Sexual Harassment, Sex, Politics, and Herman Cain.

Herman Cain, the GOP candidate who both speaks the conservative talk and is good-looking is the subject of accusations of sexual harassment. It was bound to happen sooner or later because Democrats, the only authorized party of oppressed minorities, cannot allow a successful member of the largest oppressed minority to give the lie to their lies. The particular nature of the attack was also predictable. Liberals are not sophisticated by and large. Plus, half of the Democratic Party used to be in the Jim Crow South. There are collective memories: Black men in general have a trouble controlling their sexual urges; it’s a well-known fact.

Do I think there were sexual harassment complaints against Herman Cain when he was a powerful, highly visible official of an association? I wouldn’t be surprised if there were. I would be surprised instead if there were a single man corresponding to that description anywhere, anytime in the past thirty years against whom there were no such complaints at all. They go with the territory. Create new grounds to blackmail and there will be more blackmailers.

Do I think he did it? Yes, I do. I mean by this that Herman Cain almost certainly engaged repeatedly in behavior that someone somewhere would call sexual harassment. And since juries can be fickle, unpredictable, it’s rational (although detestable) for companies to settle. It’s especially tempting if they can settle on the cheap: $10,000 is “five figures.” I also mean something you all already know about sexual harassment but that you may have forgotten because of the pounding of dozens of years of political correctness.

First things first: Do I think it’s a good idea for people in positions of responsibility to have sexual congress with their subordinates? My answer is a clear “No,” and this, for several organizational reasons I need not go into here. However, worse things have happened and worse things happen every day, including in the work place. And the old cliché of sex for advancement and even worse, of sex for continued employment, are far from contemporary reality as I see it. Much greater forces are at play.

Power, the suspicion of power, the slightest whiff of the most minimal kind of power, are aphrodisiac to many women. I am tempted to say, “ to all women” but some smart aleck would be sure to point out that I have not known all women and that neither have I formal proof. Sure enough and sure enough. Females of all ages are drawn to power or to what they imagine is power like night butterflies to a reading lamp. It goes without saying for example that women students develop crushes on their male professors; it goes without saying that some women are bound to act on their crushes to some extent. That’s not all and professors have some real power after a fashion. Every thin-assed male teaching assistant also has had the experience. Note that schools would not bother to make rules against what does not happen or against what happens but rarely. And, incidentally, in more relaxed times, there were no such rules. And the principle of full disclosure forces me to admit that it’s how I met my wife: She will readily testify that she seduced me shamelessly that she hounded me until I had no escape route left.

The general rule that applies here is that female human beings actively seek a mate during a relatively narrow time window in their lives. There are no organized hunts and, in our latitudes, there are few arranged marriages. Unavoidably, young women are left to their own devices to find mates wherever they are. As it happens, in our fairly civilized societies, men are just about everywhere, in the schools and in work places as well as in bars and in sports venues. Picking men up at work is normal, expected; it would be a little demographic disaster if it did not happen.

Women proposition men in the workplace all the time. Much of the propositioning, or most, I would guess, takes non-verbal forms: a flash of this and a flash of that, swinging and swaying, and a great deal of eyelashes work. It’s not necessary to be a powerful man to be the target of such attempts; it helps to be handsome but it’s not strictly necessary. After all, almost all men with a steady job and no grave substance abuse problem marry, some several times. A good many with no job and obvious substance abuse issues also marry.

The non-verbal nature of most of female seductiveness naturally gives rise to ambiguity and to a fair number of mistakes. First, all men are no equally adept at deciphering signals (as every woman knows); second, this is an alcohol society and the use of alcohol makes not one more clear-headed or more timid; third, the fact is that some women are honestly not completely aware of the signals they are sending. Here is an anecdote: Once, when I was well past forty, a freshman student wanted to discuss something with me after class. There were several students gathered around my desk wanting to do the same. When her turn came, the young girl began to move forward in my direction. She kept moving, round chest first, until I had to take several steps backward to avoid physical contact. I would have liked to believe then, I would like to believe now, that she was consciously trying to seduce me. However, it’s pretty obvious that she would not have made such an attempt at ten AM, in the presence of several fellow-students, and mostly girls to boot.

