December 4, 2018--Baby It's Cold Outside

Initially I didn't get it. 

The Huff Post among others reported that a Cleveland radio station has taken "Baby It's Cold Outside" off its playlist, saying that in the #MeToo era its lyrics represent a case of sexual harassment and coercion.

"Now I think we're going too far," I said to Rona, "I'm all for exposing and even putting Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein in jail--what they did was disgusting and are felonies--but are we now going to scrutinize lyrics of songs from the 1940s to see if they're offensive? The next thing we'll be doing is return to banning movies and books."

"I always thought," Rona said, "there's something creepy about that song."

"And I always thought of it as charming. I looked it up on Wiki and it's usually performed as a duet, as a form of racy dialogue between a man and a women. For example Garth Brooks and Trisha Yearwood and Willie Nelson and Nora Jones covered it. It's cold out and the man tries to get the woman to stay with him by the fire."

"Yeah, and have another drink and presumably go to bed with him."

"The drink part I don't remember but I agree that there's the implication that they might go to bed together."

"Implication? That's the whole point of the song. Let's read the lyrics and see what people are finding to be offensive.

I really can't stay - but baby it's cold outside I've got to go away - but baby it's cold outside This evening has been - Been hoping that you'd drop in So very nice - I'll hold your hands, they're just like ice My mother will start to worry And father will be pacing the floor - Listen to the fireplace roar So really I'd better scurry - Beautiful, please don't hurry Well, maybe just a half a drink more - Put some records on while I pour The neighbours might think - But baby it's bad out there Say, what's in this drink? - No cabs to be had out there I wish I knew how - Your eyes are like starlight now To break the spell - I'll take your hat, your hairs looks swell I ought to say no, no, no sir - Mind if I move in closer? At least I'm gonna say that I tried - What's the sense of hurting my pride? I really can't stay - Oh baby don't hold out Ah but it's cold outside - Baby it's cold outside I simply must go - But baby it's cold outside The answer is no -But baby it's cold outside The welcome has been - How lucky that you dropped in So nice and warm - Look out that window at that storm My sister will be suspicious - God your lips look delicious My brother will be there at the door - Waves upon a tropical shore My maiden aunt's mind is vicious - Gosh your lips are delicious Well, maybe just a cigarette more -Never such a blizzard before I got to get home - But baby you'd freeze out there Say, lend me a comb - It's up to your knees out there You've really been grand - I'm thrilled when you touch my hand Why don't you see - How can you do this thing to me? There's bound to be talk tomorrow - Think of my lifelong sorrow At least there will be plenty implied - If you caught pneumonia and died I really can't stay - Get over that hold-out Ah but it's cold outside - Ah but it's cold outside (Only the man:) Where could you be going When the wind is blowing And it's cold outside? (Both:) Baby it's cold, cold outside


I said, "It does feel a little slimy. It's almost a chronicle of date-rape."

"What's also at issue," Rona said, "is what the lyrics say about the sexual mores of that era. How a woman had to hide her sexuality. If she wanted sex she had to sneak around so as not to sully her reputation. The men, on the other hand, could boast about their conquests."

"But even if I agree with you isn't it tame by comparison to most of the rap songs out there which are often totally explicit? Are we going to start banishing them too?"

"That's a fair question. A lot of them are out-of-the-closet misogynist." Rona shrugged and said, "It's true that many are beyond offensive. But if I'm honest I don't know how to think about the bigger picture when it comes to popular music or, for that matter, literature and movies."

"Yet another thing that's more complicated that it at first seems.

February 1, 2018--What Hillary Should Have Said

"Dismayed?" How about "infuriated" or "outraged?"

Dismayed is how Hillary Clinton said she felt when she learned in 2008 that Burns Strider, her "faith-based advisor," had been sexually harassing one of the women who was a part of the staff attempting to help Clinton secure the Democratic nomination for the presidency. 

Clinton's campaign manager at the time recommended that Strider be fired. Clinton did not agree, but instead docked him a couple of week's pay and required that he get counseling, which he never did. In the meantime, the accuser was "reassigned." Her harasser wasn't. Strider continued to send Clinton daily scripture readings.

In the first of two Internet postings this week, Hillary tweeted about the story, 10 years after it leaked out, she wrote--

I was dismayed when it occurred, but was heartened the young woman came forward, was heard, and had her concerns taken seriously and addressed.

"Heartened?" Her "concerns taken seriously?" This translates into not getting fired for blowing the whistle but, as often happens to women who raise these kinds of issues, she, not he, got "transferred."

This extra-carefully constructed reaction caused a groundswell of criticism, not from Republicans but mainly from progressive women.

