Twitter. Then when telcta brought to my attention, I did a quick search and found:

An arrest warrant has been issued for entertainer Bill Cosby for allegedly drugging and sexually assaulting former Temple employee Andrea Constand at his Elkins Park, Pennsylvania mansion in January 2004, Montgomery County District Attorney-Elect Kevin Steele said at a Wednesday press conference.

[tgb]

I was just coming here to post that. Apparently in this case the statute of limitations hasn't quite run out.

How many packs of smokes does it take to get a Jello pudding pop?