Now that I have jogged your memory and your consciousness, please re-create the scene for Herman Cain circa 1997: a tall, imposing, athletic-looking, powerful man with a gift of gab. (I am assuming he did not develop that aptitude recently.) Is it possible that he was the target of the provocative moves of women in his outfit? Is it possible he was not but wrongly thought he was? And if you answer “yes” to the second question, how much exactly do you expect men to resolve ambiguity by themselves? Is it possible he made unprovoked allusive remarks to some female employees who were not in a receptive mood. I have two responses to the last question: 1 Why would he when he was probably surrounded by willing women? 2 What if he did?

Even if he did and even if it was a clear violation of policy, how should that be a concern of mine, of my wife, in our search for a president who will push for the kind of America we want? This is an America in deep economic trouble, and in dangerous decline in the world, an America where the problem of sexual harassment should be way down our list.

But some will object that he was married. I don’t know if he was, but he was, I still don’t care. It would have been an issue between his wife and him. I don’t care about my political leaders’ adultery unless it is connected with their violating the law. Two kinds of legal violation that come to mind are lying under oath in a judicial proceeding and using campaign donations to maintain a mistress. Incidentally, I understand that adultery is a matter of concern for the religiously inclined. I have no quarrel with them on this and it should be clear that I never speak for them.

Political correctness is a tool used by the Left to undermine and cloud our thought process. Through repetition, what should be one of many options comes to represent reality itself. Political correctness is one of the worst forms of tyranny because those it oppresses often don’t realize that it’s becoming part of them. Fortunately, every so often, an event transpires in the media that yanks us back to genuine reality. Below is one.

About two weeks ago, a female high-school teacher received four years for a variety of transgressions. The chief of these was rape. She had been convicted of having sex with four of her male students. Again, she received four years. You know that some violent rapists get less. This sort of grotesque event occurs as a result of the success of rabid liberals at influencing legislatures and even courts toward the wholly irrational. It occurs because reasonable people don’t talk loudly enough, not by a long shot. There is more to the story.

At the beginning of the sentencing part of the trial, a victim’s mother demanded to be heard. Since the teacher had already been convicted, the woman’s only purpose was to try and influence the judge toward a more severe sentence. The woman sobbed violently about how the teacher had ruined her son’s life and her own. She even came very close to blaming the teacher for her husband’s throat cancer. The victim was absent from court. He is a freshman in college which would make him eighteen or possibly seventeen. How much would you bet that Mom couldn’t force him to come to court and ridicule himself and lie through his teeth? The only suffering he incurred was that he wasn’t able to brag freely to his friends about his conquest. I know that would have nearly killed me at 18. When I become aware of this kind of event I wonder how this society could have become so insane in such a short time.

Well, Professor Delacroix: Do you mean that teachers should have sex with their students? I would say that mostly not, that in most cases it’s counter-pedagogical.

And do you think male high-school teachers should have sex with female students? I do not. Sex is much more consequential for young women than for young men. Much more. It’s one of those many cases where:

What’s sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander.

And, not my fault, not my decision. It’s Mother Nature’s decision. You have to be functionally stupid not to keep this in mind. And Mother Nature is a real bitch!

About jacquesdelacroix

I am a sociologist, a short-story writer, and a blogger (Facts Matter and Notes On Liberty) in Santa Cruz, California.
This entry was posted in Current Events, Socio-Political Essays. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Sexual Harassment, Sex, Politics, and Herman Cain.