For example, New York Times columnist, Gail Collins wrote--

Here's where I'm coming down: Hillary Clinton was the first woman to run for president on a major party ticket, and when she did it, she won the popular vote. She's broken a trillion barriers. She's also done enormous good work to improve the lives of women in this country. 

But she's never been at her strongest when it comes to men on the prowl. While her faith advisor wasn't anywhere near the level of a Harvey Weinstein, she did hang out with Weinstein, too, cherishing him as a beloved donor. And some women have never gotten over the fact that she did not leave her husband when she discovered he was having an affair, in the White House, with a girl far too young and powerless to be a genuinely willing partner. 

Because sexual harassment is so much on our national mind right now, we'd like her to be a heroine on that issue, too. But if there is anything we've learned in all our years with Hillary Clinton, it's that you can be both great and deeply imperfect. Even if right now we really wish she'd fired the faith advisor.

Thus chastised, five full days later, this Tuesday evening, minutes before President Trump delivered his State of the Union address so as to bury it in the news cycle, in damage-control mode, Clinton, on her Facebook page, finally wrote--

The most important work of my life has been to support and empower women. I'm proud that it's the work I'm most associated with, and it remains what I'm most dedicated to. So I very much understand the question I'm being asked as to why I let an employee on my 2008 campaign keep his job despite his inappropriate workplace behavior. 

The short answer is this: If I had it to do again, I wouldn't. 

I didn't think firing him was the best solution to the problem. He needed to be punished, change his behavior, and understand why his actions were wrong. The young woman needed to be able to thrive and feel safe. I thought both could happen without him losing his job.

I've been given second chances and I have given them to others. I want to continue to believe in them. 

Better, but still not impressive. She continues shifting about in an attempt to smother the firestorm of criticism and, as always, to avoid having to apologize, all in order to clear the way for her to resume her self-appointed role as feminist-in-chief. 

What she wrote two days ago still won't serve to rescue her reputation because it continues to reveal her as uncomfortable with the truth, inauthentic, and out of sync with the culture of the current generation of women.

Her disingenuous claim that what her aide needed was "to be able to thrive and feel safe" exposes the hypocrisy  Does anyone believe that what Clinton did was out of care for her young staffer when we know that the best way to help her feel safe would have been to get rid of the creep whose desk was pressed right next to hers? No, what Hillary did was to make herself feel safe--unexposed--at her aide's expense.

Hillary didn't asked me, but if she had here's what I would have recommended she say--

This time I really blew it. Big time. Considering my history, yes, my history, I should have known just what to do. Certainly not run away from the situation or try to spin or cover it up. Which I regrettably did. 

I should have personally investigated the charges and if they turned out to be true, I should have fired the bastard. Not docked him two week's pay. I should have arranged to pack him up and move him out. 

Speaking about my history, here's what else I should in real time have said, which might have been helpful to young women who for the most part feel estranged from me and my generation of feminists. 

This estrangement is understandable--over time the culture and causes and how to carry them out change and with that new ideas and leadership is essential. 

Those who are older need to step aside--still offering insights from their lives--so that new ideas and methods can flourish. 

The lessons I have to pass along involve those I acquired from my own hard-won understanding about issues in my own marriage. Many women, Gail Collins included, have wondered through the years why I stayed with Bill after he so brutally betrayed me. 

I do not have a good answer for that. Women of my era, even liberated ones, stood with their feet straddling two worlds--one in which women were acquiescent and, yes, stood unquestionably by their men, and the other world where we were striving to liberate ourselves from those sexist expectations. 

That was me--half bought into the conventional expectations that called for women like me to be acquiescent, making excuses for our husbands' bad behavior. Accepting responsibility if our men strayed while  very tentatively seeking for ourselves a measure of independence and efficacy. 

This is not a mix that has much chance of working out. It requires too much change on both sides. In my case, Bill needed to give up his old alleycat ways and become loyal to me. And I mean in more ways than just in the sexual realm. 

I also needed to find effective ways to assert myself. Hollering and throwing things was not going to get the job done. I tried that and it didn't. 

As neither one of us was capable of doing that--we were both too mired, constricted by what was expected of "men" and "women" at that time when we, or at least I, should have recognized that and moved on. 

Yes, Gail Collins, I should have left him. I lost what remained of my authenticity by not doing so and . . . 

I think I've gone way past my allotment of 140 Twitter characters and so I will end this. I think you may get my point.

Burns Strider

December 7, 2017--Al Franken

As I write this a number of events are unfolding that are closely connected--

Additional women have stepped forward to accuse Senator Al Franken of sexual improprieties.

