Where Does The Gall To Defend An Indefensible Status Quo Come From?
For the record, I can attest to not having a shameless, self-centered attitude, nor do I have the gall and neither the inspiration to feel superior and be exploitative as to sexually harass, abuse, coerce, or manipulate women, whether on or off the job, no matter what perceived social capital I may or think I have attained or held. I can say this with utter confidence due to my cognitive state and conditioning. My belief-sensitivity here is an expression of the considerable deviance and shamefulness I perceive with these outright undesirable behaviors perpetuated throughout our society.
These attitudes and behaviors are contemplated on without compunction, and are devoid of any sort of empathy for their victims. These indefensible bullies whom represent and or lead their respective narcissistic in-groups reflexively re-victimize their victims when exposed or called out. The ensuing narcissistic injury or narcissistic wounds from exposure are indicative of insensitive belief systems of a privilege and a superiority complex that seems incredulously emboldened by group affiliation, identity politics, fear, and our president and his administration.
The ambiguous defense of bullies in the highly visible and esteemed echelons of our society who wield affluence and power are implausible. The oppression and disenfranchisement of fellow citizens is not only costly to our society it is taxing on our cohesiveness and productivity. This should only be viewed as a scourge in our society, and nothing more.
A commonality found among sexual predators is that they are outright bullies. Regardless of gender it seems, no matter what degree of power or success they attain, their sense of entitlement and their unconscionable superiority befuddles us all. Men have predominately been the bullies in our patriarchal society and it is worrisome that some misinformed women vicariously sanction these behaviors in order to preserve some perceived social hierarchy. Take for instance a report by Slate on Mercedes Colwin’s insulting comments during a televised Fox News analysis and discussion on Roy Moore’s sexual harassment of victims with Sean Hannity.
Mercedes Colwin, an employment lawyer who specializes in defending corporate executives accused of harassment, will no longer serve as the managing partner of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani’s New York office, according to a report on the American Lawyer. Colwin appeared on Hannity’s show last week to discuss the Washington Post’s report that Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore had dated teenagers and allegedly molested a 14-year-old girl. Colwin, who has been a Fox analyst since 2005, told the host that women “definitely” make up sexual harassment claims in order to milk money from corporations. When Hannity tried to hedge by saying that “there are women who are victims of predators,” Colwin responded that they were “very few and far between.”
Sexual harassment of women isn’t a political position or side to be on.
The arrogance here is noxious and her hypersociability towards the conservative, right-wing, evangelical groups adds to the moral idiocy of those statements and its conspiracies. There is a reason why you haven’t seen a more vocal prevalence of calling out sexual predators and the faulty institutions before us contribute to that absence.
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
This lawyer and judge arrogated that a majority of women will falsely accuse corporate execs of sexual harassment in and around the workplace. 🤨 Statistically, this incredibly androcentic remark and insensitive belief completely undermines liberty and justice for all and specifically speaks to the ongoing thought-process in the debasement of women in our capitalistic society.
Hannity: Do people do it for money? Do they do it for political reasons? Is that more common than people think?
Colwin: Oh definitely.
Hannity: They will lie to make money?
Colwin: Undoubtedly. I mean, there are individuals who will come forward with these outrageous allegations, and they fall…
Hannity: And that hurts women who are victims.
Colwin: Yes. I used to work in sex crimes in the DA’s office. It was very pitiful to see that. Because some jurors don’t believe it because they have, in their own lives, there are people who have made these accusations for money. You see this time and time and time again. And sexual harassment, that term is coined everywhere, frankly, the laws are very clear about what it takes to have some sort of violation of the law. You have to have some sort of damage. And these individuals, a lot of these women, it’s all about money, and they bank on the fact that these corporations have the reputation that they want to save.
Hannity: And the hard — this is where you thread the needle, because there are women who are victims of predators.
Colwin: Yes, there are. There are. But very few and far between.
Men like Woody Allen, Louis C. K., Bill Cosby, and Harvey Weinstein appear to have no shame, but they do have the social capital which is suppose to act like a shame deterrent in these instances. They are part of a group that wields their shameless social capital around like a bull in a china shop. This contributes to a myriad of excuses for misogynistic tendencies that are contradictory and quite harmful to us all with dehumanizing effect.