  1. Bruce says:

    I’m thinking back to what they threw at Clarence Thomas and experiencing a strange sense of deja vulva. Sorry Ms. Anita.
    The Left is going after him because he’s emerged as a real threat to beating Omama. They are terrified for good reason:
    1. He is handsome.
    2. He is likeable.
    3. He was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He did it on his own, without government coddling. That’s not supposed to be possible.
    4. He has an economic plan, and can explain it to Joe Six Pack.
    5. He went to a traditionally Black college, MLK went there, and majored in math.
    6. He has been successful in the private sector and knows that capitalism and businesses create value jobs, not government. He is accomplished and proven.
    7. He is a proven leader who turned around a major business and ran it well. He knows how to fix things that are broken. Washington is broken and the Left likes it that way.
    8. He is a decendent of slavery in America. (Father was not Kenyan) If he was not, the Left would have already pointed it out.
    9. He is 50% blacker than Obama, who’s mother was white. He destroys the right of ownership the Democrat Party assumes it has with minorities. It’s not surprizing that the usual idiots (Al Sharpton, etc.) have been silent about the attacks.
    10. He does not need a teleprompter and will kick ass in a presidential debate.
    11. He has conservative principles and articulates them in a way that connects with regular folks.
    12. He has an excellent singing voice.
    13. You get the impression that he does not have a chip on his shoulder and that he genuinely loves America and wants to do all he can to improve things.
    14. He is humble and does not think he’s a king. He probably won’t go to Martha’s Vinyard and hang with American royalty with a wife who is convinced she’s a queen. Reminds me about a scene from the film With Honors back in ’94:
    Simon is Herman Cain, Obama is Professor Pitcannon
    Simon: Which door do I leave from?
    Professor Pitcannon: At Harvard we don’t end our sentences with prepositions.
    Simon: Well in that case, which door do I leave from, asshole?
    Pitcannon: What democratic eloquence.
    Simon: You asked a question, sir, let me answer it. The genius of the Constitution is that it can always be changed. The genius of the Constitution is that it makes no permanent rule other than its faith in the wisdom of ordinary people to govern themselves.
    Pitcannon: Faith in the wisdom of the people is exactly what makes the Constitution incomplete and crude.
    Simon: Crude? No sir. Our founding parents were pompous, middle aged, white farmers, but they were also great men. Because they knew one thing that all great men should know–that they didn’t know everything. They knew they were going to make mistakes, but they made sure to leave a way to correct them. They didn’t think of themselves as leaders; they wanted a government of citizens, not royalty. A government of listeners not lecturers. A government that could change, not stand still. The President isn’t an elected King, no matter how many bombs he can drop because the crude Constitution doesn’t trust him. He’s a servant of the people. He’s a bum, okay Mr. Pitcannon? He’s just a bum. And the only bliss that he’s searching for is freedom and justice.

    Outside bet: Romney got it started.

  2. Terry Amburgey says:

    He admitted to raising his hand to his chin and saying ‘You’re the same height as my wife’. What clearer form of sexual harassment could there be?

  3. Martin Anding says:

    I wish this topic would just die or at least hang until there was any specific allegation. I won’t support Cain but rumors from nameless people won’t be the reason. There is a big difference between a look and a smile and a BJ in the oval office.

    • jacquesdelacroix says:

      In the office? You are an optimist, Martin!
      Suppose it were all true. Supposed he offered a crude ride to several women (I mean sequentially)? So, then?
      I wish I had comments from women. They hold the key to freeing our society of this distraction.
      Twenty years, there was an sign on the wall of an office I had to enter frequently. It was occupied by two female administrative assistants. THe sign said: “Sexual harassment in this office will not be reported but it will be graded.” The department chairman ordered the sing taken down out of fear for himself.

  4. Terry Amburgey says:

    I wouldn’t call it sexual harassment, but very mild flirtation. “I’ll smile and show a bit of cleavage and you”ll be understanding when you mark my paper. Never more than that.
    p.s. it looks like perhaps Perry rather than Romney.

  5. The definition of sexual harassment is “UNWANTED” sexual advances! lol

  6. Would I be here if my Dad had not sexually harassed my Mom for a year. NO! but then it was not at the work place! I think we all know what inappropriate behavior at work place is. So Cain thought he would make some sexist jokes that most guys would laugh at, right? Wrong it cost him like something like 36 thousand $$s apparently a years severance and totally generous. That’s why they have league departments to handle that sort of thing, right? Now lets talk about this guys qualifications…..9,9,9 that’s German for no way in Hell lol I think he really is in it for the notoriety perhaps he could be another D TRUMP.

    • jacquesdelacroix says:

      No, we don’t all know what sexual harassment is. The more I think about it, the less sure I am. And what if he did do it. whatever “it” was? Would that be a good reason not to vote for him if I thought he were the best possible president in the next term?

  7. Peter Miller says:

    Superb analysis by Bruce as to the reasons for the apparently deceitful attacks on Cain. One of the unintended consequences of this and similar episodes is that the presidential screening process will systematically eliminate any male candidate with more than a scintilla of testosterone. In other words, it guarantees the president will be someone who lacks the cojones to take on the numerous enemies who do not wish America — or freedom anywhere — well.

    • jacquesdelacroix says:

      Bruce’s comments are always shining with intelligence. This time, though I was the first anywhere to raise this central question: Why if it’s all true? What if Cain goes through life propositioning women?
      Cain is out for other reasons, I thought: In the last debate he demonstrated a deep and happy ignorance about the rest of the world. We cannot afford this, I think
      I hope someone taps him as a VP.

  8. Pingback: Sexual Harassment, Sex, Politics, and Herman Cain « Notes On Liberty

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s