Support among his Democratic Senate colleagues--mainly women including Kirsten Gillibrand, Patty Murray, and Claire McCaskill--is collapsing. A number of male Senators have joined them in calling for Franken to step aside.

Gillibrand said, "It would be better for our country if he sent a clear message that any kind of mistreatment of women in our society isn't acceptable by stepping aside to let someone else serve."

Senator Bob Casey said, "I agree with my colleagues who have stepped forward today and called on Senator Franken to resign. We can't just believe women when it's convenient."

Meanwhile, in Alabama, it is looking as if Roy Moore will be elected and Republicans in the Senate will "seat" a likely pedophile in their caucus.

While the Republicans are backed into a corner--most would like Moore to up and disappear--for the Democrats there is a political opportunity.

No matter how good a senator Franken has been (I think his work and influence are overrated), he has become a political liability to Democrats. 

It will be difficult to point a finger at the GOP, claiming they are the party of sexual predators Donald Trump and Roy Moore (I can already see the 2018 political ads) while going through months of investigations and technical procedures to determine if Franken is fit to be a U.S. senator.

I am not saying that what Franken has admitted to doing is morally or even legally equivalent to Moore's transgressions, but they both should go. 

From my partisan liberal perspective, I would be happy to have Moore in the Senate and ranting on CSPAN while Franken moves on. I am therefore proud of the Democrats who are finally acting as if they want to stop whining and win.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand

November 15, 2017--Punishing Sexual Assault

Some of the most distressing news of recent times has been the wave of outings of men with power using it to sexually assault usually younger women over whom they have authority.

But some of the best news of recent times is about the courage these women are showing as they confront their accusers and risk stigmatization and the resurrection of the emotional nightmares they experienced in some case decades ago.

From movie producer Harvey Weinstein to comedian Louis C.K. to senatorial candidate Roy Moore, and lest we forget, Bill Crosby, the stories are horrifying, yet familiar.

And, yes, there is Fox News, which makes the predatory sexual climate of Mad Men seem like an innocent tea party.  

In my case, I know one of the accused, Leon Wieseltier, the former literary editor of the New Republic. This for me brings it close to home. 

The details of Leon's behavior are sadly typical--

Several women said they were humiliated when he kissed them on the mouth in front of other staff members. Others said he discussed his sex life, including describing in detail the breasts of a former girlfriend. He made passes at female colleagues and pressed them to describe their sex lives. 

Daily, we are hearing stories like this and worse.

But things get more complicated when thinking about appropriate punishment.

With the exception of Crosby and perhaps Weinstein, it is unlikely than any of these men will be criminally prosecuted. Some are and will be sued in civil court and hopefully, if guilty, will need to pay for emotional damages that they caused.

And then there are the private settlements that have occurred. Most dramatically, Bill O'Reilly paying one of the women he abused an astonishing $32 million.

In other instances, especially when the accused are well known or famous, they will suffer public disgrace and likely lose any possibility of resuming their careers. Weinstein will never again produce a feature film, Bill O'Reilly will never return to TV, Leon Wieseltier will never write and publish another literary critique.

Some will enter sex-addiction treatment programs (or pretend to), stay out of public view for a year or so, and then attempt to crawl back to their previous occupations. Weinstein is allegedly in such a program. 

In these instances the punishment is informal--employers will not take the risk to bring them back. In the case of the news or entertainment businesses, executives will not take the chance of being picketed or that sponsors will abandon them. Sponsor abandonment and boycotting are what ultimately brought O'Reilly down.

In the case of Roy Moore, perhaps, perhaps the voters of Alabama will keep him out of the Senate and the public eye. That would serve as a version of punishment.

Coauthor of Game Change, Mark Halpern, did numerous slimy things a number of years ago (and, who knows, perhaps more recently). After being exposed recently he lost his multi-million dollar book deal with Penguin Press and was fired by MSNBC and Bloomberg News. Will any publisher or TV network ever take another chance with him? Will they trust that he will be able to control himself, or more significant to a network, that he will be able to attract viewers and thus sponsors or readers. In other words, build viewership, sell books, and make money?

While we are furious about what is daily being revealed, it is understandable that we might feel there is justice seeing these careers ruined. The perpetrators brought this on themselves and deserve all the punishment they are receiving. It seems appropriate. 

But in some instances is it possible that the consequences are beyond fairness? How do we even think about fairness in circumstances when much of the punishment occurs in extralegal ways?

I am not sufficiently without flaws to make these judgements. Difficult as it is with emotions so raw, thinking about this still seems worthwhile.

Thoughts are welcome.

Leon Wieseltier

October 13, 2017--Harvey Weinstein--"That's What Woman Are Asking For."

