Making the pussygrab great again ?

To set the stage for today's onesided exercise in lopsidedness, let's quote from the very log :

mircea_popescu in other "can do whatevers", packwood, a 1980s powerhouse (singlehandedly fucked up clinton's own obamacare, among other highlights), chased out of senate because he may have kissed a girl at a party and stuff of that nature.ⁱ
mircea_popescu rather curious how trump will navigate the dire straights of maga absolutely requiring a repeal of 20 years' worth of "harassment" business.
mircea_popescu to compare and contrast, http://btcbase.org/log/2015-12-16#1344279
a111 Logged on 2015-12-16 11:27 punkman: independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/millionaire-ehsan-abdulaziz-who-said-he-accidentally-tripped-and-penetrated-teen-is-cleared-of-rape-a6774946.html

Both experience and history concur : women come in two types.

The ones who are competent will be competent in whatever hellish pits of sexual repression -- be it wartime Yugoslavia, wahabi Saudi Arabia etcetera. Competent women will obtain, maintain and be protected by the respect and support of men irrespective of the ideological bent of the society they live inⁱⁱ, which is why and which is how Roxana became the first mother of an Ottoman sultan to be married to the boy's fatherⁱⁱⁱ.

The ones that complain will complain irrespective of whatever imaginary ivory towers built of sheer nonsense they may inhabit. The Whinebags of Africa complain about rectovaginal fistulae brought about by systematic rape with sticks and bayonets at the hands of local warlords, which may seem like a reasonable thing to complain about until you stop and consider that the Whinebags of America complain about depictions of magical armor in fantastic settings not being realistic enough.

The competent will be competent while the complainers will complain, this is the entire fact of the matter. Anyone seriously proposing that legislation passed since the 1960s to try and give legal footing to a misguided fashion of discriminating by gender (and therefore against performance) produced any sort of positive outcome will have to contend not just with the sad reality that their hallucinated moral panics and inept crusading resulted in MAGA even being a thing in the first place, but with the simple observation that all the catering to whinebags has failed to produce a surge in female competency as exemplified by competent women. It's not just that Hillary lost -- it's that when you look around for a woman that doesn't suck you still come up with Emmy Noether, Liz Friedman or Grace Hopper. Guess what - they weren't either produced or formed by the "civil rights" nonsense ; and there's absolutely no equivalent or even vaguely comparable product to show. Where are the Mozartettes ?

The question stands -- what made "America" incredibly tiny in an unbelievably short half century is deliberate discrimination directed against the productive portions of society^iv. That it were doublespoken as "civil rights" makes entirely no difference, the soviets tried the exact same, and reaped precisely the same bitter fruit. Confronted with this sad reality in the field, what shall the pussygrabber do ?

1. Specifically :

   It is therefore Resolved:

   I. That the Committee makes the following determinations regarding the matters set forth above:

   (a) With respect to sexual misconduct, the Committee has carefully considered evidence, including sworn testimony, witness interviews, and documentary evidence, relating to the following allegations:

   (1) That in 1990, in his Senate office in Washington, D.C., Senator Packwood grabbed a staff member by the shoulders and kissed her on the lips;

   (2) That in 1985, at a function in Bend, Oregon, Senator Packwood fondled a campaign worker as they danced. Later that year, in Eugene, Oregon, in saying goodnight and thank you to her, Senator Packwood grabbed the campaign worker's face with his hands, pulled her towards him, and kissed her on the mouth, forcing his tongue into her mouth;

   (3) That in 1981 or 1982, in his Senate office in Washington, D.C., Senator Packwood squeezed the arms of a lobbyist, leaned over and kissed her on the mouth;

   (4) That in 1981, in the basement of the Capitol, Senator Packwood walked a former staff assistant into a room, where he grabbed her with both hands in her hair and kissed her, forcing his tongue into her mouth;

   (5) That in 1980, in a parking lot in Eugene, Oregon, Senator Packwood pulled a campaign worker toward him, put his arms around her, and kissed her, forcing his tongue in her mouth; he also invited her to his motel room;

   (6) That in 1980 or early 1981, at a hotel in Portland, Oregon, on two separate occasions, Senator Packwood kissed a desk clerk who worked for the hotel;

   (7) That in 1980, in his Senate office in Washington, D.C., Senator Packwood grabbed a staff member by the shoulders, pushed her down on a couch, and kissed her on the lips; the staff member tried several times to get up, but Senator Packwood repeatedly pushed her back on the couch;

   (8) That in 1979, Senator Packwood walked into the office of another Senator in Washington, D.C., started talking with a staff member, and suddenly leaned down and kissed the staff member on the lips;

   (9) That in 1977, in an elevator in the Capitol, and on numerous occasions, Senator Packwood grabbed the elevator operator by the shoulders, pushed her to the wall of the elevator and kissed her on the lips. Senator Packwood also came to this person's home, kissed her, and asked her to make love with him;

   (10) That in 1977, in a motel room while attending the Dorchester Conference in coastal Oregon, Senator Packwood rabbed a prospective employee by her shoulders, pulled her to him, and kissed her:

   (11) That in 1975, in his Senate office in Washington, D.C., Senator Packwood grabbed the staff assistant referred to in (4), pinned her against a wall or desk, held her hair with one hand, bending her head backwards, fondling her with his other hand, and kissed her, forcing his tongue into her mouth;

   (12) That in 1975, in his Senate office in Washington, D.C., Senator Packwood grabbed a staff assistant around her shoulders, held her tightly while pressing his body into hers, and kissed her on the mouth;

   (13) That in the early 1970's, in his Senate office in Portland, Oregon, Senator Packwood chased a staff assistant around a desk;

   (14) That in 1970, in a hotel restaurant in Portland, Oregon, Senator Packwood ran his hand up the leg of a dining room hostess, and touched her crotch area;

   (15) That in 1970, in his Senate office in Washington, D.C., Senator Packwood grabbed a staff member by the shoulders and kissed her on the mouth;

   (16) That in 1969, in his Senate office in Washington, D.C., Senator Packwood made suggestive comments to a prospective employee;

   (17) That in 1969, at his home, Senator Packwood grabbed an employee of another Senator who was babysitting for him, rubbed her shoulders and back, and kissed her on the mouth. He also put his arm around her and touched her leg as he drove her home;

   (18) That in 1969, in his Senate office in Portland, Oregon, Senator Packwood grabbed a staff worker, stood on her feet, grabbed her hair, forcibly pulled her head back, and kissedher on the mouth, forcing his tongue into her mouth. Senator Packwood also reached under her skirt and grabbed at her undergarments.

   Based upon the Committee's consideration of evidence related to each of these allegations, the Committee finds that there is substantial credible evidence that provides substantial cause for the Committee to conclude that violations within the Committee's jurisdiction as contemplated in Section 2(a)(1) of S. Res. 338, 88th Congress, as amended, may have occurred; to wit, that Senator Packwood may have abused his United States Senate Office by improper conduct which has brought discredit upon the United States Senate, by engaging in a pattern of sexual misconduct between 1969 and 1990.

   Notwithstanding this conclusion, for purposes of making a determination at the end of its Investigation with regard to a possible pattern of conduct involving sexual misconduct, some Members of the Committee have serious concerns about the weight, if any, that should be accorded to evidence of conduct alleged to have occurred prior to 1976, the year in which the federal court recognized quid pro quo sexual harassment as discrimination under the Civil Rights Act, and the Senate passed a resolution prohibiting sex discrimination in the United States Senate, and taking into account the age of the allegations.

   [↩]

2. As Kissinger points out, "fraternizing with the enemy". [↩]
3. Look it up, all sultans prior were born by slaves, notionally not above furniture in the object economy of the osmanli world. [↩]
4. Which very pointedly excludes most women. [↩]