I've been wanting to write about Harvey Weinstein but pretty much everything I have to say has been said. 

And he is so disgusting, what he did was so disgusting, the world he trolls is so disgusting, the politics of this is so disgusting, that I am inclined to take a pass. 

I don't want to have anything to do with him, even if it's only to write something. I feel that I will be slimed by any involvement.

But when I read what fashion designer Donna Karan said, I couldn't ignore this and leave it to others to rant. 

Self-proclaimed feminist Karan offered the traditional sexist rape defense:

"You look at everything all over the world today and how women are dressing and what they asking by just presenting themselves the way they do. What are they asking for?" 

She answered her own question--"Trouble."

And she is not alone in making excuses for him. Almost everyone in the Hollywood and show business community (I include fashion in that) has for decades been making excuses for him. Even his wife. How could she not have known what a disgrace he is? While his behavior was "secret" she remained with him. When it became public, she took off. More to protect the reputation of her own fashion line than because of her outrage.

One could say pretty much the same thing for most of the B- and A-List stars who were either groped by him or knew about his pathological behavior. They didn't want to spoil the party or their ability to be cast in his movies and make millions a picture.

And what about the politicians? All, by the way, Democrats. They liked to hang with him too and couldn't resist. It took Hillary Clinton six days, six, to express her outrage. And she knows more than anyone else about this kind of alpha-male behavior.

Saturday Night Live ignored this though they have been quick to mock Donald Trump when his grabbing pussy comments went viral or when any GOP congressman got caught fooling around in the men's room.

But Harvey to these bi-coastal elites was too powerful, too much fun to turn away from.

Look, for decades everyone knew what he was up to. As a close friend who is a prominent feature film maker said to me, "What he is has been known for years. It's the industry's dirty little secret. Pretty much all the guys who came to Hollywood to make movies did so to get laid."

I might add, or ran for Congress or the White House. Think Franklin Roosevelt, think Lyndon Johnson, think Bill Clinton, and especially think John Kennedy.

It is just this sort of thing, this hypocrisy that helped elect Donald Trump and will doom Democrats going forward. If there is a going forward. This hits especially hard on liberals because we're supposed to know better. Well, we don't.

This is what the Trump people hate about the rich and famous and powerful--that they're only in it for their own good times. And the cash.

June 1, 2016--Slime

Is there a slimier American than Ken Starr, the independent federal counsel who snooped around in President Bill Clinton's dirty laundry between 1994 and 1998?

His investigation began relatively benignly. To dig for the truth or, failing that, the dirt surrounding Clinton's alleged sexual harassment years earlier of Paula Jones when he was governor of Arkansas.

When Starr couldn't come up with that much new to defame the president, he roamed around in other salacious matters such as the death, alleged murder of Vince Foster, until reports about Clinton's sexual escapades with White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, fell into his, shall we say, overheated lap.

With that he finally got lucky, hounding and embarrassing the president and finally getting him to perjure himself when he denied having "sexual relations with that woman. Miss Lewinsky." The so-called "Starr Report," copies of which were gobbled up by a panting public that wanted to know all the seamy details about Lewinsky's thongs, Clinton's anatomy, and the uses other than smoking them he found for cigars.

This and other goodies gave Republicans in Congress all they needed to impeach the president. That effort was led by the over-sexed Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, who at the time was cheating on his second wife, diddling a staffer who worked for him--now wife number three, Callista, best known for her signature helmet hairdo.

But it looks as if Ken the self-righteous pornographer is having second thoughts about how Clinton "was treated." The passive voice, was treated, not how he, Starr, and his staff of investigators did the mistreating.

In a recent article in the New York Times, all but overlooked as the current presidential campaign trundles on with its own almost daily dose of gossip and slander, Starr is quoted as expressing regret that Mr. Clinton's legacy has been tarnished because of "the unpleasantness." Unpleasantness!

There are certain tragic dimensions which we all lament. . . . That having been said, the idea of this redemptive process afterwards, we have certainly seen that powerfully in Mr. Clinton's post presidency.

What tortured language for such a perfect and fastidious a man. But at least he managed to squeeze out a few words of contrition. Even if not entirely his own. Though I assume he includes himself in the "we all lament."

Now, with delicious irony, he has more things to lament.

In the current case what went on pervasively among student athletes at Baylor University where he was, until he was demoted last week, the president.

A variety of reports revealed that during his tenure as Baylor CEO sexual harassment was rampant and, this is key, ignored, swept under the rug by President Starr and his administrative team.

Now we'll see how well he does as he undertakes his own redemptive process. Thus far we have heard nothing about that from him.

How wonderful sometimes things work out.

Baylor's Number